There's a passage from Matthew's Gospel which we read last Sunday that's been bugging me. Right after Jesus sent out his disciples with instructions to preach the Good News to his fellow Jews and ignore the Gentiles and Samaritans for now, he tells them that anyone who rejects them rejects him, and that it will go better for the folks of Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgement than it will for those people.
I'm reading this and I am thinking WTF? A few verses earlier Matthew was going on about how Jesus was so filled with compassion when he saw the crowds, and now this? This isn't compassion. Saying someone is going to suffer an awful fate because they rejected you isn't compassion. This is not gentle Jesus meek and mild. It doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of room in Jesus' heart for an agnostic like me who is full of doubts. This Jesus is SCARY. I don't like Him at all.
So what kind of person would go around making those kind of statements? I think if we take Jesus off his pedestal for a few minutes I think we can understand him a little better. If we just strip away all this "God" business that's been wrapped around him all these centuries. We are looking at a very human person, one that's been hurt deeply to the core.
Right now it is Christmas time and everyone (well, all the Christians) are singing about the little baby in the manger and the angels and the wise men and all that good stuff. But there is a part of the Christmas story they don't tell. And I think this is the key to understanding Jesus and why he said the things he said.
You see, there was some irregularity in the manner of his conception. Now the Gospel writers try to smooth things out and do a little damage control. Luke tells one story, Matthew another, and we've gotten so used to hearing them mixed together we don't stop to realize these are two entirely separate stories with two entirely different timelines. They contradict each other. Matthew gives a hint at the nature of the problem when he says that while she was engaged to Joseph but before they lived together, Mary "was found" to be pregnant. "Was found." Who found this out and how? Well, I have an idea how and whom. It wouldn't take the village biddies long to notice that a certain Miriam wasn't washing her rags out every month--hmm, what's going on here. Of course Matthew adds "by the Holy Spirit," but the damage is done.
Nowadays with so many women choosing to have children out of wedlock, one might say so what's the big deal? Mary and Joseph engaged in a little nookie before they stood under the wedding canopy. Who cares? But back then that was a very big deal. Plus, there were rumors that it wasn't Joseph. One of the names that repeatedly comes up in the old stories is a Roman soldier named Panthera.
So there is this shadow over Jesus' conception, and it's no small shadow. Back in that time and place, children who were born out of wedlock were called "mamzers." It's a real ugly term, meaning far, far more than bastard. I guess the closest equivalent would be the "n"-word for blacks. To be a mamzer meant you had no legal standing. You were permanently a second-class citizen. It determined who you could marry (if you could even marry), where you worked, where you lived. And of course, if you were a mamzer you had no role whatsoever in the synagogue. Even the Gentiles were more welcome than you. This was all based on the Torah. You know, if the holy book says it, then we have to do it, no matter how unkind it might be or how it might hurt someone. Gotta protect the family, you know. Then as now, family values were supreme. But only for families that fit the approved model.
Jesus didn't. And it doesn't really matter whether He came from the Holy Spirit or from Joseph or Panthera, as far as the community around him was concerned, they knew exactly who and what he was. Maybe that is one of the reason the Gospel writers are so silent about his early life. Was he teased and harassed, bullied? Oh, you bet he had to have been. And all for moral reasons. Yes, this is the part of the Christmas story they don't tell.
So yeah, I can imagine that after a lifetime of being rejected and taunted Jesus wouldn't be feeling too charitable to those he perceived as rejecting him. I can definitely see where I would be tempted (if I had the power) to damn those who turned their backs.
I'm reading this and I am thinking WTF? A few verses earlier Matthew was going on about how Jesus was so filled with compassion when he saw the crowds, and now this? This isn't compassion. Saying someone is going to suffer an awful fate because they rejected you isn't compassion. This is not gentle Jesus meek and mild. It doesn't sound like there is a whole lot of room in Jesus' heart for an agnostic like me who is full of doubts. This Jesus is SCARY. I don't like Him at all.
So what kind of person would go around making those kind of statements? I think if we take Jesus off his pedestal for a few minutes I think we can understand him a little better. If we just strip away all this "God" business that's been wrapped around him all these centuries. We are looking at a very human person, one that's been hurt deeply to the core.
Right now it is Christmas time and everyone (well, all the Christians) are singing about the little baby in the manger and the angels and the wise men and all that good stuff. But there is a part of the Christmas story they don't tell. And I think this is the key to understanding Jesus and why he said the things he said.
You see, there was some irregularity in the manner of his conception. Now the Gospel writers try to smooth things out and do a little damage control. Luke tells one story, Matthew another, and we've gotten so used to hearing them mixed together we don't stop to realize these are two entirely separate stories with two entirely different timelines. They contradict each other. Matthew gives a hint at the nature of the problem when he says that while she was engaged to Joseph but before they lived together, Mary "was found" to be pregnant. "Was found." Who found this out and how? Well, I have an idea how and whom. It wouldn't take the village biddies long to notice that a certain Miriam wasn't washing her rags out every month--hmm, what's going on here. Of course Matthew adds "by the Holy Spirit," but the damage is done.
Nowadays with so many women choosing to have children out of wedlock, one might say so what's the big deal? Mary and Joseph engaged in a little nookie before they stood under the wedding canopy. Who cares? But back then that was a very big deal. Plus, there were rumors that it wasn't Joseph. One of the names that repeatedly comes up in the old stories is a Roman soldier named Panthera.
So there is this shadow over Jesus' conception, and it's no small shadow. Back in that time and place, children who were born out of wedlock were called "mamzers." It's a real ugly term, meaning far, far more than bastard. I guess the closest equivalent would be the "n"-word for blacks. To be a mamzer meant you had no legal standing. You were permanently a second-class citizen. It determined who you could marry (if you could even marry), where you worked, where you lived. And of course, if you were a mamzer you had no role whatsoever in the synagogue. Even the Gentiles were more welcome than you. This was all based on the Torah. You know, if the holy book says it, then we have to do it, no matter how unkind it might be or how it might hurt someone. Gotta protect the family, you know. Then as now, family values were supreme. But only for families that fit the approved model.
Jesus didn't. And it doesn't really matter whether He came from the Holy Spirit or from Joseph or Panthera, as far as the community around him was concerned, they knew exactly who and what he was. Maybe that is one of the reason the Gospel writers are so silent about his early life. Was he teased and harassed, bullied? Oh, you bet he had to have been. And all for moral reasons. Yes, this is the part of the Christmas story they don't tell.
So yeah, I can imagine that after a lifetime of being rejected and taunted Jesus wouldn't be feeling too charitable to those he perceived as rejecting him. I can definitely see where I would be tempted (if I had the power) to damn those who turned their backs.
