Devotions

Countdown to Christmas 2023, Day 7 – Joseph and an angel.

Matthew 1:20: “… an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream.”

Metaphysical,… Metaphorical.

Some words are just fun to say and use.

Metaphysical and metaphorical are fun words to say because they sound intellectual and sort of make the person saying them sound intellectual. I challenge the reader to use one or both of these words in conversations this week and observe the reactions and responses from those listening.

Metaphysics, simply put, is a branch of philosophy focusing on the differences and correlation between mind and matter – thoughts and actions. How does a thought, dream, inspiration become reality or tangible?

Metaphorics is probably best remembered and understood in the context of high school English class when asked to write a simile – comparative statements that use the words ‘is like’ or ‘is similar to’.

Metaphors are usually symbolic, whereas a simile describes something as being ‘like something’. For example:

‘You are a rock star’ is metaphorical;
‘You are like Bono’ is a simile.

So, what do metaphysics and metaphorics have to do with the Christmas story?

Traditionally, people of faith, and even the non-religious understand ‘angels’ as metaphysical beings: spiritual beings without form, but capable of taking on physical form.

Sometimes angels are described as being in human form (Abraham’s visitors).
Sometimes they were described as humans with animal features (Ezekiel).
Sometimes they were characters in dreams or the dream itself (Jacob).
Some were immune to fire (burning bush of Moses/ fiery furnace described in Daniel).
Some were warrior-like (Garden of Eden).
Some were just thoughts or messages heard audibly or inwardly (Joseph).

The commonality of all these manifestations is the deliverance of a message from God. Actually, the Hebrew word for ‘angel’ means and should probably be interpreted as ‘messenger’.

Clearly, the Christmas story is filled with these metaphysical messengers. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Joseph, Mary, shepherds, and wise men – each and all received messages from God via angels.

We can’t really have the Christmas story without angels.

 

Honestly, I have no idea what angels are.
I don’t know where they live…
what they eat,
what native language they speak,
what they do for fun,
when they sleep or what they do 24 hours a day.
I have never been visited by one that I know of, never seen one, and never dreamed of one – which is odd because I am known for my wildly active dreams.

I believe the majority of people I know – most of who are people of faith – share my experience or lack of experience with angels. With that said, let’s look at the idea of metaphorics.

Perhaps my greatest frustration with people of faith is their insistence to interpret scripture literally. I don’t know when this tendency to do so became the primary way to read and interpret scripture, but unfortunately, it remains the preferred method of reading scripture, understanding God, and applying the Word.

Interestingly, the bulk of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and specifically Jesus’ teachings are not literal readings and interpretations of Scripture. The majority of the time, metaphorics, similes, parables, and comparatives to historic events and God’s activity were used to help the then CURRENT generation better understand what God was trying to say or communicate.

I will admit, though, that some readers and interpreters of Scripture go to the opposite extremem and interpret metaphorically to create outlandish doctrines, farfetched ideas about God, and what the future may hold. Another pet peeve of mine.

Back to the story.

Joseph – a righteous man steeped in the Torah and Law of Moses’ – understood quite well God’s expectations for handling a marital situation where adultery is assumed (not proven) to have taken place. Deuteronomy does mention the option to execute the guilty parties – though by Joseph’s day that practice was rarely implemented – if it ever was implemented habitually – since it required a trial, witnesses, proof, public humiliation, and priestly administration.

So, with that extreme option off the table, Joseph sought to act righteously, justly, and graciously to minimize the number of people involved by issuing a writ of divorce to Mary. That still required witnesses, but trusted witnesses who would not require actual proof from Joseph regarding the legitimacy of the child as belonging to him. Clearly Joseph gave the situation serious thought. His intent was to act in a way that followed the law, minimized publicity, and protected everyone’s future interests.

Then, in a dream, an angel of the Lord communicates that there may be another option – a thought that supersedes the requirements of the Torah. The Torah, if you think about it, is the original revelation of God to the Jewish people. It was, indeed, the Word of God given to Moses to share with the Jewish people to use to govern their lives and to govern the lives of the whole world – forever.

Somehow we miss the metaphorics of the event.

 

First, we want there to be ‘real, live angels’ with white gleaming robes, flapping wings, walking through walls, with bright, blinding lights, and 4-part harmonies singing Mormon Tabernacle choral arrangements (that is a metaphor, friend).

No doubt the above paragraph will entice more critical response about believing/not-believing in angels than it will in what the metaphysical beings were communicating metaphorically. We like to major on the minors.

Secondly, we miss the fact that Joseph bypassed the written and oral traditions of the law and what was required. Instead he chose to do ‘his own thing’ based purely on a modern (current to his day) personal-one-of-kind revelation he got in a dream. The message of the angel in the dream was: ‘do not follow Mosaic law in this situation – do something else instead’.

Try telling your church elders that you have a new understanding of God based on a recent dream that breaks their doctrinal tradition to see how that will fly (fly is another metaphor)!!

That was a radical theology.

Joseph went against the traditions of his culture – both legal and religious; traditions revealed by God at another period in time and well-accepted by his ancestors and peers, the religious establishment, and the good people of that day.

The metaphorical understanding we should grasp in our reading is that there is a fresh revelation of God afoot in every aspect of the Christmas story.

In Joseph’s day, dreams and angels seemed to be the manner in which God delivered messages – not unusual in Jewish history as well, but usually more common during times when access to God was disrupted (exile; lack of temple access and functions).

However, it doesn’t seem to work that way in our day – or rarely does. When we do hear of such a thing, we are fairly quick to dismiss it as actually from God. So that raises the question:

Are we able to rise from our literal and traditional understandings of how God revealed Himself in the past and search for fresh revelations that force our theological frameworks, our pre-determined biases, and our neatly packaged views of God to be set aside?

As a Catholic believer, can you let go of the Virgin Mary?
As a conservative Christian can you interpret Scripture without a Calvinistic pre-millennial bias?
As a liberal believer can you accept the idea that Jesus was more than a human?
As a millennial believer, can you accept that Biblical and modern history has a place in forging good?
As a Jew, can you allow Jesus to be a talmudic rabbi arguing His understanding of the Torah?

As an Evangelical, can you shelve the Apostles’ creed as a source of faith and allow God to reveal something fresh and new?

If Christmas is about God doing a ‘new thing’, is He not capable, and for that matter, desirous of doing something new in our generation and the generation to come?

 

God, give me a dream….

help me shed these preconceived ideas about you….

challenge my beliefs….

push me to be like Joseph and to shelve my theology in order to care for a fellow person of faith who is metaphorically pregnant with a fresh, new revelation and WORD from You…

Birth something new in me this Christmas.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Countdown to Christmas, Day 6 – Mary and the angel.

 

Luke 1:30 “And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God’.”

Jesus never talked about or mentioned the events surrounding His birth with the possible exception of one metaphorical reference – topic for another day. In fact, Jesus never talks about His mother – he talks to her on a couple of occasions, but to my knowledge, never about her.

Matthew mentions Mary only in passing as his focus was on Joseph.

Mark says nothing about Mary or the birth of Jesus.

John offers nothing specific to the historic context of the birth.

Paul writes of it metaphorically in Galatians 4 and Philippians 2 – but never does he offer details regarding that ‘silent night, holy night’ in any of his many letters and conversations with the disciples.

James and Jude, brothers of Jesus, offer nothing in the circumstances of their older brother’s birth in their published writings of the New Testament.

So, within the 27 books of the New Testament, only one – the Gospel of Luke – mentions Mary. Thirty verses in chapter one highlight her story while the remaining thirty-seven verses of that chapter center on Zechariah and Elizabeth, parents of John the Baptist.

Yet from those thirty verses someone along the way decided to interpret them to determine that Mary is to be a goddess and that she must obtain her virginity from her virgin mother and maintain her virginity forever in order to assure Jesus is the son of God.

Am I missing something? That ain’t in my Bible, folks. Perhaps yours, but certainly not in mine.

I read Catholic scholar Fr Raymond Brown periodically. He was/is a well-respected, influential scholar , and great interpretive mind who taught and ministered within the Catholic church. He agrees with me – it ain’t in his Bible either.

Again we have a literal reading and interpretation of a story that bypasses the metaphorical revelation and goes straight to the part about sex. What was clearly understood in the original Hebrew of Isaiah 7 as referencing the age of a woman – ‘ young woman’ – was later translated into a word in Greek ‘parthenos’ that can refer to either a lack of sexual experience or simply a ‘young woman’. Leave it to the church to make it all about sex.

I find it almost offensive to read the story of Jesus’ birth and the primary thought and focus of our interpretation is on Mary’s sexuality. Even if we were to focus on the sexuality, the purpose in doing so is not to ‘godify’ Mary or prove Jesus’ sinlessness. The purpose would be to establish Jesus’ lineage through Mary AND to equate the birth of Jesus with stories of unusual births of great men in the Greek and Roman religions.

So how does the Metaphysical and Metaphorical work in the story of Mary and the angel?

First, like the story of Joseph, we have a metaphysical being (angel) appear not only to Mary, but to Zechariah and Elizabeth. This messenger of God promises to Zechariah, Elizabeth, and subsequently to Mary that God is going to see that they get a son, and that their sons will impact their generation and generations to come.

The Metaphysical aspect of these two stories in Luke chapter 1 is simply this:

God is responsible for what happens next – God is active in their world and the upcoming events are signs of His presence.

Now, what about the Metaphorical?

First, the important thing to recognize in the person of Mary is NOT her sexual condition before and after birth. The important thing to recognize in Mary is her role and willingness to serve God – that God has chosen her for service. Read her response: “…He (God) has been mindful of the humble state of His servant….” She did not stand up and shout: “I get to have a baby without having sex!”

Secondly, we must recognize that what is happening to Mary is historically a reminder that when God announced His involvement in the birth of a human – something unusual and meaningful was about to happen. Admittedly, Jewish understanding of birth involved three entities: man, woman, and God – that was always understood (God opening/closing wombs). However, God’s announcing the birth was a rare and unique thing.

Abraham and Sarah were visited by a metaphysical being prior to the birth of Isaac.

Hagar was visited by a metaphysical after the birth of Ishmael to reassure her.

God ‘opened the wombs’ of both Leah and Rachel.

A metaphysical being visited Manoah and his wife (at least twice) before the birth of Samson – a story very similar to Mary’s.

Hannah’s womb was opened in her old age by God and she bore Samuel – her song in response is all too similar to the song of Mary.

Isaiah’s young maiden wife was prophesied and that prophecy was metaphorically used for Mary.

And then, finally, the announcement to Elizabeth described in Luke was to be the proof to Mary that what was happening was a ‘God-thing’.

The story of Mary and an angel is not about making sure we keep Jesus’ humanity sinless at birth.

It’s about a simple, humble woman willing to be used by God to serve Him and His people specifically through motherhood; and to accept that God is acting in her generation in a way He has done rarely in times past to invite the current generation into a fresh view and understanding of Himself.

God, make me a womb for your peace….

where there is hatred, let me birth love….

where there is despair, let me birth hope….

where there is sadness, let me birth joy….

where there is darkness, let me birth light…..

and help me mother and bring to maturity all that you have birthed through me to my generation so they can see a new revelation of You as you truly are.

————————————————————————————————————————

Countdown to Christmas, Day 5 – Immaculate Conception

Luke 1:34 – 39: “ ‘How will this be, Mary asked the angel…The angel answered ‘…nothing is impossible with God.’”

The immaculate conception.

That is not a title for a supposed complete catch made by running back Franco Harris fn an errant pass of the football by quarterback Terry Bradshaw in a football game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Oakland Raiders on December 23^rd, 1972 in an AFC playoff game that resulted in the Steelers winning the game.

Arguably, the phrase ‘immaculate reception’ is probably better known than the doctrine of ‘immaculate conception’.

Continuing with our discussion of the Metaphorical – let’s address the ‘elephant in the room’:

How in Heaven’s name did Mary get pregnant?

When I was actively teaching in the university setting, I would almost always use metaphors to introduce the topic of how to study scriptures – both the Old and New Testaments. Here are some metaphors I included:

“It’s raining cats and dogs”

“She’s a dead-ringer for so-and-so”

“Can’t hold a candle to”

“Put a sock in it”

“Deadline”

I would then ask the class to explain what those metaphors mean. Rarely would a student interpret them correctly. Well, to avoid the suspense and so you can concentrate on the topic at hand, here are the metaphorical meanings:

Raining cats and dogs: In Europe, it was common to see houses with thatched roofs, and often the structures were built into or on hillsides. Domestic animals (cats and dogs) would nestle into the roofs for napping. When a thunderstorm would arise bringing heavy rain, the straw would become wet and slippery – and the kitties and puppies would slide off or fall through the thatched roofs into the house below.

Deadringer: There were reported cases where coffins had been opened years later with scratch marks on the underside of the lid suggesting the person believed to be dead, was still alive. To guard against that recurring, a string was inserted into a buried coffin with a bell attached to the other end of the string above ground. People would sit by the graveside for an extended period of time and wait for the bell to ring. If it rang, then they would realize the person was not actually dead. Thus, they would be a dead-ringer. That phrase became a metaphor for someone who looked just like the deceased.

Can’t hold a candle: In the days when apprenticeships were popular, an apprentice would stand by the master and position the candle so the master craftsman could complete the work. The apprentice was inferior to the master.

Put a sock in it: When the volume got too loud on the old gramophone record players (ones with the huge cone speaker), a person would stuff a sock in the cone to lower the volume.

Deadline: This is not a reference to time. It is a reference to a perimeter line around a prison yard that resulted in a prisoner being shot if they crossed it.

Why did I start my classes with such nonsense?

Because I wanted them to understand that when you enter into the Biblical text, you are stepping back into a time, into cultures, into wording, into phrases, into science, into worldviews that are unfamiliar and foreign to modern knowledge and ways of thinking.

I told them they were entering a pre-Columbus world where the earth was flat, and biology, astronomy, and most other ‘ologies’ are incomparable to what we know today. That doesn’t make them inferior nor does it make the Biblical characters stupid. Additionally, it doesn’t make the message of Scripture obsolete or irrelevant. It just reminds us that God’s revelation was generational, and so we have to read the scriptures based on the understanding of that particular culture and generation to determine how God was working and why He needed to do what He did.

So, with that said, here is how 1^st century Jews understood conception.

A woman created matter (blood) within her womb. The man, through the sexual act, gave life (pneuma in Greek – translated as ‘spirit’) to the matter. God, then, chose to open or close the womb resulting in birth.

There was no knowledge of an egg and a sperm uniting for fertilization. We gain a glimpse of their thinking in Eve’s words upon birthing Cain: ‘With the help of God, I have created a man.’ (Genesis 4:1)

The male, in the same way that God breathed His spirit into Adam, provided the spirit that brought Eve’s creation to life. God, then, determined if it would be born or not be born.

The biology of fertilization as we know it today was not discovered until the 17^th century. It’s unfair to force our biological insights on to the scripture written centuries before modern discoveries just to make our theology work.

We start with the theology of their day to determine how God revealed Himself to that generation based on the knowledge at hand, and how they understood and interpreted God’s revelation. It has little to do with biology and almost all to do with theology.

So when we read Jesus’ birth story metaphysically and metaphorically, we understand the following:

1. The holy spirit overshadowing Mary as described by Luke is NOT planting sperm in her egg. The phrase ‘overshadowing’ is used various times in scripture and it NEVER refers to making someone pregnant.

2. The word virgin in the stories refers to the age of Mary, NOT her sexual activity.

3. The phrases used by both Matthew and Luke (‘before they came together’, ‘no union’, ‘have no husband’) describe the marital relationship between Joseph and Mary and are metaphorically explaining that it was God’s spirit (NOT Joseph’s spirit) that gave life to Mary’s creation (blood).

4. The birth stories in Luke and Matthew do NOT provide a biological explanation how the sperm and egg came together to form the embryonic body of Jesus. That is left to the imagination of those inclined to force modern knowledge on to ancient lack of knowledge – which, in my opinion, should be left alone since the authors intent and the original listeners would not have raised such questions. They did raise questions regarding Jesus legitimacy as a prophet and messianic claims.

5. It wasn’t until 300 years later when philosophical questions were raised about Jesus’ humanity and Jesus’ divinity that the stories were reinterpreted to supposedly settle the issue.

So what are we supposed to get out of this metaphorical reading of the birth story?

First, we are clearly told, and the original characters sincerely believed that God’s spirit was instrumental in defining the person of Jesus. That is a unique activity reserved for only a few people in Biblical history. Clearly Matthew and Luke, as well as the disciples understood Jesus to be a unique messenger of God.

Mary and Joseph both understood that Jesus’ life-giving spirit came directly from God and the emphasis of Matthew and Luke in communicating God’s spirit entering Mary prior to consummation of the marriage is their key argument or proof.

Secondly, the pedigree of the parents is important in establishing Jesus as worthy of:

the messianic title equated to the throne of David (Matthew writing to Jews that Jesus lineage could be traced to David, and then to Abraham); and

the son of God titled equated to Caesar (self-proclaimed son of god of the Greek/Roman Gentile world) as written by Luke when he traces the lineage of Jesus back to Adam – the original son of God (vs. 38 of chapter 1).

Thus, God revealed Himself to both the Jews and the Gentiles in the language and cultural beliefs of the 1^stcentury Jewish and Roman worlds through the minds and pens of Matthew and Luke. In those writings we find that:

Mary asked the right questions.

Mary responded to the answers with unwavering faith in what God would do.

Joseph sought Mosaic Law as any good Jew would to remedy the situation.

Joseph responded to the message, however, by ignoring the law, and committing to God’s unusual plan.

Matthew understood that his Jewish brothers and sisters were anticipating the Messiah, and he wanted to use what revelation God had provided him to communicate what God had just accomplished through the person of Jesus in his generation.

Luke understood that the Gentile world had little, if any, knowledge of a Jewish messiah, but they were aware of how Caesar’s claim to be a son of God resulted in required people to worship and pay tribute at temples dedicated to him and his fellow gods.

So, Luke told a story that resonated with the experiences of his audience, in the hope they would consider the difference between Caesar who demanded people love him and Jesus who unselfishly loved people.

God, help us rediscover the context for all revelation written and spoken….

help us read the Christmas story in its context with fresh eyes….

help us hear the Christmas carols in their context with fresh ears….

help us view the world around us as people in need of a fresh revelation of the divine….

help us view ourselves as visual and audible revelations of what a God-induced, spirit-filled life can be and do to transform our generation, and the generation to come, into a Heaven on earth.

Countdown to Christmas, Day 4 – Born from Above.

John 3:3: “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but spirit gives birth to spirit.”

In a prior devotional within this series of Christmas devotionals, I suggested that Jesus MAY have referenced His birth on one occasion. I do not want to reinterpret nor force the story of Nicodemus and Jesus to fit that idea, however, I do find the discussion between the two characters described in John, chapter 3 quite fresh in light of yesterday’s devotional insight regarding 1^st century understanding of conception and birth. Walk with me for a few moments.

Nicodemus was a teacher of Mosaic Law and a member of what is called the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was established by Moses and consisted of 70 elders or judges. More than likely, these elders were Jewish priests, though that may not have been an actual requirement. Nonetheless, their role was similar to roles of the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court if combined into one organization.

However, members of the Sanhedrin did more than just debate and judge law; they taught the law to disciples, usually in the synagogues. They were the teachers of the law (Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees) mentioned in Scripture, and it was their knowledge of Mosaic Law that common Jewish people would seek to discern God’s will and expectations for life.

Members of the Sanhedrin spent their lives studying, debating, applying, and teaching the law to each generation. Nicodemus was one of these dedicated scholars. He came to Jesus by night…. not because he was fearful of the repercussions of being seen with Jesus in daylight. No, to study and debate Torah at night is considered to be more admirable and honorable than to study it during the day.

John is telling us that Nicodemus is a true student of the Torah (Mosaic Law) and that he, Nicodemus, finds debate and study with Jesus to be above and beyond the duty of his position. He was passionate about the Law to the point of studying and debating during the dark of night when he could focus on God’s Word without interruption.

Nicodemus recognized that Jesus was unique. He openly stated his belief that Jesus ‘is from God’. Jesus responded favorably to Nicodemus stating that no one can recognize the kingdom of God (God’s activity and presence in the world) unless he is born from above. This could be understood in one of two ways – or both ways in this story:

Jesus is complimenting Nicodemus for his spiritual insight in recognizing God’s work; or

that Nicodemus is able to equate Jesus’ activities directly with God’s activity. I think both ideas are at play here.

The question Nicodemus then asked Jesus to clarify how spiritual insight is obtained. He asked Jesus if spiritual insight can only be obtained by re-entering the mother’s womb to be given God’s life-spirit instead of human’s life-spirit – the 1^st century understanding of how a human is created.

Here is where we may get insight into both Jesus’ understanding of His own life (birth) as well as a recap of 1^st century understanding of conception and birth.

Jesus reminds Nicodemus that ‘flesh births flesh but spirit births spirit’. Clearly Jesus believed that He – Himself – was born of the spirit. Not Joseph’s spirit, but heaven’s spirit – and John is quite explicit in quoting Jesus as saying ‘no one but the Son of Man has come from heaven’ (paraphrase).

Perhaps we have Jesus referencing His own birth story – since Jesus, indeed, was born from above. Fascinating thought.

Jesus used multiple metaphors in His response to Nicodemus:

childbirth;

Moses’ lifting of the snake in the desert;

Son of Man;

water;

flesh;

spirit;

light and darkness.

So, what can we glean metaphorically from John’s writings to help us celebrate the Advent/Christmas season in our generation?

It’s all about birth….

Jesus represents what it means …,

what it looks like….

for a human to be born SPIRITUALLY from God.

The metaphoric message in the following Christmas Carols may say it better than I ever could:

“O holy child of Bethlehem descend to us we pray;

Cast out our sin, and enter in – be born in us today….”

“Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth…

Glory to the NEWBORN King.”

————————————————————————————————————————-

Countdown to Christmas, Day 3 – Shepherds and Angels

Luke 2:20 – The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

May I share that I have had to reconsider and, admittedly, revise my understanding of shepherds and shepherding in 1^st century Israel. I, too, must be open to new revelation.

Some of the most accepted New Testament scholars of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries used writings from Aristotle (lived in Greece 300 years before Jesus) and writings published 200 plus years after Jesus to describe the economic and social status of shepherds living in 1^st century Judea.

Based on the scholastic’s world acceptance of those New Testament scholars, I blindly bought into their well-meaning attempts to provide historical context for the Gospel writings, and in particular, the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

In describing the birth story written by Luke, these scholars adamantly presented a view of shepherds as men considered to be economically deprived to the point of stealing from other shepherds and sheep owners.

This scoundrel nature projected on shepherding included viewing shepherds as dirty, odorous, liars, who were disallowed from temple participation and legal proceedings that required their testimony. Shepherds, I was told, were despised – and the reason Luke included them in the Christmas story is to show that Jesus came for the sinners and the lowly.

I bought into it…. as have millions of people. Let’s revisit the story from a Jewish perspective.

The first occupation approved by God after Adam and Eve left the garden was Shepherding. Cain, Adam and Eve’s oldest son who was a farmer, killed his brother over God’s preference for shepherd Abel’s offering: an animal.

Abraham was a shepherd.

Isaac was a shepherd.

Jacob was a skilled shepherd.

Jacob’s sons, except for Joseph, were shepherds.

Moses was a shepherd.

David was a shepherd.

Bethlehem – the city of David – was a shepherd’s town.

Psalm 23 presents God as a shepherd.

Jesus was not only called the ‘Lamb of God’, He labeled Himself ‘the Good Shepherd’.

The shepherd motif is rampant throughout Scriptures, not simply suggesting, but overwhelmingly proving that shepherds and shepherding are labels of pride and positivity when referencing Israel and Jewish history. Sometimes well-meaning scholars miss something in the translation.

Why, then, did metaphysical beings show themselves to shepherds? What significance might that have in Luke’s retelling the story of Jesus’s birth?

What is known as ‘The Oral Tradition’ is the primary means stories of the Bible were passed on from generation to generation. Storytelling was an art, and it was not done haphazardly. There were three primary ways of storytelling:

Informal sharing or retelling of events that took place when people connected in natural settings.

Formal sharing or retelling of information required to complete a task or train someone to learn a task.

Casual sharing or retelling of a historic event to keep the memory alive.

What I find interesting is that the Jewish people built checks and balances into the oral tradition. It was their way of minimizing ‘fake news’. In the Informal and Formal sharing, witnesses listening to the retelling were required to verify the information and to make sure the facts were communicated consistently. In the Casual sharing of information, embellishment was allowed, but witnesses listening to the retelling made sure the actual facts or message to be learned was not diminished.

Bedouin shepherds living in Israel today continue to practice this oral tradition. Informal sharing takes place in the marketplace and in their transient homes – much as it does in our homes as we share knowledge on a variety of topics with family members and friends.

Formal sharing is common among shepherds as they teach, learn, and perfect their trades – much as we do when passing on ‘how to’ in the form of recipes, car maintenance, home maintenance to our children and grandchildren that we received from our parents and grandparents.

Casual sharing is common among shepherds as they sit around campfires and reminisce about the heatwave or rainy seasons while adding several inches to the rainfall amount or number of trees that wilted under the sun’s heat – much like we describe the size of the ‘fish that got away’ or ‘the depth of the snow we had to tread without shoes when we walked to school as a child’.

Storytelling was an art, and you either trusted the people telling the stories or you ignored them. Shepherds were storytellers – and if we follow Luke’s storyline and logic, they were believable storytellers. Listen to his description:

“When they had seen him [baby Jesus in the manger], they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them”.

Perhaps the angels appeared to the shepherds because they were the best and most believable storytellers in the region. They were not bearers of ‘fake news’.

What can we learn metaphorically from the story of the shepherds and the angels to help us in our current generation and time? Let me shift the focus slightly to the scripture verse introducing this devotional: the feeling of the shepherds after all was done and said.

Roz and I were eating an evening meal at a local restaurant when a young family with two elementary aged boys, an elementary aged girl, and an infant in a carseat carrier were seated next to us. I watched them out of the corner of my eye for most of my meal when I noticed the young mother had to take the infant to the restroom to nurse. The young father was left with the three remaining kids.

The waitress served the young family their food while the mom was still in the restroom feeding the baby. The dad and remaining children began to eat. Finally the mother and baby returned, but her meal was considerably cooled by that time. Nonetheless, the young mother stood holding the infant, and, while continuing to stand by the table, began to eat her own meal.

Basically, the whole event was a chore for the mother. She never complained. My heart was moved at what I perceived to be an opportunity for a young mother to forego preparing a family dinner at home to enjoy dinner out. I was exhausted watching her.

I called the waitress over and asked for their bill. Roz and I paid for that young family’s meal that night. Upon bringing me the receipt, the waitress asked if she should tell them who paid for their meal. I said no. We left quietly before any news was delivered to the family.

Honestly….

the selfishness within me wanted to stay and watch their reaction; part of me still wants to know what the conversation was like in that crowded car as they journeyed home. Nonetheless, on that night, a waitress in a crowded restaurant was an angel-messenger to a weary mom and a spent dad.

There is a Jewish saying:

“Before the angels have accomplished their task – they are called humans; when they have accomplished it – they are angels”.

Like I stated in Day 7 devotions… I have no idea what angels are….

I just know they are messengers of God, and they just very well may be metaphysical,

but sometimes….

and perhaps most of the times….

they are human.

I’d like to think that young family, just like the shepherds, were glorifying and praising God for the thing they had seen and heard….

perhaps they shared the good news with everyone they met….

and, perhaps, they were even amazed.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Countdown to Christmas, Day 2 – Wise Men and an Angel.

Matthew 2:2 – “we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”

In a previous year’s Christmas Countdown, I explained how the ‘wise men’ or magi were royal priests from an eastern country in search of their own messiah – someone to replace their king upon his death. It is a strong possibility that the country inferred was Parthia (aka Babylon; aka Persia).

Parthia was a nation that once ruled Palestine – in fact, had done so just 40 years prior to Jesus’ birth. The ruler of Palestine under Parthian rule was Antigonus. If you recall Roman history, you will remember the name Marc Antony (Cleopatra’s lover).

Marc Antony defeated Antigonus, and forced the Parthians across the Euphrates river where they continued to skirmish periodically with the Romans until Caesar Augustus ruled that his armies and regional governors were not to provoke war with the Parthians.

A peace treaty was established that lasted nearly 100 years between the nations after Antony was defeated by the Parthians when he attempted to invade their territory. Time nor space allow me to weave all the intricacies into this story describing the connections between Israel and the Parthians. Let me just say this:

It is not impossible, and more than possible that the magi who visited Jesus had Jewish roots or they represented a royal family that had Jewish roots. Matthew’s lineage description includes a Parthian name – Zerubbabel – so, the search for a newborn king by Parthian magi may have been a search for a descendant king as well for a neighboring land.

When Antony pushed the Parthians from Palestine, many Jews were displaced as they fled beyond Israel’s boundaries into Parthian lands on the other side of the Euphrates River. The war over Palestine was still an open wound for displaced Jews, and for the Parthian leadership.

Enter Jesus, the newborn King of the Jews.

According to ancient records and possibly implied in Matthew’s account, Parthian magi traveled in large caravans with military guards. We aren’t talking about three wise men on camels; we are talking a larger military presence of Parthians traveling through Palestine – commonly done as a major trade route to and from the Mediterranean Sea.

An often ignored verse in the description of the magi’s visit is important to the story: “When King Herod heard, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.” (Matthew 2:3)

Why was not only Herod troubled but all Jerusalem as well? Perhaps the threat of Parthian military presence – especially in light of:

Antigonus’s not so distant rule of Palestine,

Jewish preference for Parthian rule over Roman rule,

and Augustus’ declaration of a non-provocative stance with Parthia.

A Parthian military entourage bearing gifts and seeking a king would certainly rattle the cage of Herod, let alone Rome. Herod was at a disadvantage, and his hesitation and accommodating spirit is understandable. We do know from non-Biblical sources that Herod played ‘both sides’ in the Roman/Parthian disputes. Diplomacy is the word.

What is even more interesting in Roman and Parthian history is that in 1 A.D./CE, Roman armies and Parthian armies gathered on the banks of the Euphrates River as their leaders met on an island in between their ranks to revisit their relationship. Could that episode be linked to the events in Jerusalem at Herod’s palace?

Needless to say, the Parthian/Roman history should not be ignored in the Christmas story, especially when looking at why Matthew included the visit of the magi in his description.

But how does this all play out metaphysically, and metaphorically?

Maybe it’s in the ‘star’ of the magi.

There are several theories regarding the presence of the star during that time period in Palestine. Some suggest a comet. Some alignment of planets. Some a combination of astrology and astronomy, which I have leaned toward as a scientific explanation, especially in light of Zoroastrianism and the Persians love for observing the stars.

What is interesting and unique to the story, however, is that no one but the magi saw the star.

Herod did not go out to see if he could see the star. His prophetic advisors didn’t run outside and cup their hand over their eyes to look skyward. Only the magi.

Perhaps the star was specific to the magi, and like the shepherds who saw a heavenly light, maybe the star itself was a metaphysical being. Stars were considered ‘heavenly beings’, and after all, it did lead, move, and eventually hover over where the baby was to be found. But no one else reported seeing such a phenomenon.

And then, the Parthian magi were warned by God in a dream – realms where only angels appear.
Unless Parthians had an awareness of the God of Israel, how would they have known and believed such a message? Matthew assumes, as we do, that the magi knew the God of Israel.

Makes one very curious, does it not?

Metaphorically, then we see Matthew using the birth of Jesus to:

remindsIsrael of a coming messiah….
threaten Jerusalem’s king….
disrupt the peace of Rome….
offer a future for Parthia….
and promise us Heaven on earth and beyond.

The Christmas story is amazing…. truly, truly amazing!!

————————————————————————————————————————–

Countdown to Christmas, Christmas Day 2023.

Luke 1:31: “… and you will call his name Jesus.”

Question:

Is Superman, Clark Kent or is Clark Kent, Superman?

I suppose I could ask if Batman is Bruce Wayne or Bruce Wayne is Batman….
or Spiderman, Peter Parker or Peter Parker, Spiderman….

but the last two really don’t fit the question as well as the first question.

At the core of the being, is it Superman or Clark Kent?

My Jewish friends are able to live more comfortably, I think, with a metaphorical God than perhaps my Christian friends are able to do so. My Jewish friends understand that:

God does not have eyes – so He cannot see;
God does not have ears – so He cannot hear;
God does not have have legs – so He cannot walk;
God does not have arms – so He cannot hug;
God does not have a stomach – so He does not hunger;
God does not have tear ducts – so He cannot weep.
Jewish people, those sincere in their faith, have a deep respect for God and His ‘otherness’ – the mysterious aspect of God that separates Him from humans; that makes Him different and beyond our imagination because our imagination always makes Him human. Granted, that ‘otherness’ understanding makes it difficult for them to embrace a divine Jesus as Christians understand and present Him.

Christians, however, struggle – I think – with the mystical. We don’t care much for a God who is mysterious and beyond our imagination. Instead, we want a:

God who has eyes – so He can see us;
God who has ears – so He can hear us;
God who has legs – so He can walk with us;
God who has arms – so He can embrace us;
God who has a stomach – so He can understand our hunger;
God who has tear ducts – so He can weep over us.

That’s why Christians like Jesus so much. He had eyes, ears, legs, arms, a stomach, and tear ducts. He was one of us. As much as I like and resonate with that idea, I guess I struggle with it. I believe, more often than not, we have ‘water-downed’ the God image to make and keep Him human. That’s why Christmas is so meaningful to us. A baby in a manger is:

vulnerable….
needy….
dependent….
and lovable.

However, a baby in a manger is:

controllable…
powerless…
non-threatening.

My perception of Christian believers is that we tend to build our theology and belief systems on convincing ourselves and others that JESUS is God. We struggle and argue ineffectively with our Jewish friends, our Muslim friends, our agnostic friends, our atheistic friends, and our liberal brothers and sisters that God fathered a human son who was also divine to usher in a kingdom of peace and goodwill – i.e. to bring Heaven to earth.

Perhaps we should rethink our focus.

What if instead of thinking that JESUS is God, we started thinking that GOD is Jesus? Semantics, you say?

I think not.

There are multiple names for God throughout Scripture, and each name represented an action or attribute of God that described His presence – His revelation – to people and nations from generation to generation.

The Israelites enslaved in Egypt knew God as deliverer – something the next generation living in their tribal regions (aka Israel) in the promised land did not experience. In fact, the primary message of the Old Testament was a constant reminder of what God had done – not what He was doing. Even today, the feasts and festivals of Jewish holidays are re-enactments of a revelation past.

When God acted and revealed Himself in various ways, the people involved named Him for what He had done.

What if we considered the message of the angel to both Joseph and Mary in naming the child Jesus was not just another common name for a Hebrew boy, but, instead….

was another name – a metaphorical name – for God?

Would that change the way we worship?
Would that change the way we perceive our faith?
Would that change the way we discuss our faith with others?

What if we reviewed Christmas as a reliving of God’s revealing Himself by the name of Jesus – would that change our focus?

If Jesus claims that He and the Father are one –
that when you see Jesus, you see the Father;

and if we believe that Jesus now sits at the ‘right hand of God’ – which is a metaphor meaning ‘equal to God’ – does it not make sense to agree with our Jewish brothers and sisters when reciting the Shema – Deuteronomy 6 – that ‘the Lord God is One’?

Instead of defending a trinitarian view of God (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), does it not make sense to celebrate Christmas as the revelation of God embodied in a human form at a specific time for a specific purpose in history?

Sure makes Paul’s description of the Christmas story in Philippians 2 more meaningful;
and brings John’s treatise on the Word becoming flesh much more palatable and understandable.

And then the Old Testament name for God we carelessly quote every Christmas season meshes the revelation and seals the thought: Immanuel – God is with us.

Its all Superman…. Clark Kent is just a name.

A God called ‘Deliverer’ (Yeshua) was born to you this day –
may you know His peace,
may you know His joy,
may you know His deliverance from oppressive circumstances, and

may this coming year bring a fresh revelation of this Metaphysical Being and His Metaphorical ways.

Merry Christmas, friends…..