Sermon “Forerunners of the Messiah” Luke 1:57-80
May the Lord make us faithful as John was with this Gospel he has given us, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
We learn a lot about the priorities of characters in the Bible as we read their words. Especially we learn a great deal from the blessings which are proclaimed upon different people. Today, this day of the Nativity of John the Baptist, the day the Church remembers his birth, we read the blessing of God delivered through his father Zechariah. As we read that blessing we find out what God’s priorities are for John.
It amazes me to realize that God has priorities he wishes to express over this little baby. Last week I took a newborn baby in my arms. Did I tell you that I’m a proud first-time grandparent? I hadn’t had a little bitty newborn with me for quite a while. Baby John is eight days old here. Nothing but a little squirt. He can’t hold his head up. He’s probably still sleeping about twenty hours a day. His little arms flail around aimlessly because he isn’t yet mature enough to make very purposeful motions. He’s a lot like the eight day old baby I held on Wednesday. And our Lord knows all about him. He knows what John is going to do. He knows every day that John will have. He’s lovingly numbered each and every one of them.
I’d like us to look at just a few of the prophecies made over John. You might want to look in your Bibles with me at those poetic verses we read in Luke 1, verses 68-80. I encourage you, keep your Bibles open, and if you bring your own Bible, remember you can always jot notes in the margins, underline key words, and do other things to try to improve your picture of what you read in Scripture.
What has God done? Zechariah gives us four main headings here. God has redeemed his people, raised up a horn of salvation, shown mercy, and established his covenant. We’ll look at those concepts in turn.
First, he has redeemed his people (v. 68). What is redemption? It’s buying something back from someone else. For instance, if a manufacturer gives a coupon, we can redeem something else with that coupon. Maybe it’s good for a discount or for a free product. We present the coupon and it works like money to buy something. Essentially the company buys the coupon back from us. God has redeemed his people. He has bought them back. They were sold to sin, but through the person and work of Christ on their behalf, God has bought them from slavery. He has bought us, all who believe, from the bondage of sin. It can no longer hold us. The price of our salvation has been paid. We who were bound to sin have been set free. And it’s by God’s work in Christ, not by our own work. Jesus has paid the penalty for sin and has redeemed us. Yet I wonder if you noticed a little oddity about the verb there in verse 68? Zechariah is praising God for redeeming his people. He says it is finished. He “has redeemed” his people. That’s in the past tense, just like you “have arrived” in the church building. You’re already here or I wouldn’t say you “have arrived.” But when did Jesus redeem us from sin? Jesus hasn’t been born yet. John is about six months older than Jesus. But in God’s eyes, he has already redeemed his people. Remember that Jesus is very much alive, though he is still in his mother’s womb. Salvation has come in the person of Jesus, even before he is born. How much more do we realize salvation in Jesus some thirty-odd years later when he dies for our sin and rises from the dead on our behalf? God has redeemed his people. He has redeemed you, he has redeemed me. He has bought us back from the power of sin and death. We are no longer in captivity, through faith in his name. Praise be to the Lord. He has redeemed his people.
What do we see next? He has raised up a horn of salvation, in verse 69. This idea of a “horn” is a little different in the Bible than we might think of it today. You all know what a horn is, right? After all, we know what has one horn and gives milk, don’t we? A milk truck. Beep, beep. Or maybe we think of a horn and picture a trombone. But when the Bible talks about a horn, it’s a symbol of strength. Think of a bull’s horn or a ram’s horn, something used for butting other animals out of the way. We also see the word “horn” used as a wing or a flank of an army, the part jutting out from the center, which could be used to attack the enemy. A horn in the Bible is used as a symbol of power. God has raised up a horn of salvation. He saves us from evil. In verses 77-79 we read what that salvation looks like. It’s forgiveness of sins. It’s pictured as the light of the rising sun. It’s that kind of light that dispels the darkness, chases away shadows. It’s the peace of God which directs us through this life, and it’s the life we receive when God has chased away death. Jesus, our horn of salvation, has destroyed death. He has driven it away. He has conquered this enemy.
Now how can I say that Jesus has conquered the enemy, death? Many of you know that just as I spent some time last week holding a sweet little baby, as alive as can be, I also spent time last Tuesday visiting some of Martha’s family members who were gathered around the funeral of her brother-in-law, John, who we have prayed for here recently. We saw him lying in the casket. He was dead. It didn’t seem like death was conquered. And we’ve seen death in this congregation as well, quite a number of times in the past year. How has Jesus conquered death? It seems to still be in effect. But Jesus has indeed conquered death. By faith in his name, by trusting in his work on our behalf, we who are mortal, when we die, will be clothed with immortality. It’s what we read last week in Corinthians. We are waiting to be born, and we will be born when this mortality has put on immortality. Jesus has conquered death by being the one who could bear all our sin, be killed by it, and rise to life again. Jesus proclaimed his victory to the souls in prison, those who were dead. Jesus showed that he had victory over death by rising from the dead. And he has promised that we will be as he is, rising from the dead as well. Jesus, our horn of salvation, has conquered death.
This is part of the great mercy of God we read about in verse 72. Zechariah doesn’t talk a lot about God’s mercy in specific detail. It’s more like a summary of all God has been doing here. He has shown mercy. Why did he bring salvation? Not because of our good works. It’s because of his mercy. Why does he present us faultless before himself? Because of his great mercy. Yet look at this. It isn’t his mercy to us here in verse 72. It’s his mercy to our fathers. Who are the fathers? God has shown mercy to the fathers of Zechariah. Generation after generation he has shown his mercy by preserving the line of the Messiah. Generation after generation he has proclaimed his mercy, not visiting Israel with punishment their sins deserved. Generation after generation, for thousands of years, he has preserved the seed of Adam, who would crush the serpent’s head, as he promised in Genesis chapter 3. He has raised up judges as we are reading in the Adult Bible class. He has preserved his people through the Babylonian captivity, as we read last week or the week before in the Bible reading challenge. As we read in Esther this week he has raised up his people in key places in their captivity, protecting this line of the Messiah, the line of the deliverer. God has shown his mercy. And he has shown his mercy to each and every one of us, not treating us as our sins deserve. We are not worthy of God’s forgiveness. Yet Jesus has granted us forgiveness anyway, taking upon himself the penalty of each and every one of us. God has shown his mercy.
Does it seem to you that maybe God’s mercy is some sort of a whim? Did he decide to be gracious the same way the pagan gods we read about in mythology are gracious, out of some self-centered or capricious motive? Not at all. Why was God merciful? It was because of his covenant. We saw that in verse 72. It’s all about God’s desire. He does not want anyone to perish but desires that all should have eternal life, life found in Jesus, by trusting that he is who he said he is, the resurrection and the life. This is God’s covenant. It isn’t our covenant. It’s his covenant. See how he is the one who swore the oath to Abraham. See how he’s the one who promised to rescue us. And notice that now it is “us” rather than “the fathers.” God has promised to rescue us, and Zechariah proclaims that his rescue operation is active. As God rescues us from our enemies, particularly sin and death, he makes us able to serve him. What kind of a fearful thing is it, after all, to serve God? Once again, think of the non-Christian religions. What happens when you try to serve Zeus and make a mistake? He’s the one with the lightning bolts. What happens when you promise to serve Athena and Juno gets wind of it? She’ll make your life miserable. What happens when you try to appease the volcano god? Someone dies, and if you don’t do it right, that someone may just be you. What happens when you try to make peace with the Great Spirit of the Plains? Hard to say. What happens, though, when the true God, the triune God confessed by Christians, makes peace by his covenant? He establishes the covenant, he makes the promises, and he puts himself to death on our behalf, realizing that we were never able to keep the covenant in the first place. Salvation is of the Lord. He enables us to serve him without fear, because he has destroyed fear by his perfect love, which casts out all fear.
How are we going to serve him, then? We serve him in holiness, in righteousness, and forever. We saw that in verse 75. This all happens only because our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has purchased us from sin.
Well, there’s been something mysteriously absent from this sermon. Have you noticed it? It’s called “Forerunners of the Messiah.” Who is Zechariah talking to? He’s making a prophecy over John, his infant son, the forerunner of the Messiah, Jesus. But what is John’s role in all of this? He doesn’t seem to have much of a role. Zechariah gets to it in verse 76. John will be a prophet. He will go before the Lord. He will prepare the way of the Lord. He will be a forerunner, pointing people to this Jesus who has accomplished salvation. Do you see how John himself almost gets lost in this prophecy? It’s all about Jesus. But John is the one who is being circumcised, dedicated to the Lord. Yet isn’t that appropriate? As we receive baptism and are consecrated to God, it isn’t really about us. It’s all about Jesus, who has purchased our salvation, who puts our sins to death. When we repent and believe in Jesus it isn’t about the quality of our repentance or even our belief. It’s about the quality of our Jesus. We aren’t on center stage. Jesus is. Just look around this room. Even in our church services we see that we aren’t on center stage. Where does the preacher stand? He stands off to the side. What’s center stage? It’s an altar, a cross, a copy of the Scripture at center stage. Jesus is center stage. John is just a forerunner.
May the Lord make us forerunners in our community. May we have the grace to proclaim Jesus’ wonders. May we have grace to point many to our Lord and Savior. As Professor Nagle used to say, “Don’t tell me about your faith. Tell me about your Jesus.” May we also be forerunners of Jesus, telling of his plan of redemption, of him as the horn of salvation, of him as the deliverer of God’s mercy, of Jesus as the one who brings God’s covenant to us, so we can serve him.
Do you believe that Jesus is the one who can take away all your sin? Maybe you wonder if sin is a real thing in this world. Sin is what brings death. It is what brings all the curse of God on this life. It’s real. And we all have it. We all deserve death and condemnation. But the good news is that through his good pleasure God has borne the penalty of sin on your behalf and on my behalf. All we do is believe that Jesus is the one who saves us, who forgives us our sin. And we receive his cleansing, becoming his messengers, forerunners of the Gospel. Do you believe? May the Lord bless us to trust in him more, day by day, looking to him, the author and finisher of our salvation.
Now may the grace of the Lord guard your hearts and minds, making you, as he made John, messengers of this Gospel, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Showing posts with label Luke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke. Show all posts
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Sermon for 4/22/12 "Joyful Disbelief"
Sermon “Joyful Disbelief” Luke 24:41
Lord, confront us with the power of your resurrection, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
I hung up the phone after the discussion, not sure quite what to think. The school had called me to get a recommendation for one of their applicants, a person I knew from a school situation and who also attended the church where I was ministering. In the course of this very odd conversation the school administrator began talking about my specialty and whether I would be interested in teaching some courses there. She did not know that at that time there were people trying to assasinate my character and abilities in the school where I taught and that my future hopes there were looking increasingly fragile. Within a week I had agreed with the school where I now teach to run some classes outside of the hours when I would be present at the classroom school. I wouldn’t be able to be as involved in the local church, but I would have a layer of protection if something went wrong at the other school. The recommendation for someone else turned into an interview for me. God provided for my family through a completely unexpected opportunity, one which seemed too good to be real, one which still often seems too good to be real.
Before we move farther into this sermon, I should pause to observe that this congregation, by letting me teach some classes, more than I want to this year, has been reaching out to provide Christian education to homeschoolers on four continents, giving some missionary families options which may allow them to remain on the mission field, keeping some military families together when they would otherwise be separated by many thousands of miles. On behalf of The Potter’s School and the families I serve, thank you very much.
Yet the point of this sermon is not how God keeps me working at more jobs than one human should have at any one time. It isn’t about us providing for the needs of people in far away places. It is, in fact, about how much God loves you. It is about the kind of promises God has given each one of us in Jesus Christ. Like I reacted to that phone call in March of 2001, the disciples reacted with a sort of joyful disbelief when they saw their risen Savior. The reality seemed to good to be true. It was outside of their experience. They may have tried to pinch themselves and see if they were dreaming. But that didn’t work. They could pinch their arms until they were black and blue but it still wouldn’t make Jesus, risen from the dead, standing right there and talking with them any more reasonable.
In the end, though, the Christian faith is not about how reasonable God’s promises are. It’s about how good his promises are. Just how good are the promises of God? We see his promises throughout the Divine Service from beginning to end. Let’s look at a few of them and see what kind of joyful disbelief we have. Let’s see how good they are.
At the start of the service, after the processional hymn, I claim you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Some of you follow what I’m doing and trace the mark of the cross on yourselves, showing who you belong to. Let’s remember how that works. You use two fingers and a thumb, referring to the Trinity. The other two fingers are tightly folded down inside your hand the way Jesus’ divine and human nature are folded together. And you mark yourself in the name of the Father (head), the Son (heart) and the Holy Spirit (active in this world, moving here and there). Can you believe you are a possession of God through Christ Jesus, guarded every moment by the Holy Spirit?
We enter into the presence of God, singing or proclaiming his glory. By the way, Krista Burton is getting opinions from people about our experience of singing the introit during Lent. If you liked it, didn't like it, or have no particular preference, please tell her. In the Introit we confess that God is hereto bring his gifts to his people. We enter into his presence, we don't call him to come into our presence. Can you believe you are brought into the presence of the Lord of all when you gather in worship? The Bible calls us to enter his presence with thanksgiving. Again this seems to be too good to believe, but it's absolutely true.
During the Kyrie – oh, wait, some people have trouble pronouncing some of these parts of the service. But you can learn to say other things. We had the introit and now we have the kyrie. It's got a longer name, kyrie eleison which means “Lord, have mercy.” We shorten the name just to “Lord” but see how we ask him again and again to have mercy. It's for the reason of showing his mercy that our Lord came in the first place. He delights in our asking him to have mercy, so we do, for all sorts of things. Did you ever listen carefully to the things I pray for that you ask God to have mercy on? Once again, we're asking God to take care of all the evils in this world. And his response? He has called us into his presence to ask that he will have mercy. He's going to do his will. Do you believe this? It's too good to believe. Yet the resurrection is also. We can look at God's promises with that joyful disbelief. He really did promise to pour out his mercy on this world. And he will keep his promise.
Our church services remain full of unbelievable promises as we turn our attention to reading the Scripture. And here we receive the words of life that our Lord has given us. Do we even begin to realize how great it is that God has revealed himself in Scripture? Do we have an inkling of how great it is that probably everyone in this room – no, wait. If you don't have a copy of the Bible of your own, I want you to look in the rack in front of you in the pew. You can adopt one of those or talk with anyone in leadership of the church and we'll be sure you have a Bible of your very own. There. Now everyone in this room has a copy of God's Word. If you can read (no, stop laughing, some people in this room can't read and that's all right) you have the ability to take God's revelation of himself in Christ Jesus and read it for yourself. If you can't read, you have a copy of the Scripture and can find someone to read it to you. God's promises are there. His word will accomplish its purpose. It is sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting right to our hearts, revealing how the Lord would change us from inside to out. This is God's promise. Do we believe it? I want to commend people who have been following our Bible reading challenge. Some people have said they are participating in it but that they can't keep up. That's all right. You'll finish in the next couple of years. It isn't a race. It's a reminder that a page at a time we can fill our hearts and minds with all God's promises.
I'll continue with something that should inspire joyful disbelief. We'll just keep walking through the divine service a bit more. In the sermon, which some people conider the heart and center of the church service, God continues to give us his incredible promises. In Romans chapter 10 we see that faith comes by hearing, specifically by hearing the Word of God. By the chance to have God's Word read and explained a little bit our Lord creates faith in our hearts. He leads us to believe that his promises are true and that they are for us. Years ago I stopped counting the number of times I heard discouraged people tell me that they didn't bother coming to church because they weren't sure they really believed. I continue to tell them, “If you aren't sure you believe then the place you need to be is in church. The Holy Spirit can confirm your faith and strengthen you for every challenge. When you're having a difficult time you need God's Word working in your life more than ever.” To those who say their faith is strong so they don't need to attend church I would simply ask what they are going to do when the challenges arise and they have not been nourished by Word and Sacrament. Sunday morning gives us probably the most valuable three hours in our week. Let's make the most of it. God's promises are unfolded before us. He will develop in us what is lacking. We'll need it. Receive it joyfully!
Three more quick pieces of joyful disbelief. What about confessing the creed? How supernatural, how wonderful, how gracious is all that we confess, especially about Jesus' incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension? Like those early Christians we too can see the risen Lord and look eagerly to his coming again. And in the meantime there is nothing we need to fear. There's no reason to think that he will stop guarding us. There's plenty of grace and mercy for all of us for every day, because we know and confess that the Holy Spirit has given us his gifts, including the Church, baptism, forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. What beats that? Nothing at all. Do we believe? If we do not, may it be that joyful disbelief that says we can't understand how or why the triune God would do all this for us.
We then have a time for prayers. What if we didn't think the prayers in the Kyrie were enough? We turn around and pray for some other things. Are your prayers ever going to be boring to our Lord? Not at all. Is he ever going to become tired of you praying the same old thing over and over again? Not at all. Our Lord invites us to pray, using his name and authority, trusting that he will take care of all our cares. Cast your cares upon the Lord for he cares for you! Really? What if you're chronically ill and wonder if God cares. Jesus suffered in your place. He knows all of your struggles. He delights to hear from you. What if you are thankful for something but think it's trivial? Give thanks anyway! Our Lord delights when we receive his blessings, great and small. Just how big is this? God actually cares for us and hears our prayers! Yes, we can rejoice in this too. Jesus is no longer dead. He has risen as he said, and he sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us, hearing our prayers and passing them to the Father of mercy. What if you don't believe that? It's still true.
Then, near the end of some of our gatherings, we get to receive the true body and true blood of our Lord, given and shed for us for the forgiveness of our sins. Just how great is this? It is the capstone of divine worship. Here God gives his gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation, through his servant, into your hand and into your mouth. He makes you a bodily partaker of his glorified body. I said that some people think of the sermon as the heart and center of the worship service. It may be, but if the sermon is the heart, communion is the brain. Your heart doesn't keep pumping unless your brain tells it to. Christ crucified for sinners, delivering himself to us, that's what gives all the rest of our Christian life its life. Without Jesus risen from the dead, coming out of the tomb with his body and blood for you there is no Christian faith. You might as well just stay at home if we are not bringing Jesus to you in the divine service. Is he here for you whether you receive communion or not? Sure. But when you get to receive communion he is specially, physically here for you.
All these promises are too good to believe, just like Jesus' appearance to his disciples that night was too good for them to believe. What was their response? Though they couldn't explain it all, they believed. They accepted Jesus' unbelievable promises and they walked in the joy of the Holy Spirit. May our Lord give us grace to see his incredible promises and to believe him as well, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Lord, confront us with the power of your resurrection, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
I hung up the phone after the discussion, not sure quite what to think. The school had called me to get a recommendation for one of their applicants, a person I knew from a school situation and who also attended the church where I was ministering. In the course of this very odd conversation the school administrator began talking about my specialty and whether I would be interested in teaching some courses there. She did not know that at that time there were people trying to assasinate my character and abilities in the school where I taught and that my future hopes there were looking increasingly fragile. Within a week I had agreed with the school where I now teach to run some classes outside of the hours when I would be present at the classroom school. I wouldn’t be able to be as involved in the local church, but I would have a layer of protection if something went wrong at the other school. The recommendation for someone else turned into an interview for me. God provided for my family through a completely unexpected opportunity, one which seemed too good to be real, one which still often seems too good to be real.
Before we move farther into this sermon, I should pause to observe that this congregation, by letting me teach some classes, more than I want to this year, has been reaching out to provide Christian education to homeschoolers on four continents, giving some missionary families options which may allow them to remain on the mission field, keeping some military families together when they would otherwise be separated by many thousands of miles. On behalf of The Potter’s School and the families I serve, thank you very much.
Yet the point of this sermon is not how God keeps me working at more jobs than one human should have at any one time. It isn’t about us providing for the needs of people in far away places. It is, in fact, about how much God loves you. It is about the kind of promises God has given each one of us in Jesus Christ. Like I reacted to that phone call in March of 2001, the disciples reacted with a sort of joyful disbelief when they saw their risen Savior. The reality seemed to good to be true. It was outside of their experience. They may have tried to pinch themselves and see if they were dreaming. But that didn’t work. They could pinch their arms until they were black and blue but it still wouldn’t make Jesus, risen from the dead, standing right there and talking with them any more reasonable.
In the end, though, the Christian faith is not about how reasonable God’s promises are. It’s about how good his promises are. Just how good are the promises of God? We see his promises throughout the Divine Service from beginning to end. Let’s look at a few of them and see what kind of joyful disbelief we have. Let’s see how good they are.
At the start of the service, after the processional hymn, I claim you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Some of you follow what I’m doing and trace the mark of the cross on yourselves, showing who you belong to. Let’s remember how that works. You use two fingers and a thumb, referring to the Trinity. The other two fingers are tightly folded down inside your hand the way Jesus’ divine and human nature are folded together. And you mark yourself in the name of the Father (head), the Son (heart) and the Holy Spirit (active in this world, moving here and there). Can you believe you are a possession of God through Christ Jesus, guarded every moment by the Holy Spirit?
We enter into the presence of God, singing or proclaiming his glory. By the way, Krista Burton is getting opinions from people about our experience of singing the introit during Lent. If you liked it, didn't like it, or have no particular preference, please tell her. In the Introit we confess that God is hereto bring his gifts to his people. We enter into his presence, we don't call him to come into our presence. Can you believe you are brought into the presence of the Lord of all when you gather in worship? The Bible calls us to enter his presence with thanksgiving. Again this seems to be too good to believe, but it's absolutely true.
During the Kyrie – oh, wait, some people have trouble pronouncing some of these parts of the service. But you can learn to say other things. We had the introit and now we have the kyrie. It's got a longer name, kyrie eleison which means “Lord, have mercy.” We shorten the name just to “Lord” but see how we ask him again and again to have mercy. It's for the reason of showing his mercy that our Lord came in the first place. He delights in our asking him to have mercy, so we do, for all sorts of things. Did you ever listen carefully to the things I pray for that you ask God to have mercy on? Once again, we're asking God to take care of all the evils in this world. And his response? He has called us into his presence to ask that he will have mercy. He's going to do his will. Do you believe this? It's too good to believe. Yet the resurrection is also. We can look at God's promises with that joyful disbelief. He really did promise to pour out his mercy on this world. And he will keep his promise.
Our church services remain full of unbelievable promises as we turn our attention to reading the Scripture. And here we receive the words of life that our Lord has given us. Do we even begin to realize how great it is that God has revealed himself in Scripture? Do we have an inkling of how great it is that probably everyone in this room – no, wait. If you don't have a copy of the Bible of your own, I want you to look in the rack in front of you in the pew. You can adopt one of those or talk with anyone in leadership of the church and we'll be sure you have a Bible of your very own. There. Now everyone in this room has a copy of God's Word. If you can read (no, stop laughing, some people in this room can't read and that's all right) you have the ability to take God's revelation of himself in Christ Jesus and read it for yourself. If you can't read, you have a copy of the Scripture and can find someone to read it to you. God's promises are there. His word will accomplish its purpose. It is sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting right to our hearts, revealing how the Lord would change us from inside to out. This is God's promise. Do we believe it? I want to commend people who have been following our Bible reading challenge. Some people have said they are participating in it but that they can't keep up. That's all right. You'll finish in the next couple of years. It isn't a race. It's a reminder that a page at a time we can fill our hearts and minds with all God's promises.
I'll continue with something that should inspire joyful disbelief. We'll just keep walking through the divine service a bit more. In the sermon, which some people conider the heart and center of the church service, God continues to give us his incredible promises. In Romans chapter 10 we see that faith comes by hearing, specifically by hearing the Word of God. By the chance to have God's Word read and explained a little bit our Lord creates faith in our hearts. He leads us to believe that his promises are true and that they are for us. Years ago I stopped counting the number of times I heard discouraged people tell me that they didn't bother coming to church because they weren't sure they really believed. I continue to tell them, “If you aren't sure you believe then the place you need to be is in church. The Holy Spirit can confirm your faith and strengthen you for every challenge. When you're having a difficult time you need God's Word working in your life more than ever.” To those who say their faith is strong so they don't need to attend church I would simply ask what they are going to do when the challenges arise and they have not been nourished by Word and Sacrament. Sunday morning gives us probably the most valuable three hours in our week. Let's make the most of it. God's promises are unfolded before us. He will develop in us what is lacking. We'll need it. Receive it joyfully!
Three more quick pieces of joyful disbelief. What about confessing the creed? How supernatural, how wonderful, how gracious is all that we confess, especially about Jesus' incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension? Like those early Christians we too can see the risen Lord and look eagerly to his coming again. And in the meantime there is nothing we need to fear. There's no reason to think that he will stop guarding us. There's plenty of grace and mercy for all of us for every day, because we know and confess that the Holy Spirit has given us his gifts, including the Church, baptism, forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. What beats that? Nothing at all. Do we believe? If we do not, may it be that joyful disbelief that says we can't understand how or why the triune God would do all this for us.
We then have a time for prayers. What if we didn't think the prayers in the Kyrie were enough? We turn around and pray for some other things. Are your prayers ever going to be boring to our Lord? Not at all. Is he ever going to become tired of you praying the same old thing over and over again? Not at all. Our Lord invites us to pray, using his name and authority, trusting that he will take care of all our cares. Cast your cares upon the Lord for he cares for you! Really? What if you're chronically ill and wonder if God cares. Jesus suffered in your place. He knows all of your struggles. He delights to hear from you. What if you are thankful for something but think it's trivial? Give thanks anyway! Our Lord delights when we receive his blessings, great and small. Just how big is this? God actually cares for us and hears our prayers! Yes, we can rejoice in this too. Jesus is no longer dead. He has risen as he said, and he sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us, hearing our prayers and passing them to the Father of mercy. What if you don't believe that? It's still true.
Then, near the end of some of our gatherings, we get to receive the true body and true blood of our Lord, given and shed for us for the forgiveness of our sins. Just how great is this? It is the capstone of divine worship. Here God gives his gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation, through his servant, into your hand and into your mouth. He makes you a bodily partaker of his glorified body. I said that some people think of the sermon as the heart and center of the worship service. It may be, but if the sermon is the heart, communion is the brain. Your heart doesn't keep pumping unless your brain tells it to. Christ crucified for sinners, delivering himself to us, that's what gives all the rest of our Christian life its life. Without Jesus risen from the dead, coming out of the tomb with his body and blood for you there is no Christian faith. You might as well just stay at home if we are not bringing Jesus to you in the divine service. Is he here for you whether you receive communion or not? Sure. But when you get to receive communion he is specially, physically here for you.
All these promises are too good to believe, just like Jesus' appearance to his disciples that night was too good for them to believe. What was their response? Though they couldn't explain it all, they believed. They accepted Jesus' unbelievable promises and they walked in the joy of the Holy Spirit. May our Lord give us grace to see his incredible promises and to believe him as well, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 7 Day 1 Luke 21-24
Our reading challenge for the day is Luke 21-24. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Luke 21 - All our earthy possessions, even very valuable earthly possessions such as a temple, will pass away with the coming of Christ in his glory. These earthly things, though they are important, are temporary.
Luke 22 - The events of Jesus' death are set in progress quite clearly as Jesus shows himself to be the Passover sacrificed for his people. We can see Jesus' statements here being fulfilled. I question why so many are so quick to deny Jesus' the ability to speak clearly and literally about the nature of communion as he institutes it. Either God is supernatural or he is not. We confess he can do what he wishes.
Luke 22-23 - Jesus is betrayed and arrested. He does not try to evade any of the charges brought against him, though they are false and contradictory. Despite the nature of the evidence brought, Jesus is condemned. See how people weep for him and are sorry for him but he says rather they should be sorry for themselves. The biblical account of the death of Jesus is much less graphic than anything we see in movies or television programs these days. Yet the events are clear and straightforward. It seems Luke is more interested in showing that Jesus died to redeem his people from death than in showing how terrible the death on a cross is.
Luke 24 - The account of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is very brief. We learn in Acts that Jesus was appearing to people for forty days before he ascended to heaven. Yet we have only brief accounts in Luke, all on the day of the resurrection. See how Jesus' appearance to his people is unexpected. We may not believe that he will accomplish his purposes, but when he does so he still graciously receives us.
Luke 21 - All our earthy possessions, even very valuable earthly possessions such as a temple, will pass away with the coming of Christ in his glory. These earthly things, though they are important, are temporary.
Luke 22 - The events of Jesus' death are set in progress quite clearly as Jesus shows himself to be the Passover sacrificed for his people. We can see Jesus' statements here being fulfilled. I question why so many are so quick to deny Jesus' the ability to speak clearly and literally about the nature of communion as he institutes it. Either God is supernatural or he is not. We confess he can do what he wishes.
Luke 22-23 - Jesus is betrayed and arrested. He does not try to evade any of the charges brought against him, though they are false and contradictory. Despite the nature of the evidence brought, Jesus is condemned. See how people weep for him and are sorry for him but he says rather they should be sorry for themselves. The biblical account of the death of Jesus is much less graphic than anything we see in movies or television programs these days. Yet the events are clear and straightforward. It seems Luke is more interested in showing that Jesus died to redeem his people from death than in showing how terrible the death on a cross is.
Luke 24 - The account of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is very brief. We learn in Acts that Jesus was appearing to people for forty days before he ascended to heaven. Yet we have only brief accounts in Luke, all on the day of the resurrection. See how Jesus' appearance to his people is unexpected. We may not believe that he will accomplish his purposes, but when he does so he still graciously receives us.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sermon “Let the Children Come to Me“ Luke 18:15-17
Sermon “Let the Children Come to Me“ Luke 18:15-17 audio link http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23575548/120212Luke18.mp3
Lord, grant that we may be eager to hear your word and to believe you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Today we are having a celebration of life. Often a life Sunday is scheduled to coincide with the 1973 Supreme Court decision which effectively allowed for legal abortion. This year we ended up missing that date and having this date instead. Yet there's a sense, and it's an important sense, in which it is always life Sunday for the Christian.
If we are able, let us rise for the reading of another passage of the Gospel, this found in Luke's Gospel, the 18th chapter, beginning at verse 15.
15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
This is the Gospel of the Lord. Praise be to You, oh Christ.
Please be seated.
This passage, familiar as part of the reading this week in our Bible reading challenge, and probably familiar to everyone who has ever been in a Sunday school class for more than a year, says more than we often realize it does. I'd like to point out three of the many lessons we can learn as we look to these verses today. First, Jesus invites little children to himself. Second, the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. Finally, we come to our Lord as children.
Jesus invites little children to himself. The word Luke uses for “little children” is the Greek word which would indicate either an unborn baby or a newly born baby. It is probably used better for someone who is still in the womb than it is for someone who has been born, and will stop being used within about a year after birth. It's the term for a very small child. These are people whom Jesus loves. They are people who are created in the image of God. They are entirely people. And Jesus invites them to himself. He invites them to hear of his saving love. He invites them to receive his blessing. He considers them important. In the words of Lutheran theologian and popular author Theodore Geisel, “A person's a person, no matter how small.”
Yet our culture at large has rejected that idea, and has been rejecting this value of human life now for more than forty years. We've seen it in the movement to kill living human beings who have not yet been born. We have seen it in many other developed countries, and in attitudes increasingly common in this country aimed at older people. We like to use the politically friendly terms such as “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide” while people who are elderly, infirm, or deemed unproductive by our society are put to death or encouraged to put themselves to death. At the beginning and end of life we look less and less at human life as a blessing from God and more and more as something to be endured, at least for a while, in hopes that someone useful and productive can emerge.
What happens when we reject the idea that human life is a gift from God? You may have noticed that we broke with some tradition and have changed the paraments to red. I thought about changing them to white, since we often think of the beauty and purity of those created in God's image. But we use red as the color for martyrdom, for those who have died. Since 1973 in this country alone we have had approximately 54 million “safe, legal” abortions. But those abortions are not safe, not safe at all. Not only does one of every two humans involved in an act of abortion die, we also see increased rates of depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide among women who have had abortions. It's not safe at all. And more importantly, it deprives human children from any opportunity to come to Jesus for forgiveness of the sin in which they were conceived. It separates those children eternally from the loving and forgiving work of Christ on the cross. If all have sinned, that includes all those people we haven't met yet. That includes my granddaughter, whose picture is on my office door, whom we hope to meet sometime in June. She needs the forgiveness of Jesus who died for her as well.
People involved in this culture of death have told me, and they may have told you as well, “If you don't like abortion, don't have one.” But the Bible tells us to care for those who cannot help themselves. We are to protect the helpless. We are not just anti abortion, but we are pro life. So our desire is to defend life.
That desire to defend life, though, becomes more complicated when we start looking at medical research. There's a wide-ranging debate in this country right now about stem cell research, a promising field of research which has been finding cures for previously incurable illnesses. What does not show up so clearly in our news media is that the stem cell research industry is separated into two branches. One branch, which refers to adult stem cells, finds ways of taking cells from an ill patient, for instance, blood cells, which that patient can make more of. They have found out how to persuade the cells to adapt themselves into other, healthy bodily tissues which can be used to treat or even replace unhealthy tissues. This branch of research has worked remarkably well and has saved many many lives.
The other branch of stem cell research doesn't like to tell us how they go about their research. It's called embryonic stem cell research. They take fertilized eggs, possibly “left-overs” from other medical treatments, and clone the embryos, the humans at the very earliest stage of their lives. These cloned embryos are used for research to see if they can generate bodily tissues which can be implanted into sick people and overcome their illnesses, much like the adult stem cell tissues do. There are a couple of drawbacks, though. The first is not so important to me, but it might be to others. No cure for any known disease has ever been found through this method. It has had a zero percent success rate so far, while adult stem cell research has had a fairly good success rate. Yet the low success rate doesn't bother me so much. Inventors are very often finding out that what they tried didn't work. Edison found hundreds of ways not to make a light bulb. It's all right to try and fail. But what is the cost in embryonic stem cell research? To do an experiment the researchers start a human life and then destroy it. Each time we experiment, somebody dies. Does it matter that this is somebody for whom there were no parents on the scene, who was never “intended” to be living in our world? “A person's a person no matter how small.” “Let the little children come to Me.”
The picture becomes even more muddled, though. Do you want to avoid supporting the abortion industry and embryonic stem cell research? Fine. But what do we do to encourage those people who are looking for cures for diseases? Groups which are dedicated to fighting diseases such as cancer often strongly support embryonic stem cell research, which always results in the death of human embryos. Recently, for instance, the Susan G. Komen for the cure foundation withdrew support for Planned Parenthood, apparently partly in response to pro-life groups which have pointed out a link between women receiving abortions and development of breast cancer, partly because they wished to avoid ties with organizations which were under criminal investigation or organizations which simply pass donations through to other cancer-diagnosis and treatment providers. The Komen foundation then reversed their decision when they were bombarded by criticism from government officials and liberal-leaning groups. This is a prominent group, doing a good deal for a cause that is important to millions of people. Yet we have to question what else they may be supporting. And we get to question all sorts of organizations. For instance, the American Cancer Society, sponsor of the Relay for Life, is supportive of embryonic stem cell research and also provides links to and support for abortion providers. Yet those abortion providers have virtually no involvement in cancer prevention. They are committed to ending human lives. We want to encourage researchers who are trying to find a cure for a deadly disease. But we don't want to be encouraging the killing of those little children. Jesus says they should be allowed to come to him. How do we do this? I wish I could answer it for you. Yet I can't and I realize it's time for me to step down off my soapbox without mentioning genocide or anything that would have me imprisoned if we were in a church in some countries.
Two more points, then, quickly, this time. What did I say at first? First, Jesus invites little children to himself. Second, the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. Finally, we come to our Lord as children.
So the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. As people who need to receive the blessing and forgiveness of Jesus, this is where our children need to be. One prominent Christian philosopher pointed out in my presence once that children are sinners like the rest of us. They are simply cute sinners. When we think about it, we all are condemned. Regardless of age, we have not loved God with all our hearts. We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. And in some ways small children are worse about this than adults. They are less conscious of their neighbors and the needs those neighbors have. Yet where sin abounds, grace abounds more. God's merciful presence in Word and Sacrament is exactly what people of every age, including small children, need. We don't simply treat the family as a holding tank for children who will have to decide later whether they will believe on Christ or not. we treat the family as a place where the work of the ministry goes on, where the Word of God is read and treasured, where we pray for one another, and where we nurture one another in the love of Christ. That is why I am encouraged to see families with children coming to church. Parents and children alike need the grace of God. That is why I'm encouraged when young fathers and old fathers look to our Lord to teach them how to live as the heads of their families, leading them in all righteousness. That's why I'm encouraged when young mothers and old mothers look to the Lord to teach them how to live as godly women, nurturing their families, supporting their husbands in leadership. That's why I'm encouraged when children look to our Lord for grace to grow in him and to mature in the context of their families.
Did I leave someone out, though? I did, and that's someone we need to value. How about the person who has no family? How about the person who has been tossed aside, the one who is abandoned, the one who is weak and hurt? How about the unwed mother who has been abandoned by her boyfriend? How about the father who has his children but the children's mother is not around? How about the orphans and widows of this world? We may be anti-abortion, but how pro-life are we? Are we ready to receive some of these people, no, not some of them, all of these people, as those people whom the Lord would have come to him? Or do we treat them as outsiders and hope they go away soon? “Let the little children come to me.” Jesus also wants the not-so-little children to come to him.
That brings me to the last point. First, Jesus invites little children to himself. Second, the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. Finally, we come to our Lord as children.
How do we approach our God? Like children, we realize that we can't bring anything he needs. We can't do anything that will earn his favor. We can't bring our righteousness because we don't have any of that. All we bring is the fact that our Lord has called us to himself, that he has given himself for us and for our salvation. All we bring is the fact that we are weak and helpless and that he is strong, merciful, and calls us to himself. How did these babies come to Jesus? They were little bitty babies. They didn't walk, they didn't even crawl. They were brought to Jesus. And someone has brought each one of us to Jesus as well. The Holy Spirit has used others to bring us to Jesus.
When we look at our culture, the people all around us, the people who are not valued enough, the people who don't value other people enough, those people are really not that different from us. We all need to be brought to Jesus. We all need his care. We all need his forgiveness. The question is whether we who have been brought to Jesus are ready to receive his kingdom, and whether we who have received his kingdom are ready to be his instruments to bring others to him. Will we defend life? Will we protect and nurture those people, bringing them up in the nurture of the Gospel? Will we guard the elderly and people who seem otherwise not very useful from harm, knowing that they are dear to our Lord? Will we welcome our friends and neighbors, as well as our enemies and strangers, with open arms, to a life of repentance, faith, and the love of Christ?
Jesus calls us to himself as little children. He lays his hand of blessing on us. Let us receive all his blessing, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.
Lord, grant that we may be eager to hear your word and to believe you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Today we are having a celebration of life. Often a life Sunday is scheduled to coincide with the 1973 Supreme Court decision which effectively allowed for legal abortion. This year we ended up missing that date and having this date instead. Yet there's a sense, and it's an important sense, in which it is always life Sunday for the Christian.
If we are able, let us rise for the reading of another passage of the Gospel, this found in Luke's Gospel, the 18th chapter, beginning at verse 15.
15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
This is the Gospel of the Lord. Praise be to You, oh Christ.
Please be seated.
This passage, familiar as part of the reading this week in our Bible reading challenge, and probably familiar to everyone who has ever been in a Sunday school class for more than a year, says more than we often realize it does. I'd like to point out three of the many lessons we can learn as we look to these verses today. First, Jesus invites little children to himself. Second, the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. Finally, we come to our Lord as children.
Jesus invites little children to himself. The word Luke uses for “little children” is the Greek word which would indicate either an unborn baby or a newly born baby. It is probably used better for someone who is still in the womb than it is for someone who has been born, and will stop being used within about a year after birth. It's the term for a very small child. These are people whom Jesus loves. They are people who are created in the image of God. They are entirely people. And Jesus invites them to himself. He invites them to hear of his saving love. He invites them to receive his blessing. He considers them important. In the words of Lutheran theologian and popular author Theodore Geisel, “A person's a person, no matter how small.”
Yet our culture at large has rejected that idea, and has been rejecting this value of human life now for more than forty years. We've seen it in the movement to kill living human beings who have not yet been born. We have seen it in many other developed countries, and in attitudes increasingly common in this country aimed at older people. We like to use the politically friendly terms such as “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide” while people who are elderly, infirm, or deemed unproductive by our society are put to death or encouraged to put themselves to death. At the beginning and end of life we look less and less at human life as a blessing from God and more and more as something to be endured, at least for a while, in hopes that someone useful and productive can emerge.
What happens when we reject the idea that human life is a gift from God? You may have noticed that we broke with some tradition and have changed the paraments to red. I thought about changing them to white, since we often think of the beauty and purity of those created in God's image. But we use red as the color for martyrdom, for those who have died. Since 1973 in this country alone we have had approximately 54 million “safe, legal” abortions. But those abortions are not safe, not safe at all. Not only does one of every two humans involved in an act of abortion die, we also see increased rates of depression, anxiety, drug addiction, and suicide among women who have had abortions. It's not safe at all. And more importantly, it deprives human children from any opportunity to come to Jesus for forgiveness of the sin in which they were conceived. It separates those children eternally from the loving and forgiving work of Christ on the cross. If all have sinned, that includes all those people we haven't met yet. That includes my granddaughter, whose picture is on my office door, whom we hope to meet sometime in June. She needs the forgiveness of Jesus who died for her as well.
People involved in this culture of death have told me, and they may have told you as well, “If you don't like abortion, don't have one.” But the Bible tells us to care for those who cannot help themselves. We are to protect the helpless. We are not just anti abortion, but we are pro life. So our desire is to defend life.
That desire to defend life, though, becomes more complicated when we start looking at medical research. There's a wide-ranging debate in this country right now about stem cell research, a promising field of research which has been finding cures for previously incurable illnesses. What does not show up so clearly in our news media is that the stem cell research industry is separated into two branches. One branch, which refers to adult stem cells, finds ways of taking cells from an ill patient, for instance, blood cells, which that patient can make more of. They have found out how to persuade the cells to adapt themselves into other, healthy bodily tissues which can be used to treat or even replace unhealthy tissues. This branch of research has worked remarkably well and has saved many many lives.
The other branch of stem cell research doesn't like to tell us how they go about their research. It's called embryonic stem cell research. They take fertilized eggs, possibly “left-overs” from other medical treatments, and clone the embryos, the humans at the very earliest stage of their lives. These cloned embryos are used for research to see if they can generate bodily tissues which can be implanted into sick people and overcome their illnesses, much like the adult stem cell tissues do. There are a couple of drawbacks, though. The first is not so important to me, but it might be to others. No cure for any known disease has ever been found through this method. It has had a zero percent success rate so far, while adult stem cell research has had a fairly good success rate. Yet the low success rate doesn't bother me so much. Inventors are very often finding out that what they tried didn't work. Edison found hundreds of ways not to make a light bulb. It's all right to try and fail. But what is the cost in embryonic stem cell research? To do an experiment the researchers start a human life and then destroy it. Each time we experiment, somebody dies. Does it matter that this is somebody for whom there were no parents on the scene, who was never “intended” to be living in our world? “A person's a person no matter how small.” “Let the little children come to Me.”
The picture becomes even more muddled, though. Do you want to avoid supporting the abortion industry and embryonic stem cell research? Fine. But what do we do to encourage those people who are looking for cures for diseases? Groups which are dedicated to fighting diseases such as cancer often strongly support embryonic stem cell research, which always results in the death of human embryos. Recently, for instance, the Susan G. Komen for the cure foundation withdrew support for Planned Parenthood, apparently partly in response to pro-life groups which have pointed out a link between women receiving abortions and development of breast cancer, partly because they wished to avoid ties with organizations which were under criminal investigation or organizations which simply pass donations through to other cancer-diagnosis and treatment providers. The Komen foundation then reversed their decision when they were bombarded by criticism from government officials and liberal-leaning groups. This is a prominent group, doing a good deal for a cause that is important to millions of people. Yet we have to question what else they may be supporting. And we get to question all sorts of organizations. For instance, the American Cancer Society, sponsor of the Relay for Life, is supportive of embryonic stem cell research and also provides links to and support for abortion providers. Yet those abortion providers have virtually no involvement in cancer prevention. They are committed to ending human lives. We want to encourage researchers who are trying to find a cure for a deadly disease. But we don't want to be encouraging the killing of those little children. Jesus says they should be allowed to come to him. How do we do this? I wish I could answer it for you. Yet I can't and I realize it's time for me to step down off my soapbox without mentioning genocide or anything that would have me imprisoned if we were in a church in some countries.
Two more points, then, quickly, this time. What did I say at first? First, Jesus invites little children to himself. Second, the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. Finally, we come to our Lord as children.
So the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. As people who need to receive the blessing and forgiveness of Jesus, this is where our children need to be. One prominent Christian philosopher pointed out in my presence once that children are sinners like the rest of us. They are simply cute sinners. When we think about it, we all are condemned. Regardless of age, we have not loved God with all our hearts. We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. And in some ways small children are worse about this than adults. They are less conscious of their neighbors and the needs those neighbors have. Yet where sin abounds, grace abounds more. God's merciful presence in Word and Sacrament is exactly what people of every age, including small children, need. We don't simply treat the family as a holding tank for children who will have to decide later whether they will believe on Christ or not. we treat the family as a place where the work of the ministry goes on, where the Word of God is read and treasured, where we pray for one another, and where we nurture one another in the love of Christ. That is why I am encouraged to see families with children coming to church. Parents and children alike need the grace of God. That is why I'm encouraged when young fathers and old fathers look to our Lord to teach them how to live as the heads of their families, leading them in all righteousness. That's why I'm encouraged when young mothers and old mothers look to the Lord to teach them how to live as godly women, nurturing their families, supporting their husbands in leadership. That's why I'm encouraged when children look to our Lord for grace to grow in him and to mature in the context of their families.
Did I leave someone out, though? I did, and that's someone we need to value. How about the person who has no family? How about the person who has been tossed aside, the one who is abandoned, the one who is weak and hurt? How about the unwed mother who has been abandoned by her boyfriend? How about the father who has his children but the children's mother is not around? How about the orphans and widows of this world? We may be anti-abortion, but how pro-life are we? Are we ready to receive some of these people, no, not some of them, all of these people, as those people whom the Lord would have come to him? Or do we treat them as outsiders and hope they go away soon? “Let the little children come to me.” Jesus also wants the not-so-little children to come to him.
That brings me to the last point. First, Jesus invites little children to himself. Second, the kingdom of God is just the right place for children. Finally, we come to our Lord as children.
How do we approach our God? Like children, we realize that we can't bring anything he needs. We can't do anything that will earn his favor. We can't bring our righteousness because we don't have any of that. All we bring is the fact that our Lord has called us to himself, that he has given himself for us and for our salvation. All we bring is the fact that we are weak and helpless and that he is strong, merciful, and calls us to himself. How did these babies come to Jesus? They were little bitty babies. They didn't walk, they didn't even crawl. They were brought to Jesus. And someone has brought each one of us to Jesus as well. The Holy Spirit has used others to bring us to Jesus.
When we look at our culture, the people all around us, the people who are not valued enough, the people who don't value other people enough, those people are really not that different from us. We all need to be brought to Jesus. We all need his care. We all need his forgiveness. The question is whether we who have been brought to Jesus are ready to receive his kingdom, and whether we who have received his kingdom are ready to be his instruments to bring others to him. Will we defend life? Will we protect and nurture those people, bringing them up in the nurture of the Gospel? Will we guard the elderly and people who seem otherwise not very useful from harm, knowing that they are dear to our Lord? Will we welcome our friends and neighbors, as well as our enemies and strangers, with open arms, to a life of repentance, faith, and the love of Christ?
Jesus calls us to himself as little children. He lays his hand of blessing on us. Let us receive all his blessing, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 6 Day 5 Luke 16-20
Our reading challenge for the day is Luke 16-20. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
From chapter 16 through most of chapter 19, Luke simply turns up the heat on what we observed yesterday. Not only are we to trust in God to deliver his people, but we are to realize that we deserve nothing of the kind. All the situations in which God redeems his people in these parables are patently situations in which the people did nothing worthy of redemption. It is out of God's pure mercy and pleasure that he rescues us from sin.
Near the end of chapter 19 we have Jesus entering into Jerusalem. Though he shows himself to be the king and master of all, yet he is challenged and rejected by his opponents. What will happen to them? The parables he tells make it quite clear that in the last day God will condemn those who have rejected him. Yet in the mean time he is shown to be the Lord who weeps over the people who reject him. May we have grace to treat our enemies in the same way today, allowing God to be the final judge.
From chapter 16 through most of chapter 19, Luke simply turns up the heat on what we observed yesterday. Not only are we to trust in God to deliver his people, but we are to realize that we deserve nothing of the kind. All the situations in which God redeems his people in these parables are patently situations in which the people did nothing worthy of redemption. It is out of God's pure mercy and pleasure that he rescues us from sin.
Near the end of chapter 19 we have Jesus entering into Jerusalem. Though he shows himself to be the king and master of all, yet he is challenged and rejected by his opponents. What will happen to them? The parables he tells make it quite clear that in the last day God will condemn those who have rejected him. Yet in the mean time he is shown to be the Lord who weeps over the people who reject him. May we have grace to treat our enemies in the same way today, allowing God to be the final judge.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 6 Day 4 Luke 11-15
Our reading challenge for the day is Luke 11-15. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
There is one message that arises again and again in Luke 11-15. As Jesus makes many parabolic statements and does many parabolic actions, see that they all point toward depending on him, trusting that our Lord and Savior cares for us and will rescue us no matter our situation. This is not a normal response for fallen humanity, as we would rather trust ourselves and our own abilities and plans. Yet wherever we look to the Lord in faith we see he is the one who delivers his people.
Here's a challenge. Take three passages from today's reading and try to read them through the lens I described above. See if that agrees with the way you have heard those passages taught before. See if it seems to fit with the rest of Scripture.
There is one message that arises again and again in Luke 11-15. As Jesus makes many parabolic statements and does many parabolic actions, see that they all point toward depending on him, trusting that our Lord and Savior cares for us and will rescue us no matter our situation. This is not a normal response for fallen humanity, as we would rather trust ourselves and our own abilities and plans. Yet wherever we look to the Lord in faith we see he is the one who delivers his people.
Here's a challenge. Take three passages from today's reading and try to read them through the lens I described above. See if that agrees with the way you have heard those passages taught before. See if it seems to fit with the rest of Scripture.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 6 Day 3 Luke 6-10
Our reading challenge for the day is Luke 6-10. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Luke 6 - Jesus shows himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath. The following sermon on the level place is very much akin to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount found in chapters 5-7 of that gospel.
Luke 7-8 Jesus shows himself to be the one who saves and heals the outcasts from society. He cares about those who are lowly in society. This is perplexing to most of us, as he is the one who is worthy of all acclaim but does not seek it.
Luke 9-10 Jesus continues healing and showing himself to be the mighty God. His disciples seem to start believing on him in more specific terms, even before the transfiguration. See how his mission is first to send out twelve, then seventy-two. The breadth of his sending of his messengers continues to widen.
Luke 6 - Jesus shows himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath. The following sermon on the level place is very much akin to Matthew's Sermon on the Mount found in chapters 5-7 of that gospel.
Luke 7-8 Jesus shows himself to be the one who saves and heals the outcasts from society. He cares about those who are lowly in society. This is perplexing to most of us, as he is the one who is worthy of all acclaim but does not seek it.
Luke 9-10 Jesus continues healing and showing himself to be the mighty God. His disciples seem to start believing on him in more specific terms, even before the transfiguration. See how his mission is first to send out twelve, then seventy-two. The breadth of his sending of his messengers continues to widen.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Bible Reading Challenge - Week 6 Day 2 Luke 1-5
Our reading challenge for the day is Luke 1-5. I'll hit a few highlights. You make comments too and fill in the gaps. What strikes you as specially significant?
Luke 1-2 Notice that this carefully researched report Luke gives us is all about miraculous events - births of two children to mothers who could not have children but who conceived in response to an angelic message. The events surrounding both the birth of Jesus and of John the Baptizer are truly extraordinary. Yet when someone today talks about careful research, miraculous events don't tend to come up in the discussion. Maybe we can recapture the idea that simply because it is miraculous does not mean it is not true.
Luke 3 See how forcefully John calls people to believe Jesus. He is clear that Jesus is the one to watch, not John. The genealogy, as is proper for a gospel written to a possibly Gentile audience, traces Jesus as the son of God, not merely the son of Abraham. He is the one promised from the very start.
Luke 4-5 Jesus engages in ministry by healing, preaching, and calling disciples. Notice that, unlike most situations, Jesus selects his disciples. They do not select him. He is the one who will teach them what they need to know, who will show them what they need to see, and who will empower them for the work of the ministry.
Luke 1-2 Notice that this carefully researched report Luke gives us is all about miraculous events - births of two children to mothers who could not have children but who conceived in response to an angelic message. The events surrounding both the birth of Jesus and of John the Baptizer are truly extraordinary. Yet when someone today talks about careful research, miraculous events don't tend to come up in the discussion. Maybe we can recapture the idea that simply because it is miraculous does not mean it is not true.
Luke 3 See how forcefully John calls people to believe Jesus. He is clear that Jesus is the one to watch, not John. The genealogy, as is proper for a gospel written to a possibly Gentile audience, traces Jesus as the son of God, not merely the son of Abraham. He is the one promised from the very start.
Luke 4-5 Jesus engages in ministry by healing, preaching, and calling disciples. Notice that, unlike most situations, Jesus selects his disciples. They do not select him. He is the one who will teach them what they need to know, who will show them what they need to see, and who will empower them for the work of the ministry.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
"Ancient Testimony to Luke's Gospel"
"Ancient Testimony to Luke's Gospel" Wenham, pp. 183-197
p. 183 "Testimony is virtually universal that the author of the third gospel was Luke, the beloved physician and companion of Paul."
p. 183 "clement of Alexandria says that 'those gospels were first written which include the genealogies'. This would seem to mean that Luke (and Matthew) were written before Mark (and John). This is the strongest argument in the Griesbach case, for Clement is early (c. 150-215) and well informed."
Wenham sets out to answer who the author of Luke might be and where it comes in the sequence of the gospels.
p. 184 "The unanimous testimony of the early Christian writers attributes the gospel to Luke. This is found in irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and in those who came after, and is never disputed. They usually make clear that he was the companion of Paul."
The issue of the anonymity seems to clash with the early identification of the author, though. People have tried to identify Luke as the author based on the knowledge that there was a Luke with Paul sometimes, though he is not identified as Paul's chronicler anywhere. Some have attempted to identify Luke by the process of elimination. Streeter observes that the preface would not make sense to readers without knowledge of the author.
p. 185 "It is probable that Theophilus' own copy would have been tagged with the author's name. Private libraries were common among the rich, and before placing a book-roll in the library, it was customary to tag it. Unlike oriental practice, Greco-Roman libraries were indexed by the author's name. Thus the authorship of a catalogued book which had no author's name in the text would nonetheless be known beyond doubt to its readers, and this was presumably true of Luke."
Wenham discusses several other, but possibly less persuasive, theories which can point to Luke as the author. p. 186 "The three other traditions of Luke's identity to which we referred are of little value as historical evidence." He then goes on to discuss a tradition that Luke was one of the seventy and therefore would have had information about that mission and would have had access to Jesus and the apostles. There is another tradition, which is supported by the identity of Luke as one of the seventy, that he was the disciple on the Emmaus road who is not named. We also see some suggestions that Lucius of Cyrene, Paul's kinsman (Romans 16:21) was the Antiochan church leader. None of those traditions help us identify the author, but they do all point to someone who was present early in the Christian period. p. 187 "The earlier we envisage Luke participating in the Christian mission the stronger will be the case for taking his narrative as a sound historical source."
The question of the sequence of the gospels is open to debate as well. Some point out that Clement, quoted by Eusebius, may suggest that the gospels including genealogies were first. This would suggest that Matthew and Luke came before Mark and John. However, Origen knew the order to be Matthew, Mark, then Luke. p. 189 (quoting Origen) "...as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: 'She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.' And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John. (HE 6.25.3-6)"
Wenham quotes Zahn on p. 190. "What Origen gives as a tradition, without any thought of a divergent view, is expressed also by Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian fragment without the least indication of uncertaintiy. It continued to be the prevalent view of antiquity, and it was this more than anything else which brought it about, that the arrangement of the Gospels familiar to us displaced more and more the other arrangements..."
The difficulty is a parallel tradition involving Clement and Origen, two church fathers who were near each other in time (Clement was Origen's teacher). He traces Zahn's argument in some detail.
Augustine listed the gospels in order as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, Augustine tends to make some other statements which could suggest that Mark appears dependent on Matthew and Luke. Yet the statements of Augustine do not appear to be entirely clear. Augustine may suggest affinity without suggesting dependence.
Wenham concludes the chapter without necessarily resolving the difficulty. He has stated strengths and weaknesses of a variety of arguments. The chapter actually closes with questions about whether or not we are wise looking for literary relationships and particularly literary dependence. This is the big question of Wenham's book.
p. 183 "Testimony is virtually universal that the author of the third gospel was Luke, the beloved physician and companion of Paul."
p. 183 "clement of Alexandria says that 'those gospels were first written which include the genealogies'. This would seem to mean that Luke (and Matthew) were written before Mark (and John). This is the strongest argument in the Griesbach case, for Clement is early (c. 150-215) and well informed."
Wenham sets out to answer who the author of Luke might be and where it comes in the sequence of the gospels.
p. 184 "The unanimous testimony of the early Christian writers attributes the gospel to Luke. This is found in irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and in those who came after, and is never disputed. They usually make clear that he was the companion of Paul."
The issue of the anonymity seems to clash with the early identification of the author, though. People have tried to identify Luke as the author based on the knowledge that there was a Luke with Paul sometimes, though he is not identified as Paul's chronicler anywhere. Some have attempted to identify Luke by the process of elimination. Streeter observes that the preface would not make sense to readers without knowledge of the author.
p. 185 "It is probable that Theophilus' own copy would have been tagged with the author's name. Private libraries were common among the rich, and before placing a book-roll in the library, it was customary to tag it. Unlike oriental practice, Greco-Roman libraries were indexed by the author's name. Thus the authorship of a catalogued book which had no author's name in the text would nonetheless be known beyond doubt to its readers, and this was presumably true of Luke."
Wenham discusses several other, but possibly less persuasive, theories which can point to Luke as the author. p. 186 "The three other traditions of Luke's identity to which we referred are of little value as historical evidence." He then goes on to discuss a tradition that Luke was one of the seventy and therefore would have had information about that mission and would have had access to Jesus and the apostles. There is another tradition, which is supported by the identity of Luke as one of the seventy, that he was the disciple on the Emmaus road who is not named. We also see some suggestions that Lucius of Cyrene, Paul's kinsman (Romans 16:21) was the Antiochan church leader. None of those traditions help us identify the author, but they do all point to someone who was present early in the Christian period. p. 187 "The earlier we envisage Luke participating in the Christian mission the stronger will be the case for taking his narrative as a sound historical source."
The question of the sequence of the gospels is open to debate as well. Some point out that Clement, quoted by Eusebius, may suggest that the gospels including genealogies were first. This would suggest that Matthew and Luke came before Mark and John. However, Origen knew the order to be Matthew, Mark, then Luke. p. 189 (quoting Origen) "...as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: 'She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.' And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John. (HE 6.25.3-6)"
Wenham quotes Zahn on p. 190. "What Origen gives as a tradition, without any thought of a divergent view, is expressed also by Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian fragment without the least indication of uncertaintiy. It continued to be the prevalent view of antiquity, and it was this more than anything else which brought it about, that the arrangement of the Gospels familiar to us displaced more and more the other arrangements..."
The difficulty is a parallel tradition involving Clement and Origen, two church fathers who were near each other in time (Clement was Origen's teacher). He traces Zahn's argument in some detail.
Augustine listed the gospels in order as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, Augustine tends to make some other statements which could suggest that Mark appears dependent on Matthew and Luke. Yet the statements of Augustine do not appear to be entirely clear. Augustine may suggest affinity without suggesting dependence.
Wenham concludes the chapter without necessarily resolving the difficulty. He has stated strengths and weaknesses of a variety of arguments. The chapter actually closes with questions about whether or not we are wise looking for literary relationships and particularly literary dependence. This is the big question of Wenham's book.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew
"Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew" Wenham, pp. 40-87
p. 40 "Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke make dependence on Q or large-scaled borrowing from Matthew improbable."
Wenham suggests that Luke shows in places that he does not borrow from Mark and change the overall meaning of what he borrows. This suggests that Luke would be similar in his work with other sources.
p. 41 "When comparing Luke with Mark we have seen how consistently he keeps to Mark's sense. Since his aim was to confirm Theophilus in the truth, it follows that he would only have used sources which eh believed to be trustworthy, and that he would have been as faithful to them as he was to Mark."
The problem which then arises is that scholars have suggested a hypothetical "Q" document which served as a source for the evangelists. If both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from this document but took its information quite differently from each other, one or both of them misrepresented it. Wenham is going to consider the claims that Luke borrowed from a "Q" but made significant innovations. He'll look at it first in the central section of Luke, then the Sermon on the Level Place, then the rest of Luke.
1. The Central Section (9:51-18:14)
p. 43 "If Q is regarded as a single Greek document roughly coterminous with the material not found in Mark which is common to Matthew and Luke, the Q theory is sufficiently precise for thorough investigation."
THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER
p. 43 "Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological succession, are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again, a literary connection is a natural explanation."
Yet on p. 44 Wehnam points out passages where the order of events in Matthew and Luke are in a significantly different order. He discusses various views of how the order may have been derived, but observes that all fall short in that they require us to know what a source document may have contained and in what order. I observe that all the theories discussed seem to indicate that authors are slavishly trying to follow or purposely modify an existing pattern, either to protect their presuppositions or to alter an historical account.
THE ARGUMENT FROM WORDING
p. 51 "Redaction critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex, so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether they look as though one is adapting the text of the other."
The arguments from wording in redaction criticism strike me as being weak. Because there is some similarity in wording, even a slight similarity, a redaction critic often suggests a literary relationship. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, people speaking about similar events tend to use similar language. Wenham introduces a section of comparison of different Greep passages in which he highlights similarities and differences.
p. 54 "In the case of Mark (as we have seen) Luke almost invariably keeps to his sense, but this (as we shall now show) is not so in the Q-material. Even in the ten fairly long passages (pp. 55-66 below) where there is general agreement in wording and sense the relation does not appear to be a literary one; in the nine examples (pp. 67-76) where the sense is markedly different a literary connection is improbable in the extreme."
p. 59 "If to some the wording seems to close for separate utterances retained in separate minds over several years, it needs to be remembered that in addition to a tendency towards divergence there could also have been a tendency towards assimilation when similar sayings were taught in the church."
Wenham is suggesting, then, that different authors may use different vocabulary and style to discuss the same matters, particularly if they are depending not on a source as a literary quote-book, but if they are depending rather on the events detailed in a source book. There is also a tendency to start using the same language to discuss matters when the matters are discussed within the context of an assembly such as a church body. One person uses a particularly apt manner of expression and others follow suit. This is not strictly a literary dependence.
p. 63 "The Beelzebul controversy (11:14-32) has perhaps the most plausible claim to a literary connection. It has nineteen verses which run parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew 12:22-45. Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar."
Wenham sums up his argument briefly on p. 66 "Looking at the Q-material studied thus far, it does not look as though the Luke who followed Mark so closely would have constructed passages out of Matthew in this way. Nor does it look as though the two evangelists followed a single common Q-source, since it would have entailed (particularly as we shall see, in the nine most divergent passages) one or other or both of them treating its different parts in too inconsistent a way."
He then goes on to bring out nine passages with sense differences between Luke and Matthew.
THE ORIGIN OF LUKE'S CENTRAL SECTION
pp. 76-77 "If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings of Jesus."
The material can be explained easily with five arguments Wenham explains on pp. 77-79.
1. It fits the claims of the narrative.
2. It fits Luke's claims for his sources.
3. It would explain the extraordinary interest in the mission of the seventy.
4. It would explain the order of the material.
5. It would account for the verbal likenesses and unlikenesses.
Wenham goes on to discuss the Great Sermon, Luke 6:20-49, which has a strong parallel in the Sermon on the Mount. Though the parallels are strong, Wenham does not think there is a clear literary dependence, because there are significant differences which would seem very odd in a literary derivation.
He goes on to talk about the remainder of Luke's Gospel, addressing five Q-passages in the rest of the book. Because the passages do not seem to line up with their parallels very well, we are faced with problems from a standpoint of literary dependence. We would expect that two authors who are not trying to be misleading would report their sources in approximately the same manner. Yet Luke and Matthew seem to report this alleged source very differently from one another.
p. 83 "This brings us back to the question of method in redaction criticism. Thus far we have simply laid the Q-passages side by side and asked the question: Does the similarity necessitate a belief that there is a direct literary connection between them? And the answer (except in rare cases) seems plainly to be, No. But of course moern writers do not conceive the relationship in this simplistic fashion. We have quoted from Fitzmyer, who presents his theory of Luke's composition with elegant sophistication. We saw in his treatment of the Coming Crisis in Luke 12:49-59 on p. 69 a case in point. He found there in succession: L, L heavily modified, Q, redaction, Q, a passage where six words out of forty-seven agree with Matthew - partly Lukan composition, partly L, Lukan composition, Q. This is all right, if one is assured a) that the relationship is primarily literary, b) that Luke was in the habit of altering the substance of his sources, c) that Q actually existed, d) that L source(s) actually existed, e) that Luke (whether by inspiration or not) created a good deal of his material de novo. But all these propositions are debatable and they beg the very question that we are investigating."
With all this data, Wenham asks a probing question on p. it. "But might it not be that Luke has kept to the sense of Q and that Matthew has done nearly all the changing?" What are other options?
p. 86 "just as Luke would not have altered a Q of the Matthean type in the way supposed, neither would Matthew have done so to one of the Lukan type. That both Matthew and Luke would have made major changes sufficient to account for the divergences between the two known versions of the Q- material is of precisely equal improbability" - we simply don't have adequate data to assess the way hypothetical sources were used.
p. 87 "Finally, we must consider the possibility that Luke got his Q- material direct from Matthew."
p. 87 "The picture which is emerging would suggest that Luke had two documents which are known to us which he used quite differently but equally scrupulously. He took Mark as his guide to the basic framework of the gospel, following the order and main substance of Mark's pericopes in the first third and final third of his book, though seldom following his actual wording. Matthew he seems to have used in a minor way to provide some supplementary information in the early part of the book."
However we stack it, it seems to me that forming a theory of literary dependence is going to be very difficult and fraught with weaknesses. It does not seem a way that authors write, which to me throws up a very substantial difficulty.
p. 40 "Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. The differences of sense between the Q-material of Matthew and of Luke make dependence on Q or large-scaled borrowing from Matthew improbable."
Wenham suggests that Luke shows in places that he does not borrow from Mark and change the overall meaning of what he borrows. This suggests that Luke would be similar in his work with other sources.
p. 41 "When comparing Luke with Mark we have seen how consistently he keeps to Mark's sense. Since his aim was to confirm Theophilus in the truth, it follows that he would only have used sources which eh believed to be trustworthy, and that he would have been as faithful to them as he was to Mark."
The problem which then arises is that scholars have suggested a hypothetical "Q" document which served as a source for the evangelists. If both Luke and Matthew borrowed heavily from this document but took its information quite differently from each other, one or both of them misrepresented it. Wenham is going to consider the claims that Luke borrowed from a "Q" but made significant innovations. He'll look at it first in the central section of Luke, then the Sermon on the Level Place, then the rest of Luke.
1. The Central Section (9:51-18:14)
p. 43 "If Q is regarded as a single Greek document roughly coterminous with the material not found in Mark which is common to Matthew and Luke, the Q theory is sufficiently precise for thorough investigation."
THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER
p. 43 "Where several pericopes, which have no apparent logical or chronological succession, are found in the same order, a natural possible inference is a literary connection. Similarly, if a sequence of material is broken by an omission or by the intrusion of new matter and is then resumed again, a literary connection is a natural explanation."
Yet on p. 44 Wehnam points out passages where the order of events in Matthew and Luke are in a significantly different order. He discusses various views of how the order may have been derived, but observes that all fall short in that they require us to know what a source document may have contained and in what order. I observe that all the theories discussed seem to indicate that authors are slavishly trying to follow or purposely modify an existing pattern, either to protect their presuppositions or to alter an historical account.
THE ARGUMENT FROM WORDING
p. 51 "Redaction critics tend to see the redactionary process as something quite complex, so it may seem naive to try to assess the probability of a literary connection by simply laying parallel passages side by side and asking ourselves whether they look as though one is adapting the text of the other."
The arguments from wording in redaction criticism strike me as being weak. Because there is some similarity in wording, even a slight similarity, a redaction critic often suggests a literary relationship. This is not necessarily the case. In fact, people speaking about similar events tend to use similar language. Wenham introduces a section of comparison of different Greep passages in which he highlights similarities and differences.
p. 54 "In the case of Mark (as we have seen) Luke almost invariably keeps to his sense, but this (as we shall now show) is not so in the Q-material. Even in the ten fairly long passages (pp. 55-66 below) where there is general agreement in wording and sense the relation does not appear to be a literary one; in the nine examples (pp. 67-76) where the sense is markedly different a literary connection is improbable in the extreme."
p. 59 "If to some the wording seems to close for separate utterances retained in separate minds over several years, it needs to be remembered that in addition to a tendency towards divergence there could also have been a tendency towards assimilation when similar sayings were taught in the church."
Wenham is suggesting, then, that different authors may use different vocabulary and style to discuss the same matters, particularly if they are depending not on a source as a literary quote-book, but if they are depending rather on the events detailed in a source book. There is also a tendency to start using the same language to discuss matters when the matters are discussed within the context of an assembly such as a church body. One person uses a particularly apt manner of expression and others follow suit. This is not strictly a literary dependence.
p. 63 "The Beelzebul controversy (11:14-32) has perhaps the most plausible claim to a literary connection. It has nineteen verses which run parallel to the twenty-four verses of Matthew 12:22-45. Not only are several of the sayings of Jesus found in identical or nearly identical form, but there is a sustained similarity of order throughout much of the passage. In addition the setting, including the reactions of Jesus and of the crowds, is similar."
Wenham sums up his argument briefly on p. 66 "Looking at the Q-material studied thus far, it does not look as though the Luke who followed Mark so closely would have constructed passages out of Matthew in this way. Nor does it look as though the two evangelists followed a single common Q-source, since it would have entailed (particularly as we shall see, in the nine most divergent passages) one or other or both of them treating its different parts in too inconsistent a way."
He then goes on to bring out nine passages with sense differences between Luke and Matthew.
THE ORIGIN OF LUKE'S CENTRAL SECTION
pp. 76-77 "If the Q-material of the Central Section does not come from the one or more Qs or from Matthew, what is the alternative? The simplest answer is the most revolutionary. The answer could be that these Q-passages have no common literary, or even oral, origin, but derive from different sayings of Jesus."
The material can be explained easily with five arguments Wenham explains on pp. 77-79.
1. It fits the claims of the narrative.
2. It fits Luke's claims for his sources.
3. It would explain the extraordinary interest in the mission of the seventy.
4. It would explain the order of the material.
5. It would account for the verbal likenesses and unlikenesses.
Wenham goes on to discuss the Great Sermon, Luke 6:20-49, which has a strong parallel in the Sermon on the Mount. Though the parallels are strong, Wenham does not think there is a clear literary dependence, because there are significant differences which would seem very odd in a literary derivation.
He goes on to talk about the remainder of Luke's Gospel, addressing five Q-passages in the rest of the book. Because the passages do not seem to line up with their parallels very well, we are faced with problems from a standpoint of literary dependence. We would expect that two authors who are not trying to be misleading would report their sources in approximately the same manner. Yet Luke and Matthew seem to report this alleged source very differently from one another.
p. 83 "This brings us back to the question of method in redaction criticism. Thus far we have simply laid the Q-passages side by side and asked the question: Does the similarity necessitate a belief that there is a direct literary connection between them? And the answer (except in rare cases) seems plainly to be, No. But of course moern writers do not conceive the relationship in this simplistic fashion. We have quoted from Fitzmyer, who presents his theory of Luke's composition with elegant sophistication. We saw in his treatment of the Coming Crisis in Luke 12:49-59 on p. 69 a case in point. He found there in succession: L, L heavily modified, Q, redaction, Q, a passage where six words out of forty-seven agree with Matthew - partly Lukan composition, partly L, Lukan composition, Q. This is all right, if one is assured a) that the relationship is primarily literary, b) that Luke was in the habit of altering the substance of his sources, c) that Q actually existed, d) that L source(s) actually existed, e) that Luke (whether by inspiration or not) created a good deal of his material de novo. But all these propositions are debatable and they beg the very question that we are investigating."
With all this data, Wenham asks a probing question on p. it. "But might it not be that Luke has kept to the sense of Q and that Matthew has done nearly all the changing?" What are other options?
p. 86 "just as Luke would not have altered a Q of the Matthean type in the way supposed, neither would Matthew have done so to one of the Lukan type. That both Matthew and Luke would have made major changes sufficient to account for the divergences between the two known versions of the Q- material is of precisely equal improbability" - we simply don't have adequate data to assess the way hypothetical sources were used.
p. 87 "Finally, we must consider the possibility that Luke got his Q- material direct from Matthew."
p. 87 "The picture which is emerging would suggest that Luke had two documents which are known to us which he used quite differently but equally scrupulously. He took Mark as his guide to the basic framework of the gospel, following the order and main substance of Mark's pericopes in the first third and final third of his book, though seldom following his actual wording. Matthew he seems to have used in a minor way to provide some supplementary information in the early part of the book."
However we stack it, it seems to me that forming a theory of literary dependence is going to be very difficult and fraught with weaknesses. It does not seem a way that authors write, which to me throws up a very substantial difficulty.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
"Luke"
"Luke" Carson & Moo pp. 198-224
CONTENTS
p. 198 "Luke's gospel is the longest book in the New Testament. Like Matthew, Luke follows the basic outline of Jesus' ministry established by Mark."
1. The Prologue (1:1-4)
2. The Births of John the Baptist and Jesus (1:5-2:52)
3. Preparation for the Ministry (3:1-4:13)
4. The Ministry of Jesus in Galilee (4:14-9:50)
5. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:44)
6. Jesus in Jerusalem (19:45-21:38)
7. Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection (22:1-24:53)
LUKE-ACTS
Luke and Acts are recognizably written by the same individual, addressed to the same individual, and related to one another. however we do need to realize that the books seem to fit into different genres, with Luke following the pattern found in the other gospels and Acts following a pattern of a historical text.
AUTHOR
Internal evidence points to an author who is not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry (1:1-4) but who is familiar with many events. The "we" passages in Acts identify the author as someone who is frequently a companion of Paul. The statements of chapter 1 indicating an author who performed research prepares us to expect someone who would have drawn information from a variety of sources, including from those he accompanied. Early church authors identify Luke as the author, also claiming that the author was a physician. There are indications, particularly in Colossians 4:10-14, that Luke was a Gentile.
PROVENANCE
The location of the writing is unclear. Antioch, Achaia, and Rome have all been suggested. All are speculations.
DATE
Carson and Moo give a good deal of evidence that tends to point again and again to a date around 62 for the final work of Acts. Acts presupposes that the gospel has been written, but does not suggest that it has been in existence for long. Carson and Moo also list numerous suggestions for later dates, after 70, but none of those suggestions are conclusive.
ADDRESSEE(S)
The gospel is written to one "Theophilus" which means "lover of God." This could be anybody, including a noble person (see the "most excellent") using a real or assumed name, or could be an example of a person to whom Luke purports to write. The content of the gospel seems to indicate it is written with a recent convert in mind.
PURPOSE
Luke states his own purpose of writing in the prologue, to assure the reader of the certainty of what he has been taught. p. 212 "By the time Luke wrote his gospel, the early church had separated from Judaism and was, indeed, experiencing hostility from many Jews. at the same time, the new and tiny Christian movement was competing with a welter of religious and philosophical alternatives in the Greco-Roman world."
COMPOSITION
If we assume that Luke drew heavily on other written sources, it would seem that he takes about 55 percent of Mark's material (p. 212). Some suggest that Luke has borrowed a great deal, about 20 percent of the non-Markan material, from Matthew. This does leave a significant portion of the gospel without parallel. p. 213 "most scholars are persuaded that Luke and Matthew have independently used a lost source, called "Q." we think this hypothesis is likely, though the exact nature of Q must be left open." Yet we observe that Luke says he gathered information from a variety of sources. It must be allowed that some sources were written and that some were oral, gathered in the time he spent accompanying Paul and possibly other apostles.
TEXT
The text of Luke and Acts is difficult as there is a significant difference between Western and Eastern text traditions. Carson and Moo lay out a fairly detailed argument on p. 215. They tend to think that the Western text passages which are found in addition to the Eastern text are less likely to be original, while the passages which exist in the Western text but are omitted in the Eastern text are fairly likely to be original.
ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Luke was clearly accepted as canonical by the mid-second century. There is some evidence that it was cited earlier, even in the first century. It has been universally accepted as authoritative for as long as canonicity has been articulated.
LUKE'S GOSPEL IN RECENT STUDY
In recent years text critics have suggested a variety of sources for Luke's information. They have also tended to suggest that Luke was interested in explaining eschatology to dispel the idea that Jesus' return would have been expected more or less immediately after his ascension. Narrative critics have focused on Luke-Acts as a two volume whole. pp. 218-219 "Luke is not creating a work of literature from whole cloth as a novelist might go about his or her work. He is narrating events that transpired in a particular time and place; and these "historical constraints" must be recognized."
THE CONTRIBUTION OF LUKE
Carson and Moo identify four major themes in Luke which can inform all our understanding of Scripture. First, Luke is interested in God's overall plan. Second, Luke has a focus on salvation. Third, the Gentiles are the special recipients of salvation. Finally, Jesus is the one who shows care for outcasts of all sorts.
CONTENTS
p. 198 "Luke's gospel is the longest book in the New Testament. Like Matthew, Luke follows the basic outline of Jesus' ministry established by Mark."
1. The Prologue (1:1-4)
2. The Births of John the Baptist and Jesus (1:5-2:52)
3. Preparation for the Ministry (3:1-4:13)
4. The Ministry of Jesus in Galilee (4:14-9:50)
5. Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem (9:51-19:44)
6. Jesus in Jerusalem (19:45-21:38)
7. Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection (22:1-24:53)
LUKE-ACTS
Luke and Acts are recognizably written by the same individual, addressed to the same individual, and related to one another. however we do need to realize that the books seem to fit into different genres, with Luke following the pattern found in the other gospels and Acts following a pattern of a historical text.
AUTHOR
Internal evidence points to an author who is not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry (1:1-4) but who is familiar with many events. The "we" passages in Acts identify the author as someone who is frequently a companion of Paul. The statements of chapter 1 indicating an author who performed research prepares us to expect someone who would have drawn information from a variety of sources, including from those he accompanied. Early church authors identify Luke as the author, also claiming that the author was a physician. There are indications, particularly in Colossians 4:10-14, that Luke was a Gentile.
PROVENANCE
The location of the writing is unclear. Antioch, Achaia, and Rome have all been suggested. All are speculations.
DATE
Carson and Moo give a good deal of evidence that tends to point again and again to a date around 62 for the final work of Acts. Acts presupposes that the gospel has been written, but does not suggest that it has been in existence for long. Carson and Moo also list numerous suggestions for later dates, after 70, but none of those suggestions are conclusive.
ADDRESSEE(S)
The gospel is written to one "Theophilus" which means "lover of God." This could be anybody, including a noble person (see the "most excellent") using a real or assumed name, or could be an example of a person to whom Luke purports to write. The content of the gospel seems to indicate it is written with a recent convert in mind.
PURPOSE
Luke states his own purpose of writing in the prologue, to assure the reader of the certainty of what he has been taught. p. 212 "By the time Luke wrote his gospel, the early church had separated from Judaism and was, indeed, experiencing hostility from many Jews. at the same time, the new and tiny Christian movement was competing with a welter of religious and philosophical alternatives in the Greco-Roman world."
COMPOSITION
If we assume that Luke drew heavily on other written sources, it would seem that he takes about 55 percent of Mark's material (p. 212). Some suggest that Luke has borrowed a great deal, about 20 percent of the non-Markan material, from Matthew. This does leave a significant portion of the gospel without parallel. p. 213 "most scholars are persuaded that Luke and Matthew have independently used a lost source, called "Q." we think this hypothesis is likely, though the exact nature of Q must be left open." Yet we observe that Luke says he gathered information from a variety of sources. It must be allowed that some sources were written and that some were oral, gathered in the time he spent accompanying Paul and possibly other apostles.
TEXT
The text of Luke and Acts is difficult as there is a significant difference between Western and Eastern text traditions. Carson and Moo lay out a fairly detailed argument on p. 215. They tend to think that the Western text passages which are found in addition to the Eastern text are less likely to be original, while the passages which exist in the Western text but are omitted in the Eastern text are fairly likely to be original.
ADOPTION INTO THE CANON
Luke was clearly accepted as canonical by the mid-second century. There is some evidence that it was cited earlier, even in the first century. It has been universally accepted as authoritative for as long as canonicity has been articulated.
LUKE'S GOSPEL IN RECENT STUDY
In recent years text critics have suggested a variety of sources for Luke's information. They have also tended to suggest that Luke was interested in explaining eschatology to dispel the idea that Jesus' return would have been expected more or less immediately after his ascension. Narrative critics have focused on Luke-Acts as a two volume whole. pp. 218-219 "Luke is not creating a work of literature from whole cloth as a novelist might go about his or her work. He is narrating events that transpired in a particular time and place; and these "historical constraints" must be recognized."
THE CONTRIBUTION OF LUKE
Carson and Moo identify four major themes in Luke which can inform all our understanding of Scripture. First, Luke is interested in God's overall plan. Second, Luke has a focus on salvation. Third, the Gentiles are the special recipients of salvation. Finally, Jesus is the one who shows care for outcasts of all sorts.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Sermon for 1/1/12 "Jesus, the Final Redeemer" - Luke 2
SERMON “Jesus, the Final Redeemer” - Luke 2
Lord, grant that we may see you today, the one named Jesus, the Savior of the world. Amen.
Today is one of the high holy days of the Christian calendar. There's a kind of liturgical version of the “scissors, paper, rock” game that the calendar plays. January 1 is the day of the circumcision and naming of the Lord. In most years that falls on a day other than Sunday so this Sunday is generally simply considered the first Sunday after Christmas day. But this day has traditionally been considered an important enough day on the calendar that when it comes on a Sunday it takes precedence. So rather than having readings that are particularly related to Christmas, this year we have the readings which specifically describe the circumcision and naming of Jesus, this eighth day after his birth.
There are three very special elements of the circumcision of our Lord which I want to bring to your attention today. As we saw in Luke's gospel, Jesus, the perfect sacrificial lamb of God came into the temple along with his parents, who brought him and a very humble offering. On the occasion of this offering for sin, Jesus' blood is shed, the perfect offering for sin. And we find that two people, Simeon and Anna, people who have been waiting for their redemption, recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. We look at those ideas in turn.
First, Jesus, the perfect, priceless sacrificial lamb of God came into the temple with his parents and a very humble offering. Under the Old Testament sacrificial system, on the eighth day a male child would be presented before God. His parents would bring an offering of an animal. Because our Lord recognizes that different people would have different levels of wealth and different levels of ability, the offerings ranged all the way from a perfect bull – very expensive – to a pair of turtledoves – affordable to anybody who could find a handful of grain to attract them. Jesus is not born to a wealthy family. The parents given to him by the Father will raise him in humble circumstances. Jesus as he lives in Joseph's family understands hardship, hard work, possibly even hunger. Yet he shows himself to be the perfect sacrificial lamb. Jesus, the perfect offering for your sin and for mine, comes into the temple that day. His parents bring the offering they can bring. They act in faithful obedience to God's command. Yet it is the presence of Jesus which makes the offering effective. All the sacrifices, all the offerings which we could ever make, all of them add up to nothing without God's command and blessing. The Law indeed came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. In him is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Jesus comes into that temple he makes the humble offerings perfect. When Jesus comes to his people in Word and Sacrament he fills our worship. He comes to dwell with us. He shows us, no, he doesn't merely show us, he is present for us as the fulfillment of all sacrifices.
Not only is Jesus present in the temple when he is carried in his mother's arms, but he has promised that he will continue to be with us. We, along with the historic Church, confess the true bodily presence of our Lord and Savior in communion. He has not ceased to be with his people in any way. He is absolutely present, seeking those who will worship him in Spirit and in truth. This is why receiving communion is such a wonderful celebration. We who are sinful have come into the presence of Jesus, the perfect lamb of God. We who are sinful receive him. He is as present here as you or I can be present. That's why our communion service is surrounded with expressions of awe and wonder. That's why we treat the consecrated elements in a special way. That's why we look forward with the apostle Paul and the Corinthians to having a participation in the body and blood of our Lord. Jesus is the perfect lamb of God who is present for us, the people in the most humble of circumstances.
Jesus, the perfect lamb of God is present, even in the humble circumstances of his parents. And Jesus' blood is shed in circumcision. We understand that in circumcision there is a shedding of blood, a rolling away of our fleshly nature in the hidden places of our lives. And many many people find that baptism in the New Testament is the parallel to circumcision in the Old Testament. This is Jesus' entrance into the covenant people. But you know as well as I do that Jesus did not need to become a partaker of the covenant promises of the people of Israel. Recall that in the Bible people never ever initiate a covenant with God. It's always the opposite direction. God approaches his people, chooses them, and initiates a covenant. He promises to be with his people, to guide them, to protect them, to multiply them, to govern them. The response of the people of God is just that – a response. We respond to our Lord in faith, making the offerings which are symbolic of the way God has given himself to us. We respond in faith, trusting in his promises, believing that he will do what he has said he would do. We respond in faith, confessing that we are unable to keep the promises of God, but that he has kept all of his promises. This is the way God's covenants work. And Jesus, God the Son, is no stranger to his promises. He is no stranger to the grace of God. Jesus no more needs to enter into the covenant of circumcision or baptism than a man with no legs needs a pair of shoes. Why then does Jesus have his blood shed in circumcision? He doesn't need it. But we do. Where there is no shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, we read in Hebrews. Our Lord has shed his blood on our behalf, even as an eight day old baby, precisely because he is coming as the savior of the world. His blood is shed when he is named Jesus, the name which means he will save his people from their sins. Remember the church sign? Jesus is for sinners only. And by his blood he has provided salvation, through his grace and mercy, according to his covenant promises. Jesus' blood is shed for you and for me.
The perfect lamb of God is present, his blood is shed, and he is recognized as the Messiah, the anointed one of God. This recognition of the Messiah is probably the most important feature of the reading from Luke. A man, we don't know how old, but someone anticipating his death, and an elderly woman both recognize Jesus to be the Messiah. They recognize that he is the savior. They realize that they can go in peace, they can die safely, knowing that they have received their Savior. Do you recognize the words of Simeon from somewhere in the liturgy? They show up in three places. One of them you will sing today, after communion. When we receive Jesus' body and blood given and shed for us for the forgiveness of sins we are prepared to die. Our eyes have seen his salvation and we are ready. The second place? This is typically sung or confessed at the end of the service called “Compline” - a worship service traditionally found at the very end of the day. We confess that as we have seen Jesus we are ready to go to sleep, and that our very death in Christ is no more than a period of rest from which our Lord will awaken us. The third place? I'll probably only do this one with you once, because it is in the prayers typically associated with your deathbed. Again, we see that Jesus, in his completed work, has prepared us to sleep in death.
We can look ahead in our calendar of worship and see how Simeon's confession prepares us. This Thursday the season of Epiphany begins. Epiphany is the time of the revealing of our Lord. We usually associate it with the coming of the Magi, but we see throughout the season of Epiphany, lasting through February 21 this year, the many ways that our Lord has revealed himself to us. It is a time for us to look at our Lord and realize just how much of a savior he is. And our eyes have seen the Lord so we are ready to depart in peace.
I'd like to take just a moment to advertise an emphasis for this year. Here at Faith Lutheran Church, let's make this year the year of the Bible. Let's make it the year when we seek to take in the written Word of God, which will be a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. Let's make this the year when we confirm good habits of reading the Scripture, seeking to see Jesus everywhere, because our Lord says all Scripture points to him. I've prepared a reading schedule that will be printed in your bulletins and will also be posted on my blog, for those of you who like computers. If we read just a few chapters of the Bible almost every day we'll find that we have the entire Bible read by this time next year. We'll read about Jesus, the Messiah, the perfect lamb of God who has come on our behalf. We will look to him realizing his presence and how important that is. And we will see that he has come with salvation, the savior of the nations, our hope, our redeemer, the one who is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us. May the Lord grant us eyes to see him as he has revealed himself in Word and Sacraments.
Now may the grace of Lord be with you, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Lord, grant that we may see you today, the one named Jesus, the Savior of the world. Amen.
Today is one of the high holy days of the Christian calendar. There's a kind of liturgical version of the “scissors, paper, rock” game that the calendar plays. January 1 is the day of the circumcision and naming of the Lord. In most years that falls on a day other than Sunday so this Sunday is generally simply considered the first Sunday after Christmas day. But this day has traditionally been considered an important enough day on the calendar that when it comes on a Sunday it takes precedence. So rather than having readings that are particularly related to Christmas, this year we have the readings which specifically describe the circumcision and naming of Jesus, this eighth day after his birth.
There are three very special elements of the circumcision of our Lord which I want to bring to your attention today. As we saw in Luke's gospel, Jesus, the perfect sacrificial lamb of God came into the temple along with his parents, who brought him and a very humble offering. On the occasion of this offering for sin, Jesus' blood is shed, the perfect offering for sin. And we find that two people, Simeon and Anna, people who have been waiting for their redemption, recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. We look at those ideas in turn.
First, Jesus, the perfect, priceless sacrificial lamb of God came into the temple with his parents and a very humble offering. Under the Old Testament sacrificial system, on the eighth day a male child would be presented before God. His parents would bring an offering of an animal. Because our Lord recognizes that different people would have different levels of wealth and different levels of ability, the offerings ranged all the way from a perfect bull – very expensive – to a pair of turtledoves – affordable to anybody who could find a handful of grain to attract them. Jesus is not born to a wealthy family. The parents given to him by the Father will raise him in humble circumstances. Jesus as he lives in Joseph's family understands hardship, hard work, possibly even hunger. Yet he shows himself to be the perfect sacrificial lamb. Jesus, the perfect offering for your sin and for mine, comes into the temple that day. His parents bring the offering they can bring. They act in faithful obedience to God's command. Yet it is the presence of Jesus which makes the offering effective. All the sacrifices, all the offerings which we could ever make, all of them add up to nothing without God's command and blessing. The Law indeed came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. In him is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. When Jesus comes into that temple he makes the humble offerings perfect. When Jesus comes to his people in Word and Sacrament he fills our worship. He comes to dwell with us. He shows us, no, he doesn't merely show us, he is present for us as the fulfillment of all sacrifices.
Not only is Jesus present in the temple when he is carried in his mother's arms, but he has promised that he will continue to be with us. We, along with the historic Church, confess the true bodily presence of our Lord and Savior in communion. He has not ceased to be with his people in any way. He is absolutely present, seeking those who will worship him in Spirit and in truth. This is why receiving communion is such a wonderful celebration. We who are sinful have come into the presence of Jesus, the perfect lamb of God. We who are sinful receive him. He is as present here as you or I can be present. That's why our communion service is surrounded with expressions of awe and wonder. That's why we treat the consecrated elements in a special way. That's why we look forward with the apostle Paul and the Corinthians to having a participation in the body and blood of our Lord. Jesus is the perfect lamb of God who is present for us, the people in the most humble of circumstances.
Jesus, the perfect lamb of God is present, even in the humble circumstances of his parents. And Jesus' blood is shed in circumcision. We understand that in circumcision there is a shedding of blood, a rolling away of our fleshly nature in the hidden places of our lives. And many many people find that baptism in the New Testament is the parallel to circumcision in the Old Testament. This is Jesus' entrance into the covenant people. But you know as well as I do that Jesus did not need to become a partaker of the covenant promises of the people of Israel. Recall that in the Bible people never ever initiate a covenant with God. It's always the opposite direction. God approaches his people, chooses them, and initiates a covenant. He promises to be with his people, to guide them, to protect them, to multiply them, to govern them. The response of the people of God is just that – a response. We respond to our Lord in faith, making the offerings which are symbolic of the way God has given himself to us. We respond in faith, trusting in his promises, believing that he will do what he has said he would do. We respond in faith, confessing that we are unable to keep the promises of God, but that he has kept all of his promises. This is the way God's covenants work. And Jesus, God the Son, is no stranger to his promises. He is no stranger to the grace of God. Jesus no more needs to enter into the covenant of circumcision or baptism than a man with no legs needs a pair of shoes. Why then does Jesus have his blood shed in circumcision? He doesn't need it. But we do. Where there is no shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, we read in Hebrews. Our Lord has shed his blood on our behalf, even as an eight day old baby, precisely because he is coming as the savior of the world. His blood is shed when he is named Jesus, the name which means he will save his people from their sins. Remember the church sign? Jesus is for sinners only. And by his blood he has provided salvation, through his grace and mercy, according to his covenant promises. Jesus' blood is shed for you and for me.
The perfect lamb of God is present, his blood is shed, and he is recognized as the Messiah, the anointed one of God. This recognition of the Messiah is probably the most important feature of the reading from Luke. A man, we don't know how old, but someone anticipating his death, and an elderly woman both recognize Jesus to be the Messiah. They recognize that he is the savior. They realize that they can go in peace, they can die safely, knowing that they have received their Savior. Do you recognize the words of Simeon from somewhere in the liturgy? They show up in three places. One of them you will sing today, after communion. When we receive Jesus' body and blood given and shed for us for the forgiveness of sins we are prepared to die. Our eyes have seen his salvation and we are ready. The second place? This is typically sung or confessed at the end of the service called “Compline” - a worship service traditionally found at the very end of the day. We confess that as we have seen Jesus we are ready to go to sleep, and that our very death in Christ is no more than a period of rest from which our Lord will awaken us. The third place? I'll probably only do this one with you once, because it is in the prayers typically associated with your deathbed. Again, we see that Jesus, in his completed work, has prepared us to sleep in death.
We can look ahead in our calendar of worship and see how Simeon's confession prepares us. This Thursday the season of Epiphany begins. Epiphany is the time of the revealing of our Lord. We usually associate it with the coming of the Magi, but we see throughout the season of Epiphany, lasting through February 21 this year, the many ways that our Lord has revealed himself to us. It is a time for us to look at our Lord and realize just how much of a savior he is. And our eyes have seen the Lord so we are ready to depart in peace.
I'd like to take just a moment to advertise an emphasis for this year. Here at Faith Lutheran Church, let's make this year the year of the Bible. Let's make it the year when we seek to take in the written Word of God, which will be a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. Let's make this the year when we confirm good habits of reading the Scripture, seeking to see Jesus everywhere, because our Lord says all Scripture points to him. I've prepared a reading schedule that will be printed in your bulletins and will also be posted on my blog, for those of you who like computers. If we read just a few chapters of the Bible almost every day we'll find that we have the entire Bible read by this time next year. We'll read about Jesus, the Messiah, the perfect lamb of God who has come on our behalf. We will look to him realizing his presence and how important that is. And we will see that he has come with salvation, the savior of the nations, our hope, our redeemer, the one who is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us. May the Lord grant us eyes to see him as he has revealed himself in Word and Sacraments.
Now may the grace of Lord be with you, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)