Home for Christmas - redefining Christmas/birth/change/home

During this time of year when so much pageantry and celebration is happening, the thoughtful person tends to reflect upon the real purpose of Christmas, the birth of the anointed one, the Christ, the big bambino, you know the sultan of swat.  He was sent from God. He came to us. He was made in the flesh like us. He died for us.  He was taken to heaven. And here is the catch, we are predestined  to be like him, to be conformed to his image (Romans 8:29). He was the first born of many to be like him.
(I feel a little like Bud Abbott in "Who's on First". At some point in this great routine Abbott said"I don't even know what I am talking about").
 He became like us so we could be come like him? Genesis says originally we were made in the image of God (Gen.1:27 - note the we means male and female). Of course that did not last long so we fell from that created state. 2 Corinthians 4:4 tells us plainly that Christ is the imago Dei (the image of God). And it warns that if we do not see this then we have been blinded by the god of this world. Are the images of Christmas blinding me or helping me? Am I seeing clearly what I am celebrating? Am I seeing the Christ, the anointed one? Have I found where he lays?  If so where am I seeing this? Like the wise men saying "where shall we find him"?
We are definitely in deep Theological waters when we reach to understand who and what is being talked about when we speak of the "image of God". Paul talks of  being changed in the twinkly of an eye (1Cor.15:51-52) and as "we borne the earthy image, we will bear the heavenly image" (1Cor.15:49). What does change into a heavenly image have to do with Christmas and finding the birthed Christ?
We were made in God's image. We fell in some way from that image. Christ came to earth as the imago Dei (Col.1:15). We are to be changed, (predestined to conform) to the image of Christ (in case your wondering summovrfouß is the word Paul uses for conformed which means literally "with change". Sum morphous, English would be our metamorphous). So we have this change taking place in us into the image of Christ.  Christmas is the time to celebrate Christ birth. I should have it clearly in my mind what this looks like, right?  Is our celebration about the plastic baby in the nativity scene?
Christmas brings about so many images. We have images of sugar plums dancing in our heads. Santa and his reindeers, rudolph the red, frosty, just plain presents and toys, the eastern star,  the nativity, with the wise men, and don't forget the Christmas tree, are  all images closely associated with Christ's coming, oh yeah, Angels too, and elves. By the way, the word in Greek for image, yes you guessed it, it is eikon - icon. You know the little idols made with hands. The making of images and idols is prohibited again and again in the Pentateuch (Ex.20:4, Lev.26:1 Deu.4:16).  The one true image that seems to be missing from my Christmas list of icons is the imago Dei.  So we are commanded not to have any icons or idol other than God.  But to visualize this is difficult. Christ is the image of the invisible God. What does that mean? Where can this image of Christ be found and what will it look like? If I am to celebrate it, I must find it. One key for us maybe found in Romans 8:29. Here it tells us that the way we can be sure that we are worshiping and celebrating the true image is that we are being changed.
I know this because Paul links change to the birth of Christ. A full reading of Romans 8:29 gives us this promise, o{ti ou}ß proe√gnw, kai… prow◊risen summovrfouß th:ß ei∆kovnoß tou: uiÔou: aujtou:, ei∆ß to; ei«nai aujto;n prwtovtokon e∆n polloiæß a˙delfoiæß` It says we are changed (metamorphosed) into his image the one who was first born of many brothers (and sisters). So maybe the real celebration is the birthing of Christ in us.  It is his birth in us who are being changed into His image, the imago Dei.  Am I in the right place, celebrating and worshiping the right image? If change is happening then I am. Is my focus on wether I got a lot of presents or had a rockin' time? Or was it that I changed this Christmas? Did I go through a metamorphosis? Was the anointed one, Christ, born within me. Did I have a new birthing of anointing from God. Or am I the same man fallen and blinded by the images of the god of this world? The big man and his eight not so real reindeers, did they help or hinder? 
I want to start this New Year off with the image of God being wrought in my life. Changed into His image is for me the true celebration of the birth of Christ. And I want to be among the many sisters and brothers who feel the same. That is my "home for Christmas". 

A Tale of Two Tongues

I have just finished reading "Bonded or Fused into Oneness" by John Robert Stevens, a latter day apostle. He claims the miracles will flow out of the oneness. In fact the miracles of Pentecost came from the oneness. This is very scriptural and very true. Christ said in John 17 that the world will believe because we are one. So a lot is hanging on our oneness, a oneness that Christianity has yet to achieve. How do we achieve this oneness?
This emphasis on oneness brought to mind a story about a group of people who did achieve a oneness. On the plains or valley of Shinar there was a city built of brick with a migdal-Hebrew for tower- that the peps were building to reach into the heavens. They were wanting to make a name for themselves "lest they become scatter upon the face of the earth". I am sure you know the story by now too. It is the story of Babel. The people had built this tower and God wanted to see it. More importantly to God was the fact that they, the peps of Babel, had reached a oneness that according to God "And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do(Gen.11:6, KJV). Nothing will be restrained from them that they want to do. The citizens of Babylon were one in their desire to make a name for themselves. Whatever they wanted to do they could have done, but it would have all glorified the people of Babylon. It was all about them. God was not being glorified, man was. Man was worshiping the works of his hands and not glorifying God. God came down and confused their language. Man's worship of the works of his own hands has had elements of confusion ever since.
The oneness of Pentecost was exhibited in the oneness of tongues. But I am getting ahead of the real story. The real story is not about tongues or oneness, but about worship. The worship of themselves, brought oneness that God had to confuse, but it did bring oneness. The Lord wants us to be positioned in these days to do mighty exploits (Dan.7:11), but they will be done only out of a oneness and a oneness that was created by our worship of the one true God. "However, worship becomes the principal channel by which oneness of spirit with the Lord really comes about. The quicker we move into this high plane of worship before the Lord, worshiping Him with all of our heart, the sooner we will come as individuals into that oneness with the Lord. Then, and only then, the oneness with one another also becomes a possibility."
(Stevens, John Robert: This Week, Volume X ,1979).
Two other things that I like about this story, (what's not to like?). One is that in the Septuagint the term they used for the instrument of their confusion is "glossan" or tongue. The same term in the Greek that is used at Pentecost, glossinalia. God used the same instrument to demonstrate His oneness that brought the early church's beautiful example of oneness that he used to cause the people of Babel to be scattered over the face of the earth. The very thing they dreaded and feared came upon them. They should have feared and worshiped the Lord.
Christianity today could learn a lesson. As we desperately need to end the confusion of doctrine, and bring the world to Christ. It may all begin with us reaching a new level of worship to God the Father. To make His name great among the nations, in our nation, our town, in our home, in our mouths and upon our tongues.

Is it I?

Much has been made of the Greek phrase used by Jesus speaking to the mixture of torch and pitchfork bearing crowd that came to fulfill the scriptures during the night of Christ's betrayal. When asked by the crowd if he were Jesus of Nazareth, He answered "I am He" ego eimi (John 18:5). This is the same phrase, exact in the Septuigent, that God spoke to Moses on Sinai. When Moses asked who should he tell the curious Jews who had sent him, God repiled "tell them I am sent you" (Exodus 3:14). Others have tied this phrase in with the many "I am this and I am that" that is found in the book of John. This makes good preaching but it might be bad interpretation.

Doing a simple search on this phrase in the New Testament Greek, it turns up fourty-eight times in the NT. The exact usage, I am (he), finds itself in many different contexts. We find Matthew quoting God describing himself "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac...." Here he is just saying who he is and not just I am He, or I am. He seems to be using good Greek, (English in our case) to form a clear explanation of who He is. And in a number of other places we find the phrase used in normal situations saying exactly what anyone else might say in context in that situation.

One person who really stands out is Judas. When Christ told his disciples that one in their midst would betray him, Judas asked "ego eimi?". Surely that was not God's name he was uttering. Maybe he was cursing using God's name in vain? I doubt it. He was simply asking a question. "Is it I?"(Matt.26:22). How then are we to interpret this powerful phrase? Are we to discount others interpretations? Maybe not, or maybe, you will have to decide.

I do want to offer another, simpler explanation. Maybe we have made the "ego eimi" too big a deal. Maybe God was simply saying I am in the present. NOT that this is my name, to be made holy, wash your hands before writing and never say it, type name. Not a name to which no one can relate. It was just "I am that I am". Popeye said it, "I am what I am and that's all that I am I'm Popeye the Sailor Man"(I Am What I Am by Edie Brickell).

Jesus may have simply said "Yes that is my name... I am he." Read verses 8 and 9 following. His response to their falling down was simple. "I told you I am Jesus of Nazareth". It was the Jews who fell down in their fear or religious piety or something. Paul said that "God is near you even in your mouth!(Acts 14)" Maybe God simply is. It is not a statement of religion but one of relationship, "I am here and with you, now. I am."

John follows this theme with the many "I am...." sayings (ex. Egw◊ ei∆mi oJ a⁄rtoß th:ß zwh:ß, "I am the bread of life" John 6:48). If we take Christ at his word then we simply receive him as our food, our protection, our connection, our light. He is with us now and has always been with us, "before Abraham was, ego eimi"(John 8:58). The Greeks have a nuance for their present indicative tense. It is called continuous. This is the case here. God is continuously being. He told us " I will never leave you or forsake you"(Heb. 13:5). The great I am. This is a comforting thought for me, not a nomenclature.

The Catch of the Day

In John the 21 chapter we find the disciples out fishing. Jesus appears for the third time to the disciples. He is standing on the shore yelling at them. He is wanting to know if they have any "fish". This chapter is fun to read in the Greek because there is so many opinions about it. For one, some believe that the Gospel of John ends with the 2o chapter. This is the 21 chapter so naturally we are left wondering who wrote this marvelous story? Or maybe the book does not end with the 20 chapter. Something to talk about later. One hint at its later writing, though, is the use of the word prosfa◊gion.

This word is only found here in the NT and is a late Greek word. This means it has not always been around in the Greek language. (Like our adding of the words "fast food" to the English language.) In other places outside the NT the word means a relish put on bread made with fish. Some translate the word to mean "cooked fish" . T. A. Robertson translates it as "aught to eat". Certainly Jesus is talking about eating breakfast as he calls to the disciples. When the disciples arrive on shore, He eats some fish with them, in his glorified body. In verse 9 it is interesting that Christ already has some fish on the coals! He invites them to come "break the fast" (a˙risthvsate) or others say "dine" with Him. Its all about the food. Eating is after all the best way to a man's heart, and Jesus wants to get at Peter's heart.

Looking back at verse 5 the word prosphagon ( prosfa◊gion) means literally "to eat" (Robertson). This is the point at which many get side tracked. In looking around I can only find one translation that puts the emphasis on eating and not on the catch? The NIV, NET, KJV, and NASB all put the emphasis on the noun fish, or meat. Only the old ASV puts the emphasis on eating or the infinite verb form "to eat". The word "phago" in the English is about feeding or eating. We find it used often in Science to describe "a thing that devours" (Dictionary.com). It is a surprising to me that so many slant their translations toward the fish being caught and not the reason for the catch. Why is Christ asking the question from the shore. What does he do with the disciples? The motive for the fish is to have something to eat. The story is all about eating, not catching. Why do we get distracted by miracles?

It seems sequential to me that Jesus asks about something to eat and proceeds to help them get something to eat and then cooks the food and eats it with them. We normally get lost in the hugh amount of fish that the "dear boys" (paidi√a) caught. Look again at the sequence. Jesus appears on shore in the morning. He asks if they have something to eat (or meat or fish). They say no. He lets them catch fish. He makes a fire and furnishes some fish and bread. He asks them to "break their fast". He eats the fish & bread with them. Then he asks Peter to "feed my sheep". Could the emphasis of the 'catch of the day' be to illustrate the miracle ability of the risen savior to provide for His sheep. Why this emphasis? Peter has left the sheep and gone back to old ways of taking care of himself, which he is not able to do. No fish caught after all night! With God's provision he will be able to feed not just himself but "the sheep of his flock". After the amount of fish caught is noted we do not hear any more about the large catch. What we do hear is the continuous talk about eating, breaking bread, cooking the fish, feeding the lambs. An amazing illustrated sermon. What do you have? Nothing. Here is God's provision. Replenish yourself. Now feed my sheep, if you love me.

(This is also a good communion message)

Stay tuned: Next blog we'll tackle the three love me, love me nots.

Holocaust

In Genesis 22 we read of the sacrifice of Isaac. This story, for the Jews is one of the most reverend of the Old Testament. Here, Abraham is tested by God so the scriptures tell us. God asked Abraham to take his son, his only son of his love, and place him on the alter of sacrifice. The language of this story is very rich and deep. This story has implications that reach deep into the Christian heritage as well as the Jewish. There are many things that could be talked about and are in a number of other places. But one thing that I do not often see is the connection between the holocaust of WWII and Abraham's sacrifice.

As we read this story, both in the Greek (LXX) and in the Latin (Vulgate) we see the word "offering" being translated as Holocaust(Latin) ὁλόκαυστον(Greek). I have often wondered who labeled the terrible persecution of the Jews in WWII as being for the Jews the Holocaust. The name implies a burnt whole offering to the Lord. The definition in an English dictionary of holocaust is just that, a burnt offering. Maybe I am coming late to the table but that is very moving for me. That the Jews see their sacrifice of those horrible years as equal in some way to the Abraham sacrificing his son, the son of his love. God gave His son for humanity. God asked Abraham for his son, did God ask the Jews for their sacrifice? Is that what is meant by the Holocaust? The word in Hebrew for whole offering or burnt offering is olah. It is the only offering that is wholly burnt, no meat is eaten or left from the offering. Who knows what really turned the tables in WWII so that good would win over evil.

In our present condition as Christians what should our attitude be of suffering? Paul told Timothy "not to be ashamed to testify of our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering (pa◊scw) for the gospel, by the power of God."(NIV, 2Tim.1:8). The word that Paul uses here and elsewhere for suffering is indeed the same word as Paschal, the sacrificial lamb that Christ became. Our suffering as Christians is as a sacrifice to God, by His power and grace. We as Christians are participators in this suffering and sacrifice. It makes me appreciate even more our Jewish brothers and the call of God that is upon their lives.