Luke 3:1-9

     We shift from the pleasant story of Jesus as a boy in the temple. Suddenly we are about eighteen years in the future. John the Baptist is out in the wilderness Luke sets the stage by giving dates. It is the fifteen year in the reign of Tiberius. Pontius Pilate is the Roman governor of Judea. Rome allowed Herod (son of Herod) some status as ruler of Galilee. Herod’s brother, Philip, had the same status over Iturea and Trachonitus. Lysanias ruled Abilene. On the local front, Annas and Caiaphas were High Priests in Jerusalem. These are mostly players on the stage of the story to be told. Only Lysanias is little known and Philip is . Tiberius is a presence because he represents the authority of Rome, and Jesus would be crucified by Roman authority mediated through Pontius Pilate. Luke’s dating is not as precise as it might seem because it is unclear whether the fifteenth year it he reign of Tiberius is from the time he succeeded Augustus (A.d. 14) or from the time Tiberius became joint emperor with Augustus in a.d. 11-12. So John the Baptist began his ministry some time in 26-27 a.d. or about 29 a.d.
     The Cambridge scholar, E.J. Tinsley points out that Luke’s presentation of John the Baptist is more as a prophet, rather than a second Elijah (the emphasis of Mark and Matthew). The popularity and importance of John is unmistakable. He came proclaiming God’s word, using the words of Isaiah about preparing the way of the Lord. He baptized people as a symbol or token of repentance.
     We see in John no trace of encouraging self-pity on the basis of being an oppressed people. John is not a liberation theologian, but an equal opportunity haranguer of sin. Isn’t this empowering? This is not the powerful pointing at the powerless and say ‘you have to repent.’ It is a man among the oppressed crying out, “We have to repent.”
     John’s message, harsh as it was, was surprisingly popular. Crowds came to be baptized and were met by more berating. He may have recognized a tendency to pat themselves on the back and think that they were descendants of Abraham and therefore secure. John points out that God could children for Abraham out of stones. It sounds almost as if the people had some vague sense that God needed them, or was dependent upon them because of their heritage from Abraham. (‘what’s God going to do, start all over?’) The situation is familiar in other aspects in the world today. Many of us suffer from a sense of entitlement. John told the people that feeling of entitlement was just an illusion. Instead they needed to demonstrate repentance by the fruits or behavior of repentance.
     Repentance is different than simply being penitent or just saying, ‘I’m sorry.” Repentance includes these, but calls upon the penitent to change direction and begin behaving in a different way. In the same fashion a boy kept bugging his sister, then when she cried, would say he was sorry to get her to stop from alerting their mother. After one episode, she cried again, and he said he was sorry and didn’t she believe he was really sorry. She said what she wanted to know was when he was sorry enough to quit. John was asking the same kind of question. “Are you sorry enough to quit?


John’s message is harsh. Why do you suppose people came in such large numbers to hear him and seek baptism?


In what way might Christians in the church today suffer from an illusion of entitlement?


As Lent begins next Wednesday, what do we need to repent?


In what ways are we called to prepare for Jesus?

Luke 2:41-52

     As noted in a previous week’s study, it seems possible that Luke may have met Mary and heard some stories about Jesus. This story is the kind of anecdote a mother might share. The family has traveled up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Every Jew dreamt of doing this at least once in their life. But Mary and Joseph evidently felt it was important to go every year. This couldn’t have been easy. It took money and time away from the carpentry shop. Passover was eight days long, so with travel time this was a significant time away from home. There was also the uncertainties of travel, although this last was lessened by traveling in a large group. (It is tempting to speculate whether the friendship with Martha and Mary’s family in Bethany went back to the childhood of Jesus, having met on these annual trips to the holy city.)
     At twelve, Jesus would have had a level of independence. He may have explored the city on his own and visited the temple to listen to the scholars discussing theology. Mary and Joseph don’t seem to have known all his movements but trusted him to be on his own. But, as with many adolescent boys, he may have lost track of time and become focused on his interests, forgetting what his family was doing.
     At the end of Passover, Mary and Joseph and the younger children started back with group they had traveled with. It must have been a large party and they likely assumed Jesus was simply spending time with friends. But three days of not seeing him must have been unusual, so after surely searching carefully, they rushed back to Jerusalem. As loving parents, they must have been quite frightened. Passover was a time of unrest in Israel as the people remembered a time of liberation in their history. The parents’ imagination must have gone wild. Could he have been arrested by the Romans? Caught up in violence and hurt? Was he sick?
     After searching, Mary and Joseph found Jesus in the temple. Those who were experts in the laws and traditions of Judaism were clearly impressed with the boy. But Mary and Joseph were filled with the anxiety of the search and scolded him for having made them worry. He asked why they’d searched (referring to combing the city instead of going straight to the temple?) for couldn’t they have known he’d be in his Father’s house. He is often pictured as though a mature adult simply responding as though his parents were a bit foolish. But realistically, he was an adolescent boy. It would be natural if there was a bit of childish bravado and embarrassment mixed in with his words. After all, he was being scolded in front of respected men of Israel. And, he had caused his parents a great deal of worry, trouble and expense. Luke reports that he returned home and was obedient to his parents.
     Joseph and Mary did not entirely understand the event. But Mary kept these memories and treasured them. If she was sharing anecdotes with Luke, we can well imagine her tone of voice as she told of the little boy she’d loved as a mother long before others came to love him as Lord and Savior.
     Luke concludes the story by saying that Jesus grew up, gaining favor with both God and his human community.
    

Other gospels were written following the death of Jesus. Some purported to tell stories of his childhood as well. One is charming – the little boy making clay birds and bringing them alive. Others are less so, such as him getting angry at some other children and his words causing their death. These gospels were not deemed by the church to be authoritative or helpful accounts of the good news of Jesus. (It should be noted, however, that they contain some information that is also found in the four gospels of the Bible.)

     Scholars, such as that of the Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary, point out that the stories of the childhood of Jesus are similar or parallel to that of Samuel in the Old Testament, raising questions for some whether Luke fashioned the story to show this parallel. It might, of course, be equally pointed out that two precocious young boys with a special calling from God might inevitably have parallel experiences in growing up. Luke, as a literary master, might have recognized this. Nonetheless, there are significant differences between the childhood of Samuel and that of Jesus. Samuel was raised by an irascible old man, having been brought to him by his parents at the age of five. On the other hand, Jesus had a more “normal” childhood, growing up with two loving parents. Mary and Joseph were devout in both outward religious practice and in heartfelt spirituality. If we take seriously the fact that Jesus was fully human, (the incarnation) then these influenced him.


What do you feel about the idea of Jesus being a normal adolescent boy?

Can you think of places in Jesus’ teaching where he may have been remembering his childhood home?

Martha and Mary were clearly very good friends of Jesus.  What do you think about the possibility that this friendship began when they were all children?

Luke 2:39-40

     Luke makes no mention of the flight to Egypt.  He merely states that Mary and Joseph did everything that was required in the law and then returned to Nazareth, in the region of Galilee.  He follows this with a statement that, basically, Jesus grew up and was a particularly promising child.
     Although Luke may have been writing more specifically to a Gentile audience, he doesn't forget where Jesus began.  Mary and Joseph were Jewish peasants.  (There was once a Christmas card with Mary on it, labeling her the world's favorite Jewish mother.)  
     Joseph and Mary seem to have been careful in their following of the law, giving the appropriate sacrifices, making their proper trip to Jerusalem, as every Israelite was expected to do.  In fact, as the next scripture will indicate, they did even more.  Mary and Joseph came every year to Jerusalem for the Passover, something that could not have been easy to accomplish.  Neither would Jesus later scorn traditional aspects of religious observance.  He simply made clear the message that they were to be practiced for the right reasons.  
     When they had accomplished the rituals and sacrifices, the family returned home to Galilee.  Perhaps for the Gentile readers, this would have had less emotional impact than for Jews living in Israel.  Galilee was considered back country and the Galileans had accents other Israelites disliked.  Nazareth had such little respect in the popular opinion that people asked, disparagingly whether it was even possible for anything good to come from there.  It is significant that ancient, non-Christian references don't mention it.  In other words, Luke sets Jesus squarely into a town that was unknown to the Gentile world and considered unimportant and lacking promise in the Jewish opinion.  Yet, there, growing up in that quiet backwater, was this child who would eventually shake the foundations of the world.  

    There is an old story that a Jewish teacher was once asked why on earth God would bother talking to Moses from a lowly thorn bush.  The teacher's answer?  Perhaps to teach us that God is everywhere, including lowly thorn bushes!

In what quiet places of the world might God be working today to change the world?

In what quiet places of your own heart and soul might God be active to change your life?

In what way can the individual and the church grow with wisdom?



 

Luke 2:21-38

     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? 


    

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 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?

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?