Christmas and the Importance of Family

The Assemblies of God Center for Holy Lands Studies (CHLS) provides a regular column to PE News that offers deep and sometimes surprising insight into the Word of God through close examination of the culture of the day, biblical sites, and archaeological records. In this article, Wave Nunnally, Ph.D., professor of Early Judaism and Christian Origins at Evangel University and a regular instructor in Israel for CHLS, takes a closer look at Jesus’ parents, who they were, and the impact they had upon His life.  

Typically at Christmas, the Baby in the manger rightly occupies center stage in the most important scene in the story of God’s Redemptive History. This column, however, is devoted to looking back behind the obvious to the “backstory” — the less obvious parts that provide deeper and clearer meaning to the main parts of the story. 

In this article, we are going to turn briefly from center stage and look at the other players in this most important drama. We often say things like “the acorn never falls far from the tree, “like father, like son,” and “he’s a chip off the old block.” Could this also be true of Jesus? Is it possible that Immanuel, God in the Flesh, might have taken some cues from Mom and Dad that informed Who He would become when He stepped fully into His redemptive role decades later? 

Luke begins the story of the birth of Jesus with the appearance of the angel Gabriel to a young Jewish woman in Nazareth whose name was Miriam (1:26-27). Luke consistently refers to Mary in this way, preserving the original Hebrew form of her name. In verse 30, Gabriel tells her that she “has found favor with God,” but does not explain why — the reader is expected to follow the dialog and figure this out as the story unfolds. Good authors employ this manner of storytelling to engage the reader and keep our attention. Instead of divulging the reason for Miriam’s/Mary’s special status with God, Gabriel (and Luke) turns his attention in the very direction we do: he begins to focus the remainder of his message on the miraculous conception, birth, name, and exceptional life of the Child she was to bear. 

So will the riddle go unsolved? Will we never know the reason for the special status Miriam enjoyed before the Lord? Gabriel’s explanation continues on until verse 37 — then the dialog shifts back to Miriam. After hearing of a coming supernatural pregnancy that she would experience as an unmarried virgin in a very traditional culture, her mind could have easily raced to the, “Yeah, but…,” that God so often hears when His call comes to us humans. It would have been easy for her to focus on the legal questions that would surely surface, the obligatory divorce that would have to occur, and the shame and rejection by her family and village sure to follow. Financial hardship and outcast status would haunt her every day for the rest of her life. However, her first words were, “Behold, the bond-slave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word” (1:38; see also v. 48). This concludes the dialog between Gabriel and Miriam: he leaves immediately, and she is left to her thoughts. The answer to our question, then, must be found in her brief response, and indeed it is! 

The word Miriam chooses to describe herself is “bond-servant.” It is a very simple word, the feminine form of the Greek doulos, which reflects the equally common Hebrew eved. “Simple,” however, does not preclude “profound.” In her culture, acknowledging her status as a female slave/servant indicated her complete submission and obedience to the command of her Master. This complete sublimation of her will to the will of God marked His greatest servants in Scripture (Moses, Joshua, Paul, and even her sons James [1:1] and Jude [v. 1]!). 

Isaiah predicted that the character of the Coming One would be marked by this same absolute surrender to the will of God (41:8; 42:1,19; 43:10; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 49:3, 6-7; 50:10; 52:13-53:12, etc.). Not surprisingly, then, we hear Jesus say in His most succinct description of His mission, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45). This aspect of His character was a primary focus of apostolic proclamation throughout the NT (Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30; Philippians 2:7, etc.). Is it not possible that this characteristic that so marked the piety of the mother — the characteristic that resulted in God’s choice of her to bear His Son — would in turn become a prominent mark of the character of the Son as well? After decades of role modeling by the most influential woman in His life, should we expect anything different? 

Matthew 1:18-2:1a parallels Luke’s account. After a very brief explanation describing the betrothed status of Mary and Joseph as well as Mary’s miraculous pregnancy (v. 18), Matthew provides this description of Joseph, “And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to divorce her secretly” (v. 19). As used here, the word “righteous” describes Joseph as a tsadeek or a chasid, one whose life is marked by unusually deep devotion and obedience to God. This can be seen in his adherence to the law of circumcision (Luke 2:21), the laws of purification (Luke 2:22), the law of the redemption of the first-born (Luke 2:22-24), attendance at all the required feasts (Luke 2:41; see Exodus 23:14-17; 34:23 and Deuteronomy 16:16), in his response to the surprise pregnancy of Mary (Matthew 1:18-19), and in his obedience to other divine commands (Matthew 1:24; 2:13-14, 19-21). 

Upon discovering that his betrothed wife was pregnant, rabbinic law required that he divorce her, “A man may not marry a woman made pregnant by his fellow…” (Tosefta Niddah 2:7). What complicated matters, however, was that there was another rabbinic law that forbade the public shaming of a fellow Israelite, “If a man…puts his fellow to shame publicly, he has no share in the world to come” (Mishnah Avot 3:12; see Matthew 1:19, “not wanting to disgrace her”*). Because Joseph was a true tsadeek, he could not keep one law while breaking another: absolute obedience — absolute righteousness — required that he resolve this conundrum ever so carefully. This is why he decided “to divorce her,” but to do it “secretly” (v. 19). However, in His infinite wisdom, God had His own solution to the dilemma this ultra-godly Israelite found himself in, which can be found in verses 20-25! 

Almost 600 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Jeremiah described the Coming One in this way, “‘Behold, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, “The LORD our righteousness”’” (23:5-6, emphases added). Early rabbinic authorities said of this verse, “What is the name of the King Messiah? ...‘Jehovah.’ For it is written…” (Midrash Aecha Rabbah 1:16). The righteous character consistently exhibited by Jesus was so obvious that it was not only regularly celebrated by His followers (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 John 1:9; 2:1, 29; 3:7, etc.), it was even acknowledged by those who did not follow Him, “And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous” (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18:63, Arabic Version). Is it not logical to conclude that the lifestyle of the tsadeek that so marked the earthly father had a profound impact on the lifestyle of the Son? 

As we gather as families this year to celebrate the birth of the Righteous Servant (see the list of “Servant” passages cited from Isaiah above beginning with 41:8), we have to remember that no one lives and dies unto himself. We are all members of physical and spiritual families, and the example we live out before others truly has eternal consequences. As we see the impact that the exemplary lives of Miriam and Joseph had, may we be challenged to live in similar ways to impact the lives of those around us!

*Much more extended discussions of this ruling takes place elsewhere in rabbinic literature, such as this discussion found in Babylonian Talmud Bava Metsia 58b-59a: 

A tanna [a professional memorizer used in rabbinic schools in earliest times when the material was still being transmitted orally] recited before Rabbi Nachman ben Isaac, “He who publicly shames (literally, “makes pale”) his neighbor is as though he shed blood,” whereupon he remarked to him, “You say well, because I have seen it [i.e., such public shamings], the ruddiness departing and paleness taking over.” Abaye asked Rabbi   Dimi, “What do people most carefully avoid in the West [i.e., the land of Israel]?” He replied, “Putting others to shame.” For Rabbi Hanina said, “All descend into Genenna… one who publicly shames his neighbor or fastens an evil epithet [uses a derogatory nickname, see Matthew 5:21-22] upon his neighbor.” Rabbah ben Bar Hanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, “Better to commit adultery than to publicly shame one’s neighbor …He [the adulterer] is executed by strangulation, yet has a portion in the world  to come. But he who publicly puts his neighbor to shame has no portion in the world to come.” …Better to throw oneself into a fiery furnace than to publicly put one’s neighbor to shame. 

These discussions, the biblical verses cited in support of positions, and the cultural norms reflected in them are incredibly important to a better understanding of New Testament texts like the ones discussed in the body of this article. This is because they take us into the mindset, culture, practices, and even biblical basis for the words, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of New Testament characters and authors.

Wave Nunnally