In My Father's House (part 5)

While the teachers and others present in the Temple were being astonished at Jesus, “When His parents saw Him, they were overwhelmed” (2:48a).  Well of course they were overwhelmed, and upon locating Him, one would have to imaging that there was released a veritable flood of emotions---relief, anger, disappointment, confusion.  If the Scriptural record is correct, they had been searching for Jesus for three days.  The entire time, quite naturally, imagining that the worst possible things have happened to Him. 

Not only were there the natural fears associated with not being able to find one’s child, Mary had the additional knowledge of all that has been said to have been told to her concerning Jesus, beginning with the angel Gabriel (along with Simeon and Anna), ringing in her ears.  One is left only to wonder if Mary, in her distress, enlisted the help of as many people as possible in her search for her missing Son.  Her cries of “have you seen my boy?” might serve to elicit sympathy and assistance from the people in Jerusalem, but the addition of “He’s supposed to be the messiah” could have been quite the effective tool to gain greater attention for her plight. 

With a very human response that can be understood by anybody that has ever “misplaced” a child, whether for three minutes or for three days, “His mother said to Him, ‘Child, why have You treated us like this?  Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously’.” (2:48b)  It seems that relief from fear is not the only thing that Mary is feeling right now.  As indicated above, she also expresses a bit of anger.  It is not difficult to identify with this.  If one was to put oneself in Mary’s place, adding questions and statements like “Why did you do that?   Why did you leave the group?  Don’t ever do that again.  Your father and I were worried sick.  You could have been lying dead in a ditch somewhere.  We called the police and the hospitals.  You have no idea what you have put us through” would be more than understandable. 

It is also unlikely that Jesus was ever allowed to forget this incident.  Every time Jesus would go out of the house to play with His friends, Mary would be sure to ask Him where He was going and how long He would be gone.  Along with that, Mary would probably have given Him detailed instructions about when He needed to return to the house, with whom He could speak, and so forth.  One could even envision the scene at home with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, as Jesus is given an assignment to fetch supplies for Joseph’s business. 

Inevitably, Jesus could have routinely heard something like, “Go right there, get what we need, and come right back.  Remember what happened that one time we went to Jerusalem.”  Indeed, at the close of the incident, Luke tells us that “He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them.  But His mother kept all these things in her heart” (2:51).  This echoes Luke’s previous statement about Mary treasuring up in her heart and pondering the events surrounding Jesus’ birth (2:19). 

Now, of course this “keeping in the heart” included the answer that Jesus gave to His parents when they found Him.  After His mother’s question to Him that was an understandable mix of relief and anger, Jesus, with what might be understood as a degree of exasperation, replied “Why were you looking for Me?  Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” (2:49)  Though Mary is said to have known, based on Gabriel’s announcement to her, that Jesus would be called “the Son of the Most High” (1:32), and “the Son of God” (1:35), both of which were terms for Israel’s king, and though she has in fact located the missing Jesus in the Temple of that Most High God that is referenced in those titles, as would happen so many times throughout His life (especially with His disciples), “His parents did not understand the remark He made to them” (2:50). 

In My Father's House (part 2)

Returning to the review of the birth narrative, following Gabriel’s visit to Mary, the reader of the Gospel learns about Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, Mary’s hymn of praise to the Lord after the blessing from Elizabeth that was said to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, the birth of John, the restoration of Zechariah’s ability to speak along with his subsequent prophecy, the birth of Jesus, the visit of the shepherds, Jesus’ presentation at the Temple, the prophecy of Simeon, and the words of the prophetess Anna. 

Near the end of the birth narrative, the aforementioned Simeon shares some potentially troubling words.  He says, “Listen carefully: This child is destined to be the cause of the falling and rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be rejected.  Indeed, as a result of Him the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed---and a sword will pierce your own soul as well!” (2:34b-35)  A sword will pierce her soul “as well”?  Based on her reported experience with the angelic messenger of the Creator God, Mary is said to have known that the Messiah that has been born to her was destined for glory and ultimately redemption for Israel.  So one could imagine her thinking something along the lines of “what’s the deal with all of this talk of swords and pierced souls?”  Of course, as Theophilus reads this narrative that has been compiled for him, he is in the position of being well aware that Luke is referring to the crucifixion to come, as Luke skillfully weaves this into his text. 

With this, the reader reaches the previously referenced chronological leap.  Luke, who treats Jesus’ youth in the same way as the rest of the Biblical authors (as seemingly irrelevant), quickly jumps ahead twelve years to present the story of Jesus in the Temple.  He does this before skipping over another eighteen years or so, which then marks the beginning of what has come to be called the third chapter and the longer narrative of the ministry of Jesus. 

Why the chronological divisions?  To answer that it is necessary to return to the purpose of Luke’s writing and the fact that he is always keeping the crucifixion and the Resurrection in view.  Apparently it is his desire and purpose to tell stories about Jesus that draws the attention of his reader to the event that would be referred to by the author of Hebrews as “the consummation of the ages” (9:26).  To that end, Luke has already successfully brought the mind of his reader (if that reader is aware of that consummating event) into a contemplation of the crucifixion with his birth narrative, and now, he will attempt to accomplish the same, with an inclusion of the Resurrection and Jesus’ Lordship, with the story of Jesus in the Temple. 

Thus the story of Jesus in the Temple is introduced with Luke informing his audience that “Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem every year for the feast of the Passover” (2:41).  From this it can be reasonably (though not concretely) extrapolated that this is not the first time that Jesus has gone to Jerusalem with his parents for the celebration of the Passover.  Now, is it really reasonable to think that a “carpenter,” which is the title given to Joseph, made this journey ever year?  Well, one would do well to remember that Jesus’ father, Joseph, though a member of the artisan class and therefore not a peasant, is not necessarily a “nobody” in Israel.  He is of “the house and family line of David” (2:4b).  This is not insignificant.  Therefore, one could surmise that it would not be an unusual thing for him to make the trek to Jerusalem each year.  So it could be asserted (again, with reservation) that this is not Jesus’ first trip to Jerusalem.  Yet for some reason, Luke seizes on this particular journey and the story of this journey, telling the reader that “When He (Jesus) was twelve years old, they went up according to custom” (2:42). 

Rebuking & Rebuked (part 1 of 2)

He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?”  Peter answered Him, “You are the Christ.” – Mark 8:29  (NET)

Regardless of when the very popular book of Daniel had been penned (whether in the time of Daniel or a few centuries later), a denizen of first century Israel, with messianic expectations while living under the boot of Rome, would hold to the idea that it had been nearly five hundred years since the time that the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks of years (four hundred ninety years) was thought to have commenced.  Accordingly, there was a general understanding that the time had come for God to act “to put an end to rebellion, to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness, to seal up the prophetic visions, and to anoint a most holy place (Daniel 9:24b).  In that writing, these things are reported to have been said to Daniel, by the angel Gabriel, “concerning your people and your holy city” (9:24a).  So at the time in which the Christ walked the earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, in connection with aforementioned messianic expectation, these words from Daniel, for many, had become intimately connected to what the Creator God was finally going to do for His people, for Jerusalem, and for His Temple. 

Owing to this expectation and reckoning of the time (with a range of opinions on when that four hundred ninety year period began), many would-be messiah’s had risen up in Israel before Jesus’ day (others would continue to rise up after His day as well).  Yes, because Jesus was ultimately rejected as Israel’s Messiah, with that rejection being a very natural response to His crucifixion, other would-be Messiah’s would rise up after Him.  When men would rise up and begin to draw followers to themselves, one could almost naturally expect the claim of messiah to be either claimed by the individual or applied to him by his devotees.  Once the claim was verbalized, it would inevitably be spread around and draw more people to his movement. 

Now generally, this movement was revolutionary and violent in nature.  That is because Israel, by and large at that time, believed that their God was sending His messiah to them for a few specific reasons.  Naturally, there are exceptions and nuances to these generalization, but they believed that in the messiah, the Creator God would bring Israel’s history and purpose in and for this world to a climax.  They believed that the messiah was going to lead Israel to defeat its pagan oppressors and drive them from their land.  They believed that through the messiah, their God was going to re-establish His Temple and His presence in that Temple, so that the Lord God would dwell in their midst as had been long-promised.  They believed that their God was going to establish a new creation.  They believed that at long last, Israel’s exile, in which they did not control their land---their inheritance---was going to be brought to an end.  They believed that Israel was going to be set in power and authority over all nations. 

In their minds, the coming of messiah, and the working of messiah, was quite naturally going to involve and require a popular uprising that would be sparked and lead by the messiah himself.  Owing to hundreds of years of foreign subjugation, both inside and outside their land, there were many in Israel who eagerly looked forward to being able to participate in such actions.  So it is natural to conclude that any man who believed himself to be that messiah, and whose followers believed him to be that messiah, would want to noise such things abroad, in order to draw men in for the purpose of fighting in the battle to come, in which their God Himself was expected to have a heavy hand.  Indeed, that had largely been the case up to that point, so why would it be any different for Jesus?  Messianic aspirants had long attempted to rally fervent nationalistic support around the images and language of revolution achieved by the taking up of arms, to fight alongside their God.  Since Jesus had already drawn huge crowds and fed thousands of people at a time, and since, without a doubt, such things would have been being said about Him already, the disciples probably figured that Jesus represented the best opportunity to rally enough support to meet all of those prevailing expectations.     

Preparing For The King (part 2)

As we read through Luke, and as it relates to a people being prepared to receive their king, we have to keep in mind that this writing had a specific purpose.  That purpose is stated in what came to be recognized as the first four verses of the work.  There, we read, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the words have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (1:1-4). 

So what we there find is that this work is directed to a man referred to as “most excellent Theophilus.”  Scholarship and archaeology have come to point out that the title “most excellent,” when used preceding a name in official communication with stated purposes not unlike what we find here in Luke, was often directed towards Roman government officials of what was called “The Equestrian Order.”  This must be borne in mind because of the language that we will find being used, beginning with the record of Gabriel informing Zechariah, that he “was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news” (1:19b). 

This use of “good news” is not to be taken lightly, and along with Luke’s purpose of presenting a global king and kingdom, it demands to be heard within its immediate cultural context so as to grasp its import and impact.  The Greek word used here for “good news” is “evangelisasthai,” which is a derivation of “evangelion,” the word that is commonly rendered as “gospel.”  Because the word that is presented as “good news” was generally and primarily reserved and used in reference to the Emperor (Caesar) or to events that enhanced the glory of the Roman empire, this would have been highly impactful to this Roman government official to whom this book was directed.    

As Theophilus continued reading (or listening as it was shared by a tradent), he would come to the story of Mary.  With Mary, the language of preparation for a King would become even stronger and more pronounced.  As the author communicates a similar experience to that of Zechariah, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary, telling her that she had “found favor with God” (Luke 1:30).  Favor, in a world defined by honor and shame, and in which the patron and client relationship was prevalent, pervasive, and determinative, would have been a crucial component of the message to Mary, and it would not have been lost on someone such as Theophilus, who, like everyone else in his world, would have been well-versed in the dynamics of the patron client relationship, and the ongoing desire to secure favor from a patron. 

It is worth digressing for just one moment to point out that Mary had not found this favor through any efforts of her own, but that God’s favor was being bestowed upon her, the evidence of which would be the fact that she was told that she would “conceive and bear a son,” and that she would “call His name Jesus” (1:31).  This was most definitely the unmerited favor of God poured out upon Mary, and she is placed in the position of client to her patron, the Creator God of Israel, now owing Him service, gratitude, and loyalty. 

This name, Jesus, which means “Jehovah Saves,” was quickly followed up by a few more titles.  The kingly language comes at us and Theophilus quite quickly, as we read that “He will be great” (1:32a), that He “will be called the Son of the Most High” (1:32b), that “the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David” (1:32c), that “He will reign over the house of Jacob forever” (1:32d), and that “of His kingdom there will be no end” (1:32e).  Is there any doubt as to the mission of Jesus and what Luke desires to make known about Him?  A bit further on we read that Jesus shall be called “the Son of God” (1:35b).  That’s quite an impressive list to read, especially in a world that is ruled by Caesar, and is the one for whom such language (especially “son of god”) is generally reserved.  

Preparing For The King (part 1)

For he will be great before the Lord.  And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. – Luke 1:15  (ESV)

This verse, which of course must be heard within and according to the entire narrative and purpose of the author’s work, which is the presentation of a true global ruler, speaks of the man that we know as John the Baptist.  Immediately after declaring that “the Baptizer” will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, the writer goes on to say that “he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God” (1:16).  Because of what is said by this early Jesus-believer in the course of his writing, reflecting the belief of the early church when it comes to the role of the Holy Spirit in the world, we can quickly make the connection that it is not strictly John the Baptist that will be doing this turning through his ministry, as important and crucial for laying the groundwork for Jesus (and most likely influencing Jesus) that his ministry would be. 

What is not to be missed is that, though he will be the vessel that the Creator God of Israel uses of course, it would be that God, through the Holy Spirit, turning many to Himself, the Lord their God.  We go on to read that “he will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (1:17a), and that he will also serve to “turn the hearts of the fathers to the children” (1:17b).  Most importantly, however, we find it said that he will be turning, through the Holy Spirit at work in him to bring this about, “the disobedient to the wisdom of the just” (1:17c).

We can find this to be a most compelling statement, especially as we reflect on those words “wisdom” and “just”.  Here, one can’t help taking the liberty of doing a bit of justifiable though relatively free word substitution, and re-reading that phrase to find John turning “the disobedient to the Christ of God the Father.”  That is a safe substitution, in light of the fact that we know that our God is indeed just, and that the Apostle Paul refers to Jesus the Christ as the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). 

Now, do we make these substitutions for no reason?  Of course not.  We do so in order for the purpose of better understanding what is being communicated through the Scripture.  Here, we are simply pointing out that part of John the Baptist’s ministry was to prepare a people currently in a state of the curse of exile (though in their land, they were ruled by a foreign power), and who would have thus, according to their self-understanding and the narrative by which they defined themselves, understood themselves to be a disobedient people.  John was preparing a people to be turned to Jesus and to His message about Himself.  That’s not much of a stretch of logic, as we find John offering up his purpose statement throughout the Gospels, saying that he was there to “Prepare the way of the Lord,” and to “make His paths straight” (Luke 3:4). 

These things that were being said about John here in the first chapter of Luke were being said by Gabriel, an angel of the Lord.  When John says that he was preparing the way of the Lord, he is hearkening back to what the readers (hearer) is informed was told to his father, Zechariah, by Gabriel.  Undoubtedly, the reader is to presume that these words had been passed on to John as a young man, and that John would naturally have reflected on them throughout his life.  So when John speaks about his ministry of preparation, he is referring to the fact that it was said by the angel that he would be used “to make ready for the Lord a people prepared” (1:17d).  This begs the question as to what the people were being prepared to do.  The answer is that they were being prepared to receive their king.  With that, we have to understand that God’s people were in constant expectation of their messiah, their king in the line of David, though there was certainly internal disagreement as to the type of messiah they were expecting.  It is along these lines that we think of the turning of “the disobedient to the Christ (the Messiah-anointed one) of God the Father.” 

God's Time Of Visitation (part 1 of 3)

And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people.” – Luke 1:67-68  (ESV)

Following his initial declaration of blessing and praise and the visitation of the Creator God, with his tongue having been loosed from its enforced silence as had been declared by the angel Gabriel, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, goes into what amounts to a dissertation regarding God’s covenant with His people.  He says that, according to the covenant, “that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us” (1:71).  He confirms that this does, in fact, stand in relation to the promises of His covenant, as he goes on to say that the saving from the enemies and hatred is “to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant” (1:72). 

To which covenant is Zechariah here referring as he is filled with the Holy Spirit?  He is referring to “the oath that He swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days” (1:73-75).  In this, Zechariah is employing the quite common prophetic practice and theme of the use of exodus language, in conjunction with the reference to the Abrahamic covenant, specifically pointing to the promise that the Lord had made to Abram (before his name was changed to Abraham), when “the Lord said to Abram, ‘Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.  But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions’.” (Genesis 15:13-15) 

At the point in time that Zechariah is uttering these words, Israel has been re-established in the land with something like self-rule, following the conclusion of the Babylonian exile (though according to the Scriptural record, the exile was only partial, with a portion of the people standing in for the whole), for over four hundred years.  In fact, it has been over five hundred years since the second Temple was put in place.  Yet, Israel dwelled in a land of promise that they did not possess.  In effect, just as Israel had dwelled and served in Egypt, Israel now found themselves under the heel of oppression in a land that was not theirs.  Since their return from exile, the land had alternately been under the dominion of Persia, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and now Rome.  Because it had been over four hundred years, the nation was very much looking to the time of another exodus.  This time, however, it would not be the exodus of the people from their own land, but an exodus of foreign powers, namely Rome, from Israel’s promised land. 

Part of what resulted from the constant hearkening back to God’s great deliverance of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, as especially commemorated in the feast of Passover in which the people were instructed to always remember the deliverance from Egypt, along with the consistent invocation of the Abrahamic covenant, was an expectation that the time had come (and perhaps it was even overdue) for their God to act on behalf of His people, to bring them their Redeemer, to raise up their Messianic King---their “horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David” (1:69).  Luke, via Zechariah, gives voice to this hope.  In addition, the Israelite nationalist revolutionary movements from the second century B.C. and forward, which stoked a revolutionary fervor that existed through and after the time of Christ, stood as witness to what it was that God’s chosen people were expecting. 

There was a hopeful expectation on the part of some in Israel, in that day, that God, just as He had done for His people in Egypt, would bring judgment on the nation that they were serving.  This underlying context of unrest and upheaval and covenant and hope must be understood if we truly desire to have any chance at understanding the message and ministry of Jesus and the foundation of His church.  As he is said to have spoken by the Holy Spirit, Zechariah communicates a belief that the birth of his son, together with the information that would have been undoubtedly provided to him by Mary’s visit to his wife Elizabeth (the listener/reader is forced to draw conclusions), along with the associated angelic visits and messages--- not the least of which was his own inability to speak for an extended period of time and his subsequent ability to speak when he confirmed the message of the angel in regards to the name of the child born to he and his wife--- was evidence that God’s miraculous intervention on behalf of His people, His visiting and redemption and salvation, was being heralded as being at hand.  To this end, he declares, “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare His ways” (1:76).