Isaiah

Christmas gives us 3 choices for lectionaries, for those who do Christmas Eve, morning and evening services. I won’t be covering all of them. We can begin with a classic from Isaiah about the coming of a child; for unto us a child is born. This was immortalized much later in Handel’s Messiah. There is no indication early on that these words were associated with the birth of Christ. These are part of the story of Ahaz discussed during Advent.

Can we salvage anything from this confusion of history? Maybe. We can see new language being used in the book of Isaiah. This is sometimes called the beginning of the Messianic age. I’m not familiar enough with it to know if this was developed later, after the New Testament had gained sufficient following, or if it was a developing idea in Judaism. Other “ages” are referred to, The Age of the Patriarchs, such as Abraham and Moses. The Age of Israel when the tribes were united. Then, as that kingdom experienced troubles, a better future needed to be envisioned, so we come to this age of Messiahs.

An objective view of these passages can see some change in tone. A more cynical view might see the same old promises of a god that will bring something new but never delivers. A closer look at these particular verses shows us a bit of poetry about hope, about an end to war and joy that comes with it. Anyone who has held a baby knows the feeling of connecting with the parents, the community that supports them, and the hope that is symbolized by all of those forces coming together to support a new life. A life that is nothing but a wiggling, cooing possibility. Even in the worst of circumstances, when we look at the new born, we think of what might be.

When this Isaiah passage and the birth narratives were written, it seems more likely they were thinking in these universal terms than they were in any specific fulfillment of prophecy. That these universal motifs have been called “god” is something you can choose to preach about or not. The names listed in verse 6 that sound familiar are “throne names”. Kings would adopt names like this after they came to power. It is so common to call Jesus the Prince of Peace, it probably comes as a surprise to many that none of the apostles said it.

In Iaiah 62, we see the metaphor of preparing the city as a way of preparing a culture for better times. The city would most likely have been in ruins at the time this passage was written.

In Isaiah 52, the people are just returning from the exile in Babylon. This is not a military victory. The text presents it like a cosmic victory, with messengers bringing the news from the battlefield that God has won.

Luke

The Luke passages should be familiar to most. It is the Christmas story. It appears in two of the three suggested lections. I don't think I need to repeat all the historical analysis of whether or not there was actually a census or the logical questions of why they would have people return to their “own towns”. I recently even heard that archeology has determined Nazareth was not yet a town at the claimed time of this claimed birth. It might be that the traditions grew out of the Nazarene traditions. It could even be mistranslated. None of that matters unless you want this to be a true story, and I have no interest in trying make a virgin birth story true.

I do find the “manger” tidbit interesting. Much is made of that, eventually morphing into talking donkeys. What got lost in history is that mangers were commonly used to hold a child when they were first born. Homes were combined with quarters for animals and children often did not survive long. It was nothing like today where people repaint a room and buy special furniture in preparation for their children. The manger would more likely have been a stone structure built in to the rest of the house, not the wooden variety we see in manger scenes everywhere today.

Luke gives us angels because he was writing to a middle class Roman audience that would want angels in their stories. Of course the central point is, this is the Messiah, and the Messiah is bringing peace. In the following passages, Luke tells us of Mary and Joseph hanging around Jerusalem and a boyhood story. In Matthew 2:13, they are fleeing to Egypt because Herod is going to kill them. Luke was written after Matthew, but no matter what, they can't both be right.

Titus 2:11-14

Titus is another 3 chapter epistle. It is also a pseudepigrapha, okay forgery, it's a forgery. Paul didn't write it.

It gives a very concise description of the role of Jesus in Christianity, so it’s fitting for the coming of the Messiah, even though it was written much later. Titus does not stray as far from the teachings of tolerance and inclusiveness as the also pseudepigraphical books of Timothy, but it still requires some effort to harmonize it with earlier Pauline works.

I simply can't accept the substitutionary atonement story, and I have no alternative interpretation for it. There are many to choose from however. Tony Jones spent a few years exploring them in his 2015 book, “Did God Kill Jesus?” if you are interested. In Titus, the language is somewhat cleansed, but this is basically a blood sacrifice. One man is sacrificed so the rest of use are purified.

Titus 3:4-7

Here, our psuedo-Paul takes another stab at mentioning that we are not saved by works. Followers of Peter would have disagreed. Having spent most of my Christian years in a United Methodist church, I definitely lean toward the “works” camp. And now that I don't care what the Bible tells me to do, I'm pretty sure my actions here on earth matter. They matter to the people around me and to people I've never met, and people who will be around for a while after I'm gone.

I'm not concerned about having a lasting legacy or being remembered for 3,000 years, certainly not for eternity. I'm not saying anyone should or should not attempt to create such a legacy, only that it is clear that we all make some kind of mark. Good ideas will be carried on if they are adopted by enough people. Arguing about whether faith or works will get us into heaven is probably not a good idea. Instead of trying to pick from a list of good ideas, as if we are sitting in a restaurant deciding between vinaigrette or Blue cheese, perhaps we should be looking for ways to generate good ideas.

John 1:1-14

The Gospel of John is not heard from much in “regular” time of the lectionary. He is brought out for special occasions though, and this verse is read every Christmas. It is the version of Christ that Christians handed down beginning with when it was written, sometime on or after the turn of the first century, and gaining strength over the next few centuries. It may seem perfectly normal to you, but there was fierce debate about Jesus existing from the beginning and coming into this world “so that all might believe through him”.

Through the lectionary this coming year, we will explore Matthew's very Jewish perspective. At other times, we explore the other two, and if we are curious, we now know there were other gospels. The gospel of Thomas says the knowledge of Jesus is in all of us and there are ways to access it. Elaine Pagels has an excellent book on this, “Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas”. She says the gospel of John speaks strongly and often directly at the beliefs of Thomasian followers. For the author of John, the way to heaven is through believing in Jesus. Unfortunately he doesn't give specific testable steps to take, but he is more clear on this than any other gospel, apocryphal or otherwise.

You may accept that this version of the gospel is the correct one, but you would have trouble arguing that the book of John follows logically from the other three. Even the most devout of preachers will call those others the synoptic gospels, an acknowledgment that this one is not like them. Nowhere else will you find a clear statement like verse 2 in this the opening chapter. No genealogy is needed this time, no birth narrative. This is God. The one people have had so much trouble trying to figure out. Now he's here.

We get a bit of an explanation for John the Baptist. He was just a man, although he was sent by God. He wasn't the light, but he came to testify to it. The true light did come, but there was still that old problem. People still have to get to know him and accept him. If you do, you get the power. If you don't, well, your fate is not so certain.

You can feel the struggle this author is going through. I don't doubt he believes he has tapped into something, that he has figured out a way to mend the world, but he is looking around after 70 plus years of these teachings being spread throughout the Roman Empire, and things are getting worse, not better. He believes that his acceptance of Christ has filled him with the truth, but he sees most of the world still fighting and being less than gracious to their neighbors.

He didn't invent this idea, but his writings are the ones that thrived while others were lost. Some have since been found, but it's safe to say some are lost forever. We can only speculate what world we would live in now if Thomas's gospel had been the 4th gospel in the canon. Children would learn in Sunday School that they merely have to be aware of the power they already have. Or what if Peter's ideas of works had drown out the idea of faith alone. It's hard to imagine having to convince someone they already have the power within them to transform the world and they can start doing something right now with their own hands to make it happen. Maybe a few lazy ones, but most already do that. Of course, that message can get just as screwed up as the John message. People can argue about being aware in the right way or doing the correct work.

Merry Christmas.