Mary, Did You Know?

Twenty-five years ago, Rev. Jerry Falwell invited Mark Lowry to write a Christmas program. As he wrote the “speaking parts”, he began to think about Mary, the mother of Jesus.  

In a recent interview, Lowry recalled, “as my mind went back to the manger scene, I began to think about the power, authority and majesty Mary cradled in her arms. I began writing a list of questions I would like to ask Mary if I could sit down with her - questions such as, ‘Mary, do you know who is in your arms? Did you know that your baby boy will walk on water, give sight to a blind man and calm a storm at sea with his hand?’”

Lowry carried his lyrics with him for the next seven years. In 1991, he asked his good friend, Buddy Greene, to write suitable music for his poem. According to Green, “Mark handed me his lyrics, and I held on to them for about two weeks.

One day I pulled them out and looked at them. They seemed to suggest a minor key approach to writing an accompaniment. I completed the musical setting in about 30 minutes. I called Mark at his home in Georgia and on the phone played and sang the song to him. He was ecstatic! He said, ‘That’s it!’

Two weeks later. Greene met in Mark’s hotel room in Nashville where they recorded the song on a small portable machine. It was then taken to Michael English who was preparing to make an album. He was the first person to record “Mary, Did You Know?”

Since Michael English, many other artistes have rendered “Mary, Did You Know”. I like Mark Lowry’s rendition very much. Then I heard the Pentatonix a cappella rendition.

In 2014, this Grammy Award-winning a cappella group with their resplendent displays of vocal harmony, took Lowry’s classic to another level. The musical group used the diversity of their collective vocal ranges to emphasize that a small gathering is in awe of Mary and her role. Each of the five vocalists asked her their questions. The unusual approach magnified the sense of wonder in the song, particularly as contrasted to a single querying narrator.

Here we are, twenty-five years later and still in love with “Mary, Did You Know”. Some are captivated by the music and return to it again and again. Interestingly, many who do not share Mark Lowry’s faith, which fueled his authorship, sing the song with passion.

Some who share Lowry’s faith have problems with the song. They believe the song contends that Mary needed a Savior. “But how could Mary need a Savior,” they ask, “if she were born of immaculate conception?” Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic teaching which asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved free from the effects of original sin from her conception.

Mary had been solemnly declared to be the mother of God at the Church’s Council of Ephesus in 431. Most Catholic theologians doubted that one who had been so close to God could have actually experienced sinful acts. I have not read the findings of the Council of Ephesus, but I have read the Magnificat, the lyrics of Mary’s song in Luke 1:46-55.

The Latin translation of Mary’s response begins with the word Magnificat, which simply means “magnify” (or “exalt,” “glorify,” etc.). The Magnificat is a poem of praise to God, praising Him for His blessing to Mary and His faithfulness to Israel. The Magnificat also highlights a series of reversals in which the proud are humbled and the humble are exalted—not the least being a poor young girl who will be the mother of the Messiah.

Commentators have pointed out that the Magnificat is full of quotations of and allusions to passages in the Old Testament. Many of the truths Mary expresses find a counterpart in Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1–10.

Dr John Piper shared an interesting commentary on Mary’s reference to God’s holiness. Piper contends that Mary stressed that God's holiness has expressed itself and will express itself by exalting the lowly and abasing the haughty.

“What fills Mary's heart with joy is that God loves to undertake for the underdog who calls on his mercy. This is how his holiness expresses itself. Does this not commend itself as true, that the great and holy God should magnify his greatness by blessing the lowly who admire his greatness and by abasing the haughty who resent his greatness?”

Honestly, Mary would not have been able to answer the questions in Mark Lowry’s song – she just did not know the answers. However, what she knew, was what God could do through the surrender of a simple teenage girl. This Christmas, remember, God still works through simple people who surrender their lives to Him.

Archaeology and Christmas

Archaeology is a branch of history. Whereas history deals with documents, archaeology deals with artifacts. Artifacts are tangible objects that often verify what appear in documents. The term artifact can also be used to refer to the remains of an object, such as a shard of broken pottery or glassware.

For instance, Luke reports that the birth of Jesus happened when “Quirinius was governor of Syria.” For years, some scholars questioned the accuracy of the statement. However, we now have evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 B.C. This assumption is based on an inscription found in Antioch ascribing to Quirinius this post. As a result of this finding, it is now supposed that he was governor twice -- once in 7 B.C. and in 6 AD. This historical detail helps to confirm the accuracy of Luke’s report on the timing of the birth of Jesus.

Both Matthew and Luke refer to Nazareth as the place from which Joseph and Mary left for Bethlehem. For many years the existence of Nazareth was questioned. Doubters contended that there was no archaeological evidence to support its existence in the first century. With that skepticism, the reliability of the biblical text was questioned. More specifically, stories of the birth and upbringing of Jesus.

René Salm was a case in point. In his book The Myth of Nazareth, The Invented Town of Jesus, he argued that Nazareth didn’t begin to exist until the second century AD, after Jesus was born. To be fair, for years the archaeological evidence for a first-century Nazareth was scant.

As is often the case, however, archaeological finds in recent years have vindicated the biblical record, with numerous first-century discoveries. Tombs with fragments of ossuaries (bone boxes) have now been excavated in Nazareth, indicating a Jewish presence there in the first century. Storage pits and cisterns from the time of Jesus have been discovered. Archaeologists contend that about 350 persons may have lived in Nazareth with Jesus. Today, more than 50,000 persons live there. Again, Archaeology corroborated the biblical text.

In May 2012, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced the discovery of a bulla (a tiny clay seal) which mentions Bethlehem, the city of David and the birthplace of Jesus. The report said: ‘The first ancient artifact constituting tangible evidence of the existence of the city of Bethlehem was recently discovered in Jerusalem. The three lines of ancient Hebrew script stamped on the bulla read: ‘From the town of Bethlehem to the King’.

However, I would be the first to agree that Archaeology does not prove that the Bible is true. Archaeology is extremely useful in that it supplies cultural, epigraphic and artifactual materials that provide the background for accurately interpreting the Bible. Because of Archaeological discoveries, many liberal and conservative scholars contend that Luke is “erudite, eloquent and that his use of Greek approaches classical quality.”

Archaeology then, has illuminated and corroborated the Bible in numerous ways. The interpreter finds in archaeology a good friend for understanding and substantiating Scripture. One’s confidence can be enhanced where the truths of Scripture impinge on historical events.

In his book, What Mean These Stones, Yale Professor of Archaeology, Millar Burrows, makes the point, that “archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.”

My faith is strengthened whenever I read the reports of Jesus’ birth, as told by Matthew and Luke. Other than the theological matters of Jesus’ messiahship, I believe that the events actually happened. Nazareth, Jerusalem and Bethlehem actually existed in the first century. Quirinius, Herod and Caesar Augustus were actual political leaders. Historical details like these undermine notions of myth, fiction and legend. Instead, historical details deal with reality and state what actually happened.

I strongly recommend that you read the first two chapters in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke this Christmas. You will see where the writers tell their stories to convince their audiences that the birth of Jesus and the events around the birth actually happened. However, just as the writers were convinced that they were reporting on what actually happened, they were equally convinced that someone from outside of our human experience, played a big role in the birth of Jesus.

Paul contended, the person who played that bigger role was God. This is how he described it, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son (Jesus), born of a woman…” (Galatians 4:4). This is a good season to remember that the science of Archaeology corroborated the story of the birth of God’s son.

Christmas Relic Returned

Fourteen hundred years after it was sent to Rome, a relic from the manger of baby Jesus was returned to Bethlehem last week. Sheathed in an ornate case, cheerful crowds greeted the thumb-sized wooden relic with much fanfare before it entered the Franciscan Church of St Catherine, next to the Church of the Nativity.

The custodian of the Franciscan order in the Holy Land, said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had asked Pope Francis to borrow the entire manger, but the pope decided to send a tiny portion of it to stay permanently in Bethlehem.

One journalist believes that the return of the relic by the Vatican was a spirit-lifting moment for the Palestinians. Actually, young Palestinian scouts played bagpipes and the crowd snapped pictures as a clergyman held the silver reliquary (container for relics) and marched toward the church.

Personally, I would not be so naive to believe that the interest of President Abbas and the Palestinians in the alleged wooden relic from the manger of Bethlehem is a display of any personal interest in Jesus Christ. This is nothing but a business opportunity. Christmas is big business in Palestine.

Tens of thousands of pilgrims from around the world are expected to visit Bethlehem this Christmas. What is hoped, is that the large number of pilgrims that visited Rome to see the relic on display in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, would now visit Bethlehem.

Last year, more than 10,000 tourists visited Bethlehem around the Christmas season. Hotels were fully booked, and business thrived, the best many had seen in years. With the return of the relic from Rome, it is believed that business will be much brighter this Christmas.

The City of Bethlehem was once dominated by Christians. Today however, there are fewer than 10% of Christians in the Muslim dominated city of approximately 225,000 residents. Violence and economic hardships have contributed to this major demographic shift.

With that backdrop, one can now understand the sentiments of Amira Hanania, a member of Palestine’s Higher Committee of Churches Affairs:

"To celebrate Christmas with the presence of part of the manger in which Jesus Christ was born will be a magnificent and huge event." 

If an alleged relic of the manger could make such a difference to one nation, try to imagine what a difference the person of Jesus Christ could make. Actually, the relic is deemed important, only because of the importance of Jesus Christ. Without Jesus, the relic would have no value.

The process of finding relics or artifacts in the Middle East has piqued much interest in the last century. Much of this curiosity is because of Jesus Christ. Archaeologists continue to study where he was born, where he grew-up and every place where he allegedly preached.

In 1986, after a drought depleted water levels in the Sea of Galilee, two brothers walking along the shore found a submerged first-century fishing vessel. The wooden boat made headlines around the world as an example of the type Jesus and his disciples would have used to cross the lake. The Jesus Boat is on display at a Kibbutz on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and is viewed by tens of thousands of pilgrims each year. Like with the manger relic, people want to identify with Jesus.

Agreed, Jesus encouraged people to identify with Him, but did he encourage the use of relics to accomplish this? Jesus instructed his disciples to baptize believers. In addition, he encouraged the practice of communion. Both ordinances relate directly to Jesus.

However, some historians contend, because of the rapid spread of Christianity among semi-literate people groups, relics and icons were used to aid communication. Relics were the basic and often complex artistic forms and gestures used as a kind of key to convey religious concepts and the visual, auditory, and kinetic representations of religious ideas and events.

As in so many cases though, we run the risk of studying and adoring the relics and ignoring the Person who the relics represent. There are branches of Christianity that defend the adoration of relics. Such Christians believe relics aid worship. Other Christians believe relics undermine the exercise of faith. These Christians believe relics are among the images forbidden in the Ten Commandments.

Miraculous Babies?

Christianity is not unique in claiming that its founder was born miraculously. Actually, similar claims were made long before Jesus was born.
For instance, a Buddhist legend claims that Buddha’s mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that the Buddha was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
Honestly though, in light of this backdrop, is it possible that the story of the birth of Jesus could be mythical or even legendary? Here are four responses to this question:

1) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT MYTHOLOGICAL

Myths are cultural and religious tales of a specific community. These tales or stories reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance Greek myths included fantastic creatures such as Centaurs – half-human, half-horse creatures. Greek mythology and later Roman mythology also entertained ideas of Cyclopes, giant one-eyed creatures. Then there were the sphinxes carrying the head of a woman, the haunches of a lion, and the wings of a bird.
In the first place, the birth of Jesus does not include fictional characters. Specific persons were named, specific locations were identified, and specific roles were performed. Those are literary features, not associated with mythological or apocalyptic literature. 
As mentioned earlier, mythology reflects the beliefs of a community. Interestingly, Jews communities in the Bible never practiced observing birthdays. Hence, a mythological belief of the birth of Jesus would not have been possible. Before an angelic appearance, the father of Jesus was appalled by the idea that Mary could be impregnated by a deity. Such beliefs were not a part of their culture.

2) BIRTH OF JESUS WAS NOT LEGENDARY
A legend is a story from within a community that evolved over a long period of time. Legends require decades and sometimes centuries to be accepted as stories or tales of a community. Like with myths, these beliefs are not rooted in facts. The primary criterion is that they reflect the beliefs of the community.
For instance, there are communities that believe that spirits live in trees. Trees display life, in that they grow, send seasonal messages, provide fruits for sustenance. In other words, trees are alive and benevolent. Therefore, spirits live in trees. Such views evolve from within communities and are considered believable with time – that is consistent with the birthing of a legend.

So unlike the birth of Jesus. The story began to emerge from eyewitnesses. In his letter to Theophilus, Luke was careful to mention that he interviewed eyewitnesses and “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:1-4). Luke was contending that his report was verifiable. That presentation of evidence is never characteristic of mythology or legend.

3. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS AN HISTORICAL EVENT
History is descriptive of a past event that could be verified. It is based on information of events that actually happened. Hence, history is interested in artifacts, records and circumstantial evidence that can be verified.
In reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, both Matthew and Luke relied on ancestral support or genealogies. This historical catalog confirms family identity and connects events to reality.
Furthermore, in reporting the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke talked about the political leadership at the time and decrees that were ordered. These details placed the birth within an historical setting and not within the vagueness of mythology or legend.Also, unlike any other claim of miraculous birth, the birth of Jesus was predicted.

4. BIRTH OF JESUS WAS A PREDICTED EVENT
Other claims of miraculous births always followed the birth. The birth of Jesus was predicted and recorded before his birth. King Herod depended on these records when he wanted to know where Jesus would be born.
Matthew quoted the prophet Isaiah as referring to Jesus, more than 700 years before His birth. He had no doubt that the birth of Jesus signaled the arrival of the promised Messiah.
Unlike any other claim, the miraculous birth of Jesus was consistent with the miraculous life of Jesus. Unlike any other claimant, the greatness of Jesus preceded His birth. His birth was unique. It was not an accident; His arrival was planned. The same can be said of His pending return.