Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 5 of 5)

Beyond the fact that the meal is taking place at the house of a leper (though one may be tempted to imagine that the meal is taking place at Lazarus’ house because it is said “they prepared a dinner for Jesus there” (Mark 12:2), the “there” must be a reference to Bethany), when folding in the details from the Gospel of John, one is now urged to look a second time at the fact that Martha was serving.  Martha is not only serving, but she, a wealthy woman like her sister (who can afford to “waste” a valuable amount of perfume), is serving in the house of a leper.  This is unthinkable in that day. 

Clearly, Simon is somebody that is further down the social scale from Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, so the fact that a more noble member of society is serving in the house of somebody that is “beneath them,” is a radical shake-up in the normal social order, though such things seem to be quite commonplace with Jesus.  It is the presence of Jesus, and that alone, that is bringing this unthinkable occurrence to pass.    

The social mobility of modern times (for a large part of the world), along with the casual mixing of classes that makes it impossible to positively and concretely identify one’s socioeconomic status was unknown in the ancient world.  Various aspects of the culture, especially the setting of meals and banquets, revealed social status in no uncertain terms.  The fact that this is so foreign to most people causes results in missing these aspects that would have stood out in the early years of the church.  One tends to read past these things, whereas a time and a culture that is thoroughly accustomed to these things and ordered around meals, would have had very strong reactions and opinions associated with what was being seen in Jesus’ actions and what was being communicated by the church about Jesus’ actions. 

A prominent feature of this story is that Mark makes it a point to mention that Jesus is dining at the house of a leper named Simon.  For some reason, Lazarus is absent from Matthew and Mark’s story, and of course, is absent from any Gospel save that of John.  Though Lazarus’ lack of any presence at all in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is bizarre (to say the least), it is Simon who is conspicuous by his absence from the telling in John. 

Though Simon is not present in John, Lazarus, though he is famous and people are coming to see Jesus on account of him, is not presented as the honored guest.  He does not take the place of Simon, but is presented merely as “among those present at the table with Him” (John 12:2b).  Lazarus is just another guest, Martha is serving, and Mary is (according to John’s record, wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair---which brings its own provocative considerations that are beyond the pale of this study).  There is a dynamic at work here with this particular meal that should serve to provide structure for any thoughts and considerations of Jesus’ kingdom message.

Love On John's Terms (part 10)

Not only does Mary become the first to see Jesus, but she speaks with Him and is instructed to “Go to My brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17b)  So “Mary Magdalene came and informed the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord!’  And she told them what Jesus had said to her” (20:18).  Interestingly and in an ironic contrast, there seems to be an indication that Jesus’ own disciples did not necessarily believe Mary’s report, whereas the Samaritans believed the report of the woman that came to her (naturally, one supposes it’s easier to believe things being said about a live man at a well, regardless of the source, than things being said about a man that one is certain was crucified and placed in a tomb) . 

This report of Mary’s message and the natural, incredulous response to such a message, also gives witness to the nature of the spread of the Gospel and of the church in the days of the composition of this Gospel narrative.  Taken together, these two instances of women evangelists provide a context that provides a better understanding of what “love” means for this author, for his community, and for the church. 

The events of the sixth chapter of the Gospel continue to add to the insights on love that have been gained through this approach to John.  This is where the Johannine account of the “feeding of the five thousand” is encountered.  Just before the author delves specifically into the account of the feeding, the reason for the large numbers of people that are following Jesus is given.  Verse two reports that “A large crowd was following Him because they were observing the miraculous signs He was performing on the sick” (6:2).  Surely this presentation of Jesus as being overtly concerned with the sick is a component of the defining of the way that the love of Jesus is to be on display by, for, and through His disciples.  At the same time, this use of “miraculous signs” is something in which an observer can take interest. 

As one considers that the Gospel writer has a structure in mind, and that, rather than throwing together stories and sayings haphazardly, that structure can be recognized as being carried out across the whole of the Gospel (think about the comparison between the story of the Samaritan woman and that of Mary Magdalene).  Thinking along those lines, this use of the term “miraculous signs” becomes something of a “trigger phrase.”  When it comes to the Gospel accounts, the phrase is unique to John, and it is encountered on nine occasions. 

Taken together with the preponderance of the use of “love” in the Johannine corpus, the repeated use of “miraculous signs” becomes significant, though going so far as to make a direct correlation that says that the miraculous signs are the evidences of “love” would be unwarranted.  Though it would be difficult to disconnect the miraculous signs from the conception of the love of the Creator God that was presumed to have been on display and outworked through His Christ, one cannot help but think that the “signs” are somehow closely related to the way that “love” is to be understood, and how it is to be expressed by those seeking to truly understand what it means to be disciples of Jesus. 

Water Into Wine (part 1)

Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. – John 2:1a  (NET)

At the beginning of this story, the author reports that “Jesus and His disciples” (John 2:2a) were invited to a wedding and its associated feast.  Quickly, the fact that there was a problem is encountered, which was that “the wine ran out” (2:3a).  As one might imagine, this is an issue.  For some reason, the fact that the supply of wine had been exhausted was of some concern to Jesus’ mother, so she is said to have taken it upon herself to inform Jesus that “They have no wine left” (2:3b).  Apparently, there was something about Jesus’ personality and character that caused His mother to think that Jesus would be interested in addressing this obviously pressing issue.  It would seem that Jesus’ mother was of the opinion that Jesus would take it upon Himself to fix this problem. 

However, based upon His initial response, Jesus does not sense that this is an issue in which He wants to involve Himself, saying “Woman, why are you saying this to Me?  My time has not yet come” (2:4).  Even though Jesus says this to His mother, Mary believes (with this apparently based on what she knows about her Son) that He is going to do something.  In accordance with that belief, she “told the servants, ‘Whatever He tells you, do it.’” (2:5)  Most likely, though one knows not how long, some time elapsed between the time at which Mary speaks to the servants and Jesus’ reported act of intervention in the problem at hand.  Eventually, and though the story does not set forth an overt reason for it, Jesus is spurred into action.  For some reason, though He had seemed uninterested when first told of the wine shortage, Jesus takes action to correct the situation. 

Why is the fact that there is no wine a problem?  Why is Mary concerned with this?  Why does she think Jesus will be interested in involving Himself to rectify the situation?  Why does the author of this Gospel see fit to include this story?  The answers to these questions come through an examination of the setting and the culture.  In the end, this becomes an opportunity for Jesus to provide instruction (albeit indirectly) to those in attendance.  Ultimately, it appears that the author of the Gospel of John finds it useful to include this story because it serves to provide elucidating information about the nature of Jesus’ kingdom and His mission. 

In order to understand the goings-on here in Cana, one must make an effort to understand the nature of feasts in the world occupied by Jesus.  When it came to feasts (or really any public meal in general), there were rules in place for the table.  For all practical purposes, meals were miniaturized pictures of the society in which they were taking place, and there were “rules” (unwritten though they may be) governing association and socialization in meals and other areas of life.  Importantly, the positioning of guests around a meal table was a visible demonstration of social hierarchy and political differentiation. 

What was quite common in the ancient world, and which can be safely presumed was present at this particular meal as a matter of course, was a u-shaped table known as a “triclinium.”  Banquets were organized around this table, using dining couches, with the host sitting at the center of the bottom of the “u”, with the two most prominent positions of honor to the right and to the left of the host.  This arrangement should be entirely unfamiliar, as even though there is not an ongoing overt honor and shame culture (and its associated competition for honor as a limited public good) in the western world, public occasions that include a meal in the world of today are generally arranged somewhat accordingly, with those more important to the organizer or the host or the cause seated closer to the front of the room, whereas those that are considered less important seated further away.  A major difference, of course, is that the seating does not necessarily reflect the attendees’ standing in the wider culture, and (at least in the western world) there are no hard and fast application of unwritten rules based on public perception.  

Visiting Bethany (part 6 of 6)

As the Gospel of John reports, with many witnesses present and presumably able to confirm or deny the story that is being told, Jesus calls Lazarus forth from the tomb.  It is reported that, as a result of this display of life-giving power, many people came to believe in Jesus.  Whether they came to believe in Him as a miracle-worker or as the Messiah is not specified.  However, it can surely be imagined that many that had witnessed the event, and who had perhaps witnessed the whole of His coming to Bethany (the veritable parousia that had taken place), happily joined with Mary and Martha in calling Him “Lord,” “Christ” (Messiah), and “Son of God.” 

This verbal elevation of Jesus to the position that was categorically reserved for the king of Israel (or one who would be king---remember, these are not titles of divinity in and of themselves), without the requisite approval from or sanction of Rome, among a number of other issues that are swirling around Jesus, is shown to have sparked the Pharisees and chief priests and council to declare “If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48). 

It seems that the author wants those that hear or read the story to understand, along with what these men clearly understand, that Jesus’ actions are intensely political.  The author appears to be making this point in the way he shapes his narrative, deftly and somewhat subversively pointing to the fact and the ways of the coming kingdom of God in which Jesus rules over all kings. 

So Jesus, as is discovered in the text, was acclaimed by the people for His miraculous work in raising Lazarus, which was the culmination of a great number of miraculous works and the point in the narrative where the tide turns and an onward rush to the climactic conclusion of crucifixion and Resurrection begins.  It is quite likely that He gained the honor and respect and worship of all in Bethany upon the event of this visit, which would be significant in an honor and shame culture.  A first century hearer or reader would presumably be inclined to accord this Jesus honor as well.  If he or she understood the underlying movement of the narrative that suggests that Jesus is a greater King than Caesar, then it is possible that this honor is accorded to Jesus at the expense of the Caesar.  

Figuratively, the whole of the community, upon Lazarus’ return to life, would have bowed at the feet of Jesus.  Had Caesar visited Bethany, the response would have been expected to have been the same.  All would have bowed at his feet in recognition of his power and rule and dominion over “the whole earth”.  The main difference is that when Jesus came to Bethany in his quasi-parousia, He brought life, and it was the bringing of life that would have induced the authentic worship and real honor.  While it is true that Caesar would also have received a form of worship, in the end, in spite of all the good that he might very well have done or have been able to do for the people under his rule, ultimately, men and women would only fall at Caesar’s feet because he demanded it, carrying with him the threat and power of death.    

Visiting Bethany (part 5 of 6)

After a brief exchange between Jesus and Martha that serves to outline the basic Jewish hope concerning the resurrection of the dead, “Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life.  The one who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in Me will never die’.” (11:25-26a)  How does Martha respond?  Again, making use of imperial titles, “She replied, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God Who comes into the world’.” (11:27) 

Now, even though both “Christ” (Messiah) and “Son of God” are both titles for the Jewish king, and are not necessarily meant to automatically connote divinity (ironically enough, as opposed to the appellation of the term “son of god” to the Roman emperor as part of the Caesar cult), one can here discover yet another appropriation of emperor related language, further reinforcing the idea of the supremacy of the eternal kingdom of the Creator God that is being established in and through Jesus (Son of God), as opposed to the temporal kingdom of Rome that has been established and perpetuated by the Caesar (son of god). 

Shortly thereafter, Mary, repeating Martha’s actions, “got up quickly and went to Him (Jesus)” (11:29b).  What follows is where it is learned that Jesus has not, in fact, entered into Bethany, as the text states: “Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet Him” (11:30).  This information is inserted parenthetically here in the middle of the story, rather than at the beginning, which is a subtle placement which would seem to serve to partially mask the politically subversive nature of the language that is being used surrounding this event that leads up to Jesus’ grand parousia, which is His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem.  That particular parousia will bear all of the explicit earmarks of what would be well-understood as a royal visit (depending on one’s viewpoint) by a Caesar or by Israel’s King. 

As would be expected from a person going out of his or her city to greet the “Lord Caesar,” upon reaching Jesus “Mary fell at His feet and said to Him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died’.” (11:32b)  Here, Mary echoes Martha, and once again use is made of an imperial title, as Mary calls Jesus “Lord.”  The author clearly does not want his audience to lose sight of Jesus’ position.  

It was at this point then, with Jesus having been greeted outside the city, with people falling at His feet, referring to Him as Lord and Son of God and Messiah, and making note of His great power, that Jesus finally enters into the village.  It seems that the tomb is in the village, or at least adjacent to the village, which would account for the author’s comment that Jesus “had not yet” made His way to the village. 

The reader makes note of the fact that Mary did not go to Jesus by herself (11:31,33,36), so when Jesus does make His way to the tomb, presumably, it is with a group of people.  Since Martha’s voice can again be heard breaking into the story when Jesus asks for the stone over the mouth of the cave to be rolled away, one can also presume that Martha, as one that has bowed at the feet of Jesus and called Him Lord, was one of the people in the procession that made its way to the tomb with Jesus.   

Visiting Bethany (part 2)

No, He did not go straight to the tomb or to the house of Lazarus’ sisters, Mary and Martha, with whom He was known to have shared a close relationship---at least, knowledge of this close relationship is implied in the Gospel narrative.  Instead, and quite curiously, Jesus is reported to have stopped outside the village.  Does this not seem a bit strange?  It does indeed.  It does so because the one who reads the Gospel is presumably already aware of the outcome of the situation, already privy to the full story. 

Because the full story is known, together with the way the story happily ends with Lazarus being raised from the dead, it is known that Jesus loved both Lazarus and his sisters.  One would think that this love would compel Him to not only not delay His visit to Bethany, but also to go straight to the grieving sisters without hesitation upon reaching their town. So why does the story, as told exclusively in the Gospel of John, make the point that He did not immediately go to these people that He loved?   

It may seem redundant to point out, but as the story of the raising of Lazarus begins, Jesus’ love for this family was immediately evident, as it is said that the two sisters went to the trouble of sending a message to Jesus that Lazarus was sick.  Why go to the trouble to do this unless the expectation was that Jesus would come quickly to the aid of the one He loved?  Coupled with Jesus’ not immediately rushing to provided the requested and likely expected assistance to His friend, this stopping outside of Bethany and not even going into the town seems doubly strange.  If it seems a bit perplexing to those that would later hear or read this story, one can probably imagine that it was every bit as frustrating for these two sisters of Lazarus in that day as well, and that along with them, their fellow villagers were likely struck by the oddity of this occurrence. 

Not only that, but in small, tight-knit communities as Bethany no doubt was, not only would the entire village know that Lazarus was sick, they would also know that Lazarus had died.  It is likely that they would be aware of the fact that a message had been sent to the miracle-worker Jesus, informing Him of the sickness of Lazarus.  They would also learn that Jesus did not respond to the message by coming to Bethany with all rapidity (perhaps even bringing a bit of shame to this family), and they would now know that when Jesus did finally make His way to Bethany, that He stayed just outside the town, forcing the grieving sisters to come out to Him. 

Almost undoubtedly, they would know all of these things in the larger context of the hope of Mary and Martha that Jesus could do something about the sickness, which can be seen to be manifested in their urgent message to Jesus about Lazarus’ sickness and the words that are reported to have been spoken to Him when they finally see Him.  This hope, that would eventually be vindicated by their brother’s raising at the hands and words of Jesus, would have been reasonably and understandably spurred by the healings and other miraculous occurrences that had marked Jesus’ ministry, not to mention Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his sisters.         

Naturally, based on the information heretofore provided, Jesus’ visit to Bethany should be considered in the light of the parousia of the Caesar.  So when one hears or reads that “when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet Him” (John 11:20a), a context has been created.  It is here necessary to bear in mind that the readers of this Gospel, in the first century, would be quite familiar with an imperial parousia.  Those that would hear this story in the world in which Jesus was said to have become King of all by His own Resurrection, would find that this going out of the village to meet Jesus, on the part of Martha, very much fits into the mold of expectations concerning an imperial visit.  

In My Father's House (part 9 of 9)

The words that immediately followed from Mary, that “Your father and I have been looking for you anxiously” (Luke 2:48c), receive their post-crucifixion-and-Resurrection echo from the lips of those that are known as the “Emmaus road disciples.”  While unknowingly walking with Jesus, after a three day lapse in time that had been previously and similarly and anxiously experienced by Jesus’ parents, they said “we had hoped that He was the One Who was going to redeem Israel” (24:21a).   

In the Temple courts, Jesus had said to His mother, “Why were you looking for Me?  Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” (2:49)  To these two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus said in response to their anxious declaration, “You foolish people---how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!  Wasn’t it necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?” (24:26)  What was His glory?  Truly, it was His Father’s house.  It was that which had been the long-intended purpose of the Father (the kingdom of God), that had now been inaugurated in the world through following the Resurrection. 

The Temple was the place of the “shekinah,” which was believed to be the glorious presence of the Creator God, and the singular place within His creation where He had previously said that He would dwell among His people.  This had been a promise.  Now, in Jesus’ resurrected glory, and with the concordant establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth, the whole world was to be filled with His glory.  The world was once again the Temple, as had been the case at creation.  Those who believed in Jesus as Lord of all came to be thought of as little Temples---the place where heaven and earth intersect and overlap, reflecting the glory of the Creator God into the world. 

With His Resurrection, heaven (the realm of the Creator God’s existence) was unleashed upon earth, and the world would indeed be filled with that glory through those that swore their allegiance to Jesus and His kingdom and the ways of establishing that kingdom that He had demonstrated.  It came to be understood that Jesus, with His Resurrection, did in fact fulfill the hopes of the redemption of Israel, the covenant people of the Creator God, and a new order of creation that had always been connected with the Resurrection of the righteous dead was launched. 

Because of His Resurrection, the Father’s house (the Temple Courts), would now have to be thought of as the kingdom of the Creator God that is a renewed creation that has begun to experience the Resurrection power of the Gospel of Jesus (He is Lord).  Yes, it cannot be said enough that the whole of creation, with Jesus as its King, is now the house and Temple of the covenant God of Israel; and from that time, until the time of the final consummation of that kingdom, Jesus is most certainly in His Father’s house, and about His Father’s business, working His God’s purposes through those who are of a trusting allegiance upon Him and His Lordship.  With such an understanding of the nature of the Father’s house and the Father’s business, as the Temple courts---the place of God’s glory---extends to the entire world, believers join with the disciples, as they were witnesses of His Resurrection and His departure, and are “continually in the Temple courts blessing God” (24:53), “clothed with power from on high” (24:49b).         

In My Father's House (part 6)

As a transition is made to analyzing this particular story, wearing spectacles that will allow an observer to see the crucifixion and the Resurrection embedded here in the tale, where is one most likely to find, in the Gospel accounts, remarks indicating that Jesus has not been understood?  They are to be found precisely at those places where Jesus speaks to His disciples about His upcoming crucifixion and Resurrection.

Clearly, all of the stories that are found in the narratives presented by the Gospels are there for a reason.  Each one has a specific communication, and taken together as a whole, they all point towards a larger message.  Luke, who, owing to the fact that he is essentially Paul’s biographer and therefore heavily influenced by Paul (for whom the crucifixion and Resurrection were everything), points consistently to the Resurrection, which can be observed in a re-tracing of steps through this specific story of the young Jesus at the Temple. 

Firstly, it is noted that this particular trip to Jerusalem was made at Passover.  At what season did the crucifixion of Jesus take place?  It took place at Passover.  In fact, the tragic event occurred immediately after the Passover.  Additionally, because it was the custom of the family to make this trip every year at Passover (2:41), this would help to explain why Mary, the mother of Jesus, was able to be at the foot of His cross, as recorded in the Gospel of John, even though there is no other record that she was ever with Jesus or His disciples and followers when He made His trips to Jerusalem and the region of Judea (though it is certainly possible that Mary regularly followed Jesus). 

It stands to reason then, that Mary, in order to be at the foot of the cross as reported by John (which has no bearing on Luke, as John would be influenced by Luke rather than the other way around), had made the trip to Jerusalem for the Passover, as was her apparent custom.  In the story, at the conclusion of the feast, and though His parents had left, Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.  This would happen again at the end of His life.  Following His final Passover, Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.  This time, of course, He was not in the Temple courts (though the events that would lead up to His death began at the Temple courts), but rather, He stayed behind for His crucifixion and His burial. 

With this consideration of His staying behind in Jerusalem for His crucifixion and His burial, it’s interesting to consider the words that Jesus spoke to His parents when they found Him.  A number of Bible translations (NET, NASB, ASV, RV, WEB, ESV, and more) has Jesus asking His parents, “Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” (2:49b); but there are a significant number of translations (KJV, AKJV, Rheims, Darby, Webster, Weymouth, and Geneva---naming a few) that translate this with Jesus making reference to His Father’s “business” rather than His “house.” 

The text itself appears to be vague at this point, as the Greek has Jesus indicating, by His response, that His parents should not be in the least bit surprised that He is concerning Himself with that which is of the (His) Father.  The words for either “business” or “house” do not appear in the text, so it is an understanding that must be inferred from the text supplied by the translator.  Either way, one cannot be overly dogmatic at this point.  With an eye towards the climactic event of Luke’s story, considering the use of “business” in connection with His staying behind in Jerusalem for His crucifixion and burial makes an eminent amount of sense, as most assuredly, when Jesus entered into these things, He was definitely about His Father’s business. 

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 3)

Moving forward then, it is learned that this trip did not go exactly according to plan, which serves to explain why Luke chooses to tell the story of twelve-year-old Jesus making what may have been the annual trip to Jerusalem, even though the pilgrimage was something that could have been customarily undertaken by the family.  While the story is learned from Luke, the larger purpose of his writing is kept in mind, and the crucifixion and the Resurrection are always very close to the surface of thought.  That said, Luke writes that “when the feast was over, as they were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.  His parents did not know it, but (because they assumed that He was in their group of travelers) they went a day’s journey.  Then they began to look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances.  When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for Him” (2:43-45).

It is not terribly difficult to imagine His mother’s mind-set at this terrible thought concerning what has happened to her son upon this visit to Jerusalem.  The first time she visited Jerusalem with Jesus, she heard and was amazed as a man named Simeon refers to her son as the “salvation” that God “prepared in the presence of all people: a light, for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to Your people Israel” (2:30-32).  Additionally, Anna had spoken of Jesus as “the redemption of Jerusalem (2:38b). 

So even though Mary is said to have been amazed, one must remember that the words of Simeon would not have been completely surprising, considering the reported visit to Mary of the angelic messenger that announced the event of conception.  Before those things were said by Simeon and Anna, Mary had heard the voice of an angel that “the child to be born will be holy; He will be called the Son of God” (1:35b).  Much of what Simeon and Anna had said can be said to have been implied in the information that the son of Mary would be called the “Son of God”.    

As if the idea that her child would be the “Son of God” was not enough, that same voice had informed her that “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.  He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will never end” (1:32-33).  Her relative Elizabeth has said to her “who am I that the mother of my Lord should come and visit me?” (1:43)  Shepherds were said to have visited her at the birth of her child, telling her what they had heard from angels, that the Savior was born in the city of David, and that He is Christ the Lord (2:11).  According to Luke, “Mary treasured up all these words, pondering in her heart what they might mean” (2:19), and one can be sure that the pondering never ceased throughout the whole of her life. 

Now, however, with all that she has heard about her Son pounding in her ears, she has lost this child.  This is tragic.  Though Jesus has most likely been to Jerusalem before, it is a big city, overflowing with people that are there to celebrate the Passover.  Mary, herself being naturally overcome with fear, could be relatively certain that her Son must be fearful as well.  In the midst of her fear, she can be forgiven to have not borne in mind Luke’s editorial insertion that between His birth and the age of twelve, “the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon Him” (2:40). 

In that moment then, it is not difficult to be quite certain that all Mary can think about is getting to her Son and making sure that He is safe.  With this, as one imagines Mary pondering the great and swelling words that had been spoken concerning Jesus, it could certainly be surmised that her and Joseph’s return to Jerusalem was frantic.  Luke tells Theophilus that it took them a few days to find Jesus.  In fact, it was “After three days they found Him in the Temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions” (2:46). 

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). 

In My Father's House (part 1)

But He replied, “Why were you looking for Me?  Didn’t you know that I must be in My Father’s house?” – Luke 2:49  (NET)

As one reads through the Gospel of Luke, it is worthwhile and necessary to keep in mind the presumed larger narrative purpose behind his writing.  He begins his telling of the story of Jesus with a declaration that he is going “to write an orderly account” (1:3) of “the things that have been fulfilled among us (1:1).  Quite naturally (as is the case for the rest of the New Testament authors), Luke always has the crucifixion and the Resurrection in view.  That view of the Christ-event, understandably and rightly (as it should for all believers as they view the world), colors all that he writes and all of the material that he presents. 

The recipient of his writing---the Roman official to whom Luke refers as “most excellent Theophilus” (1:3), is not receiving new information from Luke.  Rather, as seems to be indicated by the phrasing employed by the author, Luke’s works serves as a confirmation of the story, that Theophilus may “know for certain” (1:4) the things that he had been taught.  Presumably, Theophilus had been instructed concerning the crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus (the main emphasis of the message of the Gospel that Jesus is Lord).  Thus, as he reads, he is not being introduced to Jesus little by little, only to be met with a surprise twist at the end of the story.  It is necessary to consider that what Theophilus already knows about Jesus (possibly as a believer himself that seeks to share the story with others) is also going to influence the way that he reads the story, with the seminal events of crucifixion and Resurrection never being far from his thoughts. 

So with a consideration of these things concerning author and initial reader, it will be useful and beneficial for any reader of Luke to also have the crucifixion and Resurrection at the forefront of thought, influencing the reading of the text, which thereby enables one to find those things influencing the telling of events and stories throughout the whole of the writing, rather than only finding the seminal events at the end of the book or only when Jesus speaks explicitly of His pending death and what He hopes will be His Resurrection. 

Because these things are determinative of all things for the one who seeks to live a life marked by allegiance to Jesus as King (the life of faith), it makes more than perfect sense to be able to read the crucifixion and Resurrection, and even the rest of the Gospel message that Jesus is King and Lord of all things, into the text whenever possible, especially as one considers that it is the Gospel itself (according to early believers such as Paul), and belief in such as reflected in word and deed, that is itself somehow the saving and transformative power of the Creator God.  It would seem that Luke wants to aid his reader(s) in this exercise. 

To this end, this study is going to take a closer look at the story of Jesus in the Temple.  This particular story occurs after what much be acknowledged to be a significant chronological leap in the text, as it follows immediately upon that section of Luke’s Gospel that is known as the “birth narrative.”  In the narrative that leads up to the story of Jesus in the Temple in Jerusalem, the reader learns about the prophecy of John the Baptist’s birth, his father’s (Zechariah) being unable to speak because he did not believe the words of the angel Gabriel, and the announcement to Mary that she was going to give birth to the Messiah. 

It is worth pausing and side-tracking here briefly here to make an interesting comparison and contrast between Zechariah and Mary.  When Zechariah hears the words of Gabriel that informed him that his wife was going to give birth to a son, he replies by saying “How can I be sure of this?  For I am an old man, and my wife is old as well” (1:18).  Gabriel responds by saying, “because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time, you will be silent, unable to speak, until the day these things take place” (1:20).  When Gabriel tells Mary “Listen: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name Him Jesus” (1:31), Mary responds with “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?” (1:34)  Effectively, Zechariah and Mary ask the same question, understandably relying upon the impossibility of what they are said to be hearing.  In response, Zechariah loses the ability to speak, whereas Mary is given a positive affirmation and further revelation from the angel. 

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 5)

With this question from Jesus, and His reference to belief and the glory of God, an observers thoughts are returned to the beginning of the story of Lazarus.  As Lazarus and his plight is introduced into the Gospel narrative, Jesus says that “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory” (11:4b).  Once again, one must look past the immediate circumstance of the Lazarus issue, hearing the story as a component of a wider narrative (within a wider narrative) with a certain theological, sociological, and religious objective, in order to truly understand that to which Jesus is referring when He speaks about the Creator God’s glory.  Without making that effort, it would be tempting to think that the glory of the Creator God will be demonstrated through the raising of Lazarus, but in reality, the raising is only relational, and it serves only as a catalyst to that which will truly reveal the glory of the covenant God of Israel. 

The author reports that Jesus casts His eyes heavenward (11:41), and, one would have to imagine, thinking through what it was that is going to be accomplished through the events that this Gospel portrays as being set in motion through this raising, Jesus offers thankfulness for the power that will be put on display that will have the result that the people “may believe that You sent Me” (11:42b).  Having done this, Jesus, with a loud voice, said, “Lazarus, come out!” (11:43b)  As should be expected from all that has been reported to this point in the story of John, that is precisely what happened.  Lazarus came out of the tomb.  What was the result?  The author says that “Many of the people who had come with Mary and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him” (11:45), thus setting the stage for the previously mentioned glory of the Creator God that was soon to be manifested. 

John indicates that this growth in the number of those that believed in Jesus caused a widespread furor.  Honestly, one can only imagine the response to reports about a dead man being raised back to life.  In what is said to be a direct response to this occurrence and the furor that it created, “The chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said… If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him” (11:47a, 48a).  This statement thus continues the march towards uncovering that to which Jesus was referring when He spoke of the glory of His God in connection with Lazarus’ death and raising. 

Continuing this same story that began with the report of Lazarus’ sickness, some short period of time later, when there was “six days before the Passover” (12:1a), the reader learns that “Jesus came to Bethany” (12:1b).  This place, of course, was inhabited by those that had seen the great miracle of Lazarus being raised from the dead.  This would, undoubtedly, be a defining moment for Bethany for all of its existence, so it is wholly unsurprising that the author reports about “a large crowd of Judeans” that “learned that Jesus was there, and so they came not only because of Him but also to see Lazarus whom He had raised from the dead” (12:9).  Here one can note that Lazarus’ raising, as it was drawing people to Jesus, and ultimately to His mission and way of ushering in the kingdom of heaven on earth, was still being used as an instrument in the Creator God’s hands for the purpose of His own glory. 

Apparently the “Lazarus event” was quite well known, so much so that “the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too, for on account of him many of the Jewish people were going away and believing in Jesus” (12:10-11).  This was a problem on many levels.  One of the reasons that it was a significant problem in the eyes of the chief priests and Pharisees that the people were going away and believing in Jesus, was that Jesus was seen as somebody that was not rigorously keeping to the covenant markers (works of the law) that were so vitally important to Israel’s national interests in that day.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 4)

In Jesus, Peter says, the Creator God has performed the resurrection of the righteous dead, and now invites all of Israel, and all of mankind, to join Him in His Resurrection, which is the expectation of the “last days” now brought forward into their present.  This invitation is “accepted” through believing “beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus Whom you crucified both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36b).  What Peter tells his hearers is that their messianic expectations have indeed been confirmed, albeit inexplicably, through the vehicles of a Roman cross and a family tomb. 

This Resurrection had taken place in what should now be considered to be the last days (or at least the beginning of the “last days” --- a term that did not denote the end of the creation, but the messianic age and the beginning of the renewed creation, in which Israel’s Creator God was King and Lord of all); and now, a new day and a new age has dawned, and the long-awaited kingdom of God has been inaugurated, with Jesus as its Messiah-King.  Jesus is to be recognized as King and Lord of all, which was the role that was believed to have been reserved for the Creator God Himself. 

Thus, Jesus, as Messiah and the herald of the messianic age, comes to be equated with the God of Israel.  With this, the inexorable, unrelenting march towards the Creator God’s final restoration of all things has begun, with that God’s covenant people, now identified by belief in Jesus, the vehicles by which the Creator God will continue to reveal Himself, through what is taken to be the inward to outward working of the Spirit, sending His light and glory into the world.    

With this declaration of Jesus as Lord and Christ, or Lord and Messiah---presenting Him as the “Lord” that Israel’s King David had called Lord, as well as being the King of Israel (Son of God, Son of Man), Peter seizes on the well-understood concept that Israel’s king would always serve as a representative of the people, with the fortunes of the people of God waxing and waning based on the performance of their king as it related to what their God required of His covenant people (avoiding idolatry, reverencing the sanctuary, keeping the Sabbaths---what was then understood as the “works of the law” and the identifying marks of those in good covenant standing and therefore able to participate in the age of the renewed creation, resurrection of the righteous dead). 

This representation of the covenant people by the King can be most explicitly seen in King David’s infamous “numbering of the people.”  When David did this, without carrying it out appropriately and in the way that God had commanded (which would have been in association with an offering as outlined in the book of Exodus), a plague came upon the people.  This, as promised.  When David repented, built an altar, and made a sacrifice (an offering), the plague stopped.

With all of that said, one is able to return to the situation with Lazarus.  After a brief interaction with Mary and a demonstration of emotion (because Jesus loved Lazarus-John 11:36), Jesus “came to the tomb” (11:38).  Jesus ordered the stone to be rolled away from the mouth of the tomb (demonstrating the common burial practice of a multiple-use tomb that was in place in that day).  Upon this, Martha offers a mild protest about the smell that will come forth, perhaps indicating that, in her mourning, along with her expectation that Jesus would in fact be doing something about Lazarus’ sickness and death, she and her sister had not performed the standard ritual of anointing the body with spices.  This could serve as something of a possible indicator of their belief in Jesus’ Messiah-ship and in the power of the Creator God that would be wielded by Him as the Messiah.  Jesus responds to this concern by saying “Didn’t I tell you that if you believe, you would see the glory of God?” (11:40) 

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 3)

Before one can return to the issue of Lazarus’ sickness and death and God’s glory, it is necessary to traverse the territory that is laid out before the reader with the exchanges that take place between Martha and Jesus, and Mary and Jesus.  Jesus goes to Bethany, where He encounters the grieving sisters of Lazarus, whom He loved (along with his sisters).  Upon His arrival, Martha greets Him, saying, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.  But even now I know that whatever You ask from God, God will grant You” (John 11:21-22). 

There is, it needs to be said, a faith-rooted belief to be found in those statements.  Martha, apparently believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and combining that belief with some type of knowledge that part of the work of Messiah will be to restore all things, along with the general belief in the resurrection of the dead, appeals to her awareness of His powerful, healing and restoring works, in hopes that a restoration to life will be granted to her deceased brother.  Jesus responds to Martha’s faith and messianic understanding by saying, “Your brother will come back to life again” (11:23). 

Martha, who is merely reflecting the general hope of Israel in that day, which was the resurrection of the righteous dead (the Creator God’s covenant people) into their God’s good and restored creation, replies by saying, “I know that he will come back to life again in the resurrection at the last day” (11:24).  Jesus’ response to this is to flatly inform Martha that “I am the resurrection and the life.  The one who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in Me will never die” (11:25-26a).  An interesting statement to be sure. 

Jesus punctuates this statement of response with an inquiry, saying, “Do you believe this?” (11:26b)  With this, Jesus confirms both Martha’s belief in Him as Messiah, as well as the Jewish hope in the resurrection of the Creator God’s covenant people into a renewed created order in which the God of Israel has put down death and corruption (as they were most definitely not looking towards a spiritual, dis-embodied, heavenly existence for all eternity), defeating the evil that had been launched into the world at Adam’s fall, all of which was connected with the coming of messiah at the last day.  Martha’s enthusiastic reply is “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of God (King of Israel) Who comes into the world” (11:27-parentheses supplied).   

This worldview that Martha presents is that upon which the Apostle Peter will seize in what is generally referred to as his Pentecost “sermon” in the second chapter of Acts.  As a member of the nation of Israel, Peter himself had been looking towards their God’s action in history, which would eventually culminate in the resurrection of the righteous dead into the renewed creation.  The righteous dead were the saints---those who were the Creator God’s covenant people, Israel.  In that tremendous piece of oratory, Peter said, with an ultimate reference to what had been wrought in the world via the Resurrection of Jesus, that “this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16).  Following that, Peter recounts Joel’s prophecy, which, prior to the Christ-event, was generally understood as a presentation of that which would accompany the resurrection of the righteous dead, Israel, in the last days. 

After quoting Joel, Peter would go on to speak of Jesus, saying “God raised Him up, having released Him from the pains of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held in its power” (2:24).  This was what the people of Israel, Peter’s fellow Jews, were expecting to be said of all of their God’s covenant people in the last days.  Peter makes it clear that the expectation of Israel has been fulfilled in Jesus, and that He had gone down into death and had been raised up, experiencing these things as Israel’s representative.  

Preparing For The King (part 3)

In the world of that day, it was Caesar that was great, it was Caesar that was the son of the most high, it was Caesar that was clearly ruling over the people of the house of Jacob, it was the Roman empire that was never going to end, and it was Caesar that was called the son of god.  Clearly, this is a revolutionary and subversive message that was being proclaimed by the community that claimed allegiance to Jesus.  Is it any wonder that it was so persecuted?  It is no wonder that Rome went to war against this message of Jesus and attempted to destroy the people that would dare to proclaim that Jesus was King, not just of Israel, but of a kingdom that encompassed the entire world---a kingdom that exceeded that of the vast Roman empire.

That message continues to be reinforced as the story unfolds.  When Mary goes to visit Elizabeth, Elizabeth greets her and calls her “the mother of my Lord” (1:43).  “Lord” there is “kuriou.”  In first century context, and in the context of what has already been presented in regards to the titles bestowed upon Jesus, this is more kingly language.  As Theophilus, and anyone else who would happen to read this, would immediately be reminded that it is Caesar that is generally referred to as “kurios,” or “Lord.”  While “lord” is certainly an honorific title, used in both formal and informal pleasantries, the construct of Luke makes it very clear that references to Jesus as “Lord” indicate that he is such both like Caesar and ultimately of the Caesar. 

From there, with an apparent understanding of, and with reference to what had been told to her about her Son and His role as King by the angel, Mary goes on to speak in language reflecting the covenant that God had made with Abraham, saying “He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty.  He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever” (1:51-56).  Again, as we read through this, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this information has been collected and sent to a believing Roman government official who would, no doubt, be sharing this with his circle of friends and associates, perhaps even hearing it in the first time in the company of that circle.  All of the kingly language, and preparations for a people and a world to receive its King would not go un-noticed. 

A few verses later, the author has Zechariah picking up where Mary left off, continuing the reference to the covenant that God had made with Israel through Abraham, which they hoped would be fulfilled in their messiah---in their King.  It is said that 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 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David, as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant, 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’.” (1:68-75) 

From there, Zechariah re-directs his thoughts toward his own newly born son, saying that he “will be called the prophet of the Most High” (there’s that kingly language again), and that he “will go before the Lord (kurios) to prepare His ways” (1:76).  As we reflect on this, could we not agree that not only was John sent to prepare the way for the King, but that Theophilus was being encouraged to continue preparing the way for the King in service to that King, and that we, having “certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (1:4), also are charged with an ongoing preparation for the way of the King through the preaching (in both word and deed) of the Gospel?   

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.