Author: GCI Media

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Though we are in the Christmas season when we celebrate the joy of Jesus’ birth, we are in shock following two horrific events. In the Philippines, Typhoon Pablo killed over 1000 people with 900 more still missing and 80,000 left homeless. In Newtown, Connecticut, 20 children and six teachers and administrators were brutally murdered by a 20-year-old gunman who also murdered his own mother. We grieve these terrible losses and struggle to make sense of them.

For my thoughts about the Newtown shootings, click on the picture at left to watch the new Speaking of Life program. In this program, I point out that, while there are no easy answers, it helps to have an eternal perspective.

That perspective is offered by the Christmas story itself. It’s the story of the Son of God coming to be with us in the midst of our sin and sorrow, in order to bring us his salvation—the ultimate healing. As we thank God for sending his Son, born in a manger about 2,000 years ago, let us pray for those who are suffering and grieving in the wake of these tragedies and let us also pray for our Lord’s return in glory when all tears of sorrow will be wiped away and all this world’s wrongs will be made right.

The word Christmas

Our appreciation of the Christian meaning of Christmas is enhanced by understanding the origin of the word Christmas. It is the contraction of the words Christ’s mass, which is derived from the Middle English Christemasse and the Old English Cristes mæsse. The suffix –mas is from maesse, which means “festival,” “feast day” or “mass.” Maesse is derived from the common Latin word messa, which means “dismissal” and is taken from the formal Latin word missa, the feminine past participle of mittere, meaning “to let go” or “to send.”

Over time, missa came to signify the Eucharistic service—a practice that continues in Catholic churches, probably because the concluding words of the service are “ite, missa est” meaning, “go, the mass is over,” or “the prayer has been sent.” You will find this sort of information in an etymological dictionary, like the one online at www.etymonline.com/.

Celebrating and proclaiming the Messiah’s coming

As the etymology of the word Christmas indicates, the Christian celebration of this day has its roots in the idea that Jesus has been sent to us. The church gathers on Christmas to worship and take communion in recognition of his coming through his birth to Mary in Bethlehem. From this gathering, the church is sent out (dismissed) to proclaim this good news in all the world.

When Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist regained his voice, he proclaimed a rich prophecy concerning the coming Messiah (from the Hebrew word Māšîaḥ, meaning “anointed one,” which in Greek is Christós and in English is Christ). In Luke 1:78, Zechariah refers to the long-promised Messiah as “the dayspring” (KJV) or “the rising sun” (NIV), sent “to us from heaven.” The Greek word translated “dayspring” or “rising sun” is anatole—a word used by Greek speakers in two ways. First it is used to refer to the light of the sun and the stars rising—also meaning, “from the east,” since the sun rises in the east and sunrise is another way of saying daybreak or dawn. Second, anatole is used to refer to a “shoot” or “branch.” It was used this way in the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek) to convey the meaning “branch” found in Jeremiah 23:5 and Zechariah 3:8 and 6:12.

Thus, in Luke 1:78, anatole could be translated “the branch from on high,” a reference similar to Isaiah 4:2, “the Branch of the Lord.” However, the translators chose “dayspring” (KJV) and “rising sun” (NIV) because verse 79 contains the imagery of light coming into darkness, just as the dawn chases away the darkness of night. The translators were likely correct in this choice, though the idea of “the branch” is lurking in there too. It appears that Luke uses anatole as a play on both meanings of the word—celebrating the Messiah as both humankind’s new branch and new day.

Christmas proclaims that God is the light of his people from all eternity. And when, in the fullness of time, Jesus came, it was to fulfill all the ordinances and messianic prophecies concerning him. These were shadows, cast by the real light, for Jesus alone is “the dayspring” (Malachi 4:2; Luke 1:78) and “the morning star” (2 Peter 1:19; Revelation 2:28 and 22:16) of the promised everlasting day in which the sun never sets. With Jesus’ first coming, the eternal morning dawned. In this we find great hope for it carries with it the promise that all wrongs will ultimately be righted and all tears wiped away. Thus Jesus’ first coming carries with it the promise of his second coming in glory, when the fullness of this hope will be realized in the new heavens and new earth, proclaimed in the book of Revelation.

Our celebration at Christmas of Jesus’ first Advent (coming) is a joyous celebration of his love, his faithfulness and the promise of the fullness of his kingdom at his second Advent. Because of his birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension, the love of God dwells not just among us but also, by his Spirit, in us so that we will love one another with his love in the same Spirit.

Christmas is about the light and the love of God being sent to us in a most personal way—in the incarnate person of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I pray that as you and yours celebrate Christmas with this fullness of meaning, you will find the joy, hope and comfort that come through our Lord’s presence.

Sincerely in Christ’s service,

Joseph Tkach

P.S. Due to the upcoming holidays, the GCI home office in Glendora will close on December 22 and reopen on January 2. There will be no GCI Weekly Update next week—the next one will be published on January 2. And so I wish you and yours both Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As we approach the celebration of the birth of Jesus, I thought you might find it interesting to look again at the two different genealogies of Jesus as recorded in the Bible. Genealogies fulfilled several purposes in the ancient world. Rulers used such lists to justify their power and authority. They were also used when planning marriages to determine the compatibility of the intended couple. A family tree established the social pedigree of the family.

Two of the Gospel writers, Matthew and Luke, give genealogical lists for Jesus. When Matthew’s and Luke’s lists are compared we see several differences. Matthew’s genealogical list for Jesus is an ascending list that goes from Abraham to Jesus. Luke has a descending list that goes from Jesus back to Adam. The lists are almost identical from Abraham to David, yet they greatly diverge from David to Jesus. Luke’s list is complete in that it is from Jesus to Adam. In comparison, Matthew’s list is incomplete. Why is this?

Those who would like to discredit the Bible are quick to see this as further evidence that it is unreliable and filled with mythology. But this is a rush to judgment – false judgment in my opinion. There are other answers that are more accurate, although they too have an element of speculation about them.

For example, Martin Luther explained Matthew’s list to be giving us Joseph’s line, while Luke’s list is giving us Mary’s line. Many years before, Tertullian offered a similar explanation, only he reversed it as Matthew giving us Mary’s line and Luke giving us Joseph’s line. I find a serious problem with these two explanations. Matthew 1:16 tells us that he is giving us Joseph’s line and Luke 3:23 also says he is giving us Joseph’s line.

Another explanation was offered by Julius Africanus. He suggested that Matthew is giving us Jesus’ natural descent while Luke is giving us his legal descent. Even though neither of the Gospels makes this assertion, it is a possibility.

Grant Osborne, a New Testament professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, gives what I believe is a better and fuller explanation. He agrees with the ancients that a careful examination of the two genealogical lists reveals the authors’ differing purposes.

The list given by Matthew is presented in a style rulers used to justify their status and authority. The genealogy is arranged in three groups, with 14 names in each group. There is a Hebrew linguistic device known as gematria. Each letter of the Hebrew alphabet was assigned a numerical value: aleph was 1, beth was 2, gimel was 3, daleth was 4, he was 5, vav was 6, and so forth. The three consonants for David (daleth – vav – daleth) add up to 14. Matthew is highlighting the kingly ancestry of Jesus by working in groups of 14. Matthew omits a few names in order to achieve this structure.

The major difference between the two lists is the names between David and Jesus. Matthew traces the line through Solomon; Luke through his brother Nathan. Matthew may be giving the “official” line of royal inheritance (which could include adoptions); whereas Luke may be presenting a biological line. We do not have enough information to be sure.

Luke does not work with groupings and numbers like Matthew. Luke has a different purpose. In his Gospel, Luke places his genealogy between Jesus’ baptism and the temptation of the devil. At his baptism God declares Jesus is his Son. Then Luke goes on and gives us a simple list of the succession of his human ancestors, using their common names. It begins by indicating that Jesus is “the son of Joseph” and concludes by tracing his ancestry all the way back to Adam, who is finally “of God.” This Jesus, who is the Son of God, is also joined to the very root of all humanity. After linking Jesus to Adam, Luke then proceeds to the story of Jesus triumphing over Satan’s temptation. Jesus rises above temptation where Adam failed. The message is clear that all humanity, from its very root, finds its sins and the power of evil overcome in Jesus.

While there may remain questions about why certain names are in the lists or whether names of uncles and brothers are used instead of literal fathers, the message of the two genealogies is similar. Jesus is both son of man and Son of God. As son of man, of Adam and Joseph, he represented all humanity. As God’s Messiah in the line of kings and as Son of God (which was also used as a royal title) Jesus is uniquely from God and set over all humanity as its divine ruler and deliverer. Matthew and Luke together proclaim that on the basis of the human and divine ancestry of Jesus, we are saved from sin and its power in, by and through him.

Your brother in Christ’s service,

Joseph Tkach

P.S. For a special Christmas season treat, go to http://www.gci.org/_lib/snowglobe/snowglobe.html. There you can look up any address (including your own!) to see the location displayed in a snow globe.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I marvel at the way God created humanity in his own image, giving us rich and vivid imaginations and creativity. We can use this power of imagination and creativity to the praise and honor of God. Unfortunately, some use their God-given abilities to imagine God does not exist and they try to find ever more creative ways to prove it.

There have always been people who do not believe in God. However, in recent years, a small group who refer to themselves as the “New Atheists,” have been growing in influence. Writers like Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have become household names. They are vociferous in insisting that God does not exist and they ridicule anyone who believes otherwise. Some of the New Atheists are highly educated and advance what seem to be persuasive arguments. This can be disconcerting to believers, but it should not be. In fact, there is nothing new about their “new” arguments.

I have read many of the New Atheists’ books. They are usually well written, and some are quite entertaining, although others cannot disguise their anger. However, they share a common fault.

These atheists attack theism (belief in God) on the grounds that you cannot prove scientifically, beyond any doubt, that God exists. While that may be true, it does not mean the atheists have won the argument. Their job is to prove that God does not exist. If they are to be successful, they must offer a convincing and scientifically viable alternative to “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

That does not give us an excuse to hide behind the simplistic arguments of Christian fundamentalism. Our astounding advances in understanding the natural world certainly take the question of where it all came from to new levels of sophistication. However, we still cannot explain how “something” came out of “nothing.” There have been some imaginative and creative ideas, but that is all they are. There is not a shred of genuine evidence to support them.

Richard Dawkins is perhaps the best known of the New Atheists. He is a distinguished professor and scientist at Oxford University and has written several books arguing for atheism. According to Dawkins, belief in God is silly. In interviews, he says on a scale of one to seven, with one being 100% certainty in the existence of God and seven being 100% certainty that he does not exist, he places himself at six. Hmm—that actually makes him an agnostic rather than an atheist.

Before we say, “I told you so!” Dawkins explains: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.” However, that sidesteps the question. His task is not to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of his garden. It is to prove conclusively that God does not exist.

Dawkins does not even interact with the arguments for God’s existence. It appears that his most formidable retort is “if God designed the universe, then who designed God?” While that might be, for an agnostic, a reasonable question, it is not a knockout blow to belief in God. In fact, it’s the wrong question (a category mistake) because such a question assumes that God is a creation, a creature—and the Christian God is not. His question is like asking, “What color is the number five?” Dawkins’ anger against religion often seems to cloud his judgment and his work is faulted scientifically by his own peers—both Christian and non-Christian.

Another New Atheist, Daniel Dennett tries to explain religion in terms of evolutionary theory. He fits into the broad tradition of naturalist explanations of religion, a tradition that includes Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Dennett believes that the benefits of religion originate entirely inside human minds. He asserts that there are no spiritual realities existing inside or outside of us. He advances naturalist explanations for the origins of the belief in God and gods. It is the same old circular argument, which presupposes its conclusions. Since only natural things exist then any explanation for a supposed supernatural God must be the product of purely natural causes. Dennett builds upon a suggestion of his angry fellow, Richard Dawkins, that something they call “memes” exist. These are ideas or concepts or beliefs that arise and then are passed on to others. Like genes, memes are assumed to act like a sort of cultural genetic replicator that keeps us believing in God.

Most scientists say that there is no evidence for these things. As pointed out by Simon Conway Morris, professor of evolutionary paleobiology at Cambridge, memes seem to have no place in serious scientific reflection. “Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context, they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic.”

The New Atheists have convinced themselves that all Christians are trapped in false belief. They don’t like it when the flaws in their own reasoning are pointed out. They like it even less when that criticism comes from their own ranks. The late philosophy professor, Anthony Flew, had been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century. But in one of his last books, he came to a scientific conclusion that atheism is not logically sustainable. He held on to a kind of deism and did not go all the way and embrace the God of the Bible, but I imagine he does now.

The existence (or not) of the God of the Bible does not stand or fall on scientific proof that begins and ends with nature or creation. God is not interested in having his existence demonstrated as the result of a successful experiment. He wants a successful relationship with us as our Creator and Reconciler, and he proved himself to us through the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Our eternal relationship is secure in him. And—however much the New Atheists might deny it—so is theirs.

Your brother in Christ’s service,

Joseph Tkach