No crib for a bed - Page 2

[cappuccinosmom]

I always just figured it was a Westernized, romanticized way of saying "And they were very, very poor"



I don't remember ever thinking that the baby cribs I knew were the kind Jesus would have had if he'd been in a wealthy family. But there were cradles, baskets, nurse's arms, family beds...and Jesus family was limited to straw and hay and no safe place to lay him down at all, except the feeding trough.

[umsami]

Smarmy me thinks that if they were writing the song today, they wouldn't be shocked about "no crib for a bed" (after all, at least with a manger he wasn't co-sleeping )... the shocking thing would be that Mary had no OB! No Nurse Midwife! I mean, talk about putting the Messiah at risk.... a UC birth!

(Yes, I'm kidding!)

[EdnaMarie]

There are actually a lot of traditional societies that use cradles and bassinet-type beds for babies. And the Bible does say she laid him in a manger.

I think it is important to remember that this was a birth story told by men : i am sure if a woman had written it all the *important* details would have been there

They say that the gospel of Luke is really the gospel of Mary.

But yeah, the song is just a song.

[hopefulfaith]

Originally Posted by lilyka

I think it is important to remember that this was a birth story told by men : i am sure if a woman had written it all the *important* details would have been there

I've always thought that. What's that quote? It's something like this:

If the three wise men had been women
They would have brought a casserole
Stayed to help for a few days
And cleaned up before they left
And there would be peace on earth.

Not to get too OT here, but I read the story and I wonder what it was really like.

[Lollybrat]

Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy

ETA: Just to clarify - the religious significance of "laid him in a manger" is still that Jesus had humble beginnings. The children's song paraphrases that point as "no crib for a bed", when actually the reality was probably born in a room where they were keeping animals and his mom didn't have a real bed to lie down with him on, but the underlying point is pretty much the same.

There is another religious significance for Catholics and other Christians who believe in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist. The image of the infant Jesus in the manger ("feed box") preshadows the teaching that His flesh is real food for the faithful. It is a beautiful image.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Lollybrat

There is another religious significance for Catholics and other Christians who believe in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist. The image of the infant Jesus in the manger ("feed box") preshadows the teaching that His flesh is real food for the faithful. It is a beautiful image.

Is the hymn "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" sung at Christmas in the Catholic Church? I know it was when I was an Episcopalian. I'm asking, because it fits with what you wrote above. In Orthodoxy, it's sung at the Vesperal Liturgy on Holy Saturday morning in place of the usual hymn for the Great Entrance (roughly equivalent to the offertory in Catholicism and Anglicanism). It was originally from the Liturgy of St. James (2nd Century?).

Anglican hymn translation (first two verses):
Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.

King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.

Orthodox translation:
Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and in fear and trembling stand, pondering nothing earthly-minded. For the King of kings, and the Lord of lords, comes to be slain, to give Himself as food to the faithful. Before Him go the ranks of angels: all the principalities and powers; the many-eyed cherubim; and the six-winged seraphim, covering their faces, singing the hymn: Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!


And in the Orthodox iconography (part of our "big T" Tradition), the manager is depicted as a stone box (the "barn" was a cave) and Christ wrapped in swaddling cloths that look like grave cloths - ties his birth with his death.

Nativity of Christ icon:
http://www.iconmotif.com/store/?q=node/252

The Myrrh-bearing Women at the Tomb:
http://www.iconmotif.com/store/?q=node/231

(Note: this is a contemporary American iconographer - also an Orthodox priest, and the second icon - the Myrrh-bearing Women - is a picture of the one that is actually on the iconostasis of my church. The iconographer is currently working on more icons for us. I love his work.)

[Bekka]

I always thought the manger bit was for the shepherds--the angel said something like "and ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger." So Mary may have had to you know, use the non-facilities, but I thought it was the sign--that the baby was in the manger.

[Adele_Mommy]

Originally Posted by Lollybrat

There is another religious significance for Catholics and other Christians who believe in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist. The image of the infant Jesus in the manger ("feed box") preshadows the teaching that His flesh is real food for the faithful. It is a beautiful image.

I'm sorry, but are you honestly saying that you think the image of an infant as food is beautiful? I find the idea of literally eating human flesh kind of gross myself.

I am quite confident that the writers of the Gospels did not intend the lines about putting Jesus in a manger to be a symbol of the baby's flesh being food. I was unaware that there are Christians today who see it that way. I find that kind of surprising, but I guess it makes sense. Sort of.

I am going to ask my husband if he was taught this (he was raised Catholic).

******

My husband thinks you were making a joke! If that is the case, then I have totally misinterpreted. Sorry for any offense!

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy

I'm sorry, but are you honestly saying that you think the image of an infant as food is beautiful? I find the idea of literally eating human flesh kind of gross myself.

I am quite confident that the writers of the Gospels did not intend the lines about putting Jesus in a manger to be a symbol of the baby's flesh being food. I was unaware that there are Christians today who see it that way. I find that kind of surprising, but I guess it makes sense. Sort of.

I am going to ask my husband if he was taught this (he was raised Catholic).

******

My husband thinks you were making a joke! If that is the case, then I have totally misinterpreted. Sorry for any offense!

See, both Catholics and Orthodox (not speaking for any Protestant groups here) believe that the bread and wine offered at the Eucharist *are* the Body and Blood of Christ. So, yes, we do eat His flesh.

See John 6:30-60.

The interpretation surrounding the manger is not one I've come across in reading the Church Fathers, but it's not offensive. Makes a kind of sense.

[Lollybrat]

Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy

I'm sorry, but are you honestly saying that you think the image of an infant as food is beautiful? I find the idea of literally eating human flesh kind of gross myself.

I am quite confident that the writers of the Gospels did not intend the lines about putting Jesus in a manger to be a symbol of the baby's flesh being food. I was unaware that there are Christians today who see it that way. I find that kind of surprising, but I guess it makes sense. Sort of.

I am going to ask my husband if he was taught this (he was raised Catholic).

******

My husband thinks you were making a joke! If that is the case, then I have totally misinterpreted. Sorry for any offense!

I devoutly believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This means that the bread truly becomes His flesh and the wine truly becomes His blood. When we take communion we are in fact eating His Body and Blood. This is a central tenant of the Catholic faith - actually it is THE central tenant of the Catholic faith.

So yes, I am serious that the image of the Christ Child in the manger is a preshadowing of His sacrifice on the cross. This sacrifice is made present again in every celebration of the Eucharist. It is indeed a beautiful image of the Savior.

Here's is a very good article on the subject:
http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.c...of-manger.html

[EdnaMarie]

Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy

Fascinating topic!

Your reply was particularly fascinating- thank you!

[Tradd]

Re: the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion/Death/Resurrection in His birth:

The myrhh the magi bring, along with the gold and incense, is also a foreshadowing of His death and burial. Myrrh was used to anoint the dead. It is what the women were bringing to Christ's tomb on the first Pascha morning.

This verse from "We Three Kings of Orient" shows it very clearly - western Epiphany carol, but nothing against Orthodox tradition there:

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
Breathes a life of gathering gloom;
Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying,
Sealed in the stone cold tomb.

[Lollybrat]

Originally Posted by Tradd

Re: the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion/Death/Resurrection in His birth:

The myrhh the magi bring, along with the gold and incense, is also a foreshadowing of His death and burial. Myrrh was used to anoint the dead. It is what the women were bringing to Christ's tomb on the first Pascha morning.

This verse from "We Three Kings of Orient" shows it very clearly - western Epiphany carol, but nothing against Orthodox tradition there:

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
Breathes a life of gathering gloom;
Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying,
Sealed in the stone cold tomb.

YES! I was just thinking about this as well.

I was also taught that the presence of the sheep and the shepherds is to foreshadow that Christ is the sacrificial Lamb of God.

Regarding your previous post, I have not heard that hymn in a long time. It is very moving and I thank you for calling it to my mind again.

I love Orthodox icons. They are so richly symbolic. Thank you for the links.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Lollybrat

YES! I was just thinking about this as well.

I was also taught that the presence of the sheep and the shepherds is to foreshadow that Christ is the sacrificial Lamb of God.

Regarding your previous post, I have not heard that hymn in a long time. It is very moving and I thank you for calling it to my mind again.

I love Orthodox icons. They are so richly symbolic. Thank you for the links.

Go to CyberHymnal.org and there's a midi file (music) so you can sing along!

Icons are our "family pictures" in many ways.

[Adele_Mommy]

Originally Posted by Lollybrat

I devoutly believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This means that the bread truly becomes His flesh and the wine truly becomes His blood. When we take communion we are in fact eating His Body and Blood. This is a central tenant of the Catholic faith - actually it is THE central tenant of the Catholic faith.

So yes, I am serious that the image of the Christ Child in the manger is a preshadowing of His sacrifice on the cross. This sacrifice is made present again in every celebration of the Eucharist. It is indeed a beautiful image of the Savior.

Here's is a very good article on the subject:
http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.c...of-manger.html

Just curious - are you aware that the article you linked to is a blog entry written by a 17 year-old boy who describes himself as "just completed middle school in Japan"? I guess it doesn't matter if the article accurately reflects the beliefs of you and other Catholics, so long as it is not the source of those beliefs. After reading the article I wasn't sure if maybe the blog owner wasn't making some sort of bizarre joke.

I will now admit to being totally confused. I was aware that Catholics and some other Christians believe the Eucharist literally becomes the body and blood of Christ - that it is physically transformed in some way undetectable by our current science. I am also familiar with the symbolism of Jesus as a (sacrificial) lamb. I have never heard of Jesus in the manger symbolizing the baby as food.

[Adele_Mommy]

Originally Posted by EdnaMarie

Your reply was particularly fascinating- thank you!

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for saying so - that is very nice of you!

[genifer]

I devoutly believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This means that the bread truly becomes His flesh and the wine truly becomes His blood. When we take communion we are in fact eating His Body and Blood.

Ok. You guys have blessed me so much with this thread. I dont think I can personally ever be convinced that the bread and wine at communion is actually the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (bc he does say Himself to do this as a rememberance of Him and as a symbol of his death, to me its purely symbolic. Im wondering about baptism for you guys now as well, nother topic I guess), but this whole discussion has really blessed me. Really got me thinking about Christmas and has contributed to a new ... cant think of the word, respect and (its far too early, sorry) for Catholic and Orthodox faith and traditions. I used to kind of balk at those traditions but recently Ive developed a love and respect for them.

Tradd, that hymn is particularly beautiful...

Anglican hymn translation (first two verses):
Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
And with fear and trembling stand;
Ponder nothing earthly minded,
For with blessing in His hand,
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
Our full homage to demand.

King of kings, yet born of Mary,
As of old on earth He stood,
Lord of lords, in human vesture,
In the body and the blood;
He will give to all the faithful
His own self for heavenly food.

Orthodox translation:
Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and in fear and trembling stand, pondering nothing earthly-minded. For the King of kings, and the Lord of lords, comes to be slain, to give Himself as food to the faithful. Before Him go the ranks of angels: all the principalities and powers; the many-eyed cherubim; and the six-winged seraphim, covering their faces, singing the hymn: Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

[Bluegoat]

"Let all Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" is my all-time very favorite hymn, hands down.

I like it a lot. We tend to sing it at Easter more often, or as a communion hymn. I have heard it sung in a Catholic Church once, but I don't think it was a holiday.

I also had never heard of the idea of the manger being a prefiguring of the Eucharist. I'm not sure it works for me on a personal level - it makes me think about vegetarian Eucharist, and other silly things. But I may think about it a bit at Christmas, it's an interesting idea.

Is there a source - besides the blog - that points to an origin for this idea?

I am curious Adele Mommy on what makes you sure that it was not the intent of the Gospel writers? And even if it wasn't, would you also say it wasn't God's intent in having events fall out in a particular way, whether those who wrote the texts were clued in or not?

[Adele_Mommy]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I am curious Adele Mommy on what makes you sure that it was not the intent of the Gospel writers? And even if it wasn't, would you also say it wasn't God's intent in having events fall out in a particular way, whether those who wrote the texts were clued in or not?

Good questions Bluegoat. I probably should have given more background into my perspective on the Gospels.

I don't believe the Bible was written by God or inspired by God. I don't believe in a personal God with "intent", as we understand the word, at all. So, my interpretations of anything in the Bible are never going to include ideas or theories involving why God might have wanted something written a certain way, or why God would have wanted events to transpire a certain way.

Given that perspective, I know it was not the Gospel authors' intent to use the manger to symbolize the Eucharist because the Eucharist did not exist in its modern form at the time the Gospels were being written. This is not to say the Gospels were written to be a pure, literal recording of historical events. To the contrary, much of the material in the Gospels was explicitly intended to be symbolic and/or have religious significance. However, the symbolism was not a magical foreshadowing of future religions, which would be impossible without divine assistance. Rather, the symbolism is mostly intended to demonstrate how Jesus fulfills earlier prophecies about the messiah, and to foreshadow the Christian theology of that time. Basically, the authors of the Gospels were interpreting earlier sacred texts in light of their own beliefs just as we interpret the Gospels in light of our beliefs today.

For example, Matthew 1:23 states "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" This is a direct reference to Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" So Luke explicitly states that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin (see Lk 1:27 and 1:34) to demonstrate that Jesus fulfills this prophecy. What is interesting is that the word in Isaiah can also be translated as "girl" or "young woman", so the author of Isaiah may not even have intended to say the messiah would be born of a virgin anyway.

The laying of Jesus in the manger most likely is intended to convey ideas about the religious significance of his birth, and not to simply be a recording of the "facts". When I speak of "author's intent", I start with the assumption that the authors were using this symbolism consciously and intentionally, and therefore the significance would have to be applicable to religious thought at that time. As readers we are of course free to apply meaning and see symbolism that the authors may not have intended. Readers do that with texts all the time, particularly with texts that continue to be read long after they were written.

Note 1: The above analysis is heavily based on courses I took on the Bible in college, as well as information from the notes in The New Oxford Annotated Bible and from information obtained using BibleGateway.com.

Note 2: I (and others) have been referring throughout this thread to "the Gospels". In reality the whole nativity story with the manger only appears in Luke. According to The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Luke was probably written sometime in the last third of the first century CE.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by Adele_Mommy

Note 1: The above analysis is heavily based on courses I took on the Bible in college, as well as information from the notes in The New Oxford Annotated Bible and from information obtained using BibleGateway.com.

Note 2: I (and others) have been referring throughout this thread to "the Gospels". In reality the whole nativity story with the manger only appears in Luke. According to The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Luke was probably written sometime in the last third of the first century CE.

RSV or NRSV?