Its own Worst Enemy
I believe the Bible, the sacred Christian text, itself stands as one of the greatest obstacles to Christian belief. I hope to highlight many of my issues with the Bible in future posts, but in light of the Christmas Season, I want to spend some time reflecting on an episode in Matthew’s birth narrative.
Parents SHouldn’t have favorites
The episode takes place in Matthew 2:13-18. Mary gives birth to the Christchild and immediately his life is in danger! Having heard of a new king’s brith, King Herod suspects the recent royal arrival will place his own throne in jeopardy. In response, he searches for this new monarch to “worship him.” Let me define worship here: slide a dagger across baby Jesus’ neck (or something akin to that). His search fails and in desperation Herod does his due dillegence and: “…[gives] orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under.” (Matthew 2:16). If the precision of a dagger fails; hell, use a grenade
Fortunately for Mary and Joseph and their new god-child, an Angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him of Herod’s infanticidal plans. He tells Joseph: “Get up. Take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you…” Joseph heeds the warning, packs up Mary and baby Jesus, and heads to Egypt preserving the life of the one who would later be killed for all humankind. Whew! That was a close one.
“Joy to the world, the Lord has come!” - except for all the other moms and dads whose sons where slaughtered by Herod on the first Christmas! “Merry Christmas!” We might be tempted to say, “That’s on Herod! He is at fault!” True, he initiated the massacre, but I think we should also hold God responsible. In the account of the angel warning Joseph, Matthew provides a example of God intervening in a very direct and clear way to save a child threatened by Herod’s plans. According to the text itself, not only could God intervene to save the babies, God did intervene. He was just selective. He only intervened on behalf of Jesus.
One might say, “Well, it was likely, based on the estimated population of Bethlehem in Jesus time, only 10-20 boys.” Tell that that to their parents. Also, writing this paragraph at the 10-anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings (where 20 innocent children were killed) puts those numbers in emotional perspective. I don’t think that lets God off the hook.
Monster Vs myth
This Christmas massacre should trouble people of Christian faith. Platitudes like “God works in mysterious ways” is a shallow copout for what is clearly, based on the text, at best negligence and indifference on the part of God. If we don’t want to causally dismiss this story it seems we have two options:
The Story is a Factual Event. If the story is true, then we must contend with the character of God. God could have easily saved the other infants in Jesus day. He did not. The loss of only 10-20 boys magnifies God’s negligence. It is a lot easier to intervene on behalf of 10-20 kids than thousands. What does such selective salvation say about God?
We could justify God’s indifference by understanding it as some part of a larger plan of God. Think about that idea; really think about it. What possible reason could the slaughter of innocent children add to God’s ultimate plan? In what possible world could that be good?
We might argue God defines what is good and evil and who are we as created beings to question God. Too many problems with such theology. First, even secular, non-believing, culture takes the protection of innocent children as a top priority. Some of the priciest tickets include speeding through school zones or driving around school buses stopped for kids to exit. Many hospitals and fire stations are designated safe havens where unwanted infants can be left without question: simply to protect the child. Even behind prison bars, child molesters, run the greatest risk of physical abuse and murder by other inmates. Even criminals seem to have a child-protective instinct. But God, the great lover, the designer of every child, is somehow good in letting 20 boys get slaughtered when he clearly could have stopped it? God holds you to a higher standard than he holds himself?
Second, its seems Jesus himself would get in an argument with The Father about allowing the murder of 10-20 innocents. Jesus famously welcomes little children (Luke 18:16) when his disciples try and keep them from him. In another example (Matthew 18:1-6), Jesus gathers up a child to explain to his disciples the “kind” of person who will enter the Kingdom of God and then famously says, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Yes, these texts are about more than children, but we can’t ignore Jesus’ positive interaction with children. How do we then reconcile a God who clearly refuses to intervene in the death of innocent infants with a Jesus who appears to defend them, especially when God is Jesus? If the definition of good is up to God, it seems God breaks HIS OWN ethic when you compare it with Jesus.
If we believe this story to be factual, then we must wrestle seriously with a biased God, willing to save his own son while allowing the remaining targets to die. I could not serve such a god and that is why I prefer the second option.
The Story is Myth: If the story is not true, then we are left with myth. This makes sense for multiple reasons. Of the four gospels, the escape to Egypt is found Only in Matthew. Even in Luke’s gospel (containing the other Christ-birth narrative) we find no traces of this episode. In fact, the escape to Egypt provides significant issues for the harmony of the two Christmas stories. This should raise some suspicion to its validity. (Read HERE for a post I wrote regarding Matthew and Luke’s birth accounts as two different accounts).
In light of this, it seems more likely, Matthew back engineered the story to meet his literary structure and theological argument. In his gospel, Matthew emphasizes the Jewishness of Jesus…portraying him as the Fuliffled Moses and Fulfilled Law. To do this, Matthew must connect Christ’s story and person to Old Testament prophesies. A story regarding infanticidal plans gives Matthew a means to send Jesus to Egypt so he could fulfill Hosea 11:1 - “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
And the death of the other baby boys allows the author to tie Jesus’ story to Jeremiah 31:15:
Matthew is not concerned about the divine ethic regarding selective intervention on behalf of threatened newborns and toddlers. He is focused on connecting his claims about Jesus to the authority of the Old Testament. It seems to me:
The fact that this episode is found only in the Gospel of Matthew,
The significant challenges it creates in attempting to harmonize Matthew and Luke’s nativity accounts,
And functioning literarily to connect the person of Jesus to OT authority
makes a strong case that the story is fabricated and not an account of actual events.
If we accept the story as myth, then we must wrestle with the truth claims of the Bible. If it is not an actual event but a mythic tale, then what other parts of scripture might we find in the category of fiction? The trip to Egypt is not some remote story in the back allies of the Old Testament that have very little effect on the believer. This story is at the core of the Christian narrative regarding Jesus. Just ask the Nicene Creed: Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary.
The virgin birth and the resurrection exist as the two pillars supporting the divinity of Jesus. If the author of Matthew fabricated (or retells a fabrication), then one of the pillars is shaky at best. It threatens the truth claims regarding the person of Jesus. It should at least compel believers to take a deep dive into the validity of the New Testament gospels and their claims about Jesus.
Still a Merry Christmas
I can no longer believe in a virgin birth or in the divinity of the Nazarene, but I will celebrate the season. I will say “Merry Christmas!” I will listen to and sing carols of a baby in the manger. I will celebrate a time when the culture at large bends toward kindness. I might even attend a Christmas Eve Service, not because I believe in a god, a miracle baby or a divine human, but because it is still an engaging story and I enjoy a good story.
Merry Christmas!