Exaudi Sunday: between Ascension and Pentecost

Exaudi Sunday takes place between the Ascension (always a Thursday) and Pentecost, ten days later.

I have read that it is the saddest Sunday of the Church year. The faithful recall the forlorn disciples, among them the Apostles, who saw Christ’s ascent into heaven and then awaited the arrival of the Holy Spirit.

There are several New Testament readings of import for this time. I shall run the risk of repeating myself with the following –

Luke 3:16-17 with John the Baptist’s succinct prophecy:

¹⁶ John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. ¹⁷His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

John 16:5-11 from the Last Supper where Jesus said (emphases mine):

⁵But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ ⁶But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. ⁷Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. ⁸ And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: ⁹concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; ¹⁰ concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; ¹¹ concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Acts 1:4-9 with His final words before returning to God the Father:

⁴And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; ⁵ for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

The Ascension

 ⁶So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” ⁷He said to them,  “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. ⁸But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” ⁹And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Exaudi is Latin, from the verb exaudire (modern day equivalents are the French exaucer and the Italian esaudire). It has several meanings, among them: hear, understand and discern, as well as heed, obey and, where the Lord is concerned, grant. The French version of the Catholic Mass uses exaucer a lot, as do hymns: ‘grant us, Lord’.

Exaudi Sunday is so called because of the traditional Introit, taken from Psalm 17:1. The two first words in Latin are ‘Exaudi Domine’ — ‘Hear, Lord’.

In English (ESV) Psalm 17:1 is as follows:

¹Hear a just cause, O LORD; attend to my cry!
   Give ear to my prayer from lips free of deceit!
²From your presence let my vindication come!
   Let your eyes behold the right!

Another match is Daniel 9:17, which was the basis for the Exaudi Domine which Renaissance composer Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (1526-1594) wrote:

¹⁷Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord, make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate.

It is a beautiful chant. The minor key brings to life the sense of loss Jesus’s loyal band of disciples must have felt between Ascension and Pentecost:

This is a collect often used on Exaudi Sunday:

O God, the King of glory, you have exalted your only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph to your kingdom in heaven: Do not leave us comfortless, but send us your Holy Spirit to strengthen us, and exalt us to that place where our Savior Christ has gone before; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, in glory everlasting. Amen.

And, for us today, we who long for Christ’s return, we have the Holy Spirit working through the Law and the Gospel for our salvation.

As Dr Gregory Jackson, host of Ichabod, explains:

The manifold grace of God is another way of saying the Gospel. The word Gospel is used often, but most of the time the term is abused.

Although the Holy Spirit works through the Law, its role is limited. The Law stirs up knowledge of sin without solving the problem of sin. The Law makes us feel the guilt of sin but the Law cannot forgive our sins. All the “transforming” preachers of today use the Law to make people feel they do are not producing the fruit of the Gospel, but those law condemnations do not produce the desired fruit. The law programs to do that only make matters worse, filling people with notions of being holier than the rest. This is important to realize from Luther. The Gospel alone forgives, saves, and bears the fruit of the Spirit …

The Law makes us fearful, but the Gospel gives us peace through forgiveness of sin. That forgiveness is complete and free. That is why the law-salesmen become so angry and vindictive, when their kingdom of merits is threatened in any way. They want people enslaved by their man-made laws, not set free by the Gospel. They want people to ignore the Word for their words (which are never-ending) …

God’s will is carried out only through His Word, and this Word is always united with the divine energy of His Holy Spirit. Isaiah 55:8-11 …

The Holy Spirit works through the Law to condemn our sins against the Ten Commandments, our spiritual sins (First Table) against God, which lead to the more visible sins against our neighbor (Second Table).

God uses the preaching and teaching of the Gospel to plant and sustain faith in the crushed hearts of contrite sinners. The Gospel message is summarized:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” KJV John 3:16.

The proclamation of the Gospel is carried out through the invisible Word of preaching and teaching, the visible Word of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. God grants grace only through His instruments, the Means of Grace.

Those who believe in the Gospel of Christ receive what He has promised, complete and free forgiveness of sin. God declares that person forgiven – justification by faith. Romans 5:1-2.

The fruits of the Spirit follow from faith in Christ, and God is glorified by all things done in faith. Those who wish to harvest more for the Kingdom should broadcast the Word with complete abandon, trusting in God’s Promises.

To enjoy the benefits of the Gospel, we abide in the Means of Grace, the Word and Sacraments. They are the treasures of the Church which give us 100% of the blessings God wishes to impart to us.

These are the gifts and benefits on which we may reflect between the Ascension and Pentecost — and beyond.

The Church and Her faithful have endured persecution as Jesus foretold at the Last Supper in John 15:26 – John 16:4:

²⁶“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. ²⁷And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.

¹“I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. ² They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. ³And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. ⁴But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you.

As the Holy Spirit was sent to the original 70 disciples, so He continues to be with us today. Martin Luther (H/T: Dr Jackson) had this to say on Exaudi Sunday about the aforementioned verses from John’s Gospel in light of the Church:

“We have the comfort of this victory of Christ—that He maintains His Church against the wrath and power of the devil; but in the meantime we must endure such stabs and cruel wounds from the devil as are necessarily painful to our flesh and blood. The hardest part is that we must see and suffer all these things from those who call themselves the people of God and the Christian Church. We must learn to accept these things calmly, for neither Christ nor the saints have fared better.”
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 263. Exaudi John 15:26-16:4.

“Nevertheless, He has said that the Holy Spirit should testify of him and that they also should bear witness; and He assures them that their testimony shall not be effaced by this rage and persecution of the world.”
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, III, p. 258. Exaudi John 15:26-16:4.

Therefore, let us continue to witness in our own lives as Christians through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Exaudi Sunday is the last Sunday in Eastertide, which ends on the day before Pentecost. Pentecost Sunday in 2013 is May 19.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Luke 3:19-20

Goodness knows why the compilers and editors of the three-year Lectionary omitted two verses of the readings from Luke 3 used in public worship.

A good clergyperson should be able to explain them, thereby adding greater meaning to John the Baptist’s ministry, his interactions with Herod and subsequent imprisonment. It would go some way to explaining the troubled souls — Herod’s and his family’s — that serious sin creates. Without these troublesome verses being read aloud in church, is it any wonder that many so-called Christians today look the other way when it comes to adultery and seduction?

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Luke 3:19-20

¹⁹But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, ²⁰added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison.

————————————————————————–

Before looking at these two verses, it might be helpful to analyse the times in which John the Baptist lived.

It is no accident that this Nazirite monk (according to Matthew Henry) was the first Old Testament-style prophet in 400 years and, as such, was widely welcomed by the Jewish people.

It is also worth noting that, unlike other prophets, John the Baptist preached to Gentiles as well as his own people.

John MacArthur’s sermon (linked above) has a lengthy explanation of Herod’s lineage, his marriage and his political career. Anyone who is preparing a sermon or Bible study lessons about John the Baptist’s and Jesus’s time will find it useful in their research.

Matthew Henry has a more concise explanation which follows. First, however, notice that Luke lays out the political and religious situation in the first two verses of this chapter:

John the Baptist Prepares the Way

¹In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, ²during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

This is important historically, as Henry’s commentary explains (emphases mine):

1. By the government of the heathen, which the Jews were under, to show that they were a conquered people, and therefore it was time for the Messiah to come to set up a spiritual kingdom, and an eternal one, upon the ruins of all the temporal dignity and dominion of David and Judah.

(1.) It is dated by the reign of the Roman emperor; it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the third of the twelve Caesars, a very bad man, given to covetousness, drunkenness, and cruelty; such a man is mentioned first (saith Dr. Lightfoot [to whom Henry refers frequently]), as it were, to teach us what to look for from that cruel and abominable city wherein Satan reigned in all ages and successions. The people of the Jews, after a long struggle, were of late made a province of the empire, and were under the dominion of this Tiberius; and that country which once had made so great a figure, and had many nations tributaries to it, in the reigns of David and Solomon, is now itself an inconsiderable despicable part of the Roman empire, and rather trampled upon than triumphed in.

-En quo discordia cives, Perduxit miseros

-What dire effects from civil discord flow!

The lawgiver was now departed from between Judah’s feet; and, as an evidence of that, their public acts are dated by the reign of the Roman emperor, and therefore now Shiloh must come.

(2.) It is dated by the governments of the viceroys that ruled in the several parts of the Holy Land under the Roman emperor, which was another badge of their servitude, for they were all foreigners, which bespeaks a sad change with that people whose governors used to be of themselves (Jer. 30:21), and it was their glory. How is the gold become dim! [1.] Pilate is here said to be the governor, president, or procurator, of Judea. This character is given of him by some other writers, that he was a wicked man, and one that made no conscience of a lie. He reigned ill, and at last was displaced by Vitellius, president of Syria, and sent to Rome, to answer for his mal-administrations. [2.] The other three are called tetrarchs, some think from the countries which they had the command of, each of them being over a fourth part of that which had been entirely under the government of Herod the Great. Others think that they are so called from the post of honour they held in the government; they had the fourth place, or were fourth-rate governors: the emperor was the first, the pro-consul, who governed a province, the second, a king the third, and a tetrarch the fourth. So Dr. Lightfoot.

2. By the government of the Jews among themselves, to show that they were a corrupt people, and that therefore it was time that the Messiah should come, to reform them, v. 2. Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests. God had appointed that there should be but one high priest at a time, but here were two, to serve some ill turn or other: one served one year and the other the other year; so some. One was the high priest, and the other the sagan, as the Jews called him, to officiate for him when he was disabled; or, as others say, one was high priest, and represented Aaron, and that was Caiaphas; Annas, the other, was nasi, or head of the sanhedrim, and represented Moses. But to us there is but one high priest, one Lord of all, to whom all judgment is committed.

One can imagine the dinner conversations the ordinary Jews must have had. They would have been similar to ours today, critical of both politicians and clergy. There is nothing new under the sun. They awaited deliverance; however, what they thought would be temporal proved to be spiritual and, for them, an eventual disappointment.

Henry tells us that, like Jesus, John the Baptist grew up in an obscure area, Jordan. No big city boy he. At the age of 30, Henry writes, John would normally have been expected to begin serving as a priest in the Temple in Jerusalem, following his father Zechariah’s vocation. However, John left home to preach and baptise.

He adds that the Jews to whom John ministered accepted baptism easily. They had — as is true today — a tradition of ritual baths, or mikva. For them, water signified spiritual as well as physical cleansing. John’s baptism cleansed them of their past sins; however, with that went his exhortation — a strong plea — to go and sin no more. Through baptism, he called them to repentance.

In Luke 3:4-6, the Gospel writer tells us that John’s message borrowed from the Old Testament, specifically Isaiah 40:3-5, Isaiah 57:14, Isaiah 49:11, Isaiah 42:16, Isaiah 52:10 and Psalm 98:2-3.

John’s counsel (Luke 3:7-14), read during Advent in Lectionary Year C, concerns those in public life — particularly civil servants and the military. He urges them to treat each other and the public fairly. He also advised the Jews not to excuse themselves from sin by citing their Abrahamic heritage.

When the Jews saw John’s piety and heard his preaching, they wondered aloud whether he indeed was the Messiah (Luke 3:15). He answered that One much greater than he was coming, of Whom he was unworthy. Recall that John and Jesus were probably cousins, related via Mary and Elizabeth (Luke 1:36).

John’s prophecy of Jesus was exact. Indeed, the New Testament carries this message throughout. It was true then and is true today (Luke 3:16-17):

¹⁶ John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. ¹⁷His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

During this time, Herod had married his half-sister and half-brother Philip’s wife Herodias — and later was seduced by her daughter, Salome, causing John to be beheaded. Herod had heard of John early on and invited him to his palace. This was similar to American presidents inviting clergy to the White House. Billy Graham was the primary clergyman for several administrations. Famous leaders sometimes seek the counsel of holy men for guidance — Herod, dead in sin as he was, being no exception.

As I mentioned earlier, John MacArthur’s sermon explains more about Herod. MacArthur has given others which also explain the tetrarch’s lineage, intrigues and lifestyle. I have cited one of them in my post on Mark 6:14-20 and another in my post on Mark 6:21-29. Again, if you are preparing material on which to preach or teach, they contain much information on Herod and John the Baptist.

A few days ago, I wrote about Christians wrongly clamming up about socio-political sins, some of which John the Baptist discussed (Luke 3:12-14). John did not mince words, yet he was winsome enough in his manner to interest the whole of society. Yet, he also delivered home truths to Herod. This is why we, as Christians, should not sugar coat or shy away from expressing the truth about the horrors of our world.

MacArthur, in today’s sermon, discusses this point in light of John the Baptist’s ministry:

And so John just confronted [Herod's sin] head on. It all kind of happened because Herod apparently, if we put the history together, made a trip to Rome and he met his brother’s wife who was also his near relative and he persuaded her, he seduced her and then he persuaded her to leave Philip and be his wife. And to do that he had to divorce his wife, she had to divorce her husband. And they went through all of that stuff and he wound up with her, took her back to his area in Galilee.

MacArthur explains that Herod had been married before. His first wife was the daughter of of the king of the Nabataean Arabs, whose name was Aretas. Aretas was so incensed about the divorce that he declared war against his former son-in-law and won. This happened after John the Baptist’s death:

And Josephus, the historian, says some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God and that very justly as a punishment for what he had done to John. Interesting, you find that in Josephus Antiquities that the Jews thought that the reason Aretas came in and was so easily able to defeat Herod was because God was using him as an instrument of judgment for what he had done against John.

Back to John the Baptist’s preaching of the truth to Herod. MacArthur continues:

all you need to know is divorce, seduction, incest and John goes face-to-face with this, confronts it. And he does it repeatedly. A.T. Robertson said, “It cost him his head but it’s better to have a head like John and lose it, than have an ordinary head and keep it.”

He who loses his life shall gain it. Without taking foolish risks, this is what Christians are called to do.

In verse 19 of today’s passage, Luke tells us that Herod was incensed by John’s godly rebuke of the tetrarch’s sins. No doubt John had passed muster in earlier conversations which might well have been of a general nature about goodness. Herod might have applied those exhortations to his enemies rather than himself. It was clear he did not understand John’s message. Supposing that John went from the general to the specific — not just once but many times — it was at that point when Herod became incensed. And he no doubt told Herodias what John had told them of their immoral union. That must have angered her enormously. Herodias then most likely told Salome what John said about her. The girl would have been incensed that John had dared to criticise her mother.

Verse 20 says that Herod imprisoned John. That is the last time Luke mentions John the Baptist. The first part of the verse — ‘added this to them all’ — could be read two ways. Some interpret it as yet another heinous sin that Herod committed (John’s imprisonment for telling the truth). Others say that the words refer to Herod’s adding John’s ministry to the people as another reason he was imprisoned. Herod wanted rid of the man who not only discussed his sins with him privately but who might actually turn the populace against him. Or so he feared. John in his godliness was threatening to Herod on several levels. Herod couldn’t stand it.

Of John’s death by beheading at Salome’s request, MacArthur says:

John was murdered. Murdered about a year after he had been in prison and murdered and his ministry and his life was over. But, believe me, he went to his glorious reward and he stands as a model, a permanent model for faithful, uncompromising preaching, doesn’t he? …

Herod wound up with all the earthly power and went to hell. John had all the heavenly power and went to heaven. Very often, you know, the price of boldness is public rejection, but it’s also divine glory, isn’t it? And I don’t think…just as an epilogue…I don’t think any true preacher is concerned about popularity, that’s never been the goal of a true preacher. The goal of a true preacher is to speak the truth at any price, right? That’s why John provides such a great example for us. So John, who came on the stage in such a prominent way goes off the stage and next time the story begins with Jesus.

That is a call for clergy to preach the truth — engagingly but honestly. Yes, some people will be offended, anyway, but that is the clergyman’s — and, to a lesser extent, our own — calling.

In closing, readers who have been following the Gospel accounts of John the Baptist’s and Jesus’s ministries might wonder why they overlapped for six months, as MacArthur tells us. The reason is that Jewish tradition incorporates transition periods where religious practice and ceremonies are  concerned. He explains how this works in Jewish weddings where, at the end of the reception, the best man places the bride’s hand into the groom’s, then takes his leave. John the Baptist was handing the Church to Jesus Christ — Bride to Groom.

He explains, referring to John 3 (also see my link in the preceding paragraph on the same chapter):

John gives this monumental speech on the essential nature of Christ which sets Him apart from himself. He is of heavenly origin. He is omniscient regarding truth. He knows God’s mind and God’s Word. He has the Spirit of God without measure, that is He is one with the Spirit of God. He is God’s true heir and He alone is the Savior. And so there is a transition going on as John’s life and ministry begins to fade and Jesus begins to ascend and that’s exactly the way it should be and John sums it up by saying, “He must increase and I must decrease.”

Now in Matthew, turn to Matthew 4 for a moment as we construct to the story. One of the things that I enjoy, you probably know this, is studying the gospels like this and putting together the puzzle. That was what I did most of this week, was put all the pieces of this puzzle together so that we could get the chronological flow of this ministry of John and how it interfaced with the work of Jesus.

The ministries are overlapping. Jesus goes through His baptism. Jesus after His baptism went through His temptation. Then He had some early time of ministry and they ministered mutually in two different places. There was a descending ministry in John’s case and an ascending ministry in Jesus’ case. And then…Matthew 4:12 says, “Now when He heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee.” That’s a key verse. This is where Jesus launches His full public ministry. He had ministry, it was the early stages of ministry overlapping with John, but once John went into prison and that was the end of John’s ministry, he never came out of prison, once he went into prison, Jesus then stepped into a full public ministry. The work of the great prophet was over.

John the Baptist was a holy man, courageous and bold in his ministry. He excluded no one, he preached to the Gentiles as well as the Jews and, most importantly, he did not shy away from the truth.

May we see him as an example for ourselves, not just as a figure of biblical history.

Next time: Luke 3:23-38

Acts 1:9-11 on the Ascension

This year, Ascension Thursday falls on May 9. The faithful recall Christ’s rising to heaven in order to send the disciples — and us — the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday. From that point, we were — and continue to be — in the ‘last days’, awaiting His coming again in judgment.

However, there are Christians who believe that Jesus’s second coming took place with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. These Christians are called preterists. They believe that His second coming was a spiritual one — a judgment against the nation of Israel.

This is plausible until one begins to look at the New Testament passages about His Ascension, the arrival of the Holy Spirit to the world and Christ’s return. Consider John 16:5-11 (emphases mine):

⁵But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ ⁶But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. ⁷Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. ⁸ And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: ⁹concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; ¹⁰ concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; ¹¹ concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

What follows is Luke’s account of the Ascension — addressed to Theophilus, as is his Gospel — in Acts 1:1-11:

The Promise of the Holy Spirit

 ¹In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, ²until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. ³ He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

 ⁴And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; ⁵ for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

The Ascension

 ⁶So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” ⁷He said to them,  “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. ⁸But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” ⁹And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. ¹⁰And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, ¹¹and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

In Mark 13:24-27, Jesus described His return — note the mention of clouds:

²⁴“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, ²⁵and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. ²⁶And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. ²⁷And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

St Matthew records similar words (Matthew 24:29-31):

The Coming of the Son of Man

 ²⁹“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ³¹And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

St John used the same imagery in Revelation 1:7-8. John wrote this book around 95 AD. The Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.

⁷Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

 ⁸ “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Therefore, it is doubtful whether a spiritual judgment on the Temple and Israel of the day was Christ’s second coming.

In 2004, Keith Mathison wrote a 54-page paper on Acts 1:9-11 and presented prominent preterist views therein (H/T: Beggars All, ‘Acts 1:9-11 and Hyper-Preterism’). Mathison is not a preterist but presents their views and refutes them by studying the meaning of the Greek verbs used in the relevant New Testament verses, principally the two verses in the first chapter of Acts. Seminarians might find the paper useful.

I suspect that many more people today are preterists, even if they have never heard of the term. I was one for many years, but I had not connected all the related New Testament verses — Christ’s own words and the Ascension account. A number of Modernist and Postmodern Christians are probably preterists, in which case, why bother being Christian? As I have said before, if it is all about social justice, one can join a left-wing political party. If Christianity is about charity, well, most world faiths advocate and practice material kindness to strangers.

What, then, is left? The Cross and Resurrection carry little meaning if Christ already returned ‘spiritually’ to destroy the Temple. Therefore, we can disregard Revelation. It’s done, history.

Or is it? Wouldn’t John have written Revelation somewhat differently if it had been about the destruction of the Temple? Why would he have included these verses in Revelation 22?

¹⁸I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, ¹⁹and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

 ²⁰He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

But, back to Acts 1:9-11. Keith Mathison writes in his paper (p. 50-51):

As we have proceeded through this study of Acts 1:9–11, we have noted in passing some common hyper-preterist objections to the traditional interpretation of this passage. It may prove helpful at this point to respond briefly to an objection that is raised, not by hyper-preterists, but by skeptics. Liberals and skeptics repeatedly claim that the traditional interpretation of Acts 1:9–11 necessitates the adoption of a false three-tiered understanding of the universe as well as the idea that heaven is located at some physical point somewhere in space. This objection is frequently raised in the writings of men such as Rudolf Bultmann and John Shelby Spong. But does a traditional interpretation of Acts 1:9–11 require us to believe that heaven is located somewhere in the sky above the clouds? The answer is no.

He goes on to say that Christ ascended in a way His disciples would clearly understand. He was returning to a place where they could not yet go.

Mathison concludes:

A careful examination of the text of Acts 1:9–11 reveals that the traditional interpretation of this text is the correct interpretation. According to Luke, the lifting up of Jesus was an objectively visible event witnessed by the apostles. They saw Jesus taken up with their own eyes. According to the two men in white, Jesus would come back to earth in the same manner that the apostles saw him go. Whether he was lifted up with the cloud or was lifted up to a cloud, the manner of his going was visible and bodily. The manner of his second coming to earth, therefore,will likewise be visible and bodily. At his second coming all of those who have died in Christ will be resurrected. God will give life to their mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11). The bodies of the redeemed who are still alive at that time will be changed (1 Cor. 15:51). The present heavens and earth will be transformed and freed from the curse of sin (Rom. 8:19–22), and the dwelling place of God will be with man (Rev. 21:3; 22:3). All of his people will be with him forever in a restored creation.  143

I hope that this helps to give greater resonance to the Ascension.

When we refuse to discuss the world — a Christian attitude?

The other day I ran across a blog wherein the author — a seminarian — said, ‘This site concerns Christianity. It does not discuss politics’.

Hmm, those two sentences have been going around in my head ever since.

It’s now been a fortnight. Part of me thinks, ‘As it’s his site, he can write about what he wants. Perhaps he is not interested in politics. Maybe he doesn’t know enough about today’s issues to comment.’

The other side of the question is avoidance. From my reading, all the best pastors weigh in from time to time on socio-political issues, even if they do not make a habit of it. Those who do not, it seems, might not wish to offend anyone.

Perhaps it is up to laypeople to dabble in both sides of the Two Kingdom world in which we live: one eye on Heaven and the other on Earth.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Christian commentator from Australia. You can find his CultureWatch in my blogroll.

Recently, Muehlenberg wrote two posts about Philippians 4:8:

⁸Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

He posits that some Christians use this as a get-out card to play in refusing to discuss the issues of our day. In ‘I Just Don’t Want To Think About It’, he writes (emphases mine):

I have even had these people tell me they get “sad” when they see some of the stuff I post here and there. They say they don’t want to be sad by seeing and reading about this stuff, and they don’t really enjoy folks like me even raising these issues.

Well, respectfully, I have a few words for such folks: I am sorry you were made sad by all this. We can just all go back to our little closed world and see no evil. We can all just keep hiding our heads in the sand and pretend none of this stuff is happening. We can all just live in our little isolated world where we are oblivious to what is happening around us.

That is one way to proceed. But of course it is not the way of Jesus Christ. It is not how a biblical Christian should act. We are called to be salt and light in a very needy world. That means getting our hands dirty and working against evil. And to do that, we must be aware of what is happening in our world.

Pretending all these evil things are not taking place helps no one. It only helps the enemy, and allows more evil, more injustice, more abuse, and more suffering to take place. Thus those who don’t want to know about it are actually complicit in evil. They are allowing this great evil to take place.

It is just like all those Germans – including German “Christians” – who just did not want to know what was happening in those concentration camps. They probably consoled themselves – and deluded themselves – by repeating Phil 4:8 over and over again, like a mantra.

To be a genuine Christian influence in a very needy world means confronting evil – not hiding our heads in the sand. It means being willing to have our hearts broken with what breaks the heart of God. It certainly does not mean living in our little spiritual bubble where we ignore all the suffering and evil taking place everywhere around us.

Indeed, I suspect that some of these confused Christians who seek to hide behind Phil. 4:8 are really not as spiritual as they think they are. They may in fact just be apathetic, indifferent and unloving – even un-Christlike. They really don’t give a rip about all the evil around them, and they use passages like this as a cheap excuse to get completely uninvolved in all the suffering and sin of our world.

They are really like all the religious Pharisees who, when they saw a needy man lying on the road, crossed over to the other side of the road to avoid the problem, to not contaminate themselves, to not be “sad,” and to not have any “negative thoughts”.

These folks pretend they are keeping themselves pure and unspoiled from the world, but all they are doing is telling their Lord they have no intention of loving their neighbour as themself, and have no intention of obeying the command to be salt and light.

He follows this with several quotes from pastors, theologians and famous Christian laity on the importance of knowing about socio-political issues and bringing evil out into the open. He concludes his article with two verses from the Old Testament:

“Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by? Look around and see.” (Lamentations 1:12)

“Who will rise up for me against the wicked? Who will take a stand for me against evildoers?” (Psalm 94:16)

However, what if someone is offended? Muehlenberg says in the comments:

And forget this baloney about them being offended. Just think about the obvious here:

-If you preach the biblical truth on adultery, adulterers will get upset and offended
-If you preach the biblical truth on theft, thieves will get upset and offended
-If you preach the biblical truth on arson, arsonists will get upset and offended
-If you preach the biblical truth on murder, murderers will get upset and offended

So of course if you preach the biblical truth on homosexuality, a homosexual will get upset and offended. So what? Should we stop preaching truth because it makes people feel bad?

Jesus spoke truth and it made people feel bad. The crowds were always divided because of him, and many hated him for speaking truth. Indeed, they crucified him because they were so offended and mad at him for throwing the spotlight on their sin. Simply reread John 3:19-21.

Those verses read as follows:

¹⁹ And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. ²⁰ For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. ²¹But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

Doing nothing and discussing nothing is not an option.

In ‘Difficult Bible Passages: Philippians 4:8′, Muehlenberg says:

Now here are some true things – things which we must therefore consider:

-the terrible persecution of Christians around the globe
-the rape and abuse of children
-the slaughter of millions of unborn babies each year
-the breakdown of marriages and families
-the many lives destroyed by drug and alcohol abuse
-the widespread carnality, compromise and lukewarmness in the churches
-the proliferation of cults and false religions
-the scandalous cases of apostasy, sexual sin, and abuse in the churches
-the many cases of false doctrine, false teachers, and false prophets causing all sorts of mischief

These are just a few things which happen to be true, and which we must consider. It certainly does no one any good to close our eyes and try to wish all these problems and tragedies away. That has nothing to do with Christian witness in a fallen world, and it has nothing to do with what this verse is attempting to convey.

And bear in mind that the Word of God itself is true – and it gives us the full picture of life in a fallen world with all of its sin, suffering, degradation and evil. Our calling as believers is to deal with all that and seek to be salt and light in this very needy world, and not pretend it does not exist.

So just what is Paul saying here then? First, a bit of context. In this brief letter Paul talks about joy and rejoicing more than in almost any other book in the Bible. And that is quite amazing because he wrote it while in a Roman prison. The point of the epistle is to encourage believers, and to get them to focus on Jesus, not just their circumstances.

Of course that does not mean Paul is just trying to wish away his difficulties, or do some mind-over-matter routine about his actual condition. Paul is a realist and he knows his situation is not so great. But he knows his God is great, and whatever happens, he wants to see Christ glorified.

Gordon Fee, a Pentecostal pastor and New Testament scholar, who wrote a devastating little booklet back in 1979 called The Disease of the Health & Wealth Gospels, writes in his commentary on this epistle:

“What Paul says here is much less clear than the English translations would lead one to believe. The impression given is that he is calling on them one final time to ‘give their minds’ to nobler things. That may be true in one sense, but the language and grammar suggest something slightly different. The verb ordinarily means to ‘reckon’ in the sense of ‘take into account,’ rather than simply to ‘think about’. This suggests that Paul is telling them not so much to ‘think high thoughts’ as to ‘take into account’ the good they have long known from their own past, as long as it is conformable to Christ….

“Thus, he appears to be dipping into the language of Hellenistic moralism, in his case tempered by Jewish wisdom, to encourage the Philippians that even though they are presently ‘citizens of heaven’, living out the life of the future as they await its consummation, they do not altogether abandon the world in which they used to, and still do, live. As believers in Christ they will embrace the best of that world as well, as long as it is understood in the light of the cross.”

And this is not mere happy reflections, daydreaming, or theoretical musings. Right thoughts are meant to be coupled with right actions, as verse 9 makes clear. As Gerald Hawthorn remarks, “These verses constitute a single sentence in Greek that is marvelous for its rhetorical expression and for the loftiness of the moral standards it sets forth….

“They fairly well sum up what is involved in standing firm in the Lord: (1) ‘you must think’, and (2) ‘you must act’. . . . The Philippians must ever be critical towards heathen culture and evaluate carefully its standards of morality. But certainly he does not intend by [the use of ‘consider’] any encouragement to reflection without action.

This is something worth remembering when we are tempted to say that the evil we are experiencing is ‘all part of God’s plan’, a comment which actually showed up on my blog a few years ago.  The commenter meant that the end of the world was coming, therefore, he was just going to sit back and let events unfold. However, we do not know that this is the end of the world. No one does.

As Jesus explained (Matthew 24:36-44):

³⁶“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. ³⁷ For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, ³⁹and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. ⁴²Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. ⁴³ But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. ⁴⁴Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Luke 2:33-40

Today’s post continues St Luke’s account of Jesus’s Presentation at the Temple, which some denominations commemorate on February 2, Candlemas Day.

Unfortunately, the beautiful and bittersweet prophecies of Simeon (Simon) and Anna are not to be found in the three-year Lectionary used in public worship. More is the pity; not only does St Luke illustrate the wisdom of our elders, which Mary and Joseph rightly took to heart, but also that, before Jesus began His public ministry, there were holy people who understood that He was the Messiah, the ‘consolation of Israel’ (Luke 2:25), the ancient Jewish saying which anticipates the Saviour.

As this passage has been omitted from the Lectionary, it becomes part of my ongoing series Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential for understanding Scripture.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry.

Luke 2:33-40

³³And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. ³⁴And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed ³⁵(and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

 ³⁶And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, ³⁷and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. ³⁸And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

The Return to Nazareth

 ³⁹And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. ⁴⁰ And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.

———————————————————————————-

Last week’s post discussed Simeon, his life, his piety, his love of the infant Jesus and his being filled with the Holy Spirit.

As he held the Christ Child in his arms, Simeon knew the babe was the ‘consolation of Israel’. This saying, used in Jewish prayer, developed from the following Old Testament verses, among others, expressing praise to God and anticipating the Messiah’s redemption of His people –

Isaiah 40:1:

¹ Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.

Isaiah 51:12:

¹²“I, I am he who comforts you;
   who are you that you are afraid of man who dies,
   of the son of man who is made like grass,

Isaiah 57:18:

¹⁸I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
   I will lead him and restore comfort to him and his mourners,

Isaiah 61:3:

³ to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
   to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
   the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
   the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.

Psalm 45:7:

⁷ you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
   with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;

In today’s reading, St Luke (verse 33) tells us that Mary and Joseph marvelled at Simeon’s prophecy and prayer of praise. Simeon blessed both, then, in one sentence addressed to Mary, foretold Jesus’s life (verses 34 and 35).

What must she have thought? Simeon acknowledged that Jesus was appointed — by God — to condemn many and to save many. As students of the Gospels know, these were two different groups of people in Jesus’s ministry. (This continues to be true in the Church: the Law convicts and the Gospel saves.)  Simeon foretold that as Jesus would reveal what was in people’s hearts, He would be ‘opposed’ and that Mary, too, eventually would be wounded, as if a sword had pierced her soul.

With that prophecy, that is the last we hear from Simeon. St Luke is the only Gospel writer to mention the Presentation and the presence of these two holy people, Simeon and Anna.

Luke’s account goes on to Anna (verse 36). We discover that she was of the tribe of Asher and that her father’s name was Phanuel. Church historians and doctors, Henry tells us, surmised that Luke deliberately included these details.

Henry’s commentary states that Luke’s account mentions the name Phanuel to remind the reader of Genesis 32:30. Genesis 32:22-32 tells the story of Jacob’s wrestling with a man for several hours ‘until the breaking of the day’ (verse 24). This story is popularly known as Jacob’s wrestling with the angel. The man put out Jacob’s hip joint but could not best him. The man asked Jacob to stop wrestling. Jacob refused until the man blessed him. The man asked Jacob’s name and renamed him Israel because not only did Jacob prevail against man, but also God. The man then blessed Jacob and, at that point, Jacob realised that he had been wrestling with God. To mark the significance of that amazing occasion (emphases mine):

³⁰So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” ³¹The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. ³²Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip on the sinew of the thigh. 

Peniel, Penuel and Anna’s father’s name — the derivative Phanuel — mean ‘the face of God’.

As to the mention of the tribe of Asher, they lived in Galilee, where Jesus would have His ministry. Historically, however, tradition had it that no prophet came from Galilee. Yet, here was Anna in the temple, about to prophesy. Henry notes the four-hundred year period of no prophecy, then the renewal of it coming from Galilee.

Luke tells us (verse 36) that Anna had been married for only seven years before her husband died. When she was in the temple with the Holy Family, she was either 84 years old or had been a widow for that period of time (verse 37). Once she became a widow, she dedicated her life to God and to prayer. Henry explains that she probably lived in quarters in one of the Temple’s outbuildings and spent most of her time in the Temple every day praying as well as teaching women more about God in Scripture.

Note how her widowhood caused her to devote her life to God. These days, many who lose their spouses or other family members prematurely become angry with God. ‘How could a God of good do this to me?’ We do not know; there is no answer. Yet, Anna’s faith in and love of God drew her nearer to Him. Instead of being angry, she grew in faith, wisdom and righteousness. Perhaps her parents taught her early in childhood to love the Lord. As such, it is possible that she became a devout child, then a holy woman. She accepted her husband’s death — difficult as it must have been — as part of God’s plan for her. Her lifelong devotion to Him helped her to realise that, as great as her temporal loss of a beloved companion must have been, ultimately, she longed to be with God and for others to love Him the way she did.

In verse 38, Anna begins to give thanks to God for the infant Jesus. She understood. She spoke of — prophesied — that He was the Messiah, ‘the redemption of Jerusalem’. She would ‘speak of him to all’ who were awaiting the consolation of Israel. Henry explains the example Anna shows to us:

Some there were in Jerusalem that looked for redemption; yet but a few, for Anna, it should seem, had acquaintance with all them that were joint-expectants with her of the Messiah; she knew where to find them, or they where to find her, and she told them all the good news, that she had seen the Lord; and it was great news, this of his birth now, as afterwards that of his resurrection. Note, Those that have an acquaintance with Christ themselves should do all they can to bring others acquainted with him.

Afterward, according to Luke, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth in Galilee (verse 39). Note that Luke inserts that they ‘had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord’. They did not exempt themselves. He also used the words ‘according to the Law of Moses’ earlier (Luke 2:22) when beginning his account of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple.

Their example should resonate with us. Henry says later in discussing the end of Luke 2, when they go to the Temple for Passover:

It was their constant practice to attend there, according to the law, though it was a long journey, and they were poor, and perhaps not well able, without straitening themselves, to bear the expenses of it. Note, Public ordinances must be frequented, and we must not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is. Worldly business must give way to spiritual concerns. Joseph and Mary had a son in the house with them, that was able to teach them better than all the rabbin at Jerusalem; yet they went up thither, after the custom of the feast.

Verse 40 tells us that as Jesus grew physically, He also grew in wisdom, finding favour with God. We are also called to be holy –

Leviticus 11:44:

⁴⁴For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy … 

1 Peter 1:16:

¹⁶since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

As I wrote last week, this holiness and subsequent journey to sanctification should begin when we are young children. We have Simeon’s and Anna’s examples, which must have started early in their lives.

Looking at the spiritual lives of our young with regard to Jesus’s accompanying His parents to the Temple for Passover at the age of 12, Henry says:

The child Jesus, at twelve years old, went up with them. The Jewish doctors say that at twelve years old children must begin to fast from time to time, that they may learn to fast on the day of atonement; and that at thirteen years old a child begins to be a son of the commandment, that is, obliged to the duties of adult church-membership, having been from his infancy, by virtue of his circumcision, a son of the covenant. It is not said that this was the first time that Jesus went up to Jerusalem to worship at the feast: probably he had done it for some years before, having spirit and wisdom above his years; and all should attend on public worship that can hear with understanding, Neh. 8:2. Those children that are forward in other things should be put forward in religion. It is for the honour of Christ that children should attend on public worship, and he is pleased with their hosannas; and those children that were in their infancy dedicated to God should be called upon, when they are grown up, to come to the gospel passover, to the Lord’s supper, that they make it their own act and deed to join themselves to the Lord.

I have neighbours who expect their CofE or Catholic school to explain the Christian faith to their children. Nothing happens — or has happened — at home in this regard. Waiting for school to take care of this solemn responsibility is misguided. Children raised with no Christian example in terms of worship and prayer will view their Religious Education classes as imparting theoretical information at best. It becomes just another course, no different from Mathematics or History. Their souls are potentially lost.

In closing, on the chronology of Luke’s account here, some might wonder about Herod, the Magi and the exile of the Holy Family to Egypt. This is found in Matthew 2. Henry says:

… it appears by St. Matthew’s gospel (ch. 2) that from Jerusalem they returned to Bethlehem, where the wise men of the east found them, and there they continued till they were directed to flee into Egypt, to escape the malice and rage of Herod; and, returning thence when Herod was dead, they were directed to go to their old quarters in Nazareth, whence they had been perhaps some years absent. It is here called their own city, because there they had lived a great while, and their relations were there. He was ordered further from Jerusalem, because his kingdom and priesthood were to have no affinity with the present government of the Jewish church or state. He is sent into a place of obscurity and reproach; for in this, as in other things, he must humble himself and make himself of no reputation.

This is why Jesus was not a big man on campus from the capital, Jerusalem. Note that after He tarried for hours talking with the teachers at the Temple, which frightened his parents when they could not find Him, He returned home with them and obeyed them from that point (Luke 2:51). He, no doubt, could have made many excuses to go back to the Temple to spend extended time with the rabbis but did not. He went to Temple with His family, then returned home with them to distant Nazareth, an unexceptional place:

Though once, to show that he was more than a man, he withdrew himself from his parents, to attend his heavenly Father’s business, yet he did not, as yet, make that his constant practice, nor for many years after, but was subject to them, observed their order, and went and came as they directed, and, as it should seem, worked with his father at the trade of a carpenter. Herein he hath given an example to children to be dutiful and obedient to their parents in the Lord. Being made of a woman, he was made under the law of the fifth commandment, to teach the seed of the faithful thus to approve themselves to him a faithful seed. Though his parents were poor and mean, though his father was only his supposed father, yet he was subject to them; though he was strong in spirit, and filled with wisdom nay though he was the Son of God, yet he was subject to his parents; how then will they answer it who, though foolish and weak, yet are disobedient to their parents?

Jesus’s obedience, even when He knew He was called to save the world, serves as an example to our children today.

Next time: Luke 3:19-20

Young adults discuss why they left the Church

Two great posts appeared recently examining why young people leave the Church.

Meg of If this one thing happens asked ‘Does Christianity Really Need a “Re-branding”?’ She doesn’t think it does. Here’s why — excerpts follow; Meg has more (emphases mine):

Over the past few decades we have seen a growing number of non-denominational churches that are heavy on music and the show and light on liturgy and ritual.  We keep seeing the Church trying to be “cool” and trying to meet young people “on their level.”  As a young person, I don’t think it’s working.  That faux-hawk you’re sporting Pastor?  The watered down sermon about a “famous” person who believes in Jesus?  Using out-dated memes in your power point presentation? …

This is something I think many churches need to remind themselves of. When witnessing some of these “cool guy church” antics I’ve found myself feeling patronized, and seen others leave the church for something more “traditional”.  I’m reminded of the parable of the lost sheep, where Jesus asks his followers if one out of their hundred sheep went missing ,wouldn’t they leave all their other sheep to run after the one?  It’s a strong message, and maybe one that many churches are taking to heart in their search for their lost sheep.  My advice?  Leave it to God.  He will find his lost sheep and bring them home.  Don’t push away your 99 sheep and leave them out in the cold, because you may find they will be lost as well.

Another young adult, Marc of Marc5Solas, gave his thoughts in ‘The Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church’. Here are a few of the reasons — read more at his site:

This isn’t a negative “beat up on the church” post. I love the church, and I want to see American evangelicalism return to the gospel of repentance and faith in christ for the forgiveness of sins; not just as something on our “what we believe” page on our website, but as the core of what we preach from our pulpits to our children, our youth, and our adults …

10. The Church is “Relevant”:

You didn’t misread that, I didn’t say irrelevant, I said RELEVANT. We’ve taken a historic, 2,000 year old faith, dressed it in plaid and skinny jeans and tried to sell it as “cool” to our kids. It’s not cool. It’s not modern. What we’re packaging is a cheap knockoff of the world we’re called to evangelize.

As the quote says, “When the ship is in the ocean, everything’s fine. When the ocean gets into the ship, you’re in trouble.”

I’m not ranting about “worldliness” as some pietistic bogeyman, I’m talking about the fact that we yawn at a 5-minute biblical text, but almost trip over ourselves fawning over a minor celebrity or athlete who makes any vague reference to being a Christian …

8. They get smart:

It’s not that our students “got smarter” when they left home, rather someone actually treated them as intelligent. Rather than dumbing down the message, the agnostics and atheists treat our youth as intelligent and challenge their intellect with “deep thoughts” of question and doubt. Many of these “doubts” have been answered, in great depth, over the centuries of our faith. However …

7. You sent them out unarmed:

Let’s just be honest, most of our churches are sending youth into the world embarrassingly ignorant of our faith. How could we not? We’ve jettisoned catechesis, sold them on “deeds not creeds” and encouraged them to start the quest to find “God’s plan for their life”. Yes, I know your church has a “What we believe” page, but is that actually being taught and reinforced from the pulpit? I’ve met evangelical church leaders (“Pastors”) who didn’t know the difference between justification and sanctification. I’ve met megachurch board members who didn’t understand the atonement. When we chose leaders based upon their ability to draw and lead rather than to accurately teach the faith? Well, we don’t teach the faith. Surprised? …

This is what I was driving at in my closing comments yesterday on Simeon. Catechise your children as soon as you can; start gently with simple concepts and prayers between the ages 3 and 4. Build from there. Make sure they know what they believe and why they believe it.

Meg and Mark make excellent points which all pastors and church volunteers would find of interest.

Could it be that our young people are crying out, ‘Gimme that old-time religion’?

Forbidden Bible Verses — Luke 2:22-32

Today’s Forbidden Bible Verses continues a study of the passages from the Gospel according to St Luke which do not appear in the three-year Lectionary used in public worship.

These omissions are unfortunate. Today’s reading ties together Old Testament prophecy of the Messiah with the Presentation of Jesus — as Messiah — in the Temple. It would be useful if more churchgoers, particularly young people, understood the significance of Simeon and Anna’s presence with the Holy Family at this moment. They truly understood Who the infant Jesus was.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry.

Luke 2:22-32

Jesus Presented at the Temple

 ²²And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ²³(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) ²⁴and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” ²⁵ Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. ²⁶ And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. ²⁷ And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, ²⁸ he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,

²⁹ “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace,
    according to your word;
³⁰ for my eyes have seen your salvation
³¹     that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
³² a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
    and for glory to your people Israel.”

————————————————————————————————-

Last week’s post concluded the story of Zechariah (Zachary), the priestly father of John the Baptist. The Archangel Gabriel struck him deaf and dumb at the altar in the Temple for unbelief that his aged and barren wife Elizabeth would bear a son who would announce the coming of the Lord.

It is important to know that John the Baptist, according to Gabriel’s instruction to Zechariah, became a Nazirite monk (as had Samson and Samuel in the Old Testament), which explains his appearance and diet. In return for taking the Nazirite oaths, God granted these men certain powers — e.g. prophecy or physical strength — which worked to His glory and for His people.

I mentioned last week Matthew Henry’s observation that Zechariah’s silence and deafness, which lasted a little over nine months, signified something greater: the permanent sidelining of the priesthood of Aaron — of which Zechariah was a part — for that of Christ Jesus.

Today’s reading recounts the first part of our Lord’s Presentation in the Temple, which many Christians remember on Candlemas Day, February 2.

Candlemas should not be confused with Jesus’s Circumcision, commemorated on January 1, which the Gospel writer mentions in Luke 2:21.

The purification rite of circumcision is a parallel to infant baptism. St Paul made the case for the discarding of circumcision for the embrace of this holy Sacrament. In writing about Luke 2:21, Henry makes the case for infant baptism (emphases mine):

certainly his being circumcised at eight days old doth make much more for the dedicating of the seed of the faithful by baptism in their infancy than his being baptized at thirty years old doth for the deferring of it till they are grown up. The change of the ceremony alters not the substance.

His commentary adds this about the name Jesus:

At his circumcision, according to the custom, he had his name given him; he was called Jesus or Joshua, for he was so named of the angel to his mother Mary before he was conceived in the womb (Lu. 1:31), and to his supposed father Joseph after, Mt. 1:21. [1.] It was a common name among the Jews, as John was (Col. 4:11), and in this he would be made like unto his brethren. [2.] It was the name of two eminent types of him in the Old Testament, Joshua, the successor of Moses, who was commander of Israel, and conqueror of Canaan; and Joshua, the high priest, who was therefore purposely crowned, that he might prefigure Christ as a priest upon his throne, Zec. 6:11, 13. [3.] It was very significant of his undertaking. Jesus signifies a Saviour. He would be denominated, not from the glories of his divine nature, but from his gracious designs as Mediator; he brings salvation.

Note how Mary and Joseph faithfully observed Jewish laws. They could have said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t apply to us. If you only knew how holy our Son is!’ As such, they had Jesus circumcised and presented in the Temple. Jesus would also go on to observe Jewish law during His earthly life — as well as asking John the Baptist to confer the first sacrament on Him. From their example, we should infer that the observance of the Sacraments and life of the Church is necessary for us to follow.

In prefacing the story of the Presentation, Luke employs the words ‘according to the Law of Moses’ (verse 22). He goes on to cite the importance of a firstborn son ‘in the Law of the Lord’ (verse 23).

Henry drew a parallel between Jesus’s blood drawn during His circumcision and the subsequent purification rite with His Crucifixion and the forgiveness of believers’ sins:

our Lord Jesus, though he had no impurity to be cleansed from, yet submitted to it, as he did to circumcision, because he was made sin for us; and that, as by the circumcision of Christ we might be circumcised, in the virtue of our union and communion with him, with a spiritual circumcision made without hands (Col. 2:11), so in the purification of Christ we might be spiritually purified from the filthiness and corruption which we brought into the world with us.

Luke mentions the obligatory sacrifices — ‘in the law of the Lord’ (verse 24). Henry says that the usual offering for a firstborn son included five shekels as well as an animal sacrifice. Luke makes no mention of the money but records the animal sacrifice of either a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.  Some Bible scholars think that better-off families might have bought a more expensive animal, perhaps a lamb, to sacrifice. The priests knew a family’s financial status and accepted the sacrifice that they could afford.

When reading this account, it is worth taking into account the state of the Jewish religion at this time in history. In one of his sermons, John MacArthur cited a theologian, William Hendrickson, who described the religious and political dissension:

To be sure, conditions were bad, very bad, in Israel at the time of Israel’s birth in Bethlehem. Think of loss of political independence, cruel King Herod, externalization of religion, legalistic scribes and Pharisees and their many followers, worldly-minded Sadducees, the silence of the voice of the prophets. And in the midst of all this darkness, degradation and despair there were men who were hopefully looking forward to and earnestly expecting the consolation of Israel. There were such men and women too, already mentioned were Mary and Elizabeth and in a moment Luke is going to add Anna to the list.

This situation parallels our own in many parts of the world. Our political systems are oppressive and we await a better time. Spritually, many of our churches and theologians are unbelieving or legalistic. There is a small remnant of the faithful who are true believers, despite the more than 1 billion in the world who call themselves ‘Christian’.

Among the remnant of true Jewish believers were Simeon and Anna. We’ll look at Anna’s prophecy next week. Today we’ll come to understand Simeon — Simon.

Luke tells us that the Holy Spirit was moving through Simeon, a devout man who had no time for worldly religion or temporal deliverance. He was, in the traditional Jewish sense of the term, ‘waiting for the consolation of Israel’, the Messiah. Luke describes Simeon as ‘righteous’, meaning ‘right with God’ (verse 25) — not self-righteous.

Indeed, Simeon was so close to God that the Holy Spirit revealed that he would not die until he saw the Son of God (verse 26). Imagine having so much faith. Would that we all had Simeon’s faith today.

Who was Simeon? Henry writes that we cannot know for sure, although Jewish records say that the great teacher and rabbi, Hillel, had a son named Simeon, known for his prophecy. The Jewish hierarchy gave Simeon the title of Rabban, the highest they could give to a doctor of the faith. If this is the same Simeon, he was made the head of his father’s theological college and the Sanhedrin. Later, Simeon made it clear that he did not believe the Messiah would bring temporal salvation; with that, he was unceremoniously deposed from his posts at the Temple.  As such, Henry says, the Mishna, the Jewish book of traditions, omits his name.

Another aspect of Simeon is his age. For centuries — in writing and artwork — we have understood Simeon to be elderly, on the verge of death. Yet, Henry tells us that some scholars believe that Simeon was not that old and that his father, Hillel, was still alive at the time of the Presentation. Other scholars add that Simeon was the father of Gamaliel, a Pharisee:

One thing objected against this conjecture is that at this time his father Hillel was living, and that he himself lived many years after this, as appears by the Jewish histories; but, as to that, he is not here said to be old; and his saying, Now let thy servant depart intimates that he was willing to die now, but does not conclude that therefore he did die quickly. St. Paul lived many years after he had spoken of his death as near, Acts 20:25. Another thing objected is that the son of Simeon was Gamaliel, a Pharisee, and an enemy to Christianity; but, as to that, it is no new thing for a faithful lover of Christ to have a son a bigoted Pharisee.

As we do not know, let us focus on Simeon as we see him, inspired by the Holy Spirit and in the Temple. Note how he enters the Temple, directed by the Holy Spirit to do so at a particular moment (verse 27).

Verse 28 tells us that Simeon took the Christ Child into his arms. You can imagine what that must have been like for this holy man. He must have embraced Jesus, holding Him close, very close. Think of how you hug your own children or grandchildren. Simeon’s embrace was at least that intense — probably moreso.

Simeon praised God and, in his prayer, cited the Old Testament. In verse 29, acknowledging that he can now depart the world in peace, Simeon refers to Genesis 15:15:

¹⁵As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

From that, it is possible that Simeon lived for many more years. Again, we have no way of knowing.

In verse 30, Simon alludes to Isaiah 52:10:

¹⁰ The LORD has bared his holy arm
   before the eyes of all the nations,
    and all the ends of the earth shall see
   the salvation of our God.

In verse 31, he refers to Psalm 98:2:

²The LORD has made known his salvation;
   he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations.

And in verse 32, to the following — first, Isaiah 42:6:

⁶“I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness;
   I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
   a light for the nations,

then, Isaiah 49:6:

⁶he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
   to raise up the tribes of Jacob
   and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
 I will make you as a light for the nations,
   that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Isaiah 60:3:

³ And nations shall come to your light,
   and kings to the brightness of your rising.

Isaiah 45:25:

²⁵In the LORD all the offspring of Israel
   shall be justified and shall glory.”

And Isaiah 46:13:

¹³ I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
   and my salvation will not delay;
   I will put salvation in Zion,
   for Israel my glory.”

Simeon’s faith offers an excellent example to us today. The more I read this passage and the commentary, the more marvellous and moving it becomes.

This is a good passage to study with children. Simeon’s profound belief in God and His goodness speaks to all of us, especially to our young.

If Simeon was Hillel’s son, he was no doubt steeped in Scripture from a very early age. Hillel’s instruction would have helped to shore up Simeon’s faith from childhood. As the years passed and with further study and prayer, Simeon’s belief grew ever stronger. Because of this, he also knew discernment, enabling him to reject the false teachings of his peers in a temporal Messiah. This is why confessional clergy stress the importance of children’s learning — and memorising — Christian doctrine and the Bible. These go hand-in-hand with the power of prayer; children do well to memorise simple prayers as soon as they are able; I could say the Lord’s Prayer and others from an early age and recited them regularly, so it is possible.

If we help to shore up the faith of our young from their earliest years, they are more likely to strengthen their faith throughout their lives. Present the Bible and the Church winsomely — as clergy like to say — so that they long for it every day, in the same way that they enjoy their temporal treats.

Don’t wait for Sunday (or private) school to do it; start early at home by demonstrating your own parental good example.

Luke alludes to the importance of religious practice and the young in next week’s passage.

Next time: Luke 2:33-40

It’s April 23, best wishes for a happy St George’s Day!

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 is St George’s Day, celebrated in several European countries and, lest we forget, England.

This year, some English towns and cities — e.g. Plymouth and Manchester — held their St George’s celebrations at the weekend. One international example was London’s Borough Market’s food festival, linked with that of Spain’s Catalonia, where George is also their patron saint.

On Tuesday, a festival of food, fun and all things English will be held in Trafalgar Square.

The painting illustrated is Paolo Uccello’s depiction of the legendary saint slaying the dragon — symbolising, to some, sin and the Devil. Uccello’s painting hangs in the Musée André Jacquemart in Paris.

You can read more about the life and legend of St George here and here.

Once more with feeling — are church services too feminine?

Over the past few years, this blog has examined the feminine character of church services.

We simply do not have enough men attending Catholic and Protestant services. Yet, this was not always the case.

Many pastors and theologians wonder how men can once again participate in the life of the Church. Christians over the age of 50 recall that the pews on Sundays had a good cross-section of men of all ages. By contrast, today’s congregations seem to be mostly comprised of women and girls.

William Lane Craig, American theologian and apologist, addressed this in his April 2013 e-newsletter (H/T: Triablogue). Emphases mine:

One overwhelming impression of these [Craig's speaking] engagements is the way in which the intellectual defense of Christian faith attracts men. Both at Texas A&M and again at Miami every single student who got up to ask a question was a guy! …

Churches have difficulty attracting men, and the church is becoming increasingly feminized. I believe that apologetics is a key to attracting large numbers of men (as well as women) to church and to Christ.

In writing this blog, I have noticed that America’s confessional Reformed churches seem to have the most men who are actively involved and regularly attend services. The confessional Lutheran denominations in the United States must be a close second.

Why? These churches have male ministers, solid homiletics, by-the-book liturgy and traditional hymns or sung Psalms. That is what men — and boys — want when they go to church.

You might ask, ‘What about the Catholic Church with its all-male clergy?’ Ah, but what about the modern hymns, variable liturgical forms and weak homilies?

Going back through my archives, I found some interesting quotes from male pastors and congregants.

In 2009, I featured a post called ‘Here’s what happens when Dad doesn’t attend church’. The post looked at a Swiss survey of church attendance which an Anglican priest — a Fr Low — analysed and compared to England’s situation. I recommend it to every pastor. Fr Low wrote:

Faithful mothers produce irregular attenders rather than regular. Their absence transfers the irregulars into the non-attending sector. But even the beneficial influence really works only in complimentarity to the practice of the father.

In short if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper.

And:

Where adults have witnessed, in their own childhood, that Church, for example, is a ‘women and children’ thing, they will respond accordingly. Curiously, both adult women as well as men will conclude subconsciously that Dad’s absence indicates it is not really a ‘grown-up’ activity.

He concluded that:

Emasculated liturgy, gender-free Bibles and a fatherless flock are increasingly on offer. In response to this, decline has, unsurprisingly, accelerated. To minister to a fatherless society the Church of England, in its unwisdom, has produced its own single-parent family parish model in the woman priest. The idea of this politically contrived iconic destruction and biblically disobedient initiative was that it would make the Church relevant to the society in which it ministered.

Women priests would make women feel empowered and thereby drawn in.

Another post of mine — ‘Consistent churchgoing habits important for children’ — contrasts this present-day problem with the normality of family church attendance near the end of the 20th century.  A commenter on another Anglican blog remembered:

[ol' codger tone] When I was growing up  going to church every Sunday is what was both expected and done. We did it, the families on our street did it, the families at our church did it. The only times we weren’t in church was on campouts for Scouts. Otherwise if you weren’t there, people assumed you were sick/indisposed … And we’re not talking the ’50’s here, these were the ’80’s. [/ol' codger tone]

Nowadays, sports activities are regularly scheduled on Sunday mornings, the time when families used to be in church.

As I mentioned above, modern church music is a problem, especially when men learn that the most robust, rousing hymns — ‘A Mighty Fortress Is Our God’ and ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ — were dropped from hymnals beginning in the 1980s.  I featured an analysis of traditional hymnody as seen from a pastor’s perspective in ‘A Lutheran pastor on church music’.

In ‘Why Johnny won’t SING!’ I looked at the role of music in a church service. I quoted Dr Carl Trueman, a Reformed minister and professor at Philadelphia’s Westminster Theological Seminary. He wrote:

You can tell a lot about someone’s theology from what they do in church.  Involve [pop] music in your worship service, and I can tell not only that you have no taste in music but also that you have nothing to offer theologically to those who come through the church doors; indeed, what you do have can probably be found better elsewhere …

Such as at home in bed, sipping coffee and reading the Sunday papers whilst listening to the radio.

Many former churchgoers find this more gratifying than getting out of bed and rounding up the family to attend a service led by a woman featuring girly songs and a sermon oriented to women in the pews. Even in churches where a man takes the service, too many other things are feminine, as the Telegraph reported a few years ago:

A majority of men, 60 per cent, said they do not like flowers and embroidered banners in church with 52 per cent saying they do not like dancing in church.

Comments gathered from the survey of 400 UK readers of the men’s magazine Sorted also showed many did not like hugging, holding hands or sitting in circles discussing their feelings in church.

Nearly 60 per cent of those surveyed said they enjoyed singing – but added comments showing they preferred anthemic songs and ‘proclamational’ hymns as opposed to more emotional love songs.

Nearly three quarters, or 72 per cent, said their favourite part of a service was the talk or sermon.

In 2009, Dr R Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California, whose posts I feature regularly here, posited the following on the decline in church attendance, particularly where men were concerned. (This comes from my 2010 post, ‘Women priests — a Calvinist view’.) Dr Clark wrote:

For a long time the theory of many erstwhile non-confessionalists has been to minimize areas of tension between Christians the prevailing culture. With the rise of the modern feminist movement, this one was easy. For the pietists what matters most is religious experience. Females are just as able to facilitate religious experience as anyone else, so why not? Many non-confessionalists (both liberals and ‘conservatives’) share an embarrassment over Paul’s apparently misogynistic tendencies. The great quest of much of the modern church has been to become acceptable or ‘relevant’ to the prevailing culture. It has been thus since at least the early 19th century …

Ironically, as the the non-confessional majority, in its quest to become acceptable to modernity, becomes more like the surrounding culture it becomes more irrelevant. The mainline has been bleeding itself to death for decades. The evangelicals are following suit. The consequences may not be entirely evident yet but the signs are there …

I think there is a connection between the drop in attendance to Sunday morning worship and rise in female pastors. The latter is a symbol of the capitulation of the church to cultural pressure and the former is one of its consequences.

I wonder if this feminisation of church has subconsciously led atheists to attack Christianity. Of course, they accuse it of being too robust. Yet, Christianity’s image is in reality becoming less masculine, more feminine. It looks weak, as do many pastors (my ordained readership excepted!).

I have the impression that a number of today’s clergymen in mainline and some Evangelical churches seem a bit too bookish or soft. This could be a result of today’s seminaries which might encourage them to tone down the testosterone; I do not know.  I find it difficult to relate to them. And, if I do, how many others — including women — do, too?

It seems as if a reappraisal is in order of where the Church in the West is today. Perhaps it is time to throw out postmodern thinking once and for all and return to our traditions.

As the line went in the baseball film Field of Dreams: ‘Build it and they will come’.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Luke 1:18-25

This post continues with the story of Zechariah (Zachary), John the Baptist’s father.

Luke’s is the only Gospel which has the account of the events which led to John the Baptist’s and Jesus’s births.

It is helpful to read the first part of the story, especially noting the portions which explain the Nazirite way of life which John the Baptist was set to follow, as the angel who appeared to Zechariah declared. Essentially, John the Baptist was a type of Jewish monk, as was Samson in the Old Testament.

Unfortunately, these readings have not been included in the three-year Lectionary used in public worship. For this reason, they become part of my ongoing series Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential to understanding Scripture.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry.

Luke 1:18-25

¹⁸And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” ¹⁹And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. ²⁰And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” ²¹And the people were waiting for Zechariah, and they were wondering at his delay in the temple. ²²And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept making signs to them and remained mute. ²³And when his time of service was ended, he went to his home.

 ²⁴After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, ²⁵“Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people.”

———————————————————————————–

Zechariah made a serious mistake in doubting the angel (verse 18). He must have spoken to the angel in a way which was even more provocative than when Abraham’s wife Sarah laughed at God then denied doing so when He said she would bear a son (Genesis 18:9-15).

The angel revealed his identity as Gabriel (verse 19). By identifying himself, Gabriel sent a clear signal to Zechariah. The elderly priest would have known his Scripture, recalling that Gabriel appearing to Daniel.

Here is Daniel 8:16-17:

¹⁶ And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, “Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.” ¹⁷So he came near where I stood. And when he came, I was frightened and fell on my face. But he said to me, “Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.”

And Daniel 9:20-23:

²⁰ While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the LORD my God for the holy hill of my God, ²¹while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. ²² He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, “O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. ²³ At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.

Zechariah, then knowing who was standing near him at the altar in the Temple, might well have realised at that moment he was in deep trouble. And he could not undo what he had just done. Gabriel chided Zechariah, saying, in effect, ‘Here I come as God’s messenger to bring you good news, not just for you and your wife, but also for God’s people’ (verse 19). The unspoken part was his disappointment in Zechariah’s perfunctory response.

So in verse 20, Gabriel punished Zechariah and his unbelief by striking him dumb. This would last for a little over nine months. In fact, Zechariah was struck not only dumb but also deaf. That’s a pretty hefty price to pay for a snippy response of unbelief to one of the Lord’s chief emissaries.

Henry wrote (emphases mine):

Thou shalt be both dumb and deaf; the same word signifies both, and it is plain that he lost his hearing as well as his speech, for his friends made signs to him (v. 62), as well as he to them, v. 22.

Henry’s commentary unpacks this punishment for us:

Now, in striking him dumb, [1.] God dealt justly with him, because he had objected against God’s word. Hence we may take occasion to admire the patience of God and his forbearance toward us, that we, who have often spoken to his dishonour, have not been struck dumb, as Zacharias was, and as we had been if God had dealt with us according to our sins. [2.] God dealt kindly with him, and very tenderly and graciously. For, First, Thus he prevented his speaking any more such distrustful unbelieving words. If he has thought evil, and will not himself lay his hands upon his mouth, nor keep it as with a bridle, God will. It is better not to speak at all than to speak wickedly. Secondly, Thus he confirmed his faith; and, by his being disabled to speak, he is enabled to think the better. If by the rebukes we are under for our sin we be brought to give more credit to the word of God, we have no reason to complain of them. Thirdly, Thus he was kept from divulging the vision, and boasting of it, which otherwise he would have been apt to do, whereas it was designed for the present to be lodged as a secret with him. Fourthly, It was a great mercy that God’s words should be fulfilled in their season, notwithstanding his sinful distrust. The unbelief of man shall not make the promises of God of no effect, they shall be fulfilled in their season, and he shall not be for ever dumb, but only till the day that these things shall be performed, and then thy lips shall be opened, that thy mouth may show forth God’s praise.

Meanwhile, the faithful were waiting for Zechariah to emerge from the Temple after lighting the incense to bless them (verse 21). They must have wondered what was going on. Once he emerged, he was unable to pray a blessing over them because he could not speak — or hear (verse 22). He made gestures to indicate that he had seen a vision, which they readily understood.  I wonder what our response would be today if this happened to a pastor or an elder.

Zechariah then returned home after his service duty ended (verse 23). Imagine what his wife Elizabeth must have thought.  What a long period of time that must have been for both.

Soon after, Elizabeth conceived and stayed out of the public eye for five months (verse 24). No doubt it was bad enough that Zechariah had been dumbstruck for such an extended period. What would the neighbours and their friends from the Temple have thought if she had gone out of doors any earlier to say that she was pregnant? People would have talked, perhaps ridiculed her. It is also possible that she did not wish to speak too soon in case she miscarried. We do not know. In any event, Elizabeth chose to wait appearing in public until it was apparent that she really was carrying a child and had been for nearly two trimesters.  Those must have been trying months indeed, joy coupled with frustration.

Verse 25 contains Elizabeth’s gratitude to God for granting her a child. Today, it is not unusual to find couples who are childless by choice. However, among the Jewish people — then and now — every married couple wishes to have at least one child. Not having children raises questions in people’s minds. The same was true then.

Elizabeth felt somewhat excluded from life because she had not experienced motherhood. She was missing out on one of the primary joys of womanhood. At a certain point she would have felt left out of conversations among her friends and acquaintances who were mothers. She could but look on and express her happiness for them. As for her, she might have been asked many times why she and Zechariah had no offspring. People might have wondered if one or both of them had a spiritual deficiency or if God was punishing them for some reason. This is why she praised God; not only had He given her a child but He had also lifted from her the burden of people’s ‘reproach’.

In closing, Matthew Henry has more observations about the significance of Zechariah’s muteness. His commentary tells us that there is a larger picture here which represents a transition out of the priesthood of the Old Testament into that which Christ represents in the New Covenant:

2. When he came out, he was speechless, v. 22. He was now to have dismissed the congregation with a blessing, but was dumb and not able to do it, that the people may be minded to expect the Messiah, who can command the blessing, who blesseth indeed, and in whom all the nations of the earth are blessed. Aaron’s priesthood is now shortly to be silenced and set aside, to make way for the bringing in of a better hope.

3. He made a shift to give them to understand that he had seen a vision, by some awful signs he made, for he beckoned to them, and remained speechless, v. 22. This represents to us the weakness and deficiency of the Levitical priesthood, in comparison with Christ’s priesthood and the dispensation of the gospel. The Old Testament speaks by signs, gives us some intimations of divine and heavenly things, but imperfect and uncertain; it beckons to us, but remains speechless. It is the gospel that speaks to us articulately, and gives us a clear view of that which the Old Testament was seen through a glass darkly.

You can read what happened to Zechariah after John the Baptist’s birth in one of my Advent posts, which also includes Mary’s imminent motherhood and her meeting with her cousin Elizabeth.

Next time: Luke 2:22-32