After eight days, Jesus was circumcised.
Circumcision was unusual in the ancient world. Outside of Judaism, the practice was viewed with some abhorrence. For the Israelites who lived in a more Hellenistic society outside Israel, some young men even made some attempts to hide the signs of circumcision when they participated in sports, etc. There has been some suggestion that even a primitive sort of plastic surgery was attempted. Circumcision was not a big controversy for Jesus, although association with Gentiles (which included uncircumcised indivudals) was an issue. As the early church became more and more Gentile, it became extremely important. Would the new Christians be required to practice circumcision, the dietary laws, etc. Some factions of the church pushed yes, others, including the Apostle Paul pushed no. The latter group won the argument.
By the law of Moses, after birth, a woman was required to practice certain purifications. Also, the first born male was to be designated as holy to the Holy. Because Mary and Joseph were poor, they gave the sacrifice allowed to the poor, which was a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.
There were two devout individuals known to the people who frequented the temple. One was an elderly man named Simeon. He'd been promsed by the spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's annointed. When he saw Jesus, he praised God and proclaimed to all that he could now die for he had seen God's salvation. This child would be light for revelation to the Gentile world and a glory to the people of Israel. Anna, an elderly widow also praised God for this child.
Luke tells that Mary and Joseph were amazed by what was said of Jesus. One would think that after all that had happened they would have simply expected such things. And that seems part of the push-pull nature of Jesus' family. They knew he was sent by God, yet faced with the daily realities of life, they seemed to forget it. Perhaps part of the amazement was the mention of the Gentiles--most of the orthodox citizens of Israel had problems wrapping their heads around the idea of God caring so much for the pagans...this despite the fact that some of the prophets had also pointed in that direction. Of course, they were under Roman domination and this made it more difficult to see pagans in such a light.
Simeon continued after his public words and said something painful to Mary, that a sword would pierce her soul as well. Perhaps he saw what is so difficult to fathom in moments of joy, that goodness is not always accepted by the world and the fate of Jesus would be an agony for a loving mother to endure.
The struggle of the Israelite people against assimilation into the cultures around them was protected through customs like circumcision and the dietary laws. In what ways can Christians live in but not of the world?
Luke clearly had a special interest in telling the stories of how Jesus would impact people in the Gentile world. If Theophilus, to whom the book was officially written, was not a Christian, how do you think he understood and interpreted the words of Simeon?
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Luke 2:1-20
Having just celebrated the Christmas season, these words will almost inevitably have been heard by those attending worship on Sunday mornings or at the Christmas Eve candlelight service. Some facts/reminders in looking at these verse.
Luke dated the birth of Jesus from rulers (Augustus & Quirinius) that were known to the gentile world. Luke is believed to have been a gentile himself, and was writing as much or more to the gentile population as to the Israelite one. He addressed his book to "Theophilus." (Luke 1:3) Theophilus, in Greek, means 'one who loves God.' Some scholars have seen Theolphilus as being a symbolic title, which means Luke was addressing anyone who loved God and wanted to know more of the story. Other scholars (such as in the Interpreter's Bible) believe Luke was writing his book for an individual whose name was Theophilus. It does occur frequently in ancient literature as a proper name. The reference to Theophilus as "most excellent" indicates that it could have been a government official. That title also is found in Greco-Roman literature to high government officials. Was the book of Luke written as a defense of Christianity? Was Theophilus one who was exploring the faith? Or could he have been instructed and Luke wrote to confirm him in his faith journey?
While the answer to the questions we have about motive is unknown, the book of Luke quickly became one of four gospels to be regarded by the early church as authoritative. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were often circulated as a collection, with the books in that order. The traditional order of the gospels was preserved when the New Testament was formed. This explains why Acts in the New Testament does not immediately follow Luke, although it was, in a sense, a two-part story.
By what we call the second chapter of Luke, he has already told the story of John the Baptist and his parents; also told of the annunciation to Mary who would become the mother of Jesus. Luke doesn't tell much about Joseph, Mary's betrothed. It was Matthew who would relate Joseph's embarassment over his fiance's pregnancy and his plan to divorce her quietly to spare Mary embarrassment. When Luke tells the story, we see only Joseph's faithfulness to Mary and the child--in fact, he is referred to as the father of the infant. (Note that both Matthew and Luke trace the ancestry of Jesus through Joseph, who would have been seen as the legal father).
When Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, they are betrothed, which was an arrangement as binding as marriage. Swaddling cloths were wide pieces of fabric wrapped around infants in the idea that it made them feel safe and secure. The weather was probably warm, for the sheep wouldn't have been on the hillside in cold weather (despite our northern hemisphere's winter traditions.) The date and time of year when Christ was born is unknown. Several dates were observed in the early years of the church; one of them was December 25. This was eventually chosen as the "official" date in the hopes it would take the place of the Saturnalia which the pagan population celebrated for the winter solstice.
Matthew tells of kings; Luke speaks of humble shepherds. He also gives a curious detail. The shepherds told of what they'd seen and everyone was "amazed." But, as Luke tells us, Mary treasured these words and pondered them in her heart. This is a gentle and personal detail. It is not impossible to imagine that a young physician cherished the opportunity to sit with an elderly Mary and hear her tell some of the events of her life and her life-long pondering of what it all meant.
If you had the opportunity to sit with Mary, what questions would you most like to ask?
What do you think amazed the shepherds most?
Shepherds often had a poor and rough reputation - what effect doo you think this experience had upon them?
Luke dated the birth of Jesus from rulers (Augustus & Quirinius) that were known to the gentile world. Luke is believed to have been a gentile himself, and was writing as much or more to the gentile population as to the Israelite one. He addressed his book to "Theophilus." (Luke 1:3) Theophilus, in Greek, means 'one who loves God.' Some scholars have seen Theolphilus as being a symbolic title, which means Luke was addressing anyone who loved God and wanted to know more of the story. Other scholars (such as in the Interpreter's Bible) believe Luke was writing his book for an individual whose name was Theophilus. It does occur frequently in ancient literature as a proper name. The reference to Theophilus as "most excellent" indicates that it could have been a government official. That title also is found in Greco-Roman literature to high government officials. Was the book of Luke written as a defense of Christianity? Was Theophilus one who was exploring the faith? Or could he have been instructed and Luke wrote to confirm him in his faith journey?
While the answer to the questions we have about motive is unknown, the book of Luke quickly became one of four gospels to be regarded by the early church as authoritative. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were often circulated as a collection, with the books in that order. The traditional order of the gospels was preserved when the New Testament was formed. This explains why Acts in the New Testament does not immediately follow Luke, although it was, in a sense, a two-part story.
By what we call the second chapter of Luke, he has already told the story of John the Baptist and his parents; also told of the annunciation to Mary who would become the mother of Jesus. Luke doesn't tell much about Joseph, Mary's betrothed. It was Matthew who would relate Joseph's embarassment over his fiance's pregnancy and his plan to divorce her quietly to spare Mary embarrassment. When Luke tells the story, we see only Joseph's faithfulness to Mary and the child--in fact, he is referred to as the father of the infant. (Note that both Matthew and Luke trace the ancestry of Jesus through Joseph, who would have been seen as the legal father).
When Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, they are betrothed, which was an arrangement as binding as marriage. Swaddling cloths were wide pieces of fabric wrapped around infants in the idea that it made them feel safe and secure. The weather was probably warm, for the sheep wouldn't have been on the hillside in cold weather (despite our northern hemisphere's winter traditions.) The date and time of year when Christ was born is unknown. Several dates were observed in the early years of the church; one of them was December 25. This was eventually chosen as the "official" date in the hopes it would take the place of the Saturnalia which the pagan population celebrated for the winter solstice.
Matthew tells of kings; Luke speaks of humble shepherds. He also gives a curious detail. The shepherds told of what they'd seen and everyone was "amazed." But, as Luke tells us, Mary treasured these words and pondered them in her heart. This is a gentle and personal detail. It is not impossible to imagine that a young physician cherished the opportunity to sit with an elderly Mary and hear her tell some of the events of her life and her life-long pondering of what it all meant.
If you had the opportunity to sit with Mary, what questions would you most like to ask?
What do you think amazed the shepherds most?
Shepherds often had a poor and rough reputation - what effect doo you think this experience had upon them?
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Luke 1:67-80
When Zechariah got his voice back, he got it thoroughly! Perhaps he'd been saving up. Luke tells us that he was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke a prophecy. Prophecy, in the biblical understanding, is not fortune telling or "predicting" the future. It is speaking or communicating the word of God. And Zechariah is here celebrating what God is doing. In fact, in a sense, he is announcing the redemption of the people as though it is already accomplished. God has redeemed the people, God has raised up a mighty savior...it is both being done and already accomplished.
As is common on the part of those who "prophecy" in the Bible, part of what Zechariah says is a reflection upon the history of God with the people of Israel. In the past God spoke through the mouth of the prophets to say that the people would be saved from their enemies. God had show mercy and made promises to their ancestors. God has "remembered" the covenant.
An interesting way of phrasing things in the bible is to say that God "remembered" a promise, etc. This is a very human way of putting things. If we were speaking of a human being, we would think that there'd been a memory lapse, something we wouldn't apply to God. In this sense it is reflecting the reality that God is acting on the covenant. It may carry some human emotion over a feeling that time has passed and the situation is difficult.
The promise Zechariah relates is general, not mentioning the Romans or specific nations, but that the promise to Abraham (the ancestor of the Israelites) is that the people would be rescued from the hands of their enemies and could serve God without fear in holiness and righteousness. Zechariah is delighted that his child, John, will be called the prophet of the Lord and would go forward to prepare the Lord's way. His concluding words (Luke 1:78-9) evoke a feeling of John's words about light (John 1).
After Zechariah's words, we are simply told that the child grew up, and was in the wilderness until appearing publicly to Israel. Luke relays a similiar statement about Jesus (Luke 2:40).
What do you suppose these words meant to Zechariah himself? Was he still expecting a great military leader, such as most Israelites expected from the Messiah? Being delivered from one's enemies could be taken that way.
He speaks about God's light breaking upon us and giving light to those who sit in darkness. Was he thinking only of Israelites?
This is the season of Epiphany, with its symbolism of light, and with the Wise Men being symbols of the light also appearing to the Gentile non-Israelites. What would Zechariah have thought about the light coming to Gentiles, even the enemy?
Zechariah's words conclude with being guided into the way of peace. Peace can mean different things to different people. What do you think God's definition of peace would be like?
As is common on the part of those who "prophecy" in the Bible, part of what Zechariah says is a reflection upon the history of God with the people of Israel. In the past God spoke through the mouth of the prophets to say that the people would be saved from their enemies. God had show mercy and made promises to their ancestors. God has "remembered" the covenant.
An interesting way of phrasing things in the bible is to say that God "remembered" a promise, etc. This is a very human way of putting things. If we were speaking of a human being, we would think that there'd been a memory lapse, something we wouldn't apply to God. In this sense it is reflecting the reality that God is acting on the covenant. It may carry some human emotion over a feeling that time has passed and the situation is difficult.
The promise Zechariah relates is general, not mentioning the Romans or specific nations, but that the promise to Abraham (the ancestor of the Israelites) is that the people would be rescued from the hands of their enemies and could serve God without fear in holiness and righteousness. Zechariah is delighted that his child, John, will be called the prophet of the Lord and would go forward to prepare the Lord's way. His concluding words (Luke 1:78-9) evoke a feeling of John's words about light (John 1).
After Zechariah's words, we are simply told that the child grew up, and was in the wilderness until appearing publicly to Israel. Luke relays a similiar statement about Jesus (Luke 2:40).
What do you suppose these words meant to Zechariah himself? Was he still expecting a great military leader, such as most Israelites expected from the Messiah? Being delivered from one's enemies could be taken that way.
He speaks about God's light breaking upon us and giving light to those who sit in darkness. Was he thinking only of Israelites?
This is the season of Epiphany, with its symbolism of light, and with the Wise Men being symbols of the light also appearing to the Gentile non-Israelites. What would Zechariah have thought about the light coming to Gentiles, even the enemy?
Zechariah's words conclude with being guided into the way of peace. Peace can mean different things to different people. What do you think God's definition of peace would be like?
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Luke 1:57-66
The birth of John can't have been easy for Elizabeth, for she was older than a new mother usually was. She had (Luke 1:24) remained in seclusion for much of the pregnancy. We aren't told why, but we can speculate. She may have wanted to avoid speculation. She might have felt unwell. She might have wanted to sit and ponder this amazing thing that was happening. Her comment indicates that she had felt judged negatively by her friends, family and neighbors for the fact that she hadn't had a child. Now she is vindicated, but until the child comes, she must have felt vulnerable. Then John arrives. Neighbors and relatives attribute it to God and they rejoice.
The eighth day was the day of circumcision. "They" (rabbi, friends, relatives?) were going to name the child Zechariah after his father. But Elizabeth said to call him John. Remember that Zechariah has been mute since his time in the temple. Had he communicated with Elizabeth that the child should be called John? Or did she also come up with the name and now it was Zechariah's opportunity to confirm it? We don't know, but the folks who'd gathered for the circumcision thought it strange because none of their relatives was called John. So they motioned to Zechariah to find out what he wanted. He wrote down that the child's name would be John and at that point his voice was released and he praised God.
Fear came over the neighbors at this event and it became an object of much discussion. Everyone who heard the story wondered what this child would become.
Are all children signs of God's mercy and love? Prayers for all who are not treated as such.
The reaction of Zechariah had been fearful in the temple and the events of John's birth caused fear among the neighbors.
What kind of fear was it?
How are awe and fear similar?
How would modern people react in similar circumstances?
The eighth day was the day of circumcision. "They" (rabbi, friends, relatives?) were going to name the child Zechariah after his father. But Elizabeth said to call him John. Remember that Zechariah has been mute since his time in the temple. Had he communicated with Elizabeth that the child should be called John? Or did she also come up with the name and now it was Zechariah's opportunity to confirm it? We don't know, but the folks who'd gathered for the circumcision thought it strange because none of their relatives was called John. So they motioned to Zechariah to find out what he wanted. He wrote down that the child's name would be John and at that point his voice was released and he praised God.
Fear came over the neighbors at this event and it became an object of much discussion. Everyone who heard the story wondered what this child would become.
Are all children signs of God's mercy and love? Prayers for all who are not treated as such.
The reaction of Zechariah had been fearful in the temple and the events of John's birth caused fear among the neighbors.
What kind of fear was it?
How are awe and fear similar?
How would modern people react in similar circumstances?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)