In a seasonal vein, freelance theology presents an answer to a question from NG, United Kingdom.

What did the angel Gabriel look like?

Gabriel is the name given to the angel who announced to Mary that she would give birth to Jesus supernaturally (Luke chapter 1, verses 26-38), having already announced the conception of John the Baptist to John’s father Zechariah (Luke chapter 1, verses 11-20). The name was also applied to the angel who interpreted visions for the prophet Daniel in Daniel chapter 8, verses 15-26 and chapter 9, verses 20-27.

The white school nativity outfit complete with a tinsel halo and pretty wings is (more…)

Question from RS, United Kingdom

I’ve been told that magicians used ‘Abracadabra’ as the name of God, because it means ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. Is this true?

‘Abracadabra’ has a convoluted history as a ‘magical word’, but it has been claimed that it was used in medieval cabbala (or kabbalah) and derived from the initials of the Hebrew words Ab (Father), Ben (Son) and Ruach A’Cadsh (Holy Spirit). It was apparently used as a charm against fevers and toothache and may have formed part of incantation rites among the cabalists, a secret society which incorporated both Jewish and Christian ideas and used ritual magic, charms and mystical anagrams. They claimed to be able to converse with the dead and were often grouped in with alchemists and pseudo-Christian sects.

Kabbalah has enjoyed a bit of a renaissance recently, helped by a number of high profile celebrities, including Madonna, dabbling in it. ‘Abracadabra’ is now most commonly used as a nonsense word by stage magicians, most of whom it can be assumed are not trying to invoke the power of God to make their ‘spells’ work. Popular children’s author JK Rowling used a variant spelling ‘Avada Kedavra’ as the ‘last and worse’ cursing spell, ‘the killing curse’, in her book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [published by Bloomsbury, 2000, p.190] and may have been drawing on other traditions regarding the origin of the word.

Thanks for your question, RS.

Question from CB, United Kingdom

Many sporting teams declare allegiance to Jesus and employ ordained staff to minister to their needs. Is it Biblical and/or ethical to pray for victory over another team in sporting contests? I ask this knowing that as a fan of Shrewsbury Town your only hope, at times, must be of supernatural intervention.

For those regular visitors to freelance theology from overseas, it is worth explaining that Shrewsbury Town are a soccer team currently residing in the fourth tier of the English league and this year finishing quite near the bottom of the division. Jon the freelance theologian spent a proportion of his childhood in Shrewsbury and supports the ‘mighty Shrews’, hence the way this question is phrased.

The question about whether it’s ethical or Biblical to pray for divine help is a good one. In many ways it is no different to the prayer of an earnest believer that they will get a job or promotion at the expense of other candidates, or that their project will find success. There are of course numerous Biblical examples of people committing their plans to God and receiving blessing as a result. In some ways, however, sport is frivolous and even the most die-hard enthusiast will be forced to admit that whatever sport is being played is ‘only a game’. Socially the rise in organised sports is a sign of indulgent affluence and increased leisure time and it could be argued (in fact it has been) that involvement in sport detracts from more important things and wastes the limited amount of time any believer has available to achieve something of eternal significance.

Having said that, sociologists have often commented on the way organised sport takes the place of tribal warfare in civilised societies. It can also be argued that some sports recreate primitive tribal religion – with the chosen few totemistically representing the tribe and warring against evil forces, represented by the ‘other’ (the outsider; those who do not belong to the tribe). The communality and shared ecstatic experience are also of interest to the student of religion as the emotions and experience bear similarity to charismatic religious experience. Sport therefore meets an emotional need in the same way that religion can, even though it does not provide the philosophical or moral insights provided by more advanced religions. The morality of sport is often to win at any cost. Playing ‘fair’ is regarded as important, but many fans will turn a blind eye to their own player’s indiscretions, while any perceived injustice in favour of the opposition will be greeted by accusations of cheating.

Christians will often be drawn towards sports because, in a way, they are usually naturally inclined towards religious activity. The question of whether you can bear allegiance to a football team and bear allegiance to Christ is one worth asking. The hate-filled chants that echo around European soccer grounds emphatically do not tally with Christ’s ethical teaching about how we should regard our enemies. The arena of sport does provide Christians with an opportunity to talk to people who are already selflessly engaged in something bigger than themselves, with some sort of religious experience (even if they are not aware that it is such an experience), so it can prove fertile ground for discussions about the meaning of life, belief, hope and faith. A non-Christian Shrewsbury Town fan will understand more about the concept of hope than an ardent materialist who never thinks beyond their own situation.

Praying for victory is perhaps unethical (although the good news for supporters of lowly teams is that the God of the Bible firmly favours the underdog). Praying for the safety of the players, that the match officials and referees will have a good game and that the best team will win leads to no ethical issues. Praying that the best team will turn out to be your team? You have to decide whether you can pray that with a clear conscience.

Thanks for your question, CB.

Question from CF, USA

God created the universe of atoms and time 13.7 billion years ago. Each atom was embedded with gravity with a nucleus & electrons spinning a relatively vast distance from it. Some designated to provide light and heat, while others combined with like atoms, still others joined with dissimilar atoms. God, in time, then created life by diverging these atoms in millions of forms including you and I today. We are a bundle of atoms that can think and act independent, oblivious of the spinning earth, and the television, radio, cosmic waves passing through us unchecked. God hasn’t created any new atoms in 13.7 billion years and it should be religiously significant. Are you and I 13.7 billion years old?

Any religious significance from the scenario laid out above would point to a God who knew what he was doing when he first created matter. There would of course be some Christians who would disagree with the scientific summary in this question, but in theological terms there are a couple of points to make.

Firstly, in the book of Genesis, which is not meant to be read as a scientific treatise, it states that God rested when his creative work was done (chapter 1 verse 31 – chapter 2 verse 2). At this point in the story everything was ‘good’. It would therefore be odd for any new matter to be created and inserted into the completed ‘world’ (the Hebrew word for ‘world’ is perhaps better understood as ‘cosmos/universe’, rather than ‘planet’).

Secondly, although creation stopped on ‘day six’, God’s interaction with the world did not. Through various covenants, the Incarnation and the ongoing presence of the Holy Spirit, creation, although now marred by human sin, is still affected by the activities of God. As age-old atoms form into new human beings the process of fall and redemption begins again, God’s compassion being renewed every morning, to paraphrase the Hebrew poet (Lamentations chapter 3 verses 22-23)

Question from JM, United Kingdom

How accurate is the illustration that says: if you were the only person on this planet God still would have sent Jesus to die for you?

This is quite a popular phrase among evangelists and it tends to be used to press home the point of God’s love for every human being. However, it is not a phrase used in the Bible and could be considered as yet another indication of the triumph of individualism in modern Christian thought.

Christianity is a corporate religion, in that Christians come together to form a Christ-centred community. The subjective nature of post-Enlightenment Western thought, with its empowerment of the individual through the proclamation of ‘rights’ (whether the ‘rights of the citizen’, ‘human rights’, ‘consumer rights’ or whatever) is not entirely new, but it has had a major impact on Christian belief.

One way is in the application of Scripture. It is quite clear from their context that most of Paul’s letters are addressing the corporate activities of the churches he wrote to. Obviously the presence of the Spirit in corporate life would have knock-on effects in the lives of the individuals who made up those ‘bodies of Christ’, but the way in which Christians take the Pauline lists of Spiritual gifts and fruit on an entirely individual level runs counter to Paul’s understanding (for further on this see Gordon Fee: Paul, The Spirit and the People of God, published by Hodder & Stoughton 1997).

Jesus was sent, according to the famous verse in John’s gospel, for the whole world as a mediator between human beings and God (1 Timothy chapter 2, verses 4-6). The Bible does not address ‘what ifs’ and hypothetical scenarios. As an argument, this phrase is technically unprovable. The point is that any human being is not the only person on the planet, even though their sin might cause them to act as if they are. The good news is that, despite there being millions of people in this world, everybody who chooses to enter the Kingdom of God is wanted, is valuable and has a unique role to play, which might sound even better news.

From SM, United Kingdom

I was reading Genesis the other day and realised that in the creation God does not given man beasts to eat but only plants (Genesis chapter 1, verses 29-30). Does this mean that God intended us to eat a vegetarian diet and if so when did it all change and did Jesus eat meat during his life?

There are some Christians who would argue that meat was not eaten in Eden and therefore Christians should not eat meat. However, in terms of your question, if we follow the Genesis account, Abel sacrifices some of his flock in chapter 4 (and presumably if he “kept flocks”, then he did so because he ate meat). God formally gives Noah and his descendents the right to eat meat in Genesis chapter 9, verses 1–3.

Jesus would probably have eaten meat as it played an integral part in first century Jewish life, including the religious festivals. If the Last Supper was a Passover meal (hinted at in Luke chapter 22 verse 15 & 16), then Jesus would have eaten roasted lamb with his disciples. It would also seem that Jesus ate bread and fish with his disciples after his resurrection (John chapter 21 verse 13-15).

Thanks for your question SM.

Question from DW, United Kingdom

Isaiah ch11 v6 says: “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat”, v7 says: “the lion will eat straw like the ox”. It would seem that the wolf, leopard and lion would cease to be carnivores, so were they carnivores as a result of the ‘Fall’ and was it God’s intention that they should never eat flesh for their livelihood in the first place?

This passage from Isaiah depicting a peaceful world after God permanently establishes his glorious rule would seem to indicate an end to the normal behaviour of nature ‘red in tooth and claw’. In this sense it is presumably meant to be an allegorical reference to an end of suffering and conflict.

However, the point raised is an interesting one. If we accept the idea of a ‘Fall’ back in humankind’s prehistory from a perfect existence as described in Genesis, then carnivorous diets are a result of such a ‘Fall’ from grace. In Romans 5 verse 12, Paul states that: “sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin…”

If death is a result of sinful activity, then it follows that eating meat cannot have happened before the ‘Fall’ – it would be very difficult to eat an animal that was not dead! In the final consummated creation, the ‘new Heaven and new Earth’, death again ceases to exist. If animals live in the re-created order, then it seems unlikely they will be eating each other.

Thanks for your question DW. I hope you found the answer helpful.

Question from ELC, United Kingdom

I’ve been having some discussions with some Catholic friends about Mary. They argue that Mary must be sinless because Jesus would be tainted by sin if his mother was sinful. As the mother of God she must have a special status in our worship. I would have thought original sin of Mary would help answer the question, but if your first premise is that Mary MUST have been sinless (i.e. an exception) then where do you go?

And of course, her mother must have been miraculously conceived so that no taint of sin was passed on to her so there was no taint of sin for her to pass on to Jesus and her mother’s mother must have been miraculously conceived…

Now, that obvious hole in the argument has been addressed, let’s talk about Mary.

Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary as official Catholic doctrine in 1854. It has had a long history in Christian folklore before that. Mary, as the ‘first believer’, was accorded a special status and many extra-Biblical stories appeared. Some Christian writers liked to style her as a ‘New Eve’, reversing the sin of the first Eve through her obedience to God. The Immaculate Conception of Mary does away with the question of ‘Original Sin’ being passed onto Jesus. Original Sin is the sin that is passed on, so the thing to note here is that Mary’s ‘sinlessness’ is about Original Sin.

The story of the Immaculate Conception can be traced to third century ‘lost gospels’ (see previous freelance theology answers for more on that topic). Put briefly, the story goes that she was miraculously conceived when her childless aged parents, St Anna and St Joachim, were visited by an angel and promised the child they had longed for. St Anna kissed her husband and was with child.

There is no Biblical basis for this, or for the other great Catholic doctrines of Mary’s perpetual virginity or her preservation from death (the Assumption). Sadly, they seem to have been the product of the very fertile imaginations of Christian storytellers. The power in the stories, however, can be seen in the way they have been absorbed into Roman Catholicism – arguably one of the oldest continuous expressions of Christianity. For example, faith in the Blessed Virgin’s virginity led St Jerome to translate Jesus’ ‘brothers and sisters’ as ‘cousins’ and this translation continues today in some Catholic Bibles.

Non-Catholics also have difficulty with the status given to Mary. She has been regarded as ‘theotokos’ (‘God-bearer’) since the Nestorian controversy in the fifth century. Technically this is incorrect, as she only bore the human incarnation of the divine Son. But the school of thought who wanted to use the term ‘theotokos’ wanted to assert the absolute divinity of Christ against various heresies around at the time that denied it. ‘God-bearer’ thus became part of orthodox Christian belief, when perhaps it should not have.

‘Theotokos’ led onto the medieval depiction of Mary as the ‘Queen of Heaven’, seated at Christ’s right hand. As the person with Christ’s ear, as it were, that made her the best person to pray to as a mediator, hence the fact she is often called the ‘mediatrix’ and the common sequence of prayers ‘Ave Maria’/’Hail Mary’. This does sometimes cross over into out-and-out worship and some Catholics call her ‘co-redemptrix’ (‘co-redeemer’). However, Mary is not divine. She was human and many Christians, including many Catholics, would be unhappy with the idea of worshipping her.

The simple fact is that the Immaculate Conception of Mary is unnecessary with regard to the question of Jesus’ sinless state. Original Sin, especially within the Catholic model following the theology of Thomas Aquinas, means that human beings cannot attain the supernatural destiny they were intended for. In more extreme examples, including Augustine and Reformed theology, Original Sin means humans are predisposed to sin, a predisposition they automatically follow.

Obviously when the Son became incarnate, the Son’s human nature could achieve that supernatural destiny through the Son’s divine nature and any human predisposition to sin would be made irrelevant, as it would be impossible to imagine God sinning against Himself. So, Mary need not have been sinless as Original Sin could not have impacted on the Incarnate Christ anyway.

Asserting that Mary was sinless goes beyond the Biblical accounts. It is unnecessary and, in a strange way robs her of the honour she is due as the ‘humble handmaiden of the Lord’. If she was sinless, then becoming the ‘God-bearer’ is not the inspiring tale of a young girl being willing to suffer the public disgrace of being unmarried, yet pregnant. It takes away the very humanity that Mary passed on to her son.

I hope that this was illuminating for you, ELC. Thanks for contributing to freelance theology. If you have a question or comment, contact freelance theology using the ‘email me’ button.

Another question from CM, United Kingdom

Dear Freelance Theology,
Is the Holy Grail just a mystic’s wet dream or does it have any basis in truth?

The Grail myth centres around two main theories – either the Grail was a physical object or, more sensationally, a ‘secret bloodline’ of descendants from Jesus.

There is some debate about the nature of the object. Usually in the myths that became associated with the Knights of the Round Table in medieval legend, it was a cup or chalice used by Jesus at the Last Supper, or the dish that the meal was served on, or the cup used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch the blood of Christ as he died that Joseph later brought to Glastonbury in England. The Grail was said to have mystical life-giving properties, with those drinking from it gaining immortality or absolution from sin (depending which story you read). This side of the story was popularised in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

In fact the notion of a life-giving vessel pre-dates the era of Christian myth-making. The ‘Cauldron of Bran’ wherein dead warriors are placed and magically come alive again features in Celtic myths, including the Welsh collection of stories The Mabinogian.

It would seem that these old Celtic myths resurfaced in Britain and France, were attached to the great romantic stories of Arthur and the Round Table and were worked into stories that had Biblical characters showing up in Western Europe – for example Mary, Martha and Lazarus were connected to Marseilles and Southern France; Joseph of Arimathea with Glastonbury etc. The monks of Glastonbury seized on the Grail story and their monastery became a massively popular place of pilgrimage as a result.

The idea that Jesus was romantically involved with Mary Magdalene and fathered a secret child has also been around for centuries. Occasionally in the Patristic period individuals would appear on the scene claiming to be Jesus’ physical descendents. None of them could prove it and most were dismissed as mad.

The rediscovery of some ‘gnostic gospels’ in recent years (see previous article about The Gospel of Thomas on freelance theology) caused a major stir, especially as in one of them, The Gospel of Phillip, Jesus might be described as kissing Mary Magdalene. This has been used by some feminist scholars to claim a relationship between the two of them and even that Mary Magdalene was the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ in John’s Gospel. Many theologians dismiss this idea (for example, see Ruth Edwards, Discovering John, SPCK 2003, pp 24-26 for more), although the interest caused by the film The Last Temptation of Christ and similarly themed books, including Dan Brown’s flawed thriller The Da Vinci Code, indicates that the Mary-Jesus love story will continue to capture the imagination of people. The reinterpretation of the Grail myth to fit this story shows just how imaginative some people can be.

It would seem that certain people with an interest in the sensational are willing to invest a lot of time and effort into discussing the huge body of lore, folk-tales and modern new-age hypotheses surrounding the Grail. From a purely theological point of view, however, there is no evidence for or against. It seems fantastically unlikely that any of the traditional myths could have happened and, considering the pre-eminence of Jesus’ brother James in the community of Christian believers in Jerusalem, the thought that the early Church would not have embraced Jesus’ child as the son or daughter of the Messiah it hugely improbable.

So, in short, it’s complete bunkum.

Thanks for submitting your question CM. I hope this answer is useful. If you would like to comment on this, or any other answer on freelance theology, then please email using the ‘contact me’ button.