Holy Roman Gods, Batman

Let's take a trip in the way back machine to the Roman Empire and look at three dudes.

First, Augustus. He started out as Gaius Octavius Thurinus, and later was named Gaius Julius Caesar. 27BC is where the title Augustus comes in -- a title which subsequent emperors were also given. Go look up a list of Roman emperors. It's interesting to see all the man-glorifying crap that was slapped on the end of their names. The Augustus title is not a political title, but a religious one. It stood for authority over humanity and nature, meaning something like "the illustrious one" or "the revered one". He also used the title "divi filius" for himself quite often, meaning "the son of a god". On top of that, he allowed worship of himself as a living god. When Augustus died, he was deified like Julius.

Second, Tiberius, the next emperor. Like his predecessor, he was given the same title Augustus, but he didn't go around flaunting divine titles and he refused to be worshiped as a living god. He didn't care much for temples dedicated to him either, but he did allow one to be built in Smyrna. Tiberius was very unpopular by the time of his death, and the senate refused to vote him divine honors.

Third, Caligula, who had the phrase "Let there be one Lord, one King". Of course, it seems he thought that "one" should be him. He appeared in public dressed as various Roman gods, referred to himself as a god when meeting with politicians, presented himself as a god to the public, replaced the heads of various Roman gods on statues replaced with his own, and encouraged people to worship him as a living god, Neos Helios -- the New Sun. Got pride?

Now, this phrase "divi filius" is not the same as "dei filius" -- "divus" seems to be lesser than the "deus" used for Roman gods like Jupiter and Mars. Dei filius is what the early Christians used for Jesus -- the divine Son of God, who is the same "stuff" as God. In other words, God in the flesh.

So, given this little history lesson, I find two things worthy of mention.

First, I find it curious that when Jesus was walking around on the earth, the emperor at the time, Tiberius, refused to be worshiped as a living god. In contrast, Jesus accepted worship from people, from the wise men who came to visit him as a toddler to after his resurrection. The emperor before and the emperor after didn't, but this one did. Curious, indeed.

Second, it seems that the claims of the early Christians could certainly piss off some leadership. Here, with Augustus, Caligula, and beyond, you have men born into wealth and power who say either "I'm a god" or "I'm a son of a god", encourage temples to be built to them, encourage worship of themselves, and so on. All the while you have Jesus' followers saying that there is one God who became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, born poor in a no name town to a teenage girl. On top of that, the title they use for him puts him above all, including deified emperors and greater "gods" like Jupiter.

There's quite a difference between a man trying to be God and God becoming a man. The former sends one to hell, and the latter saves many from it. I'll take door number two, Jesus.

John And Jesus

Around the time of Jesus' ministry on earth, students of a particular teacher would serve them. If they lived today, they'd get their Starbucks, pick up their dry cleaning, and wash their car. There, however, was one job they would not touch with a ten foot pole -- untie the teacher's sandals and was his feet. That job was left for the lowest of slaves.

Enter John the baptizer, who says that he is preparing the way for the Lord and told people to bear fruit that lines up with repentance from sin, rather than relying on their ancestry to be right with God. Some people think he might be the messiah, the savior, the one promised in prophecy that people were expectantly waiting for.

What does John say to this? "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." (Luke 3:16) So John says that there is someone coming, and he is not worthy to untie his sandals, the job relegated to the lowest of slaves in that culture. The one to come must be great, indeed.

That one is Jesus. So what does Jesus say about John? "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John." (Luke 7:28a) So, by Jesus' description, John the baptizer is the greatest man that has ever lived. Yet, John is not worthy to untie Jesus' sandals.

Now fast forward a bit to the Last Supper. What does Jesus do? He washes the feet of his disciples. He does the job of the lowest of slaves, yet he is the one who is much greater than the greatest person that ever lived. Why? Mark records Jesus saying to his disciples "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42b-45)

So to be great, those who follow Christ must not be great as those in the world attempt to demonstrate greatness, but rather as Jesus demonstrates greatness -- through serving others in humility. The first glorifies a man; the second glorifies God, and Jesus is all about glorifying God.

For the one who does this and belongs to Jesus, it's good news, as "the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than [John]." (Luke 7:28b) The lowest in Jesus' kingdom is greater than the greatest person who ever lived. That's awesome.

So how does one get into the kingdom then? How does one belong to Jesus? How does one find the ability to live a life for God and others instead of a life for self? He doesn't do it through his own strength, that's for sure. He does it through the power of God's Spirit in him -- the result of a transformed heart, mind, and life.

As Jesus told Nicodemus, "I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3). Make no mistake, a man cannot brag that it was his own decision to "become born again" -- rather, it is God doing the transforming work in a person's life, for "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

So what do you do if you are not a born again believer in Jesus Christ who has had his heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh that wants to live and die for God? Agree with God that you are in fact a sinner with no hope of saving yourself, and then turn from your sin to Jesus, who paid the price for your sin so that you don't have to. Ask him to save you. He doesn't say "no" to that.

Let's recap:

- John the baptizer is the greatest guy who ever lived
- If you're in God's kingdom, you're greater than John
- Jesus, bringer of the kingdom, was the ultimate example of a servant leader
- We're supposed to be like Jesus
- The only way to be like Jesus is to be born again
- The only way to be born again is to repent and trust Jesus for salvation

See, the external is not enough. Jesus helps fix the problem at the core -- our hearts, the internal. Jesus gives us a heart for God, a heart for him. If you don't have that, you might just be externally religious, looking good to men on the outside but dead on the inside. That's worse than being externally wicked, looking bad to men on the outside. If you're in the latter category, repent of your sin and turn to Jesus. If you're in the former category, repent of your religion and turn to Jesus.

There's a lot of variety in what a man may need to turn from -- but there is only one he needs to turn to.

Grace and peace, friends.

Do What For Who?

I was listening to a co-worker at lunch today describe some of the annoyances and other issues going on in his life. I've heard similar accounts a time or two before and couldn't help but think later "man, he needs Jesus in his life." Now that I say it, I wonder how many times one of my Christian brothers, and former co-worker, thought the same thing about me. This person is not very receptive to Christianity from what I can tell, and I admittedly don't try to steer any conversation in that direction with him. In my own weakness and self-righteousness, I admit I don't really care to have him in the lunch group because of the attitude I perceive he has toward Christianity -- as well as the worldly topics of conversation.

Now that I write it, it sounds like I have too much of a religious attitude that I need to repent of and get dealt with. After all, it was the Pharisees and teachers of the law who were the worst ones in Jesus' day -- and he told them to repent as well, being the worst ones enslaved by pride.

But that particular shortcoming is not what I wanted to deal with in this post -- rather it is my lame motivation behind the thinking "man, you need Jesus in your life." In this case, and others, I thought a person needed Jesus in his or her life because of some issue or attitude -- usually having to do with relationships with other people. While it is true that being transformed by God's Spirit can certainly improve strained relationships, that is absolutely the wrong motivation for coming to Christ.

I am somewhat sickened that the attitude revealed here reminds me of false teacher Joel Olsteen and his message that God just wants you to be rich, healthy, and have good relationships. What a load of crap. How was Jesus' relationship with people? Well, his family thought he was crazy during his earthly ministry. Many of his followers left him when he said something too tough for them to swallow. He was continually at odds with the religious leaders, who eventually murdered him because he claimed to be God.

When speaking about how people should view him, Jesus said "I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:35-37)

Clearly, Jesus is not all about fixing our personal relationships. He is all about us repenting of our sin and coming into a relationship with him, and God the Father through him.

And that is what the motivation for pointing someone to Jesus should be. It should not be "hey man, turn to Jesus, he can make stuff in your life better." Jesus can do that, but that doesn't mean he will. In fact, some things might get a whole lot worse, depending on your perspective. After all, those who hate Jesus don't care much for his followers, either. Think about the typical Hindu or Muslim on the other side of the world who is the first in their family to come to Christ -- it is not going to go well for them, considering how coupled religion, culture, and family are in much of the non-western world.

So again, our motivation should not be "Jesus can fix some of your problems" but rather "Jesus has already fixed the one big problem." He is, after all, Lord and Savior, not Genie and Magician.

Shalom, friends.

The Genealogy Of Jesus

Jesus is probably the most talked about ever. As well, he is probably the most disagreed about person ever, despite having a rock solid record of his coming to Earth, his ministry while here, his sacrificial death on the cross to atone for our sins, his bodily resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. As we approach Christmas where believers focus on the incarnation -- God becoming flesh in the person of Jesus Christ -- let's take a quick look to see what the Bible has to say about his ancestry, as presented in the four gospel accounts.

Mark is easy; he doesn't deal with it. Maybe that's a little weird, but it is not without purpose. Mark was writing to a Roman audience -- generally a multicultural audience who didn't care a whole lot about genealogy and cared quite a bit about getting things done. Mark's gospel account also happens to be the most fast paced and action oriented of the four. Jesus went here, said this, did that, went there, did this, and so on. Jesus was a doer, and he got the job done.

Luke is different; he's an investigator. He's writing the book for a guy named Theophilus, who was taught about Jesus and wanted to know the truth behind what he was taught -- or if it was all bunk. From what I understand from people who know Greek, well, Luke's writing is very articulate. He was also a doctor. In short, he's a really smart guy bankrolled by a really rich guy who's funds aren't going to run dry -- he did his homework. And what does that homework say? Jesus is from the line of David, through his adoptive father Joseph. Luke also makes sure to record that Mary's pregnancy is a miracle from the Holy Spirit -- not some horrid offense against the betrothed couple where Mary had physical sex, violating the sanctity of their marriage.

Matthew was a follower of Jesus, and he wrote to a Jewish audience, so he's got a different agenda. Things not important to those Mark and Luke wrote to are of vital importance to Matthew's audience. Right up front, in the first sentence, Matthew makes sure to say that Jesus was both a son of David and a son of Abraham. He also, like Luke, makes sure to record that Mary's pregnancy is a miracle from the Holy Spirit, plus he adds that Joseph didn't even have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. I think this is so there was no question at all -- not only was Mary a virgin when she became pregnant, she was a virgin when she gave birth. On top of that, Matthew does something not normally done, in that he includes the names of women in his genealogy of Jesus -- including Mary, which seems to imply that she also is from the line of David. Again, this is probably done so there is no question -- if adoptive father Joseph and biological mother Mary are both from the line of David, there's no argument!

And now we get to John. John is writing to Greeks, who are steeped in philosophy and don't really know a whole heck of a lot about Jewish history and religion. So rather than go down that road, John choose another one. Using terms like the Logos (the Word), and echoing the beginning of scripture, he shows that Jesus is the eternal Son of God -- the second person of the Trinity become the God-man on earth. Jesus' earthly line doesn't matter here -- the fact that he is the eternal creator and sustainer of all things does.

So there we have the God-man's coming to earth recorded from three different perspectives. Why does it matter?

Prophecy and truth.

If Jesus was just the product of two teenagers messing around, the Bible would be a horrid lie. He would not be the promised savior from the line of king David in fulfillment of prophecy, and other things the Bible says about Jesus would not necessarily be true. If Jesus is not God in the flesh come to save us, we who claim the name of Christ are terribly duped and are spreading evil. Really it's the same issue as Paul brings up in one of his comments on the resurrection of Jesus -- which says that if Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead, we're rightfully the laughing stock of the world. Thank God that is not the case, and that we do have good evidence, historically and experientially, that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

So what about prophecy as it applies to the birth of Christ over two thousand years ago? There's a lot that can be written here -- more than I know about myself for certain -- but let me throw out a couple that I think are particularly relevant to my post.

First, Micah 5:2 -- "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days." Who's origin would be from ancient days? No mere mortal man for sure. Biblically that leaves the messiah to be an angel, as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, or God himself, who Jesus actually is.

Second, Isaiah 9:6 -- "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Exactly who is going to be born that we're going to call "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father"? No mere human for certain. No angel or other created being, either. You don't call anything created "Mighty God" nor "Everlasting Father" -- even Jesus himself was the one who said "call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Only one can fit this prophetic description, and that is the God-man Jesus.

Let's also not forget a few other comments recorded early on in the gospel accounts about the baby Jesus. Mary was told to name him Jesus in the first place, because he would save people from their sins, and Jesus means "savior." The name for your child meant more back then in that culture than they do to us westerners. Also, when Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple, a prophet there said that he had finally seen God's salvation and could now die, and a prophetess gave thanks to God and started telling people who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem that he, Jesus, was it. On top of that, the wise men who understood prophecy about the promised messiah came to find Jesus and worship him, bringing him gold (for a king), incense (for a priest), and myrrh (for his death, the purpose for which he came!). Now please note, when these wise men worship Jesus, who was a toddler at the oldest by then, no one rebukes them -- and people have been rebuked in other places in the Bible for worshiping angels. Angels certainly are, by Biblical description, much more intimidating than a kid in a diaper. So who is this child again?

God in the flesh. Our Lord. Our Savior. Jesus Christ.