15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about." 16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told. 21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.
As we mark time in our secular lives, January 1st marks the start of a new year; new beginnings, new possibilities, etc. On the church's calendar, however, it's been the "new year" since the first Sunday of Advent. January 1st has a completely different role--marking the 8th day since the birth of Christ.
Of course it's all relative. Most people know that it's extremely unlikely that Jesus was really born on December 25th--hence also the unlikelihood that he was really circumcised and named on January 1st. All of this is a little bit beside the point, given that the Church merely uses these days/dates to commemorate events she knows to be true. Bottom line: regardless of the exact date, Jesus **was circumcised and named; it was in accordance with Torah; and it did happen on the 8th day, whenever that was.
And so we refer to the day as the festival of the Holy Name. As such it's hooked to a particular calendar day, Jan 1st, and so it's a matter of how the cookie crumbled that this year January 1st happens to be a Sunday. Yet, since it has, this Sunday we will turn our attention to the key phrase of the passage: he was NAMED JESUS, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.
WHAT'S IN A NAME? This rhetorical question is posed by Juliet in Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet." She goes on to say "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;" Juliet's point seems to be that what really matters is what something IS, not what it's called. After all, Romeo bore the name "Montague".... a name accursed by Juliet's Capulet family. Yet, Juliet did not hold Romeo's name against him; indeed, Juliet saw that Romeo was something other than his name.
So what.... well, in a way this illustrates the REVERSE of Jesus' name and its importance. Because while Juliet may dismiss Romeo's name as not being crucial to WHO HE IS as a person, the Bible takes the exact opposite approach to the name of Jesus.
In Luke 1 the angel Gabriel said to Mary: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." Put another way, the angel said the child must be called Jesus (Yeshua, meaning The Lord Saves) precisely because he is the Son of the Most High, and the Most High SAVES; precisely because he will sit on the throne of David, and the one who sits on that throne SAVES. And he will reign forever, and his kingdom will have no end, precisely because THERE WILL BE NO END TO HIS SAVING WORK.
In other words, the answer to the question "what's in a name" when asked regarding JESUS..... is....EVERYTHING!
cheers,
TM
No comments:
Post a Comment