Category Archives: scripture

Shedding a Light on Candlemas

An audio version of this post can be found here.

There’s definitely some confusion when it comes to Candlemas each February 2. Not only is it overshadowed by Groundhog Day, but it also remains rather obscure to many modern Christians and most certainly non-Christians. Candlemas is perhaps most properly or commonly called the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus. The Church remembers Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the Temple forty days after his birth to complete Mary’s ritual purification after childbirth and to perform the redemption of the firstborn son as reported in Luke 2:22-40.

Photo by Sixteen Miles Out on Unsplash; licensed under CC0.

Candlemas is an old feast of the Church, a kind of holiday or holy day one might say. Normally, a feast day commemorates a person or event. Unfortunately, with Candlemas, it appears multiple, closely related meanings have been attached to it over the centuries and events perhaps merged. In a web search, you will quickly learn that Candlemas can not only be called Feast of the Presentation of Jesus, but it can also be known as the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Feast of the Holy Encounter.

In Leviticus 12:2-8, we learn “A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over.” (There are separate requirements for the birth of a girl child.) For the male, a year-old lamb was to be offered for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. If the mother and her family could not afford a lamb, she was to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. God was thought to be a God of life. Things that smacked of death and illness such as blood were deemed unclean. In sacrificing the offering as part of the ritual in faith with prayer, the priest was thought to be atoning for any of her sins. A person was being made fit to be in the presence of God and among God’s Holy People.

The first male child held special significance to the early Hebrews. With their cultic life and practice centered around priestly activities and offerings relating to the Ark of the Covenant and Ten Commandments, members of the twelve tribes were expected to support the work of the Tent of Meeting and later the Temple in Jerusalem. As the people became more numerous and the cultic practices more established, it was recognized that not every first male child need to serve with the priests. Indeed, sometimes families making a subsistence living might need him more just to survive.

Exodus 13:2-15 describes another ordinance. Through Moses, God was believed to have commanded, “Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.” All the firstborn males of their livestock were also to belong to the Lord. When people asked why, they were to explain, “Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.”

In Numbers 18:15-16, it says, “The redemption price for firstborn non-Levites was set at 5 shekels.” Today, this practice is known as the pidyon haben, the redemption of the first-born son, and silver coins are used. It is only conducted for male babies but not if the baby was delivered by cesarian section. In effect, the father “buys” or “redeems” his son from the priest and the expected, traditional service. (The Temple no longer exists, so it is more symbolic than in the past.) At least under rabbinical practice today (if not earlier), this obligation only exists if the parents are not Levites or part of the priestly class.  In a quick review of scripture, I see no date for this to be held in scripture, but today the obligation begins when the baby is 30 days old, and so the ceremony often occurs on the thirty-first day after birth. If included parents do not redeem the child for whatever the child becomes responsible for his own redemption at thirteen years of age. (See the article Redeeming firstborn sons for more details.)

Certainly, Luke seems to confuse these two practices – the redemption of the first male child and the purification of the mother forty days after birth. In fact, Luke has the fee for the purification of the mother become the redemption price for the son. Remember, Luke did not observe these events. He was a Greek doctor who had come to believe in Jesus and served with Paul for a time. To me, it certainly seems reasonable that he didn’t fully understand Levitical codes. I’ve read some articles suggesting that there was no such custom of presenting a Jewish male child in the Temple back in the first Century, but with the redemption needing to be made to a priest, perhaps a child need not be there, but I would certainly not be surprised if a family did. I see no reason to doubt the ultimate truth of the passage. Jesus was presented in the Temple. Simeon and the prophet Anna could have certainly encountered Jesus and through the Spirit’s revelation understood his import. (Hence, Candlemas can also be known as the Feast of the Holy Encounter.)

Whether we focus on some kind of presentation of Jesus including most likely the story of his redemption, the purification right of Mary, or Jesus being revealed as the Messiah to Simeon and Anna, I hope we remember all these early stories and practices amidst their variations. They help make Jesus and his family come alive in context of their time. February 2 being forty days Christmas remains the perfect day to do so. Indeed, as I have written elsewhere, the date was once was considered the end of what was called the Season of Epiphany, and any remaining Christmas greens were taken down. (Today, most denominations don’t have a season of Epiphany but have January 6 as the Feast of Epiphany and what is now called the start of the Season after Epiphany.)

So that all said, with all those names and remembrances possibly now making more sense, why is the day also called Candlemas? Well, in past days, Christian families would commonly bring candles to the church as we remembered Jesus as “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of [God’s] people Israel.” Much as we bless food to our use or dedicate worship items through prayer, families would ask that the candles used in the home for light be blessed.

Happy Candlemas everyone! As Jesus urged, “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.”

Unless otherwise indicated, all scripture quotations for this post are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translation.

© 2022 The Rev. Louis Florio. All content not held under another’s copyright may not be used without permission of the author.

Leave a comment

Filed under Church History, Lectionary, scripture, worship

If the Gospels are inspired, why do they differ?

Edited version of a photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash, Licensed under CC0.

An audio version of this post can be found here.

Recently in a Bible study, we examined Luke 4:21-30. A participant asked why this account of Jesus being rejected by his hometown neighbors differed from other Gospels – particularly the threat to push him over the side of a cliff. Where were his disciples?

In following up with that question, I used a book called “Synopsis of the Four Gospels” (K. Arland, Ed., 1985) which tries to line the stories up as they parallel. In doing so, you find some of the stories are seemingly out of sync chronologically or even in detail. For example, Jesus chasing the money changers out of the Temple courts happens very early in John (the start of Jesus’ ministry). In the other Gospels, it happens during Holy Week (at the end of Jesus’ ministry).

Why do they differ? Scholars wrestle with this as do everyday believers. Some suggest that these versions were inherited oral stories from the source before being written down. So, errors occurred. Others argue that the named persons wrote them, but they tell the story as they remember or in a way that makes the story flow. (Minds do play tricks on people when it comes to memories.) Still, others attribute it to who wrote them and when they were written. Not all the Gospel writers knew Jesus or walked with him.

The Gospels were likely written in this order: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The Gospel of Mark is thought to be written by a companion of Paul named John Mark or Marcus. Matthew’s Gospel was traditionally attributed to the Apostle. Some suggest there might have been an earlier edition lost to us in Aramaic. Luke was another companion of Paul, a doctor from Asia minor with Greek heritage. He also wrote the Book of Acts, and some scholars like to consider it as Luke-Acts, a kind of continuing story. John is commonly believed to be written by the Apostle. Tradition states that he cared for Mary, the Mother of God, after Christ’s death. Other texts are also attributed to him.

When you look at a parallel synopsis of the four Gospels, one thing becomes clear. The stories paralel in many places, but there are many differences as well – some important, some less so. In the case of Luke 4:21-30, they are synced in my resource with Matthew 13:53-58, Mark 6:1-6a, and John 7:15, 6:42, and 4:44. In Luke, the incident happens before the call of the disciples. In Matthew, Mark and John, an incredibly similar incident (or wording) happened after the call of the disciples.

The Gospel writers are indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they aren’t puppets or zombies of the Holy Spirit. Like anyone else including your pastor, the testimony of the Gospel was transmitted through a human lens and can come out differently as best as one understands the stirring of the Spirit or within the limitations of the human mind and vocabulary. As I have argued before, it is like multiple witnesses in a court case. They might all tell the story differently, but they aren’t necessarily lying.  In evaluating all the stories together, one might come closer to the truth of things.

With any such discrepancy, there is the possibility that a similar incident happened more than once, but with what we have, we cannot definitively know that. Some early Christians wanted to harmonize the stories similar to the way modern movies might, but as these texts were deemed sacred and inspired, the early Church rejected this. For two thousand years, the texts, apart from the unintentional errors of scribes, have not been changed. People went to great effort to copy them exactly. Most often, multiple versions of manuscripts written over years if not centuries apart coincide with little variation, but in some cases, as with the ending of Mark, earlier manuscripts differ significantly from later ones. Bible editors often highlight these differences with brackets or footnotes perhaps saying, “other ancient sources indicate (insert the difference).”

Amidst such differences, we accept them as they are, and we have to deal with the very real inconsistencies through faith and scholarship. In this coming Sunday’s Gospel passage, perhaps it is a different but similar incident or Luke inherited the story from Paul but erred in the chronology of it. We just cannot know. For those that argue such inconcitencies indicate the Bible is false, I think it important to recognize how liars normally behave. Conspirators often try to “get the story straight.” Here, the Christian community refused to do so fully aware of textual tensions and disagreements. Perhaps this actually is an argument for their veracity!

An error on the part of an Evangelist might seem heresy to a fundamentalist needing every word, phrase, and sentence to be true in isolation. Yet in our Lutheran tradition, I think we take a better approach – one Martin Luther introduced and popularized in the 1500s. We seek an exegesis of the text. We consider context and how scripture interacts with and interprets scripture. We look at varied manuscripts written over time with an eye for any differences. Here, we examine the testimony of scripture in light of proximity to the incident and firsthand accounts. Accounts written earlier might be more authoritative. We also consider the author’s social placement and characteristics. For example, Luke’s vocation as a Gentile doctor likely encouraged him to share stories mentioning women, gentiles, and physicality in more detail than other Gospel writers. We also evaluate language and phrases used. In ancient times, it was not consider deceitful to write in anothers name, particulalry one’s teacher or mentor. Who wrote the text and when can impact its accuracy. We draw from and compare archeology and outside contemporary texts, and we even consider sociological and literary approaches. In the end, Gospels are not meant to be histories. They are theological witnesses. The details do not matter as much as the ultimate truths they reveal.

Thus, a discrepancy need not indicate a falsehood nor even technically an error. The storyteller (witness) is telling the story through a lens reflecting their experience, interests, culture, or maybe what they deem most important to share. Memories might differ. Styles won’t be the same. Yet taken together, one might note how these accounts corroborate one another. And some scholars suspect they might at times even rely on one another as source material. For example, Luke and Matthew seem to echo Mark’s earlier account. Scripture might be inerrant in substance (ultimate truth) without being exactly the same in detail.

True, an interpreter can certainly err as well. Group think or assumptions might interefere with how we hear and understand the Word of God. Or, new discoveries can transform our understanding. Someone helped by the Spirit might even come up with brilliant new insights. Yet, this all reinforces the critical need to interpret scripture in community with others. Further, we should consider the voices and perspectives of past believers as well as the present Christian community. In the mind of Martin Luther, scripture trumped traditions, but he did not mean to say that past understandings don’t matter. We should evaluate them to benefit from the good and reject the bad. In the end, we might not be able to understand why things are the way they are in scripture at times. When this happens, we will have to rest in the tension that exists. Faithful people might need to disagree at times, humbly recognizing that we might be the one who is wrong. Still, we trust scripture to be a gift from God and normative lens for our Christian life above all others.

I hope this short essay helps Bible readers better understand what is going on with the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany’s (Revised Common Lectionary, Year C) Gospel text. It might also help as one seeks to address other texts encountered in the future. We should remain honest admiting that we can never know all we need to about the Bible, but we trust in the One who does. Our faith is ultimately in God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – not the Bible. And as an earlier believer once said, “God is still speaking.”

Reference:

Aland, K. (1985, Rev.). Synopsis of the Four Gospels, English Edition. “33. Jesus’ Preaching in Nazareth.” Swindon, United Kingdom: United Bible Societies, p. 31-33.

This blog post was expanded from an email written to members of a Christ Lutheran Bible study on January 26, 2022.

© 2021 The Rev. Louis Florio. All content not held under another’s copyright may not be used without permission of the author.

Leave a comment

Filed under Pastoral Letter, scripture, Uncategorized