Luke 1:37-80 This section very rough. Must be redone.
When Elizabeth's pregnancy reached full term, a son came out. When her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had been good to her, they joined her in rejoicing.
Under Jewish custom and law, male boys are circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Those at the ceremony expected that he would be named Zechariah, after his father or after a grandfather. But Elizabeth spoke up: "No! He is to be named John.
The attendees argued with her. "None of your relatives has that name."
So they asked* the father what the boy's name should be. Zechariah, after signaling for a writing tablet, wrote: John.
Everyone was very surprised.
Just then, Zechariah regained his ability to speak and began blessing God.
News of these events spread like wildfire all through the Judaean hill country. Realizing that God's hand was on the boy, everyone was wondering what he could be.
The Holy Spirit took hold of Zechariahz1 and he began to prophesy:
* Luke has the attendees making signs to get Zechariah's attention, even though there is nothing about him having been made deaf. It is possible however that they might have assumed deafness on the basis of Zechariah being mute.
+ In ancient Judaism, horn was a metaphor for power.
% It doesn't take much reflection to realize that the essential Christian message has been summarized here in hymn-like fashion. As it seems unlikely there was anyone on hand recording Zechariah's words, it is fair to suppose that the evangelist or a later editor was using this point in Luke's narrative as a teaching opportunity. He places the Christian truth, as he understands it, at an appropriate point. In addition, he makes certain that no one will presume to mistake John as the Savior, an important clarification within the early church.
It has been suggested that Luke's infancy story was added as a means of countering Marcion's false gospel that claimed that Jesus, though fully divine, was not fully human or human at all.
Hence it is quite plausible that a great deal of the Lukan infancy story was crafted in order to inculcate into new Christians the church's position that Jesus was simultaneously God and man. If, as internal structure seems to suggest, the episode was added after the gospel had been substantially completed, the interpolation probably occurred in the mid-second century, more than 100 years after the time of Luke's infancy story.
Still, we must observe that – despite the fact their infancy stories do not match – the Jewish-oriented Matthew and the gentile-oriented Luke both agree on the virgin conception and birth of Jesus. So we can be fairly certain that early on the church held this understanding. John, which was probably written well after the synoptic gospels, takes the story back even farther. Jesus always was the Son of God, before he became incarnate.
It is also easy to believe that the writer(s) of Matthew used the infancy narrative as a means of pictorially getting across important theology. These men did not set about to write Holy Writ. They were putting together teaching "manuals" that could be read aloud to the congregants. It was their way of making sure essential Christian teachings got across.
Yet, they no doubt based their tales on reports that "something like that" had happened.
That this notion isn't so silly is shown by how each synoptic evangelist felt free to poach from Mark and revise it in accord with theological or temperamental disposition. Or how each synoptic evangelist lifts sayings of Jesus from a now-lost collection (dubbed by scholars Q) and splices them together in ways that they decide on. That does not mean you won't find the truth in the records of Jesus' sayings and deeds. It's all there, though arranged differently in each gospel.
Discounting for a moment the infancy stories, scholars have determined that nothing or very little that is essential is made up by the synoptic writers. They plainly have sources for everything they write. But, they feel free to arrange these disparate materials into easily read and remembered episodes.
Yet, we do not know the sources of the two infancy stories. Luke's exceptional focus on Mary does not mean she was a direct source, though the writer implies that he received some of his information from her or someone who knew her.
Luke's focus on Mary may be a result of Marcion's troublemaking. The evangelist seems to have gone to great lengths to emphasize Jesus' humanity in order to counter the claim that the Christ was ultra-spiritual and not human at all.
z1. Filled with the Holy Spirit. Prophets and a few other of God's servants could receive Spirit power during the pre-Resurrection Old Dispensation, at least at times. But the Holy Spirit came to all sorts of people in a brand new way once Jesus had conquered death.
First photo below is an excerpt from The Gospel According to John, I-XII by Raymond E. Brown (Doubleday/Anchor 1966, Anchor Bible Vol. 29) concerning the Spirit. Second photo below comes from the Birth of the Messiah by Brown (Doubleday/Image 1979), also on the Spirit.
Under Jewish custom and law, male boys are circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Those at the ceremony expected that he would be named Zechariah, after his father or after a grandfather. But Elizabeth spoke up: "No! He is to be named John.
The attendees argued with her. "None of your relatives has that name."
So they asked* the father what the boy's name should be. Zechariah, after signaling for a writing tablet, wrote: John.
John means Jehovah is gracious.
Everyone was very surprised.
Luke is recounting a miracle here. As a woman, Elizabeth almost certainly could not read, and so presumably the mute Zechariah had no way to communicate to her that the baby was to be named John. We can understand her choice as she saw the baby as the fulfillment of God's grace to her. So the neighbors were astonished when Zechariah confirmed that name, implying that each parent had chosen that unlikely name independently.
Zechariah was able to communicate via writing because there were men in the crowd, and a large percentage of Jewish men were literate so as to be able to read Scripture.
Just then, Zechariah regained his ability to speak and began blessing God.
News of these events spread like wildfire all through the Judaean hill country. Realizing that God's hand was on the boy, everyone was wondering what he could be.
The Holy Spirit took hold of Zechariahz1 and he began to prophesy:
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has visited his people and wrought their redemption.The child grew and became spiritually strong. He lived in the wilderness areas right up until the point that he was revealed to Israel.
He has raised up a horn+ of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David
As his prophets have been foretelling since time immemorial:
Salvation from our enemies, and out of the hand of all who hate us.
Showing mercy toward our fathers
and remembering his holy covenant:
the oath he swore to Abraham our father
that, being rescued from our foes, we could serve God fearlessly
in holiness and righteousness through all our days
Yes, and you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High
for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his roads
to give knowledge of salvation to his people
in the remission of their sins
because of the tender mercy of our God,
whereby the Dayspring from on high will visit us
to shine on those sitting in darkness under the shadow of death
to guide our feet into the way of peace.%
* Luke has the attendees making signs to get Zechariah's attention, even though there is nothing about him having been made deaf. It is possible however that they might have assumed deafness on the basis of Zechariah being mute.
+ In ancient Judaism, horn was a metaphor for power.
% It doesn't take much reflection to realize that the essential Christian message has been summarized here in hymn-like fashion. As it seems unlikely there was anyone on hand recording Zechariah's words, it is fair to suppose that the evangelist or a later editor was using this point in Luke's narrative as a teaching opportunity. He places the Christian truth, as he understands it, at an appropriate point. In addition, he makes certain that no one will presume to mistake John as the Savior, an important clarification within the early church.
It has been suggested that Luke's infancy story was added as a means of countering Marcion's false gospel that claimed that Jesus, though fully divine, was not fully human or human at all.
Hence it is quite plausible that a great deal of the Lukan infancy story was crafted in order to inculcate into new Christians the church's position that Jesus was simultaneously God and man. If, as internal structure seems to suggest, the episode was added after the gospel had been substantially completed, the interpolation probably occurred in the mid-second century, more than 100 years after the time of Luke's infancy story.
Still, we must observe that – despite the fact their infancy stories do not match – the Jewish-oriented Matthew and the gentile-oriented Luke both agree on the virgin conception and birth of Jesus. So we can be fairly certain that early on the church held this understanding. John, which was probably written well after the synoptic gospels, takes the story back even farther. Jesus always was the Son of God, before he became incarnate.
It is also easy to believe that the writer(s) of Matthew used the infancy narrative as a means of pictorially getting across important theology. These men did not set about to write Holy Writ. They were putting together teaching "manuals" that could be read aloud to the congregants. It was their way of making sure essential Christian teachings got across.
Yet, they no doubt based their tales on reports that "something like that" had happened.
That this notion isn't so silly is shown by how each synoptic evangelist felt free to poach from Mark and revise it in accord with theological or temperamental disposition. Or how each synoptic evangelist lifts sayings of Jesus from a now-lost collection (dubbed by scholars Q) and splices them together in ways that they decide on. That does not mean you won't find the truth in the records of Jesus' sayings and deeds. It's all there, though arranged differently in each gospel.
Discounting for a moment the infancy stories, scholars have determined that nothing or very little that is essential is made up by the synoptic writers. They plainly have sources for everything they write. But, they feel free to arrange these disparate materials into easily read and remembered episodes.
Yet, we do not know the sources of the two infancy stories. Luke's exceptional focus on Mary does not mean she was a direct source, though the writer implies that he received some of his information from her or someone who knew her.
Luke's focus on Mary may be a result of Marcion's troublemaking. The evangelist seems to have gone to great lengths to emphasize Jesus' humanity in order to counter the claim that the Christ was ultra-spiritual and not human at all.
z1. Filled with the Holy Spirit. Prophets and a few other of God's servants could receive Spirit power during the pre-Resurrection Old Dispensation, at least at times. But the Holy Spirit came to all sorts of people in a brand new way once Jesus had conquered death.
First photo below is an excerpt from The Gospel According to John, I-XII by Raymond E. Brown (Doubleday/Anchor 1966, Anchor Bible Vol. 29) concerning the Spirit. Second photo below comes from the Birth of the Messiah by Brown (Doubleday/Image 1979), also on the Spirit.
No comments:
Post a Comment