vs 1
Sounds like the thing to do, if you're hungry.
vs 2
Now, here's the thing - Jesus and his students are walking through a field. Where do these Pharisees come from. Do the pop up from behind stalks of grain? Were they following him? If so, isn't walking that far too much work on the Sabbath?
Perhaps that's a more recent idiot development in Sabbath rules. Regardless, their popping up is somewhat disturbing.
vs 3
Which of course they have - they're Pharisees. So this question is somewhat of a tease.
vs 4
I guess the unspoken post-script is "And he didn't get struck down and instantly die, which is what you would expect if someone did that". I think the idea is that because he's king, he's allowed to do such things.
vs 5
And so, just as David was king, Jesus is king over the Sabbath. Now, notice that Jesus isn't recorded as eating grain himself, but the Pharisees did say 'you' which, even if plural, would still indicate Jesus as being included.
vs 6
Interesting of course that you're allowed to teach on the Sabbath. I mean, how is that not work?
vs 7
So healing on the Sabbath is a sin, but teaching is fine? Bloody hypocrites! No wonder they were such losers.
vs 8
Jesus has a point to make, and he's not afraid of doing it in front of everyone. I mean, he could have waited till after the service, and healed the guy in the back alley. But he didn't. Because the Pharisees were simply wrong, and he's going to use the blessing of healing to show it. Why would God bless a healing against his will?
vs 9
Now the thing is that God doesn't give us reasons for all of his laws and rules. To be honest, sometimes you've just got to say "Ok God, I don't understand, but I'll do it". That's part of faith. But if we only know part of God's will, then we're always going to be limited in how well we can serve him. That's why the first promise of Romans 12 is that you will get to know God's will better. And God's will is not for us to hurt people, or leave them hurting. No one is going to stone you for saving someone's life on the Sabbath. They will stone you for adultery, not for sleeping with your wife.
vs 10
And so Jesus does heal him. Brown materials - prepare to hit fan!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Luke chapter 5
vs 31-32
It's Jesus who answers them. Did he come out of the house? Did the disciples go into ask him the question, and he passed it on?
Now, his answer is not as simple as it first sounds. Because of the generally negative attitude towards Pharisees in Luke, we can't assume that Jesus here is saying that the Pharisees are righteous and hence don't need him. Everyone's sinful, so Jesus has really come to call everyone to repentance. In a manner of speaking.
I think Jesus is really picking up on the idea that because the Pharisees think they are righteous, they don't see a need for Jesus. But the tax collectors and other 'sinners' know their lives aren't great, and so they are joyful that Jesus is here.
Sick people who know they're sick are more likely to seek out a doctor than sick people who think they're well.
vs 33
So they're trying to put the holy heavies onto Jesus' disciples now. Can't attack the man, attack his posse.
vs 34-35
The truth is that fasting for no reason is worthless. Fasting was most often a solemn and dour affair, and when you're happy, it's not a time to fast really. It is a practice meant to put you in such a mood.
As such, anyone who turned up to a wedding and was fasting would not be the life of the party.
Jesus is the life of the party of all parties. If you expect his disciples to be all morose and sad, then you really don't understand why he's here. More than anything else, these last two stories have shown just how the Pharisees did not understand the purpose of Jesus' coming.
vs 36
I don't think even the context of this parable makes it completely clear what Jesus is talking about here. People will talk about old and new covenants, or religious orders, or whatever. But the context seems to be simply talking about groups. The Pharisees are an old group. Even John TB and his disciples are an old group. Jesus' group is the new group. And you don't tear up the new thing to try and make the old thing better. You can repair old thing with old thing for a while, but eventually it's all too old. Then, you just chuck the old thing and replace it with the new thing.
A lesson some churches could afford to learn. While I don't think this verse is directly applicable to church practices (it possibly is, though, I mean we're talking about fasting earlier), I think it is applicable to theology. Now when I say that theology has a use-by date, some people go bonkers, as if I'm chewing on my Bible and spitting it out or something. But theology is a human construction - it's how we take the Bible and apply it to our circumstances (note also the practical application of theology). And since circumstances and understandings change, then theology changes too. Sometimes we need to stop patching up our old theology that simply doesn't work anymore, and replace it with completely new garments. Or theology. Perhaps both.
vs 37-38
I believe this is the same parable, put a different way. I am not an allegorist, and so I don't believe that the garments represent one thing, and the wineskins another, and we're meant to decode them with our magical decoding rings.
vs 39
Because if you do take these parables too literally, you're going to get caught up in this verse. Is the new wine the New Covenant? If so, then why does the Old Covenant taste better?
A few people (actually, probably quite a number) see this verse either as ironic comment, or warning, that lots of Jews will not come to Jesus because they think the old way is better. But lots of Jews did come to know Christ. 3000 of them at Pentecost alone. The response then, of course, is that "no one" is hyperbolic. And fair enough - if you want to interpret it that way, then seeing this comment as hyperbole is reasonable.
But it neglects to accept the fact that old wine really is better! It's nicer to drink than new wine. I think you've got to accept that this is a parable, and like all analogies, it falls down somewhere. But also, it's easy to neglect the fact that you can't have old wine without new wine. It had to be new sometime.
So what did Jesus mean? Don't know. He never really does make it clear what about his way is new. But certainly, you need to have the right practice for the context. For new context, new practice (or idea or theology). For old context, old practice etc.
It's Jesus who answers them. Did he come out of the house? Did the disciples go into ask him the question, and he passed it on?
Now, his answer is not as simple as it first sounds. Because of the generally negative attitude towards Pharisees in Luke, we can't assume that Jesus here is saying that the Pharisees are righteous and hence don't need him. Everyone's sinful, so Jesus has really come to call everyone to repentance. In a manner of speaking.
I think Jesus is really picking up on the idea that because the Pharisees think they are righteous, they don't see a need for Jesus. But the tax collectors and other 'sinners' know their lives aren't great, and so they are joyful that Jesus is here.
Sick people who know they're sick are more likely to seek out a doctor than sick people who think they're well.
vs 33
So they're trying to put the holy heavies onto Jesus' disciples now. Can't attack the man, attack his posse.
vs 34-35
The truth is that fasting for no reason is worthless. Fasting was most often a solemn and dour affair, and when you're happy, it's not a time to fast really. It is a practice meant to put you in such a mood.
As such, anyone who turned up to a wedding and was fasting would not be the life of the party.
Jesus is the life of the party of all parties. If you expect his disciples to be all morose and sad, then you really don't understand why he's here. More than anything else, these last two stories have shown just how the Pharisees did not understand the purpose of Jesus' coming.
vs 36
I don't think even the context of this parable makes it completely clear what Jesus is talking about here. People will talk about old and new covenants, or religious orders, or whatever. But the context seems to be simply talking about groups. The Pharisees are an old group. Even John TB and his disciples are an old group. Jesus' group is the new group. And you don't tear up the new thing to try and make the old thing better. You can repair old thing with old thing for a while, but eventually it's all too old. Then, you just chuck the old thing and replace it with the new thing.
A lesson some churches could afford to learn. While I don't think this verse is directly applicable to church practices (it possibly is, though, I mean we're talking about fasting earlier), I think it is applicable to theology. Now when I say that theology has a use-by date, some people go bonkers, as if I'm chewing on my Bible and spitting it out or something. But theology is a human construction - it's how we take the Bible and apply it to our circumstances (note also the practical application of theology). And since circumstances and understandings change, then theology changes too. Sometimes we need to stop patching up our old theology that simply doesn't work anymore, and replace it with completely new garments. Or theology. Perhaps both.
vs 37-38
I believe this is the same parable, put a different way. I am not an allegorist, and so I don't believe that the garments represent one thing, and the wineskins another, and we're meant to decode them with our magical decoding rings.
vs 39
Because if you do take these parables too literally, you're going to get caught up in this verse. Is the new wine the New Covenant? If so, then why does the Old Covenant taste better?
A few people (actually, probably quite a number) see this verse either as ironic comment, or warning, that lots of Jews will not come to Jesus because they think the old way is better. But lots of Jews did come to know Christ. 3000 of them at Pentecost alone. The response then, of course, is that "no one" is hyperbolic. And fair enough - if you want to interpret it that way, then seeing this comment as hyperbole is reasonable.
But it neglects to accept the fact that old wine really is better! It's nicer to drink than new wine. I think you've got to accept that this is a parable, and like all analogies, it falls down somewhere. But also, it's easy to neglect the fact that you can't have old wine without new wine. It had to be new sometime.
So what did Jesus mean? Don't know. He never really does make it clear what about his way is new. But certainly, you need to have the right practice for the context. For new context, new practice (or idea or theology). For old context, old practice etc.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Luke chapter 5
vs 21
Luke says here that this is what the Pharisees and teachers of Law were thinking, not that they said it. Perhaps they mumbled it under their breath. It really doesn't matter, because I think most Jews would have been pretty aware what a Pharisee or teacher of Law would think if you went around forgiving sins.
Of course, they are right, too. Sin is primarily an action against God, and so forgiveness of sin (in the pardoning sense of forgiveness) is really God's domain only.
vs 22
You know, the Pharisees really are given the tough job of being enemies in this story. Their thought was going to be correct 99.99999% of the time, and so they made an assumption about Jesus. Ok, they were wrong. But how many of the non-Pharisee Jews thought Jesus was God? I'll bet that didn't occur to anyone at this point in time. I guess the point is that they let their rigidness get in the way of faith.
vs 23
Obviously saying "your sins are forgiven" is easy because you don't see it happen. It's a little harder, though, if after you've said it the Pharisees drag you away and stone you to death.
vs 24
Now, does this really show that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins? Does it mean anyone who can heal a paralytic can also forgive sins? No. But the assumption is that God is granting the power for this healing. If Jesus lied and said he could forgive sins but really couldn't, why would God suffer such blasphemy and bless his healing efforts?
Now, how far do we follow this pattern? Do we believe that God is more likely to bless the work of a righteous man instead of a sinner? If we don't feel like God is working through us, does that mean our discipleship isn't radical enough?
vs 25
It worked for Jesus, anyway. And for the paralysed guy too.
vs 26
They certainly had seen remarkable things. A paralysed man received the ability to walk. Someone read people's minds. Someone possibly got their sins forgiven! And the new hero on the street has had his first meeting with the human enemies.
The thing is, of course, that the Pharisees aren't the real enemy. They're the dumb flunky mooks who just get in Jesus' way and get kung fu'd and fall over bannisters. Satan was the real big boss, and he's still waiting for the final showdown. I can see a good Kung Fu gospel analogy here.
vs 27-28
Wow, what a story! It does go on in the next few verses, but there is actually a bit of a shock value here, especially if you're non-Roman. Jesus is meant to be the goody-white-robe kung fu master. And yet, as one of his students, he picks a tax collector.
Now obviously we don't have tax collectors anymore. And we're also not controlled by an oppressive foreign government seeking to lessen the tax burden on its own citizens by taxing foreign vassal nations. But imagine if we were... ha! Hard to do. Just accept that this is the situation, and we will then begin to understand why tax collectors weren't really all that liked.
vs 29
Of course, everyone else hates them, so they necessarily get together and become mates. "Others" is probably family, and other friends from similarly despised occupations.
In other words, not the place you'd expect your pastor to be having dinner. Let alone your Messiah.
vs 30
The wording of this strikes me. The Pharisees ask his disciples, not him. Is that because some of the disciples were perhaps waiting outside(they might not have been keen on the idea of eating in there either, you know), and so the Pharisees asked the question of them? Of course, that's heresay, but it is reasonable heresay. I mean, they might have asked one of the disciples who went outside to take a leak. Just as reasonable, although somewhat more embarrassing.
Luke says here that this is what the Pharisees and teachers of Law were thinking, not that they said it. Perhaps they mumbled it under their breath. It really doesn't matter, because I think most Jews would have been pretty aware what a Pharisee or teacher of Law would think if you went around forgiving sins.
Of course, they are right, too. Sin is primarily an action against God, and so forgiveness of sin (in the pardoning sense of forgiveness) is really God's domain only.
vs 22
You know, the Pharisees really are given the tough job of being enemies in this story. Their thought was going to be correct 99.99999% of the time, and so they made an assumption about Jesus. Ok, they were wrong. But how many of the non-Pharisee Jews thought Jesus was God? I'll bet that didn't occur to anyone at this point in time. I guess the point is that they let their rigidness get in the way of faith.
vs 23
Obviously saying "your sins are forgiven" is easy because you don't see it happen. It's a little harder, though, if after you've said it the Pharisees drag you away and stone you to death.
vs 24
Now, does this really show that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins? Does it mean anyone who can heal a paralytic can also forgive sins? No. But the assumption is that God is granting the power for this healing. If Jesus lied and said he could forgive sins but really couldn't, why would God suffer such blasphemy and bless his healing efforts?
Now, how far do we follow this pattern? Do we believe that God is more likely to bless the work of a righteous man instead of a sinner? If we don't feel like God is working through us, does that mean our discipleship isn't radical enough?
vs 25
It worked for Jesus, anyway. And for the paralysed guy too.
vs 26
They certainly had seen remarkable things. A paralysed man received the ability to walk. Someone read people's minds. Someone possibly got their sins forgiven! And the new hero on the street has had his first meeting with the human enemies.
The thing is, of course, that the Pharisees aren't the real enemy. They're the dumb flunky mooks who just get in Jesus' way and get kung fu'd and fall over bannisters. Satan was the real big boss, and he's still waiting for the final showdown. I can see a good Kung Fu gospel analogy here.
vs 27-28
Wow, what a story! It does go on in the next few verses, but there is actually a bit of a shock value here, especially if you're non-Roman. Jesus is meant to be the goody-white-robe kung fu master. And yet, as one of his students, he picks a tax collector.
Now obviously we don't have tax collectors anymore. And we're also not controlled by an oppressive foreign government seeking to lessen the tax burden on its own citizens by taxing foreign vassal nations. But imagine if we were... ha! Hard to do. Just accept that this is the situation, and we will then begin to understand why tax collectors weren't really all that liked.
vs 29
Of course, everyone else hates them, so they necessarily get together and become mates. "Others" is probably family, and other friends from similarly despised occupations.
In other words, not the place you'd expect your pastor to be having dinner. Let alone your Messiah.
vs 30
The wording of this strikes me. The Pharisees ask his disciples, not him. Is that because some of the disciples were perhaps waiting outside(they might not have been keen on the idea of eating in there either, you know), and so the Pharisees asked the question of them? Of course, that's heresay, but it is reasonable heresay. I mean, they might have asked one of the disciples who went outside to take a leak. Just as reasonable, although somewhat more embarrassing.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Luke Chapter 5
vs 11
This was the big test. Ok, you might take orders about fishing from a preacher because you think a miracle might happen. But do you walk away from your livelihood to follow him? Like Peter said, "Because you said it, I will do it". And they do follow him.
vs 12
We're going to see lots of healings, and it is often worth asking why they are included. Unfortunately, as with so many things, there is a lot of pregnant meaning in these short stories that is culturally relevant.
All healings of skin diseases particularly are wonderful for the person involved, because it means they can rejoin society, as they are once again religiously clean. This one does have a portion of that in the story.
vs 13
Jesus' willingness makes the guy clean. If it was only his willingness that was stopping this guy from being clean (at least in his own mind, because that's how he asked) then I think that's a pretty good amount of faith. I mean, if someone came up to me and said "If you are willing, then cure my illness!" they are assuming I have everything else I need at my disposal to do it.
vs 14
Here is the link to the religious system and cleanness - now that he has been cleansed, he is to make the religious offerings for that. But there is also this messianic secret again. This time, Jesus doesn't want the ex-leper to spread the word. Why would that be? Surely Jesus wouldn't have the same reason for telling a demon to shut up?
vs 15
It doesn't actually say that the ex-leper spilled the beans, but someone obvoiusly noticed, because Jesus gets cramped pretty quick.
vs 16
And Jesus spent plenty of time with them too, but he also withdrew and found lonely places . His own time with himself (ie God) was important.
I read an interesting article questioning how much Jesus knew about his own divinity. I didn't agree with it's final summary, but at times like this it's worthwhile asking the question.
vs 17
So a bunch of Pharisees etc were there from all over the shop. We were all waiting for them to show up. But the thing that strikes me is "the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick". What does that mean? Didn't Jesus always have this power? if he did, why put this verse?
vs 18
Which is nice. It doesn't say who the men were - brothers, mates? Anyway, they are keen to see him well again.
vs 19
Did I say keen? How about "breaking and entering, causing massive damage" keen?
vs 20
And of course, I will end here on this massive verse. There is so much tied up with Jesus' words, it spans the whole of human history. And it is interesting that Jesus chooses this time, when there's a bunch of Pharisees around, to make this point, rather than, say, when a leperous man falls in front of him. Fireworks a comin'!
This was the big test. Ok, you might take orders about fishing from a preacher because you think a miracle might happen. But do you walk away from your livelihood to follow him? Like Peter said, "Because you said it, I will do it". And they do follow him.
vs 12
We're going to see lots of healings, and it is often worth asking why they are included. Unfortunately, as with so many things, there is a lot of pregnant meaning in these short stories that is culturally relevant.
All healings of skin diseases particularly are wonderful for the person involved, because it means they can rejoin society, as they are once again religiously clean. This one does have a portion of that in the story.
vs 13
Jesus' willingness makes the guy clean. If it was only his willingness that was stopping this guy from being clean (at least in his own mind, because that's how he asked) then I think that's a pretty good amount of faith. I mean, if someone came up to me and said "If you are willing, then cure my illness!" they are assuming I have everything else I need at my disposal to do it.
vs 14
Here is the link to the religious system and cleanness - now that he has been cleansed, he is to make the religious offerings for that. But there is also this messianic secret again. This time, Jesus doesn't want the ex-leper to spread the word. Why would that be? Surely Jesus wouldn't have the same reason for telling a demon to shut up?
vs 15
It doesn't actually say that the ex-leper spilled the beans, but someone obvoiusly noticed, because Jesus gets cramped pretty quick.
vs 16
And Jesus spent plenty of time with them too, but he also withdrew and found lonely places . His own time with himself (ie God) was important.
I read an interesting article questioning how much Jesus knew about his own divinity. I didn't agree with it's final summary, but at times like this it's worthwhile asking the question.
vs 17
So a bunch of Pharisees etc were there from all over the shop. We were all waiting for them to show up. But the thing that strikes me is "the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick". What does that mean? Didn't Jesus always have this power? if he did, why put this verse?
vs 18
Which is nice. It doesn't say who the men were - brothers, mates? Anyway, they are keen to see him well again.
vs 19
Did I say keen? How about "breaking and entering, causing massive damage" keen?
vs 20
And of course, I will end here on this massive verse. There is so much tied up with Jesus' words, it spans the whole of human history. And it is interesting that Jesus chooses this time, when there's a bunch of Pharisees around, to make this point, rather than, say, when a leperous man falls in front of him. Fireworks a comin'!
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Luke chapter 5
vs 1
Even now, at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus has a crowd who listens to him. I guess we'd sort of call these people disciples, especially if they'd been following him around. But there's a difference between the disciples and the Disciples. Still, I think it's important to not underestimate the popularity of Jesus' early ministry, especially his teaching.
vs 2
What were these fishermen thinking of this whole scene? I mean, it's obviously not a normal thing for crowds of people to sit around listening to someone. Not that it's mega-miraculous or anything, but the fact that the fishermen are continuing to work means that they don't seem all that impressed.
vs 3
What Jesus has done is instantly confronted one of the fishermen with his presence. Is he going to do what Jesus asks, so that he can escape the press of flesh? Or will he tell him to go jump?
vs 4
Now, after he finishes his little talk, Jesus wants to do something for Simon. So he tells Simon to throw his net in. Now, a preacher man jumping on your boat and asking if he can use it as a floating podium is one thing. But a preacher man jumping in your boat and telling you how to do your job, that's a bit much.
vs 5
But that's not Simon's attitude. He respects Jesus (the term he uses for Jesus obviously means that he respects his authoritative teaching), and so because he said it, he'll give it a go. What a great model! Jesus and God both say some pretty incredible things at times. A lot of which are difficult to believe actually work. Prayer is an excellent example. How does it work? Dunno, but it does, somehow.
Peter's answer is "well, you give me a good reason to drop my nets in, and I'll do it". No, he says "Because you say so, I will let down the nets".
vs 6
And it pays off. I mean, the nets breaking isn't so great, but hey, fish is good!
vs 7
Ok, that's a hell of a lot of fish. What, did the nets start tasting like bait or something? It goes beyond a good piece of advice when you've got 2 boats sinking with fish.
vs 8
Simon (now called Simon Peter, even though Jesus hasn't said anything like that yet - interesting) knows something is up. And it's got more to do with fish.
vs 9-10
So do the Zebedees. This must have been a fairly awesome occurence, and it's happening within their field of expertise. So it's even more convincing. The few scant verses barely does it justice, I am guessing, because a fisherman catching fish does not at the outset seem like a life-changing activity. But the biggest challenge is yet to come.
Even now, at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus has a crowd who listens to him. I guess we'd sort of call these people disciples, especially if they'd been following him around. But there's a difference between the disciples and the Disciples. Still, I think it's important to not underestimate the popularity of Jesus' early ministry, especially his teaching.
vs 2
What were these fishermen thinking of this whole scene? I mean, it's obviously not a normal thing for crowds of people to sit around listening to someone. Not that it's mega-miraculous or anything, but the fact that the fishermen are continuing to work means that they don't seem all that impressed.
vs 3
What Jesus has done is instantly confronted one of the fishermen with his presence. Is he going to do what Jesus asks, so that he can escape the press of flesh? Or will he tell him to go jump?
vs 4
Now, after he finishes his little talk, Jesus wants to do something for Simon. So he tells Simon to throw his net in. Now, a preacher man jumping on your boat and asking if he can use it as a floating podium is one thing. But a preacher man jumping in your boat and telling you how to do your job, that's a bit much.
vs 5
But that's not Simon's attitude. He respects Jesus (the term he uses for Jesus obviously means that he respects his authoritative teaching), and so because he said it, he'll give it a go. What a great model! Jesus and God both say some pretty incredible things at times. A lot of which are difficult to believe actually work. Prayer is an excellent example. How does it work? Dunno, but it does, somehow.
Peter's answer is "well, you give me a good reason to drop my nets in, and I'll do it". No, he says "Because you say so, I will let down the nets".
vs 6
And it pays off. I mean, the nets breaking isn't so great, but hey, fish is good!
vs 7
Ok, that's a hell of a lot of fish. What, did the nets start tasting like bait or something? It goes beyond a good piece of advice when you've got 2 boats sinking with fish.
vs 8
Simon (now called Simon Peter, even though Jesus hasn't said anything like that yet - interesting) knows something is up. And it's got more to do with fish.
vs 9-10
So do the Zebedees. This must have been a fairly awesome occurence, and it's happening within their field of expertise. So it's even more convincing. The few scant verses barely does it justice, I am guessing, because a fisherman catching fish does not at the outset seem like a life-changing activity. But the biggest challenge is yet to come.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Luke Chapter 4
vs 34
CS Lewis was the second person to introduce to me the idea Satan may be strong, and he may have demon minions, and he may be tempting and terrible, but that doesn't make him smart (Martin Luther was the first).
Well, I think in the temptation, we get this idea that Satan is going to be all stealthy and sneaky, and find the perfect time to backstab Jesus. Instead, he puts a demon into a guy in a synagogue, who then screams out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Smart move?
vs 35
So for all the power that Satan and his minions might have, Jesus only actually needs to say "Shut up" and "Go away" to overpower them.
vs 36
Interestingly, the amazed people link Jesus' teaching to his power. I wonder if we'd do the same? I bet, in fact, we'd try to separate them, to explain one on its own terms separate from the other.
vs 37
Good news does travel, so it seems. I'm sure they heard about this even as far as Nazereth.
vs 38
When things like this happen, people tend to see what else will work too. So if Jesus has a powerful teaching authority, and can drive out demons, let's see if he can help a sick person too.
vs 39
And of course he can. So much so, that she doesn't even feel weak - she gets up and serves them.
vs 40
Jesus didn't turn them away and say "Ok, look, you can see I can heal people's sicknesses - let's talk about sin now." He healed them not just to show off his power (Luke might be writing it that way to show Jesus has that power) but because he loves them and doesn't want to them to suffer.
vs 41
So if these demons are backing him up and saying these things, why does he command them to shut up? I have heard people say that he didn't want the truth to be heard from the mouths of demons, because the witness of a demon is a bad witness. You really don't know if you can trust him if demons say it.
If that is so, then, why do the gospel writers record it? Wouldn't we face the same questions reading about it now?
The fact is that the whole question of the "messianic secret" as it's known is quite a complex one. Let's see how Luke unfolds it (every gospel treats it a little differently).
vs 42
If you had someone who could heal people, and teach with authority, and probably do other things too, you'd want to keep a hold of him. I mean, outback communities are hard pressed keeping doctors, let alone messiahs.
vs 43-44
But Jesus, although he is compassionate, also knows what the job at hand is, and that time is limited. Does he know this omnisciently? I honestly can't say. But what I can say is that we all know that too. If we feel God has a specific job for us, then while we may do some nice and gracious things on the way, we have to keep our focus on the job. Because time for us is limited too.
CS Lewis was the second person to introduce to me the idea Satan may be strong, and he may have demon minions, and he may be tempting and terrible, but that doesn't make him smart (Martin Luther was the first).
Well, I think in the temptation, we get this idea that Satan is going to be all stealthy and sneaky, and find the perfect time to backstab Jesus. Instead, he puts a demon into a guy in a synagogue, who then screams out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Smart move?
vs 35
So for all the power that Satan and his minions might have, Jesus only actually needs to say "Shut up" and "Go away" to overpower them.
vs 36
Interestingly, the amazed people link Jesus' teaching to his power. I wonder if we'd do the same? I bet, in fact, we'd try to separate them, to explain one on its own terms separate from the other.
vs 37
Good news does travel, so it seems. I'm sure they heard about this even as far as Nazereth.
vs 38
When things like this happen, people tend to see what else will work too. So if Jesus has a powerful teaching authority, and can drive out demons, let's see if he can help a sick person too.
vs 39
And of course he can. So much so, that she doesn't even feel weak - she gets up and serves them.
vs 40
Jesus didn't turn them away and say "Ok, look, you can see I can heal people's sicknesses - let's talk about sin now." He healed them not just to show off his power (Luke might be writing it that way to show Jesus has that power) but because he loves them and doesn't want to them to suffer.
vs 41
So if these demons are backing him up and saying these things, why does he command them to shut up? I have heard people say that he didn't want the truth to be heard from the mouths of demons, because the witness of a demon is a bad witness. You really don't know if you can trust him if demons say it.
If that is so, then, why do the gospel writers record it? Wouldn't we face the same questions reading about it now?
The fact is that the whole question of the "messianic secret" as it's known is quite a complex one. Let's see how Luke unfolds it (every gospel treats it a little differently).
vs 42
If you had someone who could heal people, and teach with authority, and probably do other things too, you'd want to keep a hold of him. I mean, outback communities are hard pressed keeping doctors, let alone messiahs.
vs 43-44
But Jesus, although he is compassionate, also knows what the job at hand is, and that time is limited. Does he know this omnisciently? I honestly can't say. But what I can say is that we all know that too. If we feel God has a specific job for us, then while we may do some nice and gracious things on the way, we have to keep our focus on the job. Because time for us is limited too.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Luke chapter 4
vs 22
I read this verse, and read it again and again. I just can't get the word "gracious" to fit in there. If it were "graceful" I would believe it - if it were saying that his words were sleek and elegant and nice to listen to. As if he were a master Scripture reader. But surely that's how they would have translated it if that were the case.
The words he said, of course, are very gracious. So perhaps the fact that he claimed them as his own, the whole idea that an era of good news for the poor was about to break out, is a very gracious idea.
But then, as if awaking from a dream, they realise who said the words. It was almost believable - if it had been someone from another town, they might well have believed it. But it was Jesus, Joseph's son. He's that same little boy who used to play dust-soccer. Who's parents nearly lost him in Jerusalem that year. How can he be anything special?
vs 23
What did he do in Capernaum? Did we miss something? It seems really odd to write something like that without having reference to it. Which to me suggests a source that Luke is borrowing from.
vs 24
This is true for anyone who seeks greatness - there is always going to be that group of people who knew you where you were young and stupid. Because all people have been young and stupid. My personal belief is that Jesus tripped over and grazed his knee and cried home to mum just like any of us did. The whole point of his incarnation was to be human, not to be some sort of omniscient omniscient person. That's my belief anyway.
vs 25-26
Is Jesus saying here that the whole of Israel is going to be apostate? He is referring to what is possibly one of the lowest points in the rule of the northern kingdom (before it got carried off). But I think the context makes it clear he's talking more just about Nazereth.
vs 27
Again, his point is that a non-Israelite is the one who benefits from the existence of a prophet in the land of Israel. The striking thing about these stories is that they are true. But Jesus putting it in this way is quite inflammatory.
vs 28
It had the desired effect.
vs 29
What he said got them so angry that they were ready to throw him off a cliff. So don't take this lightly. That's how insulting the insinuation was.
vs 30
Obviously God wasn't going to allow Jesus to get thrown off a cliff so early in his ministry, so instead he just walks through the crowd and leaves. I think it's meant to be as unbelievable as it sounds.
vs 31
Back to Capernaum (it does say then, flowing on from the previous story, so I don't think we can assume this is the trip to Capernaum he was already talking about) and he returns to their synagogue to teach.
vs 32
Here is the same message, probably, but with a different reaction because he's not from 'round these parts. Y'hear? Instead, they are simply amazed at his authority without being shocked at his humble beginnings.
vs 33
The NASB puts the greek rendering far clearer - spirit of an unclean demon, rather than the NIV, which sounds like a clarification of one to the other. Demonic activity was pretty pronounced when Jesus was around, which we may think is odd - but remember, Satan is looking for an opportune moment to pounce.
I read this verse, and read it again and again. I just can't get the word "gracious" to fit in there. If it were "graceful" I would believe it - if it were saying that his words were sleek and elegant and nice to listen to. As if he were a master Scripture reader. But surely that's how they would have translated it if that were the case.
The words he said, of course, are very gracious. So perhaps the fact that he claimed them as his own, the whole idea that an era of good news for the poor was about to break out, is a very gracious idea.
But then, as if awaking from a dream, they realise who said the words. It was almost believable - if it had been someone from another town, they might well have believed it. But it was Jesus, Joseph's son. He's that same little boy who used to play dust-soccer. Who's parents nearly lost him in Jerusalem that year. How can he be anything special?
vs 23
What did he do in Capernaum? Did we miss something? It seems really odd to write something like that without having reference to it. Which to me suggests a source that Luke is borrowing from.
vs 24
This is true for anyone who seeks greatness - there is always going to be that group of people who knew you where you were young and stupid. Because all people have been young and stupid. My personal belief is that Jesus tripped over and grazed his knee and cried home to mum just like any of us did. The whole point of his incarnation was to be human, not to be some sort of omniscient omniscient person. That's my belief anyway.
vs 25-26
Is Jesus saying here that the whole of Israel is going to be apostate? He is referring to what is possibly one of the lowest points in the rule of the northern kingdom (before it got carried off). But I think the context makes it clear he's talking more just about Nazereth.
vs 27
Again, his point is that a non-Israelite is the one who benefits from the existence of a prophet in the land of Israel. The striking thing about these stories is that they are true. But Jesus putting it in this way is quite inflammatory.
vs 28
It had the desired effect.
vs 29
What he said got them so angry that they were ready to throw him off a cliff. So don't take this lightly. That's how insulting the insinuation was.
vs 30
Obviously God wasn't going to allow Jesus to get thrown off a cliff so early in his ministry, so instead he just walks through the crowd and leaves. I think it's meant to be as unbelievable as it sounds.
vs 31
Back to Capernaum (it does say then, flowing on from the previous story, so I don't think we can assume this is the trip to Capernaum he was already talking about) and he returns to their synagogue to teach.
vs 32
Here is the same message, probably, but with a different reaction because he's not from 'round these parts. Y'hear? Instead, they are simply amazed at his authority without being shocked at his humble beginnings.
vs 33
The NASB puts the greek rendering far clearer - spirit of an unclean demon, rather than the NIV, which sounds like a clarification of one to the other. Demonic activity was pretty pronounced when Jesus was around, which we may think is odd - but remember, Satan is looking for an opportune moment to pounce.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Luke chapter 4
vs 12
Being saved by God wasn't the question. Nor was having faith that God can save you. It was putting God to the test that was the sin. Yes, this means what Gideon did was sinful. I am not sure it also means that "throwing the fleece" as is put forward in "the cross and the switchblade" is also sinful (Gideon did it to see if God was real - the C&S guy did it to try and ascertain God's will, so it wasn't a faith issue). Does God use these people? For sure he does. But Jesus is meant to be sinless.
vs 13
There is some deep editorial comment there! It makes it sound as if, rather than Satan seeing he's met his match and fleeing with his tail between his legs, instead he dogged Jesus' steps every day, waiting for an opportunity to accuse. Bastard.
vs 14
What news exactly spread? I mean, if we're going in chronological order, he hasn't done much yet except get baptised and fend off Satan's temptations. Of course, if you read the verse after this first, then it would make more sense.
vs 15
I think it would not be outside the realms of possibility to say that Jesus' fame began with his authoritative teaching around Galilee.
vs 16
Now we zoom in a little, to see what sort of thing Jesus was doing in synagogues. In particular, we're in Nazereth, where he grew up. So first, he stands up to read from the scroll (of his choosing I assume - I don't know if the synagogues worked through the Bible or something).
vs 17
Although this verse makes us wonder if it really was of his choosing. But I mean, all he had to do was ask for the scroll. And so he reads it.
vs 18-19
Did Isaiah write this just so Jesus could use it to announce his coming? I mean, he probably didn't. The whole messianic thing is a very difficult prophetical question. But I mean, for those of us who know what Jesus is about, and what he's going to get up to, this verse just encapsulates it so well. The "because" clause I find simply fascinating. Every translation I have reads it the same - God's Spirit is on Jesus because of the role he has to play. God's Spirit doesn't just sit on people for the sake of it. It is there because he expects them to take a role. Now, Jesus' role is pretty specific and of course unique. But I think the role as it is put in this Isaiah verse is not limited to only Jesus. Anyone with the Spirit can be involved in fulfilling this work. I mean, even proclaiming the year of the Lord's favour is not beyond us. Although sometimes I think the element of justice that is involved in Isaiah is beyond us.
I had an idea the other day. I was reading about the ability to give my electricity provider money so as to offset some carbon emissions my actions were inevitably taking. You might have also heard of Virgin Blue's new green move, where you give them some money and that offsets the carbon produced by your flight. The money goes to charities that are determined to fight global warming or some such.
I have no problem with that. While there is no love lost between me and tree hugging hippies, I can recognise a false dichotomy when I see one, and helping people vs helping the planet is a false dichotomy. But I think that mistake is made on both sides of the equation.
But that takes me off my point. My point is, what do you think it would be like if, every time you bought something which is cheap or even freely available because of human right abuses, slave labour or bad pay and working conditions, you could pay an amount to offset that by paying a "human rights" offset which was valued by some sort of credit scheme. I don't think it will take off. Firstly, I think it's much harder to quantify, which means it's a lot more difficult to work that kind of scheme. Secondly, I think the issue scares us, especially with regards to putting some sort of money value on human life (even though we do it daily). But finally, I think it would cost us too much money, and we wouldn't like that, not the least which because it would show us just how much inequity and injustice there is. I might write to a couple of aid organisations and suggest it.
vs 20
I've heard some people talk about how they would give sermons in synagogues sitting down. I personally think that's counter-intuitive, but hey, who can account for culture?
vs 21
Everyone, but everyone knew that this was a messianic prophetical word. And everyone knew what he meant when he said it too. I mean, they may not have known the intricacies of it, how it was all going to work. But they knew what Jesus was claiming.
Being saved by God wasn't the question. Nor was having faith that God can save you. It was putting God to the test that was the sin. Yes, this means what Gideon did was sinful. I am not sure it also means that "throwing the fleece" as is put forward in "the cross and the switchblade" is also sinful (Gideon did it to see if God was real - the C&S guy did it to try and ascertain God's will, so it wasn't a faith issue). Does God use these people? For sure he does. But Jesus is meant to be sinless.
vs 13
There is some deep editorial comment there! It makes it sound as if, rather than Satan seeing he's met his match and fleeing with his tail between his legs, instead he dogged Jesus' steps every day, waiting for an opportunity to accuse. Bastard.
vs 14
What news exactly spread? I mean, if we're going in chronological order, he hasn't done much yet except get baptised and fend off Satan's temptations. Of course, if you read the verse after this first, then it would make more sense.
vs 15
I think it would not be outside the realms of possibility to say that Jesus' fame began with his authoritative teaching around Galilee.
vs 16
Now we zoom in a little, to see what sort of thing Jesus was doing in synagogues. In particular, we're in Nazereth, where he grew up. So first, he stands up to read from the scroll (of his choosing I assume - I don't know if the synagogues worked through the Bible or something).
vs 17
Although this verse makes us wonder if it really was of his choosing. But I mean, all he had to do was ask for the scroll. And so he reads it.
vs 18-19
Did Isaiah write this just so Jesus could use it to announce his coming? I mean, he probably didn't. The whole messianic thing is a very difficult prophetical question. But I mean, for those of us who know what Jesus is about, and what he's going to get up to, this verse just encapsulates it so well. The "because" clause I find simply fascinating. Every translation I have reads it the same - God's Spirit is on Jesus because of the role he has to play. God's Spirit doesn't just sit on people for the sake of it. It is there because he expects them to take a role. Now, Jesus' role is pretty specific and of course unique. But I think the role as it is put in this Isaiah verse is not limited to only Jesus. Anyone with the Spirit can be involved in fulfilling this work. I mean, even proclaiming the year of the Lord's favour is not beyond us. Although sometimes I think the element of justice that is involved in Isaiah is beyond us.
I had an idea the other day. I was reading about the ability to give my electricity provider money so as to offset some carbon emissions my actions were inevitably taking. You might have also heard of Virgin Blue's new green move, where you give them some money and that offsets the carbon produced by your flight. The money goes to charities that are determined to fight global warming or some such.
I have no problem with that. While there is no love lost between me and tree hugging hippies, I can recognise a false dichotomy when I see one, and helping people vs helping the planet is a false dichotomy. But I think that mistake is made on both sides of the equation.
But that takes me off my point. My point is, what do you think it would be like if, every time you bought something which is cheap or even freely available because of human right abuses, slave labour or bad pay and working conditions, you could pay an amount to offset that by paying a "human rights" offset which was valued by some sort of credit scheme. I don't think it will take off. Firstly, I think it's much harder to quantify, which means it's a lot more difficult to work that kind of scheme. Secondly, I think the issue scares us, especially with regards to putting some sort of money value on human life (even though we do it daily). But finally, I think it would cost us too much money, and we wouldn't like that, not the least which because it would show us just how much inequity and injustice there is. I might write to a couple of aid organisations and suggest it.
vs 20
I've heard some people talk about how they would give sermons in synagogues sitting down. I personally think that's counter-intuitive, but hey, who can account for culture?
vs 21
Everyone, but everyone knew that this was a messianic prophetical word. And everyone knew what he meant when he said it too. I mean, they may not have known the intricacies of it, how it was all going to work. But they knew what Jesus was claiming.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Luke chapter 4
vs 1
Now here's an interesting question: was Jesus' baptism for our benefit, or was he not full of the Holy Spirit before then?
Well, he's full of it now, and it's leading him into the desert! A lot of Israel's history has been worked out in the desert, so it's less surprising than we first think.
vs 2
Ok, so was he tempted by the devil for 40 days, or was it after the end of the 40 days that he was tempted? I guess most people would say both, but just that we either don't have a record of what happened in the first 40 days, or the story is written out of order.
vs 3
Later, Jesus will turn bread into more bread. God turned dew into manna, and brought water from stone. Sounds reasonable, for God anyway.
vs 4
Jesus does not do it, though. Instead, he quotes some Scripture.
vs 5
Obviously this not some particular mountain where you can see everything in the world. So the devil is using a multimedia presentation or something.
vs 6
Is the devil lying here? Or is the world really just gone to hell, as it were?
vs 7
But of course, these things don't belong to Satan, but to God. So Satan wants what he really doesn't have and is offering what is not really his.
vs 8
That is good news! Worthy of taking notice of.
vs 9
I am sure there is something important about it being on the roof of the temple, but really it's probably just because it was big. I mean, really big. I wouldn't want to jump off it.
vs 10-11
And here we see the Devil happily quoting Scripture for his purposes. Now, does this mean that what the Devil is quoting isn't true? Not at all. In fact, I think his verse is relevant. But He's seeking to use it for evil purpose. Trying to push Jesus to sin. As we are so often told, it only takes one sin to separate us from God. Jesus being separate from God would cause some sort of nerd-singularity-continuum Star Trek problem, and Scotty wouldn't have the power to save us from that one.
Now here's an interesting question: was Jesus' baptism for our benefit, or was he not full of the Holy Spirit before then?
Well, he's full of it now, and it's leading him into the desert! A lot of Israel's history has been worked out in the desert, so it's less surprising than we first think.
vs 2
Ok, so was he tempted by the devil for 40 days, or was it after the end of the 40 days that he was tempted? I guess most people would say both, but just that we either don't have a record of what happened in the first 40 days, or the story is written out of order.
vs 3
Later, Jesus will turn bread into more bread. God turned dew into manna, and brought water from stone. Sounds reasonable, for God anyway.
vs 4
Jesus does not do it, though. Instead, he quotes some Scripture.
vs 5
Obviously this not some particular mountain where you can see everything in the world. So the devil is using a multimedia presentation or something.
vs 6
Is the devil lying here? Or is the world really just gone to hell, as it were?
vs 7
But of course, these things don't belong to Satan, but to God. So Satan wants what he really doesn't have and is offering what is not really his.
vs 8
That is good news! Worthy of taking notice of.
vs 9
I am sure there is something important about it being on the roof of the temple, but really it's probably just because it was big. I mean, really big. I wouldn't want to jump off it.
vs 10-11
And here we see the Devil happily quoting Scripture for his purposes. Now, does this mean that what the Devil is quoting isn't true? Not at all. In fact, I think his verse is relevant. But He's seeking to use it for evil purpose. Trying to push Jesus to sin. As we are so often told, it only takes one sin to separate us from God. Jesus being separate from God would cause some sort of nerd-singularity-continuum Star Trek problem, and Scotty wouldn't have the power to save us from that one.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Luke Chapter 3
vs 31
Light on day for me? Well, we just got to the verse that mentions that Jesus is in the line of David (not the kingly line, as far as I can tell). Assuming the list of David's offspring is in age order, then Nathan is the older brother of Solomon.
We studied the promise of God to David about a house that would never fall, and a throne that would last forever. It's an interesting promise. Only part of it is really promissary (that is, not relying on the work of David or his offspring), but part of it is reliant on their obedience. That's the bit that obviously didn't last ;)
vs 32
Boaz is here too, whom of course we remember from the book of Ruth. A very boring book I read recently had a quite interesting idea in it regarding part of the meaning of the book of Ruth. It talked about the familial ties between the tribes of Israel, because they were originally twelve brothers, and how both Ruth and Boaz are such strong examples of this kinship ideal because they push it even beyond the norm - Ruth by sticking to her deceased husband's mother, and Boaz by redeeming her even though she wasn't even an Israelite woman, and he didn't actually have to.
vs 33
This verse takes us all the way back to Judah, that brother I was talking about. The promises to the brothers when Jacob dies are fascinating. There is an odd sort of reasoning to them, and the way Judah ended up getting promised a lineage of kings is quite fascinating. Another example of God's using people who aren't really the person for the job. I mean, you'd have expected Joseph's family to be the kingly line, but not so.
vs 34
And now we go all the way back past Abraham. I mean, all Jews cast their lineage back to here, but it's just so interesting that there is a path of such great history so far back. And this is our history too, as spiritual children of Abraham.
vs 35
These guys are particularly boring.
vs 36
Now we go back through to Noah and beyond. Looking at this lineage reminds me of all the time we've spent studying the OT. Noah's a delightful character - another person with which God makes a promissary covenant. Very important too - without it, we might all be dead. It's interesting to see just how many of God's promises lead to Jesus being here.
vs 37
The line of Enoch, of course - the good Enoch, the one who went to be with God, whatever that means. Anyway, it also outlines that along with all the promises of God which culminate in the coming of Jesus, we are also confronted with the list of righteous people whom God used to bring about his promises too. Enoch didn't do much per se, but just being a righteous man God has used him to be a part of this lineage. Not that everyone in the lineage is a saint, but you know what I mean.
vs 38
And now we get back to the whole point - that all this comes from God. Jesus' lineage can be traced all the way back to God. Of course, all of ours can I guess. But for Jesus, that means something special. Who else draws their lineage back to God? Usually we'd stop at David, or Abraham, or Noah, or Adam. Jesus goes all the way.
Light on day for me? Well, we just got to the verse that mentions that Jesus is in the line of David (not the kingly line, as far as I can tell). Assuming the list of David's offspring is in age order, then Nathan is the older brother of Solomon.
We studied the promise of God to David about a house that would never fall, and a throne that would last forever. It's an interesting promise. Only part of it is really promissary (that is, not relying on the work of David or his offspring), but part of it is reliant on their obedience. That's the bit that obviously didn't last ;)
vs 32
Boaz is here too, whom of course we remember from the book of Ruth. A very boring book I read recently had a quite interesting idea in it regarding part of the meaning of the book of Ruth. It talked about the familial ties between the tribes of Israel, because they were originally twelve brothers, and how both Ruth and Boaz are such strong examples of this kinship ideal because they push it even beyond the norm - Ruth by sticking to her deceased husband's mother, and Boaz by redeeming her even though she wasn't even an Israelite woman, and he didn't actually have to.
vs 33
This verse takes us all the way back to Judah, that brother I was talking about. The promises to the brothers when Jacob dies are fascinating. There is an odd sort of reasoning to them, and the way Judah ended up getting promised a lineage of kings is quite fascinating. Another example of God's using people who aren't really the person for the job. I mean, you'd have expected Joseph's family to be the kingly line, but not so.
vs 34
And now we go all the way back past Abraham. I mean, all Jews cast their lineage back to here, but it's just so interesting that there is a path of such great history so far back. And this is our history too, as spiritual children of Abraham.
vs 35
These guys are particularly boring.
vs 36
Now we go back through to Noah and beyond. Looking at this lineage reminds me of all the time we've spent studying the OT. Noah's a delightful character - another person with which God makes a promissary covenant. Very important too - without it, we might all be dead. It's interesting to see just how many of God's promises lead to Jesus being here.
vs 37
The line of Enoch, of course - the good Enoch, the one who went to be with God, whatever that means. Anyway, it also outlines that along with all the promises of God which culminate in the coming of Jesus, we are also confronted with the list of righteous people whom God used to bring about his promises too. Enoch didn't do much per se, but just being a righteous man God has used him to be a part of this lineage. Not that everyone in the lineage is a saint, but you know what I mean.
vs 38
And now we get back to the whole point - that all this comes from God. Jesus' lineage can be traced all the way back to God. Of course, all of ours can I guess. But for Jesus, that means something special. Who else draws their lineage back to God? Usually we'd stop at David, or Abraham, or Noah, or Adam. Jesus goes all the way.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Luke chapter 3
vs 21
You can see, now, that we're winding back to during John's baptism ministry.
Now, this is not a typical event. This didn't happen every time John baptised someone. Luke doesn't go into the details of what happens when Jesus and John meet for Jesus to get baptised. Which is interesting, because it then makes the opening of heaven the primary witness to Jesus' messiahhood.
vs 22
I've never seen that "in bodily form" before. Funny how that happens. That says to me that it was a visible thing, like the way the Jesus film depicts it. Most of their budget was probably blown on training that dove ;)
This also means that it is entirely plausible that the voice from heaven was an audible voice.
vs 23
We learn now that Jesus was 30. Getting on a bit, really. And now, we start on the really interesting part - geneaologies!
Before you skip ahead, I just want to mention quickly that some of the big stupid arguments of the early church were about genealogies, so they were considered important at the time. Having said that, I don't think I'll have much to say about them besides the obvious. So first off, please note that we are tracing the line of Joseph. And that is a fair thing to do, because family lines follow people, not just blood. Jesus was adopted by Joseph, just like we're adopted by God.
vs 24
Ooh, another Joseph in there.
vs 25
Don't think these guys are the prophets. But it shows the names are fairly popular.
vs 26
Hehehe, one guy's called Yoda. The force runs strong in this family.
vs 27
I am sure Zerubbabel is important, but all I can think of now is that silly rhyme where he's called ze-rubber-ball. Probably a king or sommat.
vs 28
Er...
vs 29
I wonder why you'd call your kids Levi if you're not a Levite? I guess it's just a name.
vs 30
Man, can you imagine being able to trace your family so far back? Does it actually mean anything? Do they have any idea who these people are? I don't.
You can see, now, that we're winding back to during John's baptism ministry.
Now, this is not a typical event. This didn't happen every time John baptised someone. Luke doesn't go into the details of what happens when Jesus and John meet for Jesus to get baptised. Which is interesting, because it then makes the opening of heaven the primary witness to Jesus' messiahhood.
vs 22
I've never seen that "in bodily form" before. Funny how that happens. That says to me that it was a visible thing, like the way the Jesus film depicts it. Most of their budget was probably blown on training that dove ;)
This also means that it is entirely plausible that the voice from heaven was an audible voice.
vs 23
We learn now that Jesus was 30. Getting on a bit, really. And now, we start on the really interesting part - geneaologies!
Before you skip ahead, I just want to mention quickly that some of the big stupid arguments of the early church were about genealogies, so they were considered important at the time. Having said that, I don't think I'll have much to say about them besides the obvious. So first off, please note that we are tracing the line of Joseph. And that is a fair thing to do, because family lines follow people, not just blood. Jesus was adopted by Joseph, just like we're adopted by God.
vs 24
Ooh, another Joseph in there.
vs 25
Don't think these guys are the prophets. But it shows the names are fairly popular.
vs 26
Hehehe, one guy's called Yoda. The force runs strong in this family.
vs 27
I am sure Zerubbabel is important, but all I can think of now is that silly rhyme where he's called ze-rubber-ball. Probably a king or sommat.
vs 28
Er...
vs 29
I wonder why you'd call your kids Levi if you're not a Levite? I guess it's just a name.
vs 30
Man, can you imagine being able to trace your family so far back? Does it actually mean anything? Do they have any idea who these people are? I don't.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Luke chapter 3
vs 11
Not quite "sell all you have and give it to the poor" but certainly some sort of formative equality going on here. This is the sort of fruit repentance brings. It's not just equality, though - notice you don't give one of your three tunics to someone who has one. This is more like the equality Paul talks of - those with much don't have too much, those with little don't have too little.
vs 12
Tax collectors like those of this time and place still exist in the world, we just don't really have a good example of it here in Australia. Perhaps bouncers who control cover charges at an exclusive nightclub - who charge you extra to let you in, and skim off the top. But even this practice has become so despicable that most nightclubs now have tills and receipts for the entry charge.
vs 13
The response is obvious then - they are to do their jobs (taxes must be paid, after all) but not to abuse their position. Again, this provides a greater fairness to the poor, who were the easiest ones to rip off.
vs 14
Well dog my cats, Jesus doesn't say this after all, it's John the Baptist. So now some soldiers, and John's answer to them has the same effect - don't cause injustice. And also don't be greedy.
vs 15
Surprising that, although Simeon and Anna have both testified to Jesus as being the Christ, that message seems to have disappeared, and so people are once again looking for a saviour wherever they can find one.
vs 16
John says he's not the one. He knows another one is coming. This begs the question whether he knows it's Jesus already. I mean, the parents both knew each other, and had that thing with the pregnancies going on. Surely John the Baptist would have at least heard about that? you sort of get the feeling that he doesn't know, but I don't think it can be completely discounted.
Anyway, specifically this Christ is going to baptise too, but not with water. So the idea of repentance continues to be a feature of his ministry, but not through a simple baptism.
vs 17
He will also separate the true believers from those who reject him. But he doesn't really do it actively per se. He merely presents himself, and lets people take sides. Of course, I guess a more diehard calvinist might say that he does actively do it in election.
vs 18
Were his many other words about the Christ too? I wonder. Regardless, Luke doesn't think they are necessary for us to hear. We've got our little picture of what John the Baptist was like, and the sort of stuff he did and said. We can move on.
vs 19-20
This is a bit of an added extra - a way of keeping a lot of the information about John the Baptist in one place, I guess, because this does not happen so quickly. Jesus hasn't even been baptisecd yet. Of course, he hasn't mentioned beheading - probably because there's a Jesus story linked with it, and Jesus hasn't really come on the scene yet. But it means we do get a bit of an idea of what John the Baptist did.
It's interesting, when you look at the OT at the role of the prophets in the monarch of Israel, you see that John fulfils a very similar position by criticising Herod. However, Israel has for many years had a long tradition of mistreating, torturing and killing the prophets, and Herod isn't going to let that tradition fail!
Not quite "sell all you have and give it to the poor" but certainly some sort of formative equality going on here. This is the sort of fruit repentance brings. It's not just equality, though - notice you don't give one of your three tunics to someone who has one. This is more like the equality Paul talks of - those with much don't have too much, those with little don't have too little.
vs 12
Tax collectors like those of this time and place still exist in the world, we just don't really have a good example of it here in Australia. Perhaps bouncers who control cover charges at an exclusive nightclub - who charge you extra to let you in, and skim off the top. But even this practice has become so despicable that most nightclubs now have tills and receipts for the entry charge.
vs 13
The response is obvious then - they are to do their jobs (taxes must be paid, after all) but not to abuse their position. Again, this provides a greater fairness to the poor, who were the easiest ones to rip off.
vs 14
Well dog my cats, Jesus doesn't say this after all, it's John the Baptist. So now some soldiers, and John's answer to them has the same effect - don't cause injustice. And also don't be greedy.
vs 15
Surprising that, although Simeon and Anna have both testified to Jesus as being the Christ, that message seems to have disappeared, and so people are once again looking for a saviour wherever they can find one.
vs 16
John says he's not the one. He knows another one is coming. This begs the question whether he knows it's Jesus already. I mean, the parents both knew each other, and had that thing with the pregnancies going on. Surely John the Baptist would have at least heard about that? you sort of get the feeling that he doesn't know, but I don't think it can be completely discounted.
Anyway, specifically this Christ is going to baptise too, but not with water. So the idea of repentance continues to be a feature of his ministry, but not through a simple baptism.
vs 17
He will also separate the true believers from those who reject him. But he doesn't really do it actively per se. He merely presents himself, and lets people take sides. Of course, I guess a more diehard calvinist might say that he does actively do it in election.
vs 18
Were his many other words about the Christ too? I wonder. Regardless, Luke doesn't think they are necessary for us to hear. We've got our little picture of what John the Baptist was like, and the sort of stuff he did and said. We can move on.
vs 19-20
This is a bit of an added extra - a way of keeping a lot of the information about John the Baptist in one place, I guess, because this does not happen so quickly. Jesus hasn't even been baptisecd yet. Of course, he hasn't mentioned beheading - probably because there's a Jesus story linked with it, and Jesus hasn't really come on the scene yet. But it means we do get a bit of an idea of what John the Baptist did.
It's interesting, when you look at the OT at the role of the prophets in the monarch of Israel, you see that John fulfils a very similar position by criticising Herod. However, Israel has for many years had a long tradition of mistreating, torturing and killing the prophets, and Herod isn't going to let that tradition fail!
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Luke chapter 3
vs 1
If you don't know who all those people are, at least accept that it gives us a pretty good way of dating what's going on here.
vs 2
So, the story has come back to this first child, the one called John. he's in the desert, apparently, and God's word is coming to him.
vs 3
Apparently this sort of thing was not new per se, but John's ministry obviously meets a felt need of the people, and is very wide ranging.
vs 4-6
The next three verses are the full quote from Isaiah. I say "full quote" because I think we're mostly familiar with the early part of it, which we know identifies John as the voice in the desert. But then there's that complicated bit about mountains and valleys, which to me, in the context of the roads and paths, reads that the way to God will actually be made straight. So John's ministry calling people to make a path for the Lord is actually fulfilled, although not by him. But a path is made, that is straight and smooth, to allow us to come to God. And then, it finishes with the statement that all mankind will see the salvation offered by God. It's a lot easier to see without all those hills and valleys in the way.
vs 7
Not the most sensitive way to treat the people attracted to your ministry, but we all want to say that sometimes, don't we? Perhaps all those years in the desert have made him a little mad.
vs 8
No one can rely on their heritage to get them right with God. Not Jews, and certainly not Christians! And even repentance itself is not enough. We have to produce fruit that shows repentance is true.
vs 9
The fruit is a part of the judgement. The desire to have fruit, or the ability to create fruit, or doing all the right things to make fruit ready to grow is not enough. Fruit trees, no matter how well planted they are, no matter how pretty they look, no matter how much time you've invested in them, are only worth anything if they actually produce good fruit. Of course this probably is not some sort of salvation-by-works regime (at least we Protestants wouldn't read it that way) but the fact is that real repentance should be visible with good fruit.
vs 10
And so the crowd, of course, doesn't want to be cut down by an axe, so they want to know what kind of fruit John's talking about. The fact that they ask means they think he has the answer, and that his answer is important, so John's ministry is obviously respected by at least some people.
If you don't know who all those people are, at least accept that it gives us a pretty good way of dating what's going on here.
vs 2
So, the story has come back to this first child, the one called John. he's in the desert, apparently, and God's word is coming to him.
vs 3
Apparently this sort of thing was not new per se, but John's ministry obviously meets a felt need of the people, and is very wide ranging.
vs 4-6
The next three verses are the full quote from Isaiah. I say "full quote" because I think we're mostly familiar with the early part of it, which we know identifies John as the voice in the desert. But then there's that complicated bit about mountains and valleys, which to me, in the context of the roads and paths, reads that the way to God will actually be made straight. So John's ministry calling people to make a path for the Lord is actually fulfilled, although not by him. But a path is made, that is straight and smooth, to allow us to come to God. And then, it finishes with the statement that all mankind will see the salvation offered by God. It's a lot easier to see without all those hills and valleys in the way.
vs 7
Not the most sensitive way to treat the people attracted to your ministry, but we all want to say that sometimes, don't we? Perhaps all those years in the desert have made him a little mad.
vs 8
No one can rely on their heritage to get them right with God. Not Jews, and certainly not Christians! And even repentance itself is not enough. We have to produce fruit that shows repentance is true.
vs 9
The fruit is a part of the judgement. The desire to have fruit, or the ability to create fruit, or doing all the right things to make fruit ready to grow is not enough. Fruit trees, no matter how well planted they are, no matter how pretty they look, no matter how much time you've invested in them, are only worth anything if they actually produce good fruit. Of course this probably is not some sort of salvation-by-works regime (at least we Protestants wouldn't read it that way) but the fact is that real repentance should be visible with good fruit.
vs 10
And so the crowd, of course, doesn't want to be cut down by an axe, so they want to know what kind of fruit John's talking about. The fact that they ask means they think he has the answer, and that his answer is important, so John's ministry is obviously respected by at least some people.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Luke chapter 2
vs 41
Again in accordance with religious duty. I'm not trying to suggest that there weren't many who did these things, just that Mary and Joseph did.
vs 42
Now I'm sure the age of 12 is vitally important. Either Jesus is still a boy, or has just become a "man". I'll leave you to find out the details, but sufficed to say that it's an important age one way or the other. I'm actually going for boy, because I think the story is meant to be fairly unbelievable.
vs 43
See, this is completely believable. I'm sure people everywhere have had children do things like this.
Just to let you know how children were treated back then - the greek word for 'boy', pais, means "child (boy or girl), servant, slave".
vs 44
In those days, when you travelled by foot, you travelled in large enough groups that bandits didn't think you were easy prey. Easily done at Passover, when so many people are going.
vs 45
Which seems a pretty dangerous thing to do, leaving the group, but it's their son who is so special, better look after him! Although then you could argue that losing him wasn't really the best way of looking after him in the first place.
vs 46
I think we gloss over the fact that they looked for him for three days. There's no police (there are law enforcement bodies, but not like a police service today, where if your child was missing they'd put up posters etc). They would have had to find accommodation, and search the capital city until they found him.
The thing that usually grabs us, that Jesus as a child is there interacting with the teachers of the Law, is also interesting. I just never fully realised the first bit.
vs 47
So even at a young age, his knowledge of the Scriptures and of the will of God is very much there.
vs 48
At about this point in time, you could argue that Jesus was disobeying the commandment "honour your father and your mother". I mean, it's all well and good to be hanging out at the temple with the religious types, but they are still his parents. You can come up with various arguments, some of which are more reasonable than others, but it is still a difficult question. While I probably lean towards one or two camps or a mixing of a few, the important thing is that I don't think Jesus is sinning here.
vs 49
His point being, I think, that they should have known where he'd be, instead of searching all the places in town that were probably more interesting to a child first. Having said that, please note that a little child has kept the religious leaders interested for three straight days.
vs 50
It was 12 years ago that all that stuff happened to him. Perhaps they just got busy with life and it went to the back of their minds.
vs 51
So he was an obedient child. And again, we have this reminder that these stories come from Mary, who treasured them.
vs 52
And we have a second "he grew" clause, which almost indicates that there was some sort of insertion of this story. I'm not some sort of source critic - all I'm saying is that perhaps Luke only got to meet Mary later in his writing, and put these stories in later or something. In any case, this verse covers 18 years of Jesus life.
Again in accordance with religious duty. I'm not trying to suggest that there weren't many who did these things, just that Mary and Joseph did.
vs 42
Now I'm sure the age of 12 is vitally important. Either Jesus is still a boy, or has just become a "man". I'll leave you to find out the details, but sufficed to say that it's an important age one way or the other. I'm actually going for boy, because I think the story is meant to be fairly unbelievable.
vs 43
See, this is completely believable. I'm sure people everywhere have had children do things like this.
Just to let you know how children were treated back then - the greek word for 'boy', pais, means "child (boy or girl), servant, slave".
vs 44
In those days, when you travelled by foot, you travelled in large enough groups that bandits didn't think you were easy prey. Easily done at Passover, when so many people are going.
vs 45
Which seems a pretty dangerous thing to do, leaving the group, but it's their son who is so special, better look after him! Although then you could argue that losing him wasn't really the best way of looking after him in the first place.
vs 46
I think we gloss over the fact that they looked for him for three days. There's no police (there are law enforcement bodies, but not like a police service today, where if your child was missing they'd put up posters etc). They would have had to find accommodation, and search the capital city until they found him.
The thing that usually grabs us, that Jesus as a child is there interacting with the teachers of the Law, is also interesting. I just never fully realised the first bit.
vs 47
So even at a young age, his knowledge of the Scriptures and of the will of God is very much there.
vs 48
At about this point in time, you could argue that Jesus was disobeying the commandment "honour your father and your mother". I mean, it's all well and good to be hanging out at the temple with the religious types, but they are still his parents. You can come up with various arguments, some of which are more reasonable than others, but it is still a difficult question. While I probably lean towards one or two camps or a mixing of a few, the important thing is that I don't think Jesus is sinning here.
vs 49
His point being, I think, that they should have known where he'd be, instead of searching all the places in town that were probably more interesting to a child first. Having said that, please note that a little child has kept the religious leaders interested for three straight days.
vs 50
It was 12 years ago that all that stuff happened to him. Perhaps they just got busy with life and it went to the back of their minds.
vs 51
So he was an obedient child. And again, we have this reminder that these stories come from Mary, who treasured them.
vs 52
And we have a second "he grew" clause, which almost indicates that there was some sort of insertion of this story. I'm not some sort of source critic - all I'm saying is that perhaps Luke only got to meet Mary later in his writing, and put these stories in later or something. In any case, this verse covers 18 years of Jesus life.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Luke Chapter 2
vs 31
How is it that Simeon can say this? I mean, Jesus is just a baby, in the temple in Jerusalem, he's not exactly being announced on every TV or anything. But there is a sense that the incarnation is more of a revelation to the world than any other event.
Not to mention that it has been accurately recorded and kept safe for the rest of history so far.
vs 32
The acceptance of the gentiles by God has never been far away from God's heart. Here it appears early in Luke's gospel, one mark that this is something that interests him, and also proably his readership.
vs 33
Which is odd, considering that Mary had seen a vision (so had Joseph), heard a prophecy from Elizabeth, and both had been visited by the shepherds and wise men. Simple country folk I guess.
vs 34
They thought what Simeon said already was novel... now what he's saying is startling. While it is obviously not clear from the immediate context what he is talking about, this Jesus character is going to be very important. So important that people will rise and fall based on him. He will also be spiritually important - a sign that people will not readily accept. How right he was!
vs 35
The thoughts of hearts. What does that mean? I guess it means the thoughts closest to the heart of someone. Which will no doubt be important thoughts. So that's pretty revealing. And a lot of people argue about this soul-piercing sword. To me, it just seems to be a flowery way of saying that she's going to suffer as a part of all this. And Jesus does treat his family pretty ordinarily, but only when they basically disown him as a crazyperson. Which I imagine wouldn't have been nice for either side. But then of course, she has to watch him get crucified and die. Which is pretty painful for any mother.
vs 36
But wait, another prophet! Prophetess, actually. Anna, the old widow. Verse 37 is put in the oddest of places as far as I'm concerned. I assume that she's a well known prophetess and has been for a while.
vs 37
Well, that's what I call commitment.
vs 38
She is well known enough that her blessing might be thought important to those people who read the book. Although she was probably dead by the time it was written, but people still remembered her I'm sure. I prefer the NASB reading here, which chooses what this next bit means, clarifying that she continued to speak of Jesus to those seeking redemption of Israel. Rather than the NIV, which makes it unclear I think whether she kept doing it after they left, or only at that specific stage.
vs 39
You can see why people didn't often follow the law though - I mean, what a pain having to travel to Jerusalem for your firstborn son! Anyway, Jesus' family seems like the good religious kind, who would do all this stuff properly. Probably a good house for the Messiah to grow up in.
vs 40
There's a good summary of Jesus' childhood. Not often you'd describe a child as full of wisdom, not in my personal experience anyway. I don't think he was preternaturally strong or anything either. I think it's just talking about him being healthy.
I might just mention that the KJV says he "waxed strong in the spirit", which isn't really attested to in the greek.
How is it that Simeon can say this? I mean, Jesus is just a baby, in the temple in Jerusalem, he's not exactly being announced on every TV or anything. But there is a sense that the incarnation is more of a revelation to the world than any other event.
Not to mention that it has been accurately recorded and kept safe for the rest of history so far.
vs 32
The acceptance of the gentiles by God has never been far away from God's heart. Here it appears early in Luke's gospel, one mark that this is something that interests him, and also proably his readership.
vs 33
Which is odd, considering that Mary had seen a vision (so had Joseph), heard a prophecy from Elizabeth, and both had been visited by the shepherds and wise men. Simple country folk I guess.
vs 34
They thought what Simeon said already was novel... now what he's saying is startling. While it is obviously not clear from the immediate context what he is talking about, this Jesus character is going to be very important. So important that people will rise and fall based on him. He will also be spiritually important - a sign that people will not readily accept. How right he was!
vs 35
The thoughts of hearts. What does that mean? I guess it means the thoughts closest to the heart of someone. Which will no doubt be important thoughts. So that's pretty revealing. And a lot of people argue about this soul-piercing sword. To me, it just seems to be a flowery way of saying that she's going to suffer as a part of all this. And Jesus does treat his family pretty ordinarily, but only when they basically disown him as a crazyperson. Which I imagine wouldn't have been nice for either side. But then of course, she has to watch him get crucified and die. Which is pretty painful for any mother.
vs 36
But wait, another prophet! Prophetess, actually. Anna, the old widow. Verse 37 is put in the oddest of places as far as I'm concerned. I assume that she's a well known prophetess and has been for a while.
vs 37
Well, that's what I call commitment.
vs 38
She is well known enough that her blessing might be thought important to those people who read the book. Although she was probably dead by the time it was written, but people still remembered her I'm sure. I prefer the NASB reading here, which chooses what this next bit means, clarifying that she continued to speak of Jesus to those seeking redemption of Israel. Rather than the NIV, which makes it unclear I think whether she kept doing it after they left, or only at that specific stage.
vs 39
You can see why people didn't often follow the law though - I mean, what a pain having to travel to Jerusalem for your firstborn son! Anyway, Jesus' family seems like the good religious kind, who would do all this stuff properly. Probably a good house for the Messiah to grow up in.
vs 40
There's a good summary of Jesus' childhood. Not often you'd describe a child as full of wisdom, not in my personal experience anyway. I don't think he was preternaturally strong or anything either. I think it's just talking about him being healthy.
I might just mention that the KJV says he "waxed strong in the spirit", which isn't really attested to in the greek.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Luke Chapter 2
vs 21
So he was going to be a law follower right from the start, being circumcised on the right day. He was also going to be named appropriately. Jesus. Has a certain ring to it, but of course it was a fairly common name. More like Joshua.
vs 22-24
So Joseph and Mary must have been fairly religiously responsible people doing all this stuff. Which is good, from Jesus' perspective. They were doing everything that they are meant to do.
The sacrifice shows that they weren't a rich family. Pigeons were a last resort. You know, they probably even bought them from the temple shops.
vs 25
I don't know whether people filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesying all over the place was common in the first century AD. I have a feeling that it was as rare as any other time in history, but we are now seeing the fruits of God's preparing work for what is the most important point in history - the coming into the world of his Son. So that said, you would expect increased spiritual activity, on both sides.
vs 26
He's the Morpheus of the Jesus story. How had such a specific thing been revealed to him? Probably in a dream or something. Obviously Luke didn't talk to him first hand, because he died afterwards.
vs 27
So Simeon is there when baby Jesus is in the temple.
vs 28
Just a quick point here - we think "Oh my gosh, some scruffy guy rushing up to some new parents and snatching the baby off them! Where are the police?" but these sort of things happens really quite regulary in other cultures, with no ill-will intended. Iv'e heard some horror stories from missionaries. But we just have to realise that the way other cultures treat children, including the 1st century AD Jewish culture, is different to the way we treat them. This brings some interesting interpretations to those verses that mention children.
vs 29-30
Well, Simeon is pretty sure this lad is the one. Lucky Brian wasn't there on the same day - although his mum probably didn't even dedicate him. Anyway, Simeon may not have really seen Jesus as the kind of Messiah he was going to be, but at least he knew it was the right baby.
So he was going to be a law follower right from the start, being circumcised on the right day. He was also going to be named appropriately. Jesus. Has a certain ring to it, but of course it was a fairly common name. More like Joshua.
vs 22-24
So Joseph and Mary must have been fairly religiously responsible people doing all this stuff. Which is good, from Jesus' perspective. They were doing everything that they are meant to do.
The sacrifice shows that they weren't a rich family. Pigeons were a last resort. You know, they probably even bought them from the temple shops.
vs 25
I don't know whether people filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesying all over the place was common in the first century AD. I have a feeling that it was as rare as any other time in history, but we are now seeing the fruits of God's preparing work for what is the most important point in history - the coming into the world of his Son. So that said, you would expect increased spiritual activity, on both sides.
vs 26
He's the Morpheus of the Jesus story. How had such a specific thing been revealed to him? Probably in a dream or something. Obviously Luke didn't talk to him first hand, because he died afterwards.
vs 27
So Simeon is there when baby Jesus is in the temple.
vs 28
Just a quick point here - we think "Oh my gosh, some scruffy guy rushing up to some new parents and snatching the baby off them! Where are the police?" but these sort of things happens really quite regulary in other cultures, with no ill-will intended. Iv'e heard some horror stories from missionaries. But we just have to realise that the way other cultures treat children, including the 1st century AD Jewish culture, is different to the way we treat them. This brings some interesting interpretations to those verses that mention children.
vs 29-30
Well, Simeon is pretty sure this lad is the one. Lucky Brian wasn't there on the same day - although his mum probably didn't even dedicate him. Anyway, Simeon may not have really seen Jesus as the kind of Messiah he was going to be, but at least he knew it was the right baby.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Luke Chapter 2
vs 11
Well, two promises instantly fulfilled in the prophecy of one verse. First is the saviour that comes from the line of David. Secondly is the Messiah, the Lord. These shepherds get the gospel explained to them in one sentence more clearly than anyone really gets it for another 30 years (mostly because Jesus persists in speaking in the 3rd person so much).
And you can see how easily it would be, even from that statement, to think of a political ruler - the saviour is coming from the line of David, after all, and it wasn't like the Jews to separate politics out of such a ruler (David was as much a spiritual ruler of Israel as a political ruler - feel free to argue with me if you want to be wrong) so they just expect the Messiah to be the same. And of course, it's what they wanted at the time too.
vs 12
Lo and behold, this sounds like it might be the baby next to Brian! Of course, Jesus seems to fit the bill pretty well. The angels didn't give them any address to find, no "Look in the barn at the "Sleep Inn" fellas". So I guess they just went to the nearest manger when they hit Bethlehem?
vs 13
That must have been nice. Or completely brown-trousers terrifying. I think when we think of a bunch of angels singing, we think of a choir. And I'm sure they can sing well. Oddly, though, I think of a bunch of bright white supernatural monsters that appear in the air and start chanting in scary tones. Perhaps that's drawing the bow too far. But I think comparing them with the King's Primary School Boys Castrati is probably going too far the other way.
vs 14
Well, they did say beforehand that it was good news for all men. Now, it turns out, it's only peace on men who God's favour rests on. Limited atonement strikes again!
vs 15
Ok, now this would be understandable if they'd been on some sort of drinking binge, and being shepherds, this isn't out of the ordinary. But Also, I guess, when most people hear voices from heaven, they tend to obey them (or whinge, and then obey them). Jonah proves the rule by being the exception.
vs 16
Perhaps these shepherds should have been super sleuths! They did their job pretty quickly there.
vs 17
Obviously seeing him per se was nothing special (except that he fulfilled the prophecy of the angels, in that he was wrapped in cloth and in a manger). But the fact that they'd seen angels foretelling his birth was probably enough to be worth spreading news about.
vs 18
"You're all drunk, it's disgusting!" may have been said once or twice, but Luke doesn't record that. The thing is, if the guys aren't trying to make money out of it, and they're not trying to stir up trouble for giggles, then why would they go around making this stuff up?
vs 19
I'm sorry, but NIV english scholars, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Treasured up? What the hell does that mean? NASB corrects your silly mistake with simply "treasured all these things". I guess the point of this is that Mary, having heard the story of the shepherds, and having also heard the angel of God before she was preggers and the words of Elizabeth when she was 'treasured up', can now ponder these things, these early answers to the claims of God, and be thankful that they are true.
This sort of statement also points us towards the idea that Luke had Mary as a primary source. I mean. who else could have told him this information?
vs 20
The shepherds returned to wherever they were, and seemed happy to have been involved. It obviously made a difference in their lives. "Awww, look at the baby!" may have been said. But more to the point, the idea that some day that kid might kick the Roman's arse and bring Israel closer to God were also nice thougts.
Well, two promises instantly fulfilled in the prophecy of one verse. First is the saviour that comes from the line of David. Secondly is the Messiah, the Lord. These shepherds get the gospel explained to them in one sentence more clearly than anyone really gets it for another 30 years (mostly because Jesus persists in speaking in the 3rd person so much).
And you can see how easily it would be, even from that statement, to think of a political ruler - the saviour is coming from the line of David, after all, and it wasn't like the Jews to separate politics out of such a ruler (David was as much a spiritual ruler of Israel as a political ruler - feel free to argue with me if you want to be wrong) so they just expect the Messiah to be the same. And of course, it's what they wanted at the time too.
vs 12
Lo and behold, this sounds like it might be the baby next to Brian! Of course, Jesus seems to fit the bill pretty well. The angels didn't give them any address to find, no "Look in the barn at the "Sleep Inn" fellas". So I guess they just went to the nearest manger when they hit Bethlehem?
vs 13
That must have been nice. Or completely brown-trousers terrifying. I think when we think of a bunch of angels singing, we think of a choir. And I'm sure they can sing well. Oddly, though, I think of a bunch of bright white supernatural monsters that appear in the air and start chanting in scary tones. Perhaps that's drawing the bow too far. But I think comparing them with the King's Primary School Boys Castrati is probably going too far the other way.
vs 14
Well, they did say beforehand that it was good news for all men. Now, it turns out, it's only peace on men who God's favour rests on. Limited atonement strikes again!
vs 15
Ok, now this would be understandable if they'd been on some sort of drinking binge, and being shepherds, this isn't out of the ordinary. But Also, I guess, when most people hear voices from heaven, they tend to obey them (or whinge, and then obey them). Jonah proves the rule by being the exception.
vs 16
Perhaps these shepherds should have been super sleuths! They did their job pretty quickly there.
vs 17
Obviously seeing him per se was nothing special (except that he fulfilled the prophecy of the angels, in that he was wrapped in cloth and in a manger). But the fact that they'd seen angels foretelling his birth was probably enough to be worth spreading news about.
vs 18
"You're all drunk, it's disgusting!" may have been said once or twice, but Luke doesn't record that. The thing is, if the guys aren't trying to make money out of it, and they're not trying to stir up trouble for giggles, then why would they go around making this stuff up?
vs 19
I'm sorry, but NIV english scholars, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Treasured up? What the hell does that mean? NASB corrects your silly mistake with simply "treasured all these things". I guess the point of this is that Mary, having heard the story of the shepherds, and having also heard the angel of God before she was preggers and the words of Elizabeth when she was 'treasured up', can now ponder these things, these early answers to the claims of God, and be thankful that they are true.
This sort of statement also points us towards the idea that Luke had Mary as a primary source. I mean. who else could have told him this information?
vs 20
The shepherds returned to wherever they were, and seemed happy to have been involved. It obviously made a difference in their lives. "Awww, look at the baby!" may have been said. But more to the point, the idea that some day that kid might kick the Roman's arse and bring Israel closer to God were also nice thougts.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Luke chapter 2
vs 1
Well, that gives us a good idea of when this is dated. A census would have taken a crap load of work. But I guess the taxes you'd receive from it would make up for it.
vs 2
Why is this important? I honestly have no idea. Perhaps there was as second census taken in this time, and so Luke is distinguishing this as the first.
vs 3
So if you lived far away from your home town, that could be quite a trip. I bet the merchants were rubbing their hands together.
vs 4
I've heard lots of arguments from people about how Mary had some lineage with David, but as far as I know, the Bible doesn't draw that link, at least not strongly. The gospel authors obviously had David' lineage in mind when they wanted to draw back to Jesus.
vs 5
Interesting that they would go together without being married? You'd think they would be separate till then. Note that we don't really hear anything from Mary's family - what their reaction was to their unmarried daughter getting pregnant, why they'd let her go off with Joseph - it might have been one of the rules that prospective marriages were censused.
vs 6
What a joyous occasion.
vs 7
And thus Sunday School Christmas plays were born.
vs 8
I'm sure there were. That's the sort of thing shepherds do, as a rule.
vs 9
Understandably. This was not covered in shepherding the flock 101. Or in anything, really. Who's prepared for angels to appear?
vs 10
And it is good news. In fact, you could almost say that this angel is bringing the gospel to these shepherds, and Jesus has only really been born! I'm sure they were excited, eventually.
Well, that gives us a good idea of when this is dated. A census would have taken a crap load of work. But I guess the taxes you'd receive from it would make up for it.
vs 2
Why is this important? I honestly have no idea. Perhaps there was as second census taken in this time, and so Luke is distinguishing this as the first.
vs 3
So if you lived far away from your home town, that could be quite a trip. I bet the merchants were rubbing their hands together.
vs 4
I've heard lots of arguments from people about how Mary had some lineage with David, but as far as I know, the Bible doesn't draw that link, at least not strongly. The gospel authors obviously had David' lineage in mind when they wanted to draw back to Jesus.
vs 5
Interesting that they would go together without being married? You'd think they would be separate till then. Note that we don't really hear anything from Mary's family - what their reaction was to their unmarried daughter getting pregnant, why they'd let her go off with Joseph - it might have been one of the rules that prospective marriages were censused.
vs 6
What a joyous occasion.
vs 7
And thus Sunday School Christmas plays were born.
vs 8
I'm sure there were. That's the sort of thing shepherds do, as a rule.
vs 9
Understandably. This was not covered in shepherding the flock 101. Or in anything, really. Who's prepared for angels to appear?
vs 10
And it is good news. In fact, you could almost say that this angel is bringing the gospel to these shepherds, and Jesus has only really been born! I'm sure they were excited, eventually.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Luke chapter 1
vs 71
That had also come to pass in the past, but wasn't a present reality, with the Roman occupation.
vs 72
The remembering of his covenant is another aspect of God that is very much a part of the OT. One of the most important aspects of OT theology is understanding this concept of covenant.
vs 73
So now we go back to the beginning of the Abrahamic covenant - an interesting place to start, considering the value the Pharisees put on the Mosaic covenant. But then, they would still say they were Abraham's children.
vs 74
I don't actually remember that bit of the promise, but I guess it depends how you read it.
vs 75
Is he referring to some sort of heavenly promise, or simply the holiness of being God's people in the land?
vs 76
That was all revealed to him in the temple, so he's just reiterating.
vs 77
Now that is a big call. It is not unknown in the OT though, but obviously there is some link to a Messiah and to forgiveness of sins being made here.
vs 78
That's a reference to the sun of righteousness I guess. Interesting, as I don't know how much we really refer to that, except when explaining why it's called Sunday. But that's where Zechariah's mind went apparently.
vs 79
Of course, with this half of the analogy, the sun bit looks obvious.
vs 80
Note the difference between the upbringing of John and of Jesus. John grew strong, yes, but spent his whole life out in the desert even before his public ministry began. Jesus, on the other hand, just worked like a normal kid.
That had also come to pass in the past, but wasn't a present reality, with the Roman occupation.
vs 72
The remembering of his covenant is another aspect of God that is very much a part of the OT. One of the most important aspects of OT theology is understanding this concept of covenant.
vs 73
So now we go back to the beginning of the Abrahamic covenant - an interesting place to start, considering the value the Pharisees put on the Mosaic covenant. But then, they would still say they were Abraham's children.
vs 74
I don't actually remember that bit of the promise, but I guess it depends how you read it.
vs 75
Is he referring to some sort of heavenly promise, or simply the holiness of being God's people in the land?
vs 76
That was all revealed to him in the temple, so he's just reiterating.
vs 77
Now that is a big call. It is not unknown in the OT though, but obviously there is some link to a Messiah and to forgiveness of sins being made here.
vs 78
That's a reference to the sun of righteousness I guess. Interesting, as I don't know how much we really refer to that, except when explaining why it's called Sunday. But that's where Zechariah's mind went apparently.
vs 79
Of course, with this half of the analogy, the sun bit looks obvious.
vs 80
Note the difference between the upbringing of John and of Jesus. John grew strong, yes, but spent his whole life out in the desert even before his public ministry began. Jesus, on the other hand, just worked like a normal kid.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Luke chapter 1
vs 61
They weren't going to take her word at it - fancy a priest's family going against tradition!
vs 62
Funny how they made signs to him, even though he was struck dumb. Was he struck deaf too?
vs 63
Now, when it says everyone's astonishment, does that include Elizabeth? Or does it just mean the general crowd that was there getting involved? In any case, he affirmed that the child would be called John.
vs 64
Im sure he did! Imagine not being able to speak for 9 months.
vs 65
I mean, it's not everyday that someone is struck dumb by God, and suddenly healed at the birth of their child.
vs 66
So people knew more of the story than just Zechariah's muteness. They probably knew all about Zechariah being spoken to in the Temple, and how he received a special name for his son (ok, so John isn't super special a name, but not everybody gets told by God what to name their son).
Just a note on the last sentence of the verse. I actually think it's a little sparse. I don't think we need to read "for" as a strict 'because'. I think it could just as easily read "and" (like the KJV) or perhaps have another word that softens it (like "certainly" in NASB).
vs 67
So he wasn't just happy - like his wife, Zechariah was also filled with the spirit because of this child.
vs 68
Woah! Past tense seems a bit odd here, doesn't it? And yet strictly speaking, it's true - redemption and its fulfilment is one of the major themes of the Old Testament. Interesting that he picked this to start with. Of course, he wasn't blind - he probably knew that Mary had come and why. So now that he can speak, he's making full use of the ability.
vs 69
Now, when he says "house of David", does he imply that Mary is of the line of David? Or Joseph? Or simply that the one to be born is the one that is promised in the kingly line of David? Good question.
vs 70
I wonder if, when prophecying, Zechariah used these brackets. They seem redundant. However, the mention of prophecy concerning the coming of this salvation is completely relevant. It shows the necessary grounding of the gospel in the OT, which is worth remembering always.
They weren't going to take her word at it - fancy a priest's family going against tradition!
vs 62
Funny how they made signs to him, even though he was struck dumb. Was he struck deaf too?
vs 63
Now, when it says everyone's astonishment, does that include Elizabeth? Or does it just mean the general crowd that was there getting involved? In any case, he affirmed that the child would be called John.
vs 64
Im sure he did! Imagine not being able to speak for 9 months.
vs 65
I mean, it's not everyday that someone is struck dumb by God, and suddenly healed at the birth of their child.
vs 66
So people knew more of the story than just Zechariah's muteness. They probably knew all about Zechariah being spoken to in the Temple, and how he received a special name for his son (ok, so John isn't super special a name, but not everybody gets told by God what to name their son).
Just a note on the last sentence of the verse. I actually think it's a little sparse. I don't think we need to read "for" as a strict 'because'. I think it could just as easily read "and" (like the KJV) or perhaps have another word that softens it (like "certainly" in NASB).
vs 67
So he wasn't just happy - like his wife, Zechariah was also filled with the spirit because of this child.
vs 68
Woah! Past tense seems a bit odd here, doesn't it? And yet strictly speaking, it's true - redemption and its fulfilment is one of the major themes of the Old Testament. Interesting that he picked this to start with. Of course, he wasn't blind - he probably knew that Mary had come and why. So now that he can speak, he's making full use of the ability.
vs 69
Now, when he says "house of David", does he imply that Mary is of the line of David? Or Joseph? Or simply that the one to be born is the one that is promised in the kingly line of David? Good question.
vs 70
I wonder if, when prophecying, Zechariah used these brackets. They seem redundant. However, the mention of prophecy concerning the coming of this salvation is completely relevant. It shows the necessary grounding of the gospel in the OT, which is worth remembering always.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Luke chapter 1
vs 51
This could be a reference to any number actions of God - the tower of Babel, the scattering and destruction of the Caananites, or of the Assyrians or Bablylonians. Regardless, it seems a fairly reasonable thing to say that this is a characteristic of God - scatterer of the proud.
vs 52
Sounds like the last verse was possible about the various ex-enemies of Israel. But one of the other of God's characteristics is that he exalts the humble. Again, this could be a reference to any number of occasions - the blessing going to Jacob, the use of Joseph, the call of Moses (Prince of Egypt doesn't show just how pathetic he was), the call of David to kingship and so on.
vs 53
Not sure what this is referring to. I mean, we know from Ecclesiastes (not to mention reality) that this statement is not a universal truth - the rich very often have plenty to eat, and the hungry don't - that's why they're hungry. So that makes you think it refers to an act or series of acts of God. But one where the rich go hungry is hard to think of.
vs 54-55
And God's faithfulness to his covenant is stressed here. And that is expressed constantly throughout the whole Bible. Even when God's letting Israel get smacked down by foreign armies, that's still part of him being faithful to his covenant.
vs 56
She would have been well and truly preggers by then.
vs 57
So now, 6 months before Jesus is born, we have the birth of Elizabeth and Zechariah's son, which was given to them by God earlier in the chapter.
vs 58
This was obviously going to be a time of great celebrating - I'll bet they even threw a party. Parties are pretty common in the culture. Should we throw more parties? If you don't know my feeling about parties yet, then you need to read harder.
vs 59
I assume that was traditional, especially consider later when they argue because no one in the family was called John.
vs 60
Now, how did Elizabeth know to call the kid John? Perhaps we (I) underestimated Zechariah's ability to communicate with his wife after being struck dumb. I mean, we know afterwards he can write, and if we assume Elizabeth can read, or that she at least has someone to read for her, then they could communicate like that.
Otherwise, it could just be that the Holy Spirit told her.
This could be a reference to any number actions of God - the tower of Babel, the scattering and destruction of the Caananites, or of the Assyrians or Bablylonians. Regardless, it seems a fairly reasonable thing to say that this is a characteristic of God - scatterer of the proud.
vs 52
Sounds like the last verse was possible about the various ex-enemies of Israel. But one of the other of God's characteristics is that he exalts the humble. Again, this could be a reference to any number of occasions - the blessing going to Jacob, the use of Joseph, the call of Moses (Prince of Egypt doesn't show just how pathetic he was), the call of David to kingship and so on.
vs 53
Not sure what this is referring to. I mean, we know from Ecclesiastes (not to mention reality) that this statement is not a universal truth - the rich very often have plenty to eat, and the hungry don't - that's why they're hungry. So that makes you think it refers to an act or series of acts of God. But one where the rich go hungry is hard to think of.
vs 54-55
And God's faithfulness to his covenant is stressed here. And that is expressed constantly throughout the whole Bible. Even when God's letting Israel get smacked down by foreign armies, that's still part of him being faithful to his covenant.
vs 56
She would have been well and truly preggers by then.
vs 57
So now, 6 months before Jesus is born, we have the birth of Elizabeth and Zechariah's son, which was given to them by God earlier in the chapter.
vs 58
This was obviously going to be a time of great celebrating - I'll bet they even threw a party. Parties are pretty common in the culture. Should we throw more parties? If you don't know my feeling about parties yet, then you need to read harder.
vs 59
I assume that was traditional, especially consider later when they argue because no one in the family was called John.
vs 60
Now, how did Elizabeth know to call the kid John? Perhaps we (I) underestimated Zechariah's ability to communicate with his wife after being struck dumb. I mean, we know afterwards he can write, and if we assume Elizabeth can read, or that she at least has someone to read for her, then they could communicate like that.
Otherwise, it could just be that the Holy Spirit told her.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Luke Chapter 1
vs 41
John was keen to prophesy even before he was out of the womb! And even Elizabeth was filled with the spirit - some woman!
vs 42
Why did he include "in a loud voice"? Anyway, a blessing is pronounced on both Mary and fetal Jesus, which is nice.
vs 43
Well, I guess God orchestrated it so that the mothers of the two Js could meet, but remember - Elizabeth actually probably has no idea what t he future of her baby is - Zechariah was told, but he's also struck dumb. So it is possible Elizabeth didn't even know. She does know about Jesus though - assuming the Holy Spirit let her do a bit of prophesying here.
vs 44
Yes, we read about that already.
vs 45
Did Mary tell her about that? Or did Elizabeth just prophesy some more? Doesn't really matter, I don't think.
vs 46
Then Mary burst into song. For a true historical record, do we really believe that Jesus' conception was a musical? Just a thought.
vs 47
So Mary is happy, glad about what's going on.
vs 48
She is glad because God has shown her special favour. It is true that no woman is as highly favoured I think - I mean, this is really a one off historical event that she gets to be a part of. She notes that she will be forever remembered (perhaps a little too well, but such is life).
I'm sure there's a lot we can learn from Mary, and not just all you chicks. But I don't think that means we should turn her into some especially venerated person.
vs 49
I think we often think of Mary as being just a conduit for a baby to come into the world. But Mary sees this as a great personal blessing from God. She sees this as God having done something wonderful for her. Good attitude.
vs 50
And now she begins to extol the virtues of God. One being his mercy. Kind of an important one, especially considering who's kicking around in her womb. She probably didn't realise it at the time, and just picked mercy because it rhymed or something, but it is obviously meaningful.
John was keen to prophesy even before he was out of the womb! And even Elizabeth was filled with the spirit - some woman!
vs 42
Why did he include "in a loud voice"? Anyway, a blessing is pronounced on both Mary and fetal Jesus, which is nice.
vs 43
Well, I guess God orchestrated it so that the mothers of the two Js could meet, but remember - Elizabeth actually probably has no idea what t he future of her baby is - Zechariah was told, but he's also struck dumb. So it is possible Elizabeth didn't even know. She does know about Jesus though - assuming the Holy Spirit let her do a bit of prophesying here.
vs 44
Yes, we read about that already.
vs 45
Did Mary tell her about that? Or did Elizabeth just prophesy some more? Doesn't really matter, I don't think.
vs 46
Then Mary burst into song. For a true historical record, do we really believe that Jesus' conception was a musical? Just a thought.
vs 47
So Mary is happy, glad about what's going on.
vs 48
She is glad because God has shown her special favour. It is true that no woman is as highly favoured I think - I mean, this is really a one off historical event that she gets to be a part of. She notes that she will be forever remembered (perhaps a little too well, but such is life).
I'm sure there's a lot we can learn from Mary, and not just all you chicks. But I don't think that means we should turn her into some especially venerated person.
vs 49
I think we often think of Mary as being just a conduit for a baby to come into the world. But Mary sees this as a great personal blessing from God. She sees this as God having done something wonderful for her. Good attitude.
vs 50
And now she begins to extol the virtues of God. One being his mercy. Kind of an important one, especially considering who's kicking around in her womb. She probably didn't realise it at the time, and just picked mercy because it rhymed or something, but it is obviously meaningful.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Luke Chaoter 1
vs 31
Woah! That's big news. I mean, it's one thing for an old woman to have a child in her late years. That's miraculous in itself. But for a virgin to have a child is just out there.
Or is it? There are lots of these mythical "virgin births" surrounding religious type figures around this time. I don't even think Jesus is the first. So, does that mean that, after introducing his gospel as being an orderly account with lots of eye witnesses and stuff, Luke is now just adding some myth in to make Jesus sound better, to make him sound like one of the many other god-y figures that was born of a virgin?
Or, is it possible that God decided his Son would be born of a virgin, because that would really mark him out as a King of Kings and someone special? Remember, this is possibly also the result of a prophecy of the OT.
Oh yeah, name him Jesus.
vs 32
Ok, so far, although it sounds cool, there is nothing new here. God has promised to extend David's throne forever, so a new king is great news, but expected. The title "Son of the Most High" is pretty special too, but by no means unique. Certainly some prophecies coming true here.
vs 33
Again, even the forever and never-end bits are great, but not new. We read them as "WOW" because we know Jesus is eternal, but you could have heard them as a Jew and thought another king was coming. Still good, but not quite "wow".
vs 34
Fair question. Just to be fair, though - Zechariah asked the same question, and was struck dumb. Mary asked the question, and was struck pregnant. Hmm, ok, I guess they're even.
vs 35
The Holy Spirit coming upon someone is pretty special, but still did happen in the OT plenty. However, overshadowing by the Most High I think is unique. This ensures that the child can be called the Son of God.
vs 36
The angel gives Mary this news so she knows that there is miracles happening around the place, that something big is happening, and she's a part of it, and so's her relative Elizabeth.
So John the Baptist is six months older than Jesus. But he gets right into ministry - Jesus carpenters around for a while.
vs 37
Well, apparently not.
vs 38
And she accepts it pretty well. In fact, she hopes it's true! Surely she saw ahead the possible shame of being pregnant as a virgin, of not even knowing who the father was (saying "God" is going to get you stoned to death, mind), and being damaged goods for the rest of your life. But it's God's will, so she still wants it. Good on her.
vs 39-40
Since she's preggers, and she's heard that her relative Elizabeth is too, she rushes off so they can get together and talk baby stuff. And probably God-miracle-baby stuff. You think that's easy to organise a baby shower for?
Woah! That's big news. I mean, it's one thing for an old woman to have a child in her late years. That's miraculous in itself. But for a virgin to have a child is just out there.
Or is it? There are lots of these mythical "virgin births" surrounding religious type figures around this time. I don't even think Jesus is the first. So, does that mean that, after introducing his gospel as being an orderly account with lots of eye witnesses and stuff, Luke is now just adding some myth in to make Jesus sound better, to make him sound like one of the many other god-y figures that was born of a virgin?
Or, is it possible that God decided his Son would be born of a virgin, because that would really mark him out as a King of Kings and someone special? Remember, this is possibly also the result of a prophecy of the OT.
Oh yeah, name him Jesus.
vs 32
Ok, so far, although it sounds cool, there is nothing new here. God has promised to extend David's throne forever, so a new king is great news, but expected. The title "Son of the Most High" is pretty special too, but by no means unique. Certainly some prophecies coming true here.
vs 33
Again, even the forever and never-end bits are great, but not new. We read them as "WOW" because we know Jesus is eternal, but you could have heard them as a Jew and thought another king was coming. Still good, but not quite "wow".
vs 34
Fair question. Just to be fair, though - Zechariah asked the same question, and was struck dumb. Mary asked the question, and was struck pregnant. Hmm, ok, I guess they're even.
vs 35
The Holy Spirit coming upon someone is pretty special, but still did happen in the OT plenty. However, overshadowing by the Most High I think is unique. This ensures that the child can be called the Son of God.
vs 36
The angel gives Mary this news so she knows that there is miracles happening around the place, that something big is happening, and she's a part of it, and so's her relative Elizabeth.
So John the Baptist is six months older than Jesus. But he gets right into ministry - Jesus carpenters around for a while.
vs 37
Well, apparently not.
vs 38
And she accepts it pretty well. In fact, she hopes it's true! Surely she saw ahead the possible shame of being pregnant as a virgin, of not even knowing who the father was (saying "God" is going to get you stoned to death, mind), and being damaged goods for the rest of your life. But it's God's will, so she still wants it. Good on her.
vs 39-40
Since she's preggers, and she's heard that her relative Elizabeth is too, she rushes off so they can get together and talk baby stuff. And probably God-miracle-baby stuff. You think that's easy to organise a baby shower for?
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Luke chapter 1
vs 21
So obviously this was taking longer than it usually did.
vs 22
So Zechariah did some charades with the other people (*flapping wings, big ass sword, stomp stomp stomp, scaredy scaredy*) but even after that, he couldn't speak. This in itself is a sign something's going to happen, surely.
vs 23
He still finished his job! Even without being able to speak. Good on him.
vs 24
Way to go Zech! Even without being able to talk, he could still do the nasty, and God was faithful to his word. Why did she remain in seclusion? I have no idea.
vs 25
It's true - in that culture, if you didn't have children, you were shamed. Is this the culture we really want to rest our beliefs on? Where they shame a woman for not having kids with her husband? Woo, well done to them. Anyway, that's not her point - her point is that God has helped her out of her predicament.
vs 26
Gabriel's back! This time in Nazereth.
vs 27
Aww, it's the virgin Mary.
I have heard arguments that Mary is in the line of David too. Fair enough, but Luke doesn't make that point. He makes the point that it's Joseph that is in the line of David.
vs 28
This is a pretty special greeting, and yes, Mary is a pretty special woman. She's no deity or anything like that. But she is unique, and in a highly favoured way.
vs 29
She was troubled (angel just appeared) but also confused (about the greeting). I mean, she's just a girl about to be married. I guess that's pretty favoured? But lots of people get married. Perhaps she's snagged a real looker in Joseph, but perhaps not.
vs 30
Once again, don't be afraid features large. But the mention of her finding favour with God also features again. Here's the next player in our game.
So obviously this was taking longer than it usually did.
vs 22
So Zechariah did some charades with the other people (*flapping wings, big ass sword, stomp stomp stomp, scaredy scaredy*) but even after that, he couldn't speak. This in itself is a sign something's going to happen, surely.
vs 23
He still finished his job! Even without being able to speak. Good on him.
vs 24
Way to go Zech! Even without being able to talk, he could still do the nasty, and God was faithful to his word. Why did she remain in seclusion? I have no idea.
vs 25
It's true - in that culture, if you didn't have children, you were shamed. Is this the culture we really want to rest our beliefs on? Where they shame a woman for not having kids with her husband? Woo, well done to them. Anyway, that's not her point - her point is that God has helped her out of her predicament.
vs 26
Gabriel's back! This time in Nazereth.
vs 27
Aww, it's the virgin Mary.
I have heard arguments that Mary is in the line of David too. Fair enough, but Luke doesn't make that point. He makes the point that it's Joseph that is in the line of David.
vs 28
This is a pretty special greeting, and yes, Mary is a pretty special woman. She's no deity or anything like that. But she is unique, and in a highly favoured way.
vs 29
She was troubled (angel just appeared) but also confused (about the greeting). I mean, she's just a girl about to be married. I guess that's pretty favoured? But lots of people get married. Perhaps she's snagged a real looker in Joseph, but perhaps not.
vs 30
Once again, don't be afraid features large. But the mention of her finding favour with God also features again. Here's the next player in our game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)