An Army at Christmas?

This is a re-post from a couple years back. I really enjoyed this project, and so I revised and expanded it for this Christmas, adding some more details and such. However, the general point of it is the same. Enjoy!

“Angels we have heard on high, sweetly singing o’er the plains…” Christmas songs like this—along with stories, nativity scenes, paintings, and numerous other media—have seemingly permanently engrained a certain approach to the Christmas story on our minds; so much so that we gloss over what is right in front of our eyes, and instead we read into the text what we believe it to say. However, there is much more depth to what is actually happening in the Christmas story than what is seen in the more popular conceptions of the event. I will not be trying to tackle all the various imagery that is in this narrative, but rather I will be focusing on the appearance of the Heavenly Host and related terminology and imagery.

The first thing to notice when looking at the entire section of the narrative is the remarkable similarity between the appearance of the angels to the shepherds and the story of the man throwing a feast in Luke 14:23, where the invited guests made excuses to not come, and eventually the master had his servant compel people in the highways and hedges to come in: the lowest of the low—this is especially intriguing since the master was most likely an extremely rich person: the ultra-rich inviting in the lowest in society. Similarly, those in the katalyma, or guest room, could have witnessed the birth of the greatest king, but instead had decided to shun their own kin—and in response, the master sent his servants (angels) to compel some of the lowest in society (shepherds) to go see the birth of the Messiah.

After the birth of Jesus, a character who is only described as ἄγγελος κυρίου appears in the sky outside Bethlehem. In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), this is the phrase used to translate the Hebrew phrase “the Angel of the Lord.” Most English translations translate this phrase as “an angel of the Lord,” to reflect the fact that there is no definite article on either word. However (those who have not studied Greek syntax, bear with me for a moment), Apollonius’ Corollary dictates that in genitive constructs that are anarthrous, the two nouns will share the same semantic force, making “an angel of the Lord,” the least defensible option available. The most likely would be either, “the Angel of the Lord,” or “an angel of a lord.” In the context of the passage, it seems fairly clear that the former is to be preferred (see Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 250-252). This then attaches a special significance to this messenger, as the Angel of the Lord was His special messenger who spoke throughout the Old Testament, often with the power of God Himself.

When the angel “appeared” to them, the Greek word that is employed (ἐπέστη) almost always carries a somewhat aggressive connotation, such as coming to rebuke or argue with  (Lk 4:39; 10:40), defend true doctrine against heresy (1 Tim 4:2), coming to someone to arrest them (Ac 4:1; 6:12), or outright attacking someone (1 Th 5:3; Acts 17:5). While there are a few more passages that employ the term differently, they are the clear minority for this item. In addition, this connotation could help explain another item that is coming up shortly.

The phrase, “the glory of the Lord,” is an important part of understanding this passage. The Old Testament showed glory as something associated with God’s awe and power. It “combines awe and terror, and it simultaneously invites approach and distance.”[1] The term is used to describe the splendor of a king (such as in Mt. 4:8, 6:29; Rev. 21:24, 26). This makes it clear that these angels are not just apparitions; they are the messengers from the King, announcing a royal birth.

The next thing that deserves mention is that the shepherds were in fear. If the angel in question is the spokesman for some type of Heavenly Choir, as we often picture it, then there would be no reason for the shepherds to fear! I have never in my life had a choir director have to tell me to not be afraid of the choir, nor do I know of anyone who was terrified by a choir. Obviously, something in our picture is missing. However, most people would be terrified by having the king’s direct messenger appear to them, especially if the way in which the messenger was coming didn’t seem like the most friendly of appearances. Anyone would be terrified by that!

“And the angel said to them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy…unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”[2] This phrase presents all kinds of opportunities for shedding light on Christmas, as well as the theme of the Gospel. Why is this? Because the Greek verb used, εὐγγελίζομαι, is frequently translated in the New Testament as “I preach the gospel.” So, if the gospel is only that Christ died for our sins so we can have eternal life, then how could the gospel be preached at Jesus’ birth, before He had an opportunity to sacrificially die?  Again, something is most probably missing in our understanding of the terminology. However, the text provides the answer for us!  A savior, who is the Christ, is the message of the gospel being preached by the angel. In the shepherds’ minds, what connotation does the Christ, or Messiah, bring?  The connotation was that the Messiah would be the one who would establish The Kingdom— the one without end, and without borders (that would also do away with sin and correct the nation’s standing with God).  Israel’s long awaited King was being born that very night! As presented in Luke 2, this is the Gospel!  So, what is the connotation of the term, “Lord?”  Calling someone Lord was a very simple way to make everyone angry. The Caesars were often called Lord (although this usage became more standard after the time of Jesus’ birth).  But in the Septuagint, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is translated as Lord. So, when this baby is declared to be Messiah and Lord, He is most probably simultaneously being declared the King of all, as well as having His own divinity confirmed.

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God…” This is the central idea in the passage that is probably most often overlooked. Whenever modern Christians read the Christmas story, they most probably envision a large choir in the sky with white robes, halos, and harps, such as we sing about in our Christmas carols. However, the imagery at play here is militaristic, not “angelic” in the common understanding of the word. The Heavenly Host is almost always associated with being the Army of God. The word used here, στρατιᾶς, is frequently translated as “army,” in other passages. In fact, in the Septuagint, στρατιᾶ is used twenty-eight times, and nineteen of those times are referring to earthly armies; the other nine are all attached to “heavenly” and most of them refer to an army, with a few possibly referring to the stars.[3] “This heavenly host is a vast number of angelic beings, mighty and noble, who relate to Yahweh as knights related to feudal kings: in homage, in service and in battle. They are a vast army, loyal to the purposes and desires of God.[4]” A new King had just been declared as such by the chief royal messenger of the High King who was then surrounded by the Military of that King, who are there to insure that there is no question as to the validity of the proclamation of the baby’s Messianic responsibilities. 

Furthermore, the fact that it is a multitude of angels that appears further illustrates the fact that this is God announcing a new King. A multitude insures that no one thought a lone angel had gone off the reservation and gotten lost on his way to announce the birth of some other king. A massive heavenly army shows without a shadow of doubt that God was announcing that this baby was the new King.

At the end of the earthly ministry of Jesus, He references to having this army at His disposal: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53) We see here a “legion” which is another military term. The Heavenly Host is the army that the Messiah has at His disposal if He so chooses to make use of it.

“Saying, glory to God in the highest, and upon Earth peace, among men goodwill.”  This phrase is where I see the focus of the arrival of the Heavenly Army. This is the ultimate display of “Peace through strength.” With a background in politics, I am acquainted with the idea of peace through strength: this is usually tossed around when trying to increase defense spending by arguing that by building the most powerful army the world has ever seen, a nation will promote peace since no one would dare attack the nation—and if they did attack, then they could be quickly and efficiently destroyed by overwhelming force. This is the exact same thing at play in Luke 2, only magnified. Angels are many times invisible to the naked eye; they are never recorded as being killed by a human; and, they are devastatingly effective at wiping out an opposing army since a single angel can destroy 185,000 soldiers in a single night (2 Kings 19:35). In short, it is a force that no other army can even hope to be able to stand against.  But this army isn’t here just for show; they are here to back up the proclamation of the new King of Israel, showing that He had the most powerful military backing Him because He was the one appointed by God to provide redemption for the nation, and the entire world. When the fiercest fighter declares that a fight is over, it is over—even if he has to throw some more punches to actually finish it. Similarly, when the Heavenly Army, on mission from God, declares that there is a new King, and that peace has arrived, there is peace, even if the Devil, and his actions through the nations, needs to be defeated first. 

“Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” This illustrates the earlier discussion of using “Lord” for the name of God.  What I find interesting is that there is no question of whether they were dreaming this, or if someone had spiked their drinks; rather, they all know that this was from God, and they therefore go to see the new King.

“And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them.” Much like folks today, it was hard for whoever was around to believe that the army of God had appeared, and told these shepherds that this baby was the Messiah. I am sure that even if they did believe the shepherds, they were wondering, “Why didn’t He tell kings, or the richest of society, or at least some of the pillars of the community? How come we didn’t see the army?” But God had chosen to go to the outskirts of society, and bring in those who would most probably not be considered worthy of such an honor because those were willing to actually believe the message and obey without delay.

So, what is the point of all this? Simple: there is a new king who is to rule over the entire world, backed by Almighty God and the Heavenly Army. If He is an actual King, and we mean that in a more significant way than simply using the title in our songs and prayers, then that means that the Christian is actually a citizen of a new country—The Kingdom of God. As such, his first and foremost priority is to follow Christ and to be obedient to Christ’s commands.  However, the modern Christian often places allegiance to his country, or some other source, above his allegiance to his Messiah.  A good example of this misplaced allegiance is the Christmas Truce of 1914. On Christmas Day, the British and German forces stopped killing each other, celebrated the day together, and returned to their war the next day. These were obviously people who at least had a passing knowledge of Christ so that they wanted to celebrate His birth, but the very next day they were killing each other again. Imagine how Christ would have reacted to this! He who said to bless those who curse you, and return good for evil, and yet His own followers kill each other at the command of their government! These were brothers in Christ, citizens in His nation, killing each other for an earthly nation which will pass away (Psalm 2). 

Another example of misplaced allegiance is the allegiance to materialism. Christ repeatedly told His followers to sell what they have, and give to the poor. And instead, we have turned His birth into a day of receiving even more things than we already possess. And, yes, many will be more generous at this time of the year and give to the poor, but the commands to clothe the naked and feed the hungry are not things to be taken care of once a year, but should be a life long commitment of the believer.

Keeping Christ in Christmas means nothing if you do not recognize Christmas as the birth of the Christ, the birth of the true king whose Kingdom is the entire world, and respond as such.

---

[1] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 330.

[2] This and all other Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

[3] Verlyn D. Verbrugge. A Not-So-Silent Night: The Unheard Story of Christmas and Why it Matters (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009), 69.

[4] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 373.

Academia and Ecclesia

To begin this discussion with full disclosure, I need to state: I am a grad student; I plan on pursuing a Ph.D.; I wish to remain in academics (I did not come to Criswell with a call to pastoral ministry).

Now with that dispatched, there is a rather disturbing trend I have noticed among my peers. Maybe it is a phenomenon that is only related to Criswell College.What is this trend, you ask? It is the fact that a shockingly large number of students seem to desire a career in academics. Students who started working in biblical studies in order to work in the church are seemingly derailed into academics. There are a few reasons that I think this trend has occurred; if you think I missed anything or am wrong on a point, feel free to let me know: I am just attempting to discover the underlying causes of a significant problem.

Respect for Professors

In the seminary/Bible college context, the professors are larger-than-life. In biblical studies, the adage that, “those who cannot do, teach,” is simply not true. The professors understand languages that are out of our grasp, they shake the foundations of our beliefs, and they propose interpretational constructs that have far more coherence with the text than we had ever known. Within the first year or two, the Bible starts to make sense in a way it never did before! Any question or opposing argument is answered with ease. In short, many of the faculty (particularly the really good members) exhibit a type of intelligence that hardly even seems human, which students wish to imitate. They wish to be that knowledgeable and thus feel the need to follow in their chosen career

Lack of Respect for Most Pastors

This is the flip side of the previous point. Many pastors are uneducated, or under-educated, which makes those pastors appear all the worse when compared side-by-side with well-educated professors. Sure, there are some excellent pastors, who students look up to, but it seems like those are the exception to the rule. In addition, many of the sharper professors will make their point in the classroom by making a bit of fun at the expense of those pastors who hold to the opposing point of view. While this seems like some innocent humor at the time, it sends a subtle message: “If you want to be intelligent and capable with the text, be a professor. If you want to be a punch line, be a pastor.”

Ability to Practice a “Pure” Christianity (Ideology, Theology, General Praxis)

This one is big. Much of biblical studies are oriented around the first century and understanding Scripture as a first century Christian would. The problem is that we do not live in the first century, and thus there has to be a certain amount of bridging. However, when bridging nearly two thousand years, there tends to be certain amounts of compromise. For instance, the early church had no buildings and staff, so when Paul speaks of Christians giving, he isn’t speaking of giving for a pastor’s salary or the building fund; rather, Paul is speaking about helping to fund missions or (more commonly) helping out the poor among them. However, today, we have staff, electric bills, building programs, and a host of other costs that leaves a very small amount of money for taking care of the poor. So, if I were to pastor then I would have to either compromise my “pure” belief about how the church should spend money, or I would have to convince my church to spend differently (maybe by cutting my own salary!) But, if I were to teach in a school, I could do ministry, without having to compromise. I could practice a pure Christianity, maybe even pastor a small home church with a couple of my students (this is obviously from a student’s viewpoint, not necessarily corresponding to reality). In the church, I see a compromised Christianity. In the school I see a “pure” Christianity that is unburdened by the realities of the twenty first century church. Why would I want to spend my life attempting to reform, when I can make a living standing outside the system and telling them what they are doing wrong?

Ability to Avoid the Pragmatics of Church Service

This is closely related to the previous point. The modern pastor is not just a “teacher” or a “preacher,” but he is an administrator, a counselor, a leader, and a janitor. The pastor can wear dozens of hats, particularly in a smaller church. Obstinate members raise trouble, deacons will institute power struggles, a widow’s yard needs mowed, and a member’s funeral service needs to be conducted. It is easy to study something, and explain that to others; it is much harder to go put the book down and visit someone in the hospital: especially if they have been a troublemaker in the past! Students realize that pastoring entails all of these things, but it seems like there is an option where you can do ministry without the negative pragmatics by staying in the school.

Conclusion

While there are other reasons students might choose to not pursue pastoring (including potential sin issues), it seems to me that these are enough to show why students would understand teaching to be a much “better” career choice, but they all fail to take into account one critical piece of information: the school is not what it is all about! The school’s mission is to equip pastors. Teachers are needed, but they are only support staff. A successful race car driver needs to have a pit chief to supervise his pit stops. But for that team to win, the driver has to drive: if he stops at the pit, and decides he wants to be a crew chief as well, the race will be forfeited. It is important for all of us in the academy to remember to keep the main point the main point.

Republican Blogger in Exile

Some of you may be wondering why I have been so silent on this blog in reference to the political race, particularly owing to my once avid involvement in politics, and my role that I adopted in 2008 of "Republican Blogger in Exile." Shouldn't I be itching to be doing my part to return Republicans to power? Not really. Why is this? It is due to two main reasons.

First, in 2008, I was a novice to Biblical studies: I loved politics, but knew nothing more about theology than what I had learned in church. As I learned that Jesus was Lord, and that that term had political ramifications, my entire way of viewing the world changed. In response to this, my political positions started changing: the US was no longer my chief entity that I needed to serve. Thus, in my pursuit of King Jesus, my values shifted away from some Republican positions, I softened on immigration, war (and military spending), watching out for the poor. So, in many ways, I am no longer a Republican in exile because Republicans have been booted from office, but rather I am now a Republican in exile because many Republicans have exiled me from the party: “You don’t think freedom is worth killing over? You liberal. And you don’t think we should deport all of the illegal aliens? Why don’t you just become a Democrat?” It is important to note at this point that I still consider myself a conservative, I just don’t toe the line when it appears that my study of Scripture should lead me elsewhere.

Second, is the nature of the 2012 election. I held my nose and voted for McCain in ’08. But we had to go nominate another moderate? Romney may have truly changed his mind on abortion and other issues that are near to my heart, but the timing was far too politically expedient for me to believe it. Tie that to comments from Romney’s campaign this spring that he was an “etch-a-sketch” candidate, and I simply do not trust him. I do not believe he shares my core political beliefs, and I honestly have no clue what he would actually believe and work on once he was in office. In addition, let’s mention the elephant in the room: Romney is Mormon! Those very same people who once made outlandish claims that Obama was a secret Muslim (even though Obama has claimed to be a believer) are now the ones who are willingly voting for a man who is part of a cult. And in many cases (such as Billy Graham) the political support of a candidate is leading believers to blur the line between orthodoxy and heresy. So, I couldn’t support Romney. Combining  not falling in complete lock-step with my party and being extremely unhappy with their nominee leads to a great big “meh” about the election.

I believe Americans have a responsibility to vote. I couldn’t vote for Romney. I don’t want Obama to win either (which is why I have been almost completely silent on this blog). So my solution for myself? I wrote in Barry Creamer, PhD. Your vote is up to you: vote your conscience. Vote for who you think God would have you vote. Regardless of who wins, Jesus is still Lord, he still reigns.

James Holmes and Gun Control

While this post is not going to discuss the ethics of Christians using violence to defend themselves and others, I am going to focus on discussing one point of interest in the debate that is currently swirling about gun control.

First, let me respond to the emotional reaction to Holmes using an "assault weapon". As any gun enthusiast can tell you, "assault weapons" are a made-up category, designed to bring to mind "assault rifles" which are the military grade weapons. The only thing that makes an AR-15 any different from my "harmless" Ruger 10/22 is that it fires slightly larger bullets (which are still significantly smaller than many other rifle bullets), and it looks scarier. Both are semi-automatic, both can fire quickly, both have box magazines, both are deadly, only one is considered an "assault weapon".

Second, as a standard rule, it is never good to act upon emotions. Nearly thirty people a day die from drunk drivers, but there are few mainstream media calls for Prohibition to be brought back. If we do not let those thirty people a day to emotionally impact us, then we should be careful about letting our emotions get carried away by twelve deaths.

Now, most argue that if the laws were different, Holmes would not have been able to acquire the weapons which he used. This may or may not be true. What I am more interested in is this: they (such as this post) claim that even if there had been a CHL holder in the audience, he would have been unable to harm Holmes, since Holmes was wearing body armor. But they don't think about the last part of that phrase. Why not ban the vest? Contrary to popular opinion, CHL holders are not wild-eyed vigilantes, who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Rather, they are trained (both by the required course, as well as additional individual training, typically), responsible citizens. Now, would it have been difficult for a CHL to stop Holmes? Certainly. In fact, in a pistol vs. rifle match, it is almost certain that the CHL would be killed. But having someone shoot back would at least have shaken up Holmes, and maybe distracted him long enough for someone else to tackle him. But you know what would really have evened the odds? If Holmes had not been able to purchase a ballistic vest.

People will acquire illegal items. Neither outlawing the gun, nor the ballistic vest, will prevent something like Aurora from happening. But people want to feel like they are doing something to prevent this type of thing from happening again. But if you want to ban something, instead of starting the slippery slope which would eventually disarm those who would protect themselves (and firearms were banned at the theater, even though CO allows CHLs, which just disarmed those who wound up being victims), why not ban the thing which protected Holmes from citizens defending themselves? And why not give the citizens a fair chance of defending themselves?

SIDE NOTE: In April, a massacre in Aurora (same town) was prevented when the gunman was shot by a church-goer, who happened to be an off-duty police officer.

Lakewood Church

The lights went out and the crowd in the stadium started screaming as a platform was slowly raised into view to reveal the band that was blasting out a jam. Was I at a rock concert? No, rather I was at Lakewood Church, while visiting my family in Houston. Inside of the building, the “sanctuary” was massive. It even had that foggy air that is seen inside of other sports stadiums.

If I were to describe the atmosphere in one word, that word would be: showmanship. From the lights flashing in rhythm with the music as they panned over the crowd, to the lead guitarist looking at his cameraman (he had a cameraman who stayed with him the entire service), flipping his hair and flashing a grin as he ripped off another solo. Ushers made sure and seated people together with no gaps, and only turned the lights on over a section once it was full, so that you could not see the empty sections.

            As I mentioned before, when the service started, all the lights were put out and as the invisible band started cranking, the crowd started roaring. Suddenly, several spotlights flipped on to show the band coming into view as their platform rose into view from beneath the floor. The music was loud—loud enough that you could not hear yourself. I had the feeling that I was off-key, so I had to plug my ear just to be able to tell. The music lasted for an hour. Osteen’s wife then prayed for all the families and quoted from Ephesians, saying for men to love their wives, but she changed the part for women, saying that they should respect their husbands (instead of submit).

            Osteen’s sermon was much like what one might see on tv. It was full of positive affirmations, and he only quoted one verse (Gal. 6:9) during the entire sermon (and that one verse was only read once). He talked for some time about not becoming weary and not fainting. He urged everyone to take life one step at a time.

            After he finished “preaching”, he led everyone in the sinner’s prayer, and said that those who had not previously prayed it were not believers. And then asked for those people to stand; I would guess that about 150 people stood up. Then the band’s platform rose into vision again, they started playing, and the crowds started leaving.