The Imagery of the Nativity

In modern times, scholars and critics have called into question the veracity and accuracy of the Biblical accounts of Christ's nativity. They have pointed out that similar narratives were extant prior to the birth of Jesus, notable differences and/or inconsistencies in the various gospel accounts of those events, historical/chronological problems, the misuse and misapplication of Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah, and the fact that supernatural or miraculous events can't be verified or replicated by science. And, on the other side, we have the Biblical Fundamentalists/Literalists who insist that everything written in their Scriptures happened exactly as it was recorded there; and the failure to regard those accounts as anything other than completely accurate is blasphemous. However, while both camps work themselves into a lather over the veracity and accuracy of the nativity narratives, the profound meaning behind the imagery in those accounts is largely ignored and/or dismissed.

If we take a moment to actually consider the implications of that imagery, the arguments between scholars and Fundamentalists take on an air of absurdity - an exercise in futility. Were the authors of the Scriptural accounts of the nativity interested in presenting a factually accurate account of Christ's birth? OR Were they interested in portraying an imagery that their intended audiences could appreciate and/or relate to? Were they interested in presenting history and biographical information regarding their subject? OR Were they interested in evoking an imagery of those events which underscored the fact that something fantastic, supernatural and unique had happened? And, if they were more interested in imagery than in reality, what do the kinds of images which they employed in their narratives suggest about what they wanted their audience to glean from them?

Look at the imagery. There is a census for taxation purposes. There is a couple engaged to be married - obscure Jews living under a government subservient to the Roman Empire. The Savior of humankind is born in the normal way. After nine months of pregnancy, Mary delivers a healthy male baby. The baby is laid in a manger. There are shepherds watching over their flocks. The normal and the mundane are exalted. God brings the Messiah into the world as a helpless babe. Why would God choose such a vehicle, such circumstances, to introduce his Messiah to His people and the world? Are the authors trying to tell us that miracles can be found within the ordinary - among the stuff that happens every day?

To be sure, there are also extraordinary elements within the narratives. There are angelic messengers. There is a special star. There are three wise men who present valuable gifts to the baby. The child is said to be the descendant of the ancient Israelite king, David. There is a wicked king interested in destroying the child and preventing the displacement of himself and his dynasty. A virgin gives birth to a baby boy. A man accepts a child that isn't his, and the woman who has given birth to him. Once again, were these elements introduced to exalt the ordinary - to make the ordinary extraordinary? Were these elements introduced to underscore that this baby was special - different from all of the other babies that had ever been born? Did the angels and the star signify God's presence - His involvement and interest in what was happening? Was the Davidic ancestry meant to fulfill the Hebrew prophecy that the Messiah would arise from his line? Was the interest of Herod and the wise men intended to represent the wider interest of humankind in the coming of this child?

The authors of these narratives had been profoundly touched by the ministry of an extraordinary man - Jesus. They believed this man to be the promised Messiah. They wanted to assure his followers of the special nature of the man whom they had chosen to follow and to convince others that they too should be following Jesus. Long before these narratives about his birth had been written, Jesus Christ's life and ministry had inspired the devotion and extreme loyalty of many people and given rise to a movement that had attracted the attention and persecution of the authorities extant at that time. Did these narratives detract from what Jesus had already accomplished? OR Did they serve to exalt/enhance/support what he had accomplished? Do the nativity narratives detract from the mystery and legend of Christ or enhance it? Does the story of the cherry tree detract from the legend of George Washington or enhance it? Does the narrative of Abe Lincoln's log cabin birth add to his mystique or fundamentally alter what the man accomplished as president? Is it really important whether or not Alexander the Great ever said "There are no more worlds to conquer," or is it more important to see that as part of his reality?

And let's consider for just a moment a few of the things that the imagery in these narratives has given rise to over the years. I'm thinking now of things like the song O Holy Night. Consider the lyrics in the first verse:

"O Holy night! The stars are brightly shining

It is the night of our dear Savior's birth

Long lay the world in sin and error pining

'Til He appears and the soul felt its worth

A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices

For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn

Fall on your knees; O hear the Angel voices!

O night divine, O night when Christ was born

O night, O Holy night, O night divine!"

Think about the magnificent paintings and sculptures which this narrative has given rise to! I ask again: Does this imagery detract from the narrative about Christ? Is "Peace on earth, Good will toward men" a worthwhile narrative? I think so. What about you?