Epiphany Sunday, January 3 2016, thoughts going in

Matthew 2:1-12:  In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” 3 When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: 6  ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.’” 7 Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. 8 Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.” 9 When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. 11 On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.

            This Sunday, we're presented with a certain fork in the road. Most properly it is the second Sunday after Christmas. It is also, however, the Sunday closest to Epiphany (Jan 6th). Epiphany is one of the "Greater Festivals" of the Church. It is on par with Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, etc. By rights we should have special services every Epiphany--but it just doesn’t work out like that in the real world. Because of that, it's all too easy to forget Epiphany, and what it's all about. The alternative is to do what we typically do at LCHS... transfer the observance to the nearest Sunday & call it "Epiphany Sunday."

            So, to begin at the beginning WHAT IS meant by Epiphany? Very simply it's a word that comes over to us from a compound Greek word meaning "to shine forth" (literally)... or more to the point, "to be revealed" or "to be made manifest." Historically, the Church used this special day to talk about three episodes in the early life or ministry of Christ in which it 'shone forth' that he was God in the flesh. The first such shining-forth was when nature (the star) revealed to the Gentile Magi the birth of the Christ-child. The second shining-forth was at the Baptism of Christ when the voice of heaven declared him to be the 'beloved son.' And the third shining-forth was at his first public sign/miracle, the changing of water into wine at Cana. As the church's liturgical observance developed, the Baptism of Christ got it's own Sunday (the Sunday following Epiphany), so that will be our concentration next week.

            For now, there are some interesting things going on both textually and thematically in our reading from Matthew. It should be noted that Matthew's Gospel is the *only one that mentions this event. He says very little about WHO these guys are. They're not really "kings" (as in the carol "We Three Kings"); nor does the term "wisemen" properly describe them. In the Greek they are simply called Magi--hence most modern translations default back to that term. But who are Magi? That's a toughie.... because the term had some specific nuances, but also some very general application. It helps to remember that in the ancient world all of the stuff that we would call WISDOM, PHILOSOPHY, MEDICINE, ASTROLOGY, ASTRONOMY, SCIENCE and even ECONOMICS... all fall under the ancient concept of "magic." This is special knowledge of wonder passed on within private castes of the learned. Those of such castes then frequently became important 'advisors' among the ruling class of their country. These men, however many there were, evidently were of such a caste. Many questions remain unanswered, however. Were they on their own or were they representing their government, etc. etc? Matthew doesn't tell us.

            Interestingly, according to Matthew they show up asking for the one born "King of the Jews," which rightly disturbs Herod. As historians remind us, Herod was a usurper who was given that very title by the Roman Senate and who tried to legitimize himself by marrying a princess from the ruling class and having all other rightful claimants to the throne banished or killed. But Matthew does something very interesting in the text. He goes from talking about a born-king of the Jews (vs 2) to talking about the 'Messiah' (vs 4). In other words, Herod doesn't enquire if another, closer, claimant to his throne has been born, Herod jumps right to the [proper] conclusion that the King of all Kings has been born--the Messiah.

            There are a lot of interesting directions this text can take in terms of a sermon. At the very least this is the tale of 2 kings... Herod and Jesus. Herod is in his comfortable quarters in Jerusalem--one of many opulent royal residences. Jesus, fresh from being born in a stable is now living in a shack in Bethlehem. Herod is outward, worldly, power; the power of this world which automatically sees itself as incompatible with Heaven's power come down. Herod represents everything that will align itself in bitter combat against Heaven's power come down. Yet, for all of his opulence and for all of his worldly authority, Herod's power is also quite temporary. The toddler visited by the Magi in our story is the power of goodness and grace, the power come down from heaven to be "God with us" .... a power that remains forever.

Cheers,

T.M.

First Sunday of Christmas, December 27, 2015, thoughts going in

Luke 2:41 Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival. 43 When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. 44 Assuming that he was in the group of travelers, they went a day’s journey. Then they started to look for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.” 49 He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he said to them. 51 Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. His mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.

            One of the neat things going on this Sunday is that the worship life of the Church endeavors to teach us that Christmas is a *season, not a 24 hour time-block limited to December 25th. This 'catechesis' is something that takes place for us over, roughly, a two week period encompassing the First Sunday of Christmas--with its emphasis on the Holy Family, followed by Epiphany Sunday--with its emphasis on the visit of the Magi. Granted, the chronology doesn't always work out. In Year A, the sequence is the flight to Egypt, followed by the Magi's visit on Epiphany. This is backwards. In Year B, the sequence is the presentation of the infant Jesus in the Temple followed by Epiphany. Even though the former is taken from Luke and the latter from Matthew, the chronology works. This year, Year C, is probably the most blatantly out of sequence, as this Sunday we will contemplate the twelve year old boy-Jesus, and then have him back to roughly 2yrs old next week on Epiphany Sunday. All of which is to say... the point isn't necessarily to get the chronology perfect. The point is to let the Scriptures speak with their specific revelation of God's grace in the story so as to allow this gracious activity to become a part of our collective 'memory' as God's covenant people. Hence, even though the Epiphany readings remain the same each year of the 3-year cycle, the specific sense or way in which The Christ-child shines forth is suggested to us in the variable readings of the Sunday before.

            Without turning these musings into a complete exegetical study on the text, there are several key words or phrases that pop out at me from this Sunday's passage: v41 every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. Commentators tell us that this was considered a religious obligation for those who lived close enough, but obligations were roughly the same then as now. One had to have the self discipline to fulfill the obligation. Luke's point is that the boy Jesus is being raised in a family that takes their covenant relationship with God very seriously.

            Vs 49 I MUST be in my Father's house is interesting as it depicts an awareness (perhaps newly kindled) in the boy Jesus that he stands in special relationship to God; and that he has a sense of destiny. There is a 'must' that he MUST follow.

            Vss 45-46 are also interesting. Failing to locate the missing boy among the caravan of their traveling companions, Mary and Joseph go back to Jerusalem to seek him. With the benefit of hindsight, we can be struck by the fact that it took them three days to find him. Obviously, they didn't go straight to the temple first. Perhaps they began their search in the market area, vendors stalls, ("the mall" and "arcade" of the day), etc., and only as a last resort sought him at the religious center of the Temple. Who among us would search for a missing 12yr old at church first?

            Vss 46, 47 and 52 present the boy Jesus asking questions of the rabbis, and growing in wisdom. The point, especially of vs 46 isn't that he is schooling the rabbis.  The point is that the rabbis are impressed with how well this 12yr old has applied himself to his studies. These verses are very important for giving us a picture of true Christology. One of the great mysteries of our faith is that Jesus is both divine and human; not 50-50, but 100-100. But this is difficult to grasp. Often, we think of Jesus as being SO DIVINE that his humanity didn't have to work very hard--as if he'd just automatically ace every test without having to study; or that his scrapes and bruises healed faster; or that he wouldn't have to struggle to learn how to ride a bike. If any of that were true, Jesus would not have experienced the same humanity you and I have. But we don't need a Savior who magically never had to struggle with the same life we struggle with.

            One interesting exercise to apply to any Gospel reading is to ask the question, what is Jesus doing to redeem me in this passage? It's a great question to ask in order to cure us of theological tunnel vision. As people of faith, we generally know that Jesus redeemed us by dying for our sins on Calvary's cross. But Calvary's cross was not an isolated event. Jesus was in the process of redeeming the world long before Good Friday. When we begin to see our redemption in everything Jesus did, we not only come to a greater appreciation of his life of servitude, but we also come to a greater appreciation of our need.

            I need a Savior who--even in boyhood--understands God to be his *Father, because I too often tend to think of God either as a heavenly genie in a bottle that hopefully will grant my wish, or as a capricious and angry judge who can't wait to penalize me. I need a Savior who felt so driven that he MUST be about his heavenly Father's business, because I am so often distracted by the cares, concerns, pleasures, and pursuits of the world around me. I need a Savior who grows in wisdom and stature, because I am so often content to put my mind in neutral, vege out, and not apply my intellect to questions of lasting meaning. I need a Savior who seeks religious understanding in the community of others, because I am so often tempted to go it alone.

            The greatest Christmas present ever, the child born in Bethlehem, is this Savior. And long before Good Friday, even at age 12, I see him saving me.

Cheers,

T.M.

Advent 4, December 20, 2015, thoughts going in

39 In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, 40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? 44 For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.” 46 And Mary said, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 48 for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant.  From this day all generations will call me blessed; 49 the Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 He has mercy on those who fear him in every generation. 51 He has shown the strength of his arm; he has scattered the proud in their conceit. 52 He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up the lowly; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty.

54 He has come to the help of his servant Israel, for he has remembered his promise of mercy, 55 the promise he made to our ancestors, to Abraham and his children forever.”

Well, the Advent journey is almost over...Christmas is almost here. The collect for this Sunday is: Stir up your power, Lord Christ, and come. With your abundant grace and might, free us from the sin that binds us, that we may receive you in joy and serve you always, for you live and reign with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

            The traditional schema is that Advent 1 is about the 2nd coming, Advent 2 and 3 are about John the Baptist; and Advent 4 is about Mary. Yet, I find it interesting that John the Baptist has 'snuck' into this year's Advent 4 setting. The prophet is prophesying even within the womb. A lot can be said about this... in terms of what I would call a 'healthy Marian piety.' For, it seems to me, a great many people have fallen overboard on either one side or the other when it comes to a proper veneration of The Blessed Virgin Mary. Roman Catholics, for instance, have Mary immaculately conceived (conceived without the stain of original sin); they have her as 'Mediatrix' and even 'Co-Redemptrix'... meaning, she mediates on our behalf with God and she has contributed to humanity's redemption. Besides being biblically and theologically unsound, these views do not square with the ancient (and highly venerating) views of Mary; they're innovations. And, sadly, they're innovations that detract from the glory and majesty that belong solely to Christ.

            Yet, if the Roman Catholics are guilty of falling over one side of the boat, 90% of Protestant Christians are guilty of falling over the other side. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Mary joyously proclaims that all generations will call her blessed, yet all we've heard on the Protestant side is generation after generation of deafening silence. Sometimes worse--Protestants seem prone to go out of their way to "prove" that there was "nothing special" about Mary. This too, is biblically unsound, theologically incorrect, and obviously not in keeping with the ancient church's veneration of this blessed saint.

            The Lutheran confessions are the only Protestant documents that come to my mind that actually do a good job with Mary. They refer to her as the Mother of God, which of course, she must be. There is no part of Jesus that isn't God. To proclaim Mary as theotokos (the ancient church's designation, meaning, God-bearer) is to guard the full divinity of Jesus. Mary is the first in stature and greatest of all of the saints. The Bible always portrays her as pointing to her blessed son; as engaged in acts of worship, etc. In seeing Mary we are pointed to Jesus, hence all of the best Marian art/statuary etc. depict her holding the Savior.

            And so we honor Mary; we venerate her; we put her on a pedestal. This is biblical. It's precisely what's going on in today's passage: the child leaps (to his feet, as it were) in honor (vs 41), and Elizabeth magnifies her (vs 42). We honor and venerate her for the favor that God has shown her and no one else... and we honor and venerate her for the example she is to us all.

            Consider:  she bore Christ into the lives of others (vs 39-40). Aren't we called to do the same....called to also be Christ-bearers into the lives of others? She also bore Christ openly even though it must've meant some degree of hardship. We're all familiar with what Matthew chapter 1 reports about Joseph and Mary: Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. The intervention of the angel is all well and good when it comes to Joseph and we readers of Matthew's gospel, but there's nothing to undo the fact that she was found to be pregnant. Undoubtedly she faced the same public disgrace and stigma that any unwed mother would in her day. Again, could we ask for a better example? Elizabeth also mentions Mary's faith: Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her (v45). Blessed is she who believed God's promises!

            The ancient church was correct to venerate Mary, and we do well when we follow their example. A more perfect template of Christian faith could never be found: she bore Christ into the lives of others; she bore up under the hardships of her faith made public; and she unwaveringly trusted God's promises.

cheers,

TM

Advent 3, December 13, 2015, thoughts going in

Luke 3:7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked. 11 John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13 “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them. 14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” 15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. 16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” 18 And with many other words John exhorted the people and proclaimed the good news to them.

Well, as I said last week, Advent 3 is a continuation of Advent 2. The lectionary spreads the apocalyptic prophet John the Baptist over two Sundays. Last Sunday he was introduced--along with the concept that after long centuries of silence, the "Word of God came" among His people. This Sunday the emphasis is more on the specifics of John's message.

Right off the bat there's an interesting textual variant between Luke's account of John's preaching and Matthew's. Luke says in 3:7 "So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come ?" Whereas, Matthew reserves the name-calling for only the Pharisees and Sadducees coming out for baptism (being evidently unconcerned with the slight oddity that Sadducees would wander *away* from Jerusalem and the Temple, Mt. 3:7). As most scholars date the writing of Matthew before that of Luke and see in Luke an intentional 'tinkering' or 'corrective,' one wonders why Luke would broaden the invective to include EVERYONE.

Some thoughts come to mind, but in the end (as always) it's mere speculation. Of course it goes without saying that the earlier the writing, the closer we get to the Jewish revolt of 66-73AD. Students of this era know that this was no "peasant's revolt." It began as a result of a series of missteps among the Jewish Ruling class (see Martin Goodman: "The Ruling Class of Judea"). Matthew, as an earlier writing, *may* have been trying to highlight a negative portrayal of the ruling class, in essence saying: 'not only can these guys not be trusted to successfully guide the country through revolt against Rome, but if you look back, even the prophet John the Baptist called them a brood of vipers.' Whereas, by the time Luke came along (likely in the 80s) all of the dust had settled. Perhaps this was Luke's way of simply being more 'egalitarian,' pointing out that ALL in the crowd were of equal need of repentance. Before we leave the topic, however, one last item of 'ownership' needs to be mentioned. It is a sad irony that we can detect very early on in the life of the church a certain anti-Semitic sentiment. It doesn't take long for the consciousness of the Church to *forget* that Jerusalem *had* been the mother church, and that the first believers were Torah-observant Jews. By the time Ignatius of Antioch comes on the scene the idea of a Torah-observant Jewish believer in Jesus seems almost repugnant to him (cf his letter to the Magnesians). One *hopes* that Luke's egalitarian treatment of all Jews in this text is not part of that early developing anti-Semitic sentiment.

In Luke 3:8, John says: "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. It has been mentioned by some that a "stone" or "stones" is metaphorical for Gentiles in Rabbinic thought. Hence, maybe John is pointing to the Gentiles in the crowd and saying: "these 'stones' could be children of God.....so don't brag about your ancestry from Abraham.'" Hmmmmmmmmm. Maybe. But we don't have a lot of evidence that John was steeped in Rabbinic thought. It might be safer to simply assume that stones means stones.

We find an interesting sentence in vs 14 "Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do ?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Some commentators wish to make these soldiers Roman troops. If so, I suppose that would at least put *some* Gentiles in the crowd for the 'stone' metaphor to work. It seems safer, however, to assume that the troops are Herodian and of some Jewish extraction. We need to remember that when John lands in hot water, he doesn't find himself before a Roman court, he's imprisoned by Herod.

The passage ends by saying:

15 Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, 16 John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water ; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals ; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn ; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." 18 So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.

Vs 18 is one of those great "Lutheran-killers" in the new testament. By which I mean, the Lutheran hermeneutical tradition wants always to see a nice clean dichotomy between LAW and GOSPEL. Law = God's demands on us (that we, at best, can only marginally meet), whereas Gospel = God's loving gifts for and toward us. And I have to admit that this method works pretty good most of the time. Occasionally, however, it falls flat. Luke 3:18 is a pretty good example of that. John the Baptist gives a boatload of fiery exhortations and Luke calls that THE GOSPEL.

So, what's going on here?

It seems to me that Luke is portraying a prophet who's trying to stir an apathetic people to ACTION. He calls them ALL a brood of vipers, not just their leaders. His question "who warned you to flee the coming wrath" seems redundant. HE WARNED THEM.....by just his presence drawing their attention, if nothing else. And concerning his ritual immersion, all of them would be familiar with rites of immersion (for instance, before ascending to the Temple), but this rite seems to come closer to the idea of 'proselyte baptism,' the ritual cleansing that happens when a Gentile converts to Judaism. He's asking Jews to behave like Gentile converts--in essence, to start all over again in NEW RELATIONSHIP with their God. His ethical teachings about 'whoever has 2 coats should share with those who have none' have a two-fold meaning: (1) you share with those closest to you; your family; your community. John wants those being baptized to see themselves in communal terms. But also (2) there is journey symbolism at work. If you're headed out on a journey, you'll just be weighed down if you're trying to pack along a lot of un-needed extra items. Best to share with those who don't have enough, that way all will be able to journey in a state of preparedness. The journey is metaphorical.....in that it is a journey of *faith*.....but John and Jesus were not gnostics. It's also a journey in the literal sense of *renewal*. In the Christ event, the very thing that John is trying to prep his listeners for (and us), God is all about renewing the brokenness of his creation PERSONALLY.....first and foremost through the redemption brought by Christ on the cross, but then literally and physically through the good works of His Church.

Cheers,

T.M.