Who Is Jesus?: part 2: When God Silences the Men and Lets the Women Prophesy

 

Please read Luke 1: 1-61 before proceeding. It's a long passage, but worth the time. As an alternative, you can just read each section as you go. 

So, who is this Theophilus guy, and does it matter? versus 1 through 4

The gospel attributed to Luke was written to a guy named Thophilus. At least it is addressed that way. Some have speculated Theophilus (meaning "friend of God") was just a code name used for Christians or believers in general. However, since the name is unique to Luke and Acts, it seems to me this is unlikely. Others say he is probably an actual person, but there are various opinions about who it could be. I am partial to the idea that Theophilus was Paul's lawyer, and that the book was written as a sort of legal brief to be used for Paul's trial in Caesarea. His follow-up brief that we know as the book of Acts, then, was a legal brief for his trial in Rome. 

This is all educated speculation, but I mention it because each of the four Gospels were written with a different purpose and audience in mind. If we are reading Luke to learn about Jesus, we might want to keep in mind that there might be a motive to gloss over parts of Jesus' life, or emphasize others. But that is okay. We have three other Gospels to compare. The canonical gospels give us a four-fold view of who Jesus is. 

One of the emphases of Luke is the importance of women in His life. Matthew begins with the genealogy of His foster father Joseph, and an angel's appearance to him. Mark begins with John the Baptist in the wilderness. John begins with Jesus as the eternal Word. Luke does begin with Zechariah, but he is promptly silenced. 

Zechariah refuses to believe, and is silenced versus 5 through 25; 57-61

Notice that the story of John the Baptist's announcement by Gabriel turns the story about Isaac somewhat on its head. In Genesis 17, Abraham, much like Zechariah, is not sure what to make of the announcement. He had already solved the problem of an heir. He went with the times and took his wife's handmaid in order to produce progeny. God had other ideas. Interestingly, the story picks up in chapter 18, and Sarah is listening inside the tent. She laughs, and is embarrassed.

Abraham is never rebuked for his hesitancy to believe. There seem to be no immediate consequences for his actions. (There were, however, consequences within his family, with continuing strife that still exists to this day.) Sarah, however, is embarrassed. Perhaps laughing out loud in front of a guest was poor etiquette back then. In the John the Baptist story, however, the father is embarrassed (Can you imagine him playing charades with the people outside to get them to understand what had happened?), and the mother gets to pass on the angel's announcement. (This will not be the last time in Luke a woman is given the privilege of first announcing God's revelation from an angel.) Even before Christ's Advent, God was beginning to shake up how things were done. “The Lord has done this for me,” she said. “In these days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the people.”

Joseph is left out of the loop, Gabriel appears to... a woman! versus 26-38

If there is a baby to be announced, you better get the husband involved. Angels did appear to women at least twice in the Old Testament. Hagar was just a slave. When she was kicked out of Abraham's household, there was no longer a man involved. Samson's mother does speak with the angel first in Judges 13, but the scriptures don't even give us her name. And the angel does interact with her husband Manoah very promptly. Of course, Matthew does tell us that Joseph does get involved. Gabriel does catch up with him. But if you put that account together with this one in Luke, it was at least three months later after the news had already spread about Mary. 

Gabriel gives us a hint who Jesus is by giving us His name, as well as three titles. 

Jesus: The Lord Saves

The Son of the Most High/ The Son of God: Gabriel ties this to the fact that the Holy Spirit will be the One who makes this happen. 

The concept of getting pregnant by a god was not something new. The Jews even had traditions about (presumably fallen) angels impregnating women, resulting in "giants." (See Genesis 6 and the extra-biblical book, Enoch.) The Greeks and Romans had myths about the gods having children (often referred to as heroes) with mortal women. Usually the women were raped.

Some critics of the Bible argue that Mary was raped. There is no indication of that in scripture. Note the response of Mary: "...let this happen to me according to your word." (NET) Mary seems to be giving her consent. In the culture she lived in, the consent of the woman was not exactly a high priority. Women were viewed as property. But instead of God using her regardless of her wishes, it seems to me He is doing with her as He had done through the ages with humankind. He invites us to partake in the ordering of the earth (Genesis 1:28). God never forces anyone to join Him in this task. So it would be unthinkable that Mary was forced. She voluntarily participated in her unique part in God's plan for bringing creation into the age of the New Creation. But that's a study for another time. 

Elizabeth and Mary Prophecy versus 39-56

Sometimes a prophet in the Bible foretells the future, but the basic meaning of the word applies more to bringing a message from God than it does to predicting what is to come. The purpose of the message is not so we can get titillated by knowledge of what is to be, but change our attitudes and actions. Prophecy should affect both our heart and feet. Jesus' words will include promises and warnings on what is coming, but the main purpose will be to change us. It's what the Bible calls repentance. David Bentley Hart, in his translation of the New Testament, uses the words "heart's transformation" for the Greek word. I think that's probably as close as we can get in English. Jesus' words should change us from the inside out. Before we get to the prophecies of Jesus, let's see what the prophecies of Elizabeth and Mary have to say about Him.

Elizabeth pronounces a blessing on Mary and her Baby. What is a blessing? I think the best way we can understand it is in knowing that the Bible often pairs blessing and cursing, indicating they are opposites. If you are cursed, to be simplistic, bad things happen to you. If you are blessed, good things. But it goes beyond that. There are definitely things that will happen to Mary and Jesus that don't appear to be good. I wonder if maybe blessing has more to do with perspective than it does with what most people think of as good and bad. Think about that. I will touch more on this later, especially when we get to Luke's version of the beatitudes. 

Elizabeth also seems startled at the revelation the Holy Spirit was giving her about Mary. To be the mother of the forerunner of Jesus was a great privilege, but to actually be in the presence of "the mother of the Lord" was overwhelming. I wonder how open we are to the Spirit when He tries to tell us we are in the presence of Jesus working through his servants? 

Mary now takes the microphone (so to speak) and begins to praise God for His mercy and faithfulness to His promises. Mercy seems to be a lost word today. We use it as part of idioms (Lord have mercy.), but we usually don't really believe we need it. We have never done anything bad enough to need mercy. And since we think that is true, we see no reason to extend mercy on others. If they would just try harder, they wouldn't mess up. Jesus will definitely take on that type of thinking. We all mess up. God is the only One who has always been faithful. He never messes up. Yet, He extends mercy to each one of us. 

I see also a bit of the beatitudes in Mary's prophecy. Let me reword some of what she says:

Blessed are the humble servants.

Woe to those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

Woe to the rulers from their thrones.

Blessed are the humble.

Blessed are the hungry God has filled with good things.

Woe to the rich He will send away empty.

Conclusion

Jesus is about to shake things up. He is going to overturn some tables... literally and figuratively.  

  

Who Do You Say that I Am?

 

Who is Jesus? There seems to be quite a discussion about that topic these days. The words mercy, compassion, and the more modern concept of empathy, are being bandied about as if a certain element of Christianity views Jesus as some kind of milquetoast. I came across a blurb about Dale Partridge's book, The Manliness of Christ: "Jesus is the most masculine man to walk the earth. In fact, if you hate masculinity, you will hate the biblical Jesus."

I would think that most of those who call themselves followers of Christ fall somewhere in the middle of those two views. How do we come to understand, to a degree that is possible before our glorification, who Jesus is? 

It's not as if God has not given us any help. In Acts Chapter 1, Luke tell us that the former "treatise" he wrote was about the actions and teachings that Christ did until He was taken back into Heaven. In the Gospel of Luke, he says he wrote to give Theophilus (more on him later in this series) an account of what he had learned from eyewitnesses. He had "carefully investigated" (NIV) the life and teachings of Christ. 

In the upcoming days until Easter, I am going to be sharing some thoughts on the book of Luke. Hopefully something I have to say will help us understand who Jesus was, and help us understand a bit better how He wants His followers to live. I do not claim to have a corner on the Truth. I will probably get some things wrong. But hopefully what I have to share will be more profitable than all the shouting going on on social media these days.

Prescription for a troubled economy: cast your bread upon the waters

The following post was first published in the now defunct Examiner.com on July 9, 2010. I thought now would be a good time to re-publish it. While the description of the weather doesn't apply, the recent political talk in the race for the Democrat nominee for President prompted me to dredge up this post. It adds to the discussion on the proposed "billionaire tax." Here it is, for what ever it's worth:

Prescription for a troubled economy: cast your bread upon the waters

Corn field along CR 6 just east of County Line (Ash) Rd. July 9, 2010

Photo by Mark Sommer

The hot, rainy weather here in the South Bend area this summer has apparently been great for the corn crop.

An old farmer’s rhyme says, “Knee high By the Fourth of July.” This year, in most corn fields in Michiana, the lines from “O What a Beautiful Morning” (Oklahoma!) seem to be more appropriate: “The corn is as high As an elephant’s eye.” As the supplied photo shows, less than a week after the Fourth some corn stalks are already forming ears.

In one episode of Giligan’s Island, Mary Ann quotes the “Farmer’s Formula” to the Professor: “one part sunshine, two parts water and three parts prayer.” This old saying reminds us that without God, who provides sunshine and rain “upon the just and the unjust” (Mattherw 5:45), there would be no crops. The farmer plants and tills and fertilizes, and can even irrigate, but it is God who gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:7).

In biblical times, farmers would often employ a no till method by casting their seed upon the shallow flood waters in the spring. When the water receded, animals were allowed into the area to trample the seed into the soil. (See Isaiah 32:20.) The writer of Ecclesiastes was apparently familiar with this method of farming, which helps explain what he meant in Chapter 11.

Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again. (11:1 NIV)

Instead of hoarding grain for food, farmers had to set aside a portion to plant the next year. This is a lesson that modern society has forgotten. We spend virtually every penny we earn – often more than we earn – and invest little for the future. We hoard things for ourselves instead of investing in what would provide opportunity for others.

Jesus told a parable (Luke 12: 15-21) about a rich man whose crops are so abundant that he has huge barns built to store it. But the barns are not the problem; his attitude about his wealth (the grain) is. Having abundance is not in itself wrong; it’s what we do with our abundance that makes the difference.

The rich farmer decides to quit working and live off what he has accumulated. He has enough for “many years.” Instead of investing that grain into the ground where it would provide an income for his workers, and support the poor from its gleanings, the farmer became a miser. His thoughts are all about what his riches can do for himself instead of what it could do for others.

Perhaps the biggest problem with our economy here in the United States is that we have become a nation of greedy hoarders instead of entrepreneurs and investors. We accumulated real estate and commodities, assuming their value would continue ever upward, instead of investing in businesses that actually produce a needed product and provide a living wage for its workers.

Greed takes root when we depend upon ourselves instead of God. We need to get back to trusting the God “who gives the increase” and “spreading the wealth around” – not because the government redistributes it, but because we invest in enterprises which help others.

A Dream Made Possible at Easter: Remembering the Death of Another King

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Wikimedia

This post originally appeared on April 3, 2010, the day before Easter, on the now-defunct Examiner.com. I thought today, the 50th Anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s death, would be an appropriate time to share it here. 

Forty-two years tomorrow, Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed at the prime of his life in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Shattered dreams,” a sermon King wrote as he sat in a Georgian jail cell, begins by recalling the Apostle Paul’s desire to bring the Gospel to Spain. Paul’s life had ended in martyrdom at Rome, and it is assumed by most Bible scholars that he never made it to Spain. Paul’s experiences, in many ways, seem to foreshadow what happened to King. While King lived to see the legal end of desegregation, the “promised land” of integration still faced a long, turbulent struggle.

King made at least two appearances in northern Indiana during the 1960’s. In October of 1963, he gave a lecture entitled ‘Facing the Challenge of a New Age” to the Citizens' Civic Planning Committee in South Bend. In 1960, just a few days after the famous march on Montgomery, he spoke at Goshen College.

Several years before his death, the famous pastor put together an anthology, Strength to Love, which consists of fourteen of his sermons and a updated version of the autobiographical article “Pilgrimage to nonviolence.” This final chapter in the book traces King’s journey from a young man of privilege “raised in a rather strict fundamentalist tradition,” (p. 146) through the embracing of Liberalism during his education, to a more moderate position as he became involved in the civil rights movement.

What is most striking through the book is King’s deep faith. Some have doubted whether the man was a “true Christian,” but it is hard to imagine even conservative evangelicals coming to that conclusion after reading this book. Staunch Calvinists may balk at much of what King has to say, but those of us who still believe in Free Will will find little to quibble over theologically.

King’s faith in God and emphasis on love is refreshing in the current political climate where both sides of the political fence, while often evoking God’s name, also seem to be intent on spreading vitriol. King sought to open up dialogs through peaceful demonstrations, entreating what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” Too often today’s rhetoric shuts down dialog by appealing to our baser instincts, such as bigotry, hatred, and fear.

King’s ideals went beyond bringing about change through nonviolent protest and civil disobedience. He knew that what the nation needed was not just a change of laws, but a change of heart. This is why he rejected the Communist model. While Communism’s ideal of a society of equals where everyone’s needs are met is laudable, the means by which it sought to accomplish this were the antithesis of Christianity. Communism was based on a materialistic philosophy which leaves out God. Change was forced on the community, with “the ends justifying the means,” and the ultimate value is in the state, not the people.

However, there is also a danger in capitalism with its ultimate in the profit motive. As King points out (p. 103-04),

Capitalism may lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the theoretical materialism taught by Communism.

We must honestly recognize that truth is not found in traditional capitalism or in Marxism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically, capitalism failed to discern the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise. Nineteenth-century capitalism failed to appreciate that life is social and Marxism failed, and still fails, to see that life is individual and social. The Kingdom of God is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truth of both.

The answer is not to be found in a political philosophy, but a change of heart. King was interested in more than forced legal integration, but a transformation of our characters as we cooperate with God, allowing him to change us from the inside out.

Evil can be cast out, not by man alone nor by a dictatorial God who invades our lives, but when we open the door and invite God through Christ to enter. ‘Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.’ God is too courteous to break open the door, but when we open it in faith believing, a divine and human confrontation will transform our sin-ruined lives into radiant personalities. (p.126)

Tomorrow we remember the death of a great leader who was a catalyst for social change in America. He would also have us remember the life, death, and resurrection of the one who stands at the door of our hearts inviting us to let him in. It is only then that the ideals which Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed and talked about can become a reality.

C S Lewis, Easter, and the Dramatization of Christ

A version of the following first appeared in this blog in November of 2008. It was re-worked as an Examiner.com article in 2010. I thought this Easter was a good time to reproduce this version. (Examiner.com is no longer in existence, and all its contents have been removed from the internet.)

It has been said that C S Lewis, the famous author of The Chronicles of Narnia, Mere Christianity, and dozens of other works, read The Man Born to Be King every Easter.

Dorothy L. Sayers, who was an acquaintance of C S Lewis, is probably most famous for her Lord Peter Wimsey mystery series. She was also a writer of “religious” plays and other works with theological themes. In a time and place where representing any member of the Trinity on stage had been illegal (See Sayers’ Introduction, p. 17.),The Man Born to Be King, a BBC radio series which dramatized the life of Jesus Christ, was groundbreaking.

The twelve-part “Play-Cycle” was aired in Britain during World War Two from December 1941 through October 1942. The series was so popular that a book of the plays, including all of the director’s notes, was published in 1943. In the Foreword to that book, J. W. Welch, the Director of Religious Broadcasting of the BBC, commented (page 12):

The minimum duty of religious broadcasting to those outside the churches is to say: “Listen: This is the truth about the world, and life, and you”. But how were we to say it so people would listen? Conventional church services and religious talks were of little avail. Obviously, something new was needed.

The archaic language of the Authorized King James version of the Bible had long been a hindrance to people understanding the reality of which it speaks. While using the King James verbiage in the introductory narratives, Sayers put the dialogue in the language and dialects of mid-20th-century England. Although criticized by much of the religious community for the “liberties” she took, she connected with the people.

Before there were books, God’s Truth was spread by word of mouth. After the invention of writing, God instructed his followers to record his teachings in written form. These scriptures were collected and compiled into a book that became known as the Bible. The invention of the printing press made it possible for more and more common people to have their own copy of God's Message. We are now in a time when communication has come to the point where video can be transported around the world in an instant by satellite and the Internet. Certainly God is using modern technology to reveal himself to the world.

Scripture tells us Jesus was the “exact representation” of God while he was on earth (Hebrews 1:1-3 NIV). His life dramatized in a visible way what God is like. That is not to say that radio plays or movies about the life of Christ have the same weight as the inspired scriptures. The Bible is the final authority. But the Truth of scripture is not dead dogma; it is “alive and powerful” (Hebrew 4:12), and should be presented as such to the world.

As we seek to dramatize the deity through modern technology, we must remember to present Truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Part of that love is conveying Christ in a language and manner that will resonate with the common man, woman and child. Presenting the drama of Christ's life – whether in a simple Easter pageant at a local church, or an elaborate screen play – is one way the Church can resonate the message of Christ.

The Man Born to be King was reprinted as recently as 1990 by Ignatius Press. Used copies are available on Amazon.com and other online resources. 

Letting Scabs Heal

Healing Scab
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Scab.jpg

The following was posted as a status update on Facebook April 30, 2012. It well describes what I believe God is doing with me at the present moment. Trying hard not to pick at the scab.

I was thinking today about scabs. No, not those who cross picket lines, but that crusty stuff that forms over a wound. Our tendency is to try to remove that scab before its time. We don't like that ugly, itchy patch of clotted blood, and want it to go away.

But scabs indicate that healing is taking place underneath. It is needed to cover the wound until the body has completed the job of healing.

When we are wounded emotionally, psychologically, or spiritually, healing takes time. Remember that Jesus did not always heal people immediately; sometimes there was a process involved. (Mark 8:22-25) We like to try to force the process to an early completion, but, like picking at a scab, our efforts can end up making things worse and hamper what God is trying to do.

Even after the scab has loosened and the wound has healed, there is often a permanent scar. Scars can be a reminder not to repeat stupid behavior so an accident is not repeated.

Scars can also be an indication that something good has been done to you. Those of us over 45 or so have a vaccination scar from when we were inoculated against smallpox. The healthcare professional who gave us the injection didn't do it because she wanted us to have an ugly mark on our shoulder. She did it in order to prevent a fatal disease.

God sometimes allows us to be scarred for our own good. He allows certain circumstances into our lives because He is trying to lead us in a certain direction which will avoid greater heartache, because He wants to create an empathetic spirit within us... or for a myriad of other reasons that might never become apparent to us.

Is it obvious that there is a "scab" or "scar" in your life? Be patient. Let God use it for the purpose for which He allowed it.

"Meanwhile, the moment we get tired in the waiting, God's Spirit is right alongside helping us along. If we don't know how or what to pray, it doesn't matter. He does our praying in and for us, making prayer out of our wordless sighs, our aching groans. He knows us far better than we know ourselves... and keeps us present before God. That's why we can be so sure that every detail in our lives of love for God is worked into something good." Romans 8:26-28 in The Message

Martin Luther King and racial intolerance

The following post was published on the new-defunct Examiner.com on this date in 2010. I reproduce it here for posterity, for whatever it's worth.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Wikimedia

Although Friday, January 15, 2010, was actually the 81st anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birth, the official holiday will be observed throughout the United States Monday. The South Bend Tribune lists a variety of activities which will mark the occasion.

The activities include free admission to South Bend’s Center for History, which will show three films from the 1960’s with racial themes:

10:00 a.m. – To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
12:30 p.m. – A Raisin in the Sun (1961)
3:00  p.m. – Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967)

Even as we remember his birth, there is a debate about whether King was a true Christian and believed the Bible. There has been talk for years about his moral lapses. (See The 'Truth' About Martin Luther King.) But who of us is without sin?

One website has an article which purports to show King’s doctrinal position was heretical. It quotes two papers written while King was attending Crozer Theological Seminary. Although the contents of these papers would cause most conservative Christians concern, it must be remembered that these were written when he was a young college student, and do not necessarily reflect his beliefs as he got older.

On the contrary, an article by Charles Gilmer on EveryStudent.com indicates King had a very high regard for the Bible and its teachings. Gilmer points out that the civil rights activist did not teach racial “tolerance,” which is often based on moral relativism, but love.

 “At the center of the Christian faith is the affirmation that there is a God in the universe who is the ground and essence of all reality. A Being of infinite love and boundless power, God is the creator, sustainer, and conserver of values....In contrast to the ethical relativism of [totalitarianism], Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable.”
 ….
 “Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” (Strength to Love, p. 51) [Cited by Gilmer.]

That Martin Luther King understood the message of the Gospel is clear in another passage quoted in the article.

 "Evil can be cast out, not by man alone nor by a dictatorial God who invades our lives, but when we open the door and invite God through Christ to enter. 'Behold, I stand at the door, and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.' God is too courteous to break open the door, but when we open it in faith believing, a divine and human confrontation will transform our sin-ruined lives into radiant personalities." (Strength to Love, p. 126)

As we remember Martin Luther King this weekend, remember these words. He was not striving for us to just “tolerate” each other, but to let God’s love transform us so that we would truly love one another.