"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"

It's funny how words change.

Actually, whole languages change. For example, take Greek.

You see, the Greek words that we would hear them speaking today on the streets of Athens are completely different Greek than the words we'd have heard spoken on those same streets 2,000 years ago. In fact, despite the fact that both modern Greeks and ancient Greeks use/used the same alphabet, two Greek-speaking people from each time would have a very hard time understanding one another. So much so, that we actually call ancient Greek by a different name entirely. We call it "koinea", or common, Greek.

English is very much like that, too.

Old English was the style of English spoken from about 400 A.D. through maybe 1100 A.D. Like koinea Greek, it's almost completely incomprehensible to those of us who speak modern English. There was a sort of "missing link" version of English that connects the oldest and modern English tongues. It's called (appropriately enough) Middle English and was largely the result of the Norman invasion led by the rascally William the Conqueror in 1066.

Latin, however, is different.

Latin was a very unique language in the human experience. From its earliest recorded use in about 600 B.C. until it fell into almost complete disuse around 1800 A.D., Latin remained practically unchanged. The largest reasons for this were both political and cultural.

At the time Rome was founded, it was in a rather remote location from the rest of the "civilized" world. Keeping people united required many things, of which a common language is the most basic. As Rome grew in power and influence, the new nations that were joined to the Roman Empire were so varied and numerous that a central language was a necessity for not only government, but commerce, arts, philosophy and just about any other function of a society. Rome understood the power of language and that words should mean something solid and concrete.

There was a Latin word the Romans used that described an enemy force, an opposing army that needed to be met and fought with. That word was "hostis". It is the root for our English words "hostile" and "hostility".

The Bible verse I cited above is from the wonderful historical record we focus upon each year at this time in Luke, chapter 2 that details the birth of Jesus Christ.

In the original koinea Greek that Luke used, the word we translate as "host" is a feminine version of "straetia" which means an army prepared for warfare.

Our English word "host" is meant to communicate the idea of a vast army, a force that can conquer. It's only been within the last 100 years or less that we've lost that definition to the idea of "host", as in entertaining a group of people (ironically, the root of that version also comes from the Latin . . . although from a different word, "hospitem").

So, here is a lone angel, an unearthly, radiant messenger of the Most High God, appearing to the shepherds. He tells them not to be afraid and then explains what's happening.

Then . . . "suddenly" . . . a entire glowing, beautiful, deadly angelic army appears in full battle gear, like a half-million gorgeous valkyries about to cast death from above.

But, wait. They . . . they're not attcking. Why . . .why, they're singing! And they sound more beautiful than any sound ever heard on Earth. That's not just because these are beautiful figures of heaven that they sound wonderful. And it's not just because they are dressed for battle and are not opening up a can of Armageddon™ brand whoop-ass on mankind.

No . . . it's not just all that. Just listen to what they're singing!

"Glory to God in the Highest. And on Earth, peace . . . goodwill toward men."

This beautiful army that could destroy a planet in the blink of an eye isn't here on an S&D objective.

But why are they here? Why a heavenly "host"? Why the battle gear? Why singing warriors? Why are we getting good news from the killer angels?

I have a theory.

The Father Who sent the angels knows how this is going to go. He knows why He has sent His only begotten Son from the Glory of Heaven to the dung-scented smell of a cave stable. God is aware that at the end of 33 years, He will be forced to turn away from this Baby as He cries out to Him in Heaven.

In that moment, when a Father's pain is at it's most intense, when His Baby Boy hangs unjustly suffering for my disgusting, revolting sin (and yours), the desire to destroy all of humanity is going to be absolutely overwhelming. Even God cannot be expected to deny justice like this.The Universe itself would be screaming for Him to do it. "Save the Innocent One!" the heavens would be screaming. "Kill the sinners!" shouts all of eternity. 

I believe that God knew all this. And He knew Himself well enough that He removed that option from the equation.

Instead of sending an army of the heavenly host to free His Son from the Cross . . . something that would be natural for any father/Father . . . He instead sent the killer angels to announce His love for us.

It may have been the announcement of a Baby King to us. But maybe, just maybe, it was a reminder from the Holy Spirit to the Almighty Himself for just that moment which was to occur on a Cross. A subtle voice through eternity whispering in His own ear "Remember how much you love them."

And if that is the case, thank You, Father . . . thank You, Son . . .  and definitely thank You, Holy Spirit.