I've probably quoted this to you more than once already. From my linguistic key re: eye witnesses. "This reflects a conviction that the Christian faith is rooted not in speculative creation but in historical reality" by a man named Ellis.
We see an amazing instance of historical data in the opening verses of chapter 3. Do these known political leaders line up historically with the facts of Luke? A simple google phone search says they do.... try it yourself! If John was called in from the desert in the 15th year of Tiberius (29AD), all the other people mentioned were in exactly the positions Luke records them in. Wow!
And John comes preaching a message of repentance, just as the angel announced he would. And people repent. "He will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.", the Angel of Luke 1 quoting from Malachi 4. It's certainly all coming together in an amazing way.
Next week we'll look at Jesus ministry "in the synagogues of Judea" [4:44] Even though we've just gotten started in the book of Luke, the stories are from his second year of ministry, the year he was wildly popular. That amazing year of ministry will continue through Luke 9, and we'll just keep studying two chapters at a time to see what we can learn.
He calls some disciples, he argues with some Pharisees, he designate sthe 12 Apostles (what does that mean?) And he teaches the sermon on a Level Place.... it will be interesting to see the similarities and differences between that account in Luke and the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6....
We thought earlier about the voice of Jesus in the book of Luke. We're going to start hearing that voice more next week and we'll find it to be .....what?
I love the gospels because Jesus is never quite the same as my idea of him, and that helps me clarify that picture. Reminds me of John 3:2, "Dear friends; now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure."
I think that means the more clearly we see Jesus, the more we'll be like him. Let's try to see this Jesus, the complete revelation of God.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Friday, October 9, 2015
WORD!
Silence is broken, and with a very big bang. We find the answer to our question from the last post.... after 400 years will anyone be listening. The answer is an amazing Yes.
God could not have broken the silence with more drama or in a way that would cause all Israel to be talking about it. Zechariah goes into the temple to offer incense and doesn't come out. And doesn't come out! Did God strike him dead? (He HAD been known to do that!) Whew! at last the old priest comes out but he's been struck dumb! (And maybe deaf, since all tried to talk to him with signs...that was a new thought!)
Do you think the temple was buzzing? Do you think the priests were all up late talking about what happened? Do you think all the people in the courtyard waiting and waiting for Zechariah to come out talked to everyone ELSE in Judea about what happened? God broke the silence with a big bang. Even Twitter couldn't have spread the word faster.
What will happen next?
The people of Jerusalem may not have known that Elizabeth's cousin, Mary, came for a visit and Elizabeth's baby, filled with the Spirit even in the womb, jumped for joy in the presence of his Lord. But Zechariah knew, and he returned to Jerusalem for the circumcision of his son a changed man. No doubt about the angel choosing his son. No doubt his name would be John. High drama! All those Jewish Mamas talking at once, but there's no one in your family named John! You can't do that! What a year Jerusalem has had, and the shouting isn't over yet.
Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem in Judea to register for taxes. What a mundane excuse to bring Jesus to exactly the town he was prophesied to be born in. And what happens at his birth? Angels, shepherds. More singing and shouting and talking. More drama.
The next event was Jesus circumcision; once again the temple in Jerusalem was to receive direct word from God. Simeon and Anna were both waiting to hear from God. When did God reveal to them that they wouldn't die without seeing the Messiah? Maybe when the amazing events around John's birth played out at that same temple. Surely by now the whole priesthood was talking about God moving in their midst. Surely by now all of Jerusalem was talking about it. Surely they were expecting something to happen.
And then...... John grew up and went to the desert to await his call. Jesus went home to Nazareth to grow into a man. But the silence was broken. God was on speaking terms with his people again.
Where did Luke, who is the only one to record most of what's in Luke 1 and 2, get his information. His inquiring mind must have spent many hours with Mary herself. Who else would have known these stories? What a miracle it is that someone thought to write it down! (LOL)
We talked the first week about Luke's purpose of writing a historical document. Those interviews with Mary are part of what his introduction in 1:1-4 are talking about.
Next week's passage begins with another excellent example of Luke's attention to historical detail. "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilat was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitus, and Lysanias tetrarch of Ablilene---during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word came to John....." We'll look at that word from God when we get together again, but look at the amazing historical information Luke gave us.
I just did a basic google search on my phone and found the following dates:
Tiberius was Caesar from 14-36 AD
Pontius Pilate was governor 26-36 AD
Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee 6-39 AD
I didn't look anyone else up. Annas and Caiaphas are still around when Jesus is crucified, so they surely fit.
But look at those dates? Those three men were simultaneously in office during the decade from 26-36 AD. That's a pretty narrow window in the sweep of history. [Aren't we glad we don't have to do that math BC any more?] Historical documentation. I'll repeat the quote from my linguistic Key.
"This reflects a conviction that the Christian faith is rooted not in speculative creation but in historical reality." [Ellis]
Luke is determined in his book to drive that fact home. The things you believe are historical reality. I'm going to write his opening statement again so we can really have a sense of his heart and soul in writing this book as we go forward studying it.
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4.
As we look next week at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, what an exciting yet grounding thought. [Not a new thought, I know, but still.....] He's not a legend or myth. He's a historical person, the person God.
God could not have broken the silence with more drama or in a way that would cause all Israel to be talking about it. Zechariah goes into the temple to offer incense and doesn't come out. And doesn't come out! Did God strike him dead? (He HAD been known to do that!) Whew! at last the old priest comes out but he's been struck dumb! (And maybe deaf, since all tried to talk to him with signs...that was a new thought!)
Do you think the temple was buzzing? Do you think the priests were all up late talking about what happened? Do you think all the people in the courtyard waiting and waiting for Zechariah to come out talked to everyone ELSE in Judea about what happened? God broke the silence with a big bang. Even Twitter couldn't have spread the word faster.
What will happen next?
The people of Jerusalem may not have known that Elizabeth's cousin, Mary, came for a visit and Elizabeth's baby, filled with the Spirit even in the womb, jumped for joy in the presence of his Lord. But Zechariah knew, and he returned to Jerusalem for the circumcision of his son a changed man. No doubt about the angel choosing his son. No doubt his name would be John. High drama! All those Jewish Mamas talking at once, but there's no one in your family named John! You can't do that! What a year Jerusalem has had, and the shouting isn't over yet.
Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem in Judea to register for taxes. What a mundane excuse to bring Jesus to exactly the town he was prophesied to be born in. And what happens at his birth? Angels, shepherds. More singing and shouting and talking. More drama.
The next event was Jesus circumcision; once again the temple in Jerusalem was to receive direct word from God. Simeon and Anna were both waiting to hear from God. When did God reveal to them that they wouldn't die without seeing the Messiah? Maybe when the amazing events around John's birth played out at that same temple. Surely by now the whole priesthood was talking about God moving in their midst. Surely by now all of Jerusalem was talking about it. Surely they were expecting something to happen.
And then...... John grew up and went to the desert to await his call. Jesus went home to Nazareth to grow into a man. But the silence was broken. God was on speaking terms with his people again.
Where did Luke, who is the only one to record most of what's in Luke 1 and 2, get his information. His inquiring mind must have spent many hours with Mary herself. Who else would have known these stories? What a miracle it is that someone thought to write it down! (LOL)
We talked the first week about Luke's purpose of writing a historical document. Those interviews with Mary are part of what his introduction in 1:1-4 are talking about.
Next week's passage begins with another excellent example of Luke's attention to historical detail. "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilat was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitus, and Lysanias tetrarch of Ablilene---during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word came to John....." We'll look at that word from God when we get together again, but look at the amazing historical information Luke gave us.
I just did a basic google search on my phone and found the following dates:
Tiberius was Caesar from 14-36 AD
Pontius Pilate was governor 26-36 AD
Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee 6-39 AD
I didn't look anyone else up. Annas and Caiaphas are still around when Jesus is crucified, so they surely fit.
But look at those dates? Those three men were simultaneously in office during the decade from 26-36 AD. That's a pretty narrow window in the sweep of history. [Aren't we glad we don't have to do that math BC any more?] Historical documentation. I'll repeat the quote from my linguistic Key.
"This reflects a conviction that the Christian faith is rooted not in speculative creation but in historical reality." [Ellis]
Luke is determined in his book to drive that fact home. The things you believe are historical reality. I'm going to write his opening statement again so we can really have a sense of his heart and soul in writing this book as we go forward studying it.
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4.
As we look next week at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, what an exciting yet grounding thought. [Not a new thought, I know, but still.....] He's not a legend or myth. He's a historical person, the person God.
Friday, October 2, 2015
400 Silent Years
You don't know how I struggled with that title. I don't believe that God has ever been silent. Yet this is the common name for the apparent fact there were no prophets [recorded] after 400 BC. My stubbornness about this led me to a [very] little research about when the Old Testament books were written, which did yield some interesting "facts". [I'm trying not to be a skeptic, but it's not worth the effort... you guys get it.....]
Six books were written between 450 and 400 BC. It's an interesting list: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1&2 Chronicles, and Malachi. Interesting because [some] traditions say that Ezra wrote Ezra, Esther, and 1&2 Chronicles. Nehemiah, Ezra's successor, probably wrote Nehemiah, but some believe Ezra and Nehemiah were one book, written by.....you guessed it, Ezra. Malachi, a prophet, surely wrote his own book, but it was at the same time period as Ezra. You remember Ezra and Nehemiah [and Zerrubbabel] were the leaders of the long effort to rebuild Jerusalem, it's walls and temple after the exile. So my research turned up a surge of information recorded over a 50 year period before 400 BC, and then..... nothing. The birth of Christ, which we all know was in 0.... and viola, 400 silent years.
This info turned my thoughts two different directions. One turn was towards Hebrews 1:1 and 2: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made made the universe." The book of Hebrews which I dearly love, goes into great detail about how utterly different and amazing this complete revelation, Jesus, is than every partial revelation before him.
The other, and more relevant direction my mind went, and the reason I was digging around to begin with, was to think about how stunning the angelic announcements in Luke 1and 2 would have been to those who heard them. No prophets. No writings. No official words from God to the nation of Israel...[that's as far as I'm able to take my definition of silent] for 400 years. Who would still be listening?
Amazingly, some were. Granted, Zechariah was surprised, mostly that he and his wife's old bodies would have a part to play in this new revelation. Yet after Mary's visit and 9 months to think and study about it, Zechariah shows amazing understanding of the situation. The second his voice returns he sings, "He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David". He knew this son of his, who would "go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him" was the forerunner of the Christ.
Remember how adamant John was in Matthew and John when he was asked who he was? Not the Christ, not the Prophet, nor Elijah. "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord." I think his father had drilled those prophecies from Isaiah and Malachi into this precious son, who would "be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth."
So Malachi 3 and 4, the last two chapters in the Old Testament, actually turn out to be pretty interesting. 3:1 says, "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple...." directly tying the coming of a messenger to the "sudden" appearance of the Lord himself.
That really sets the scene for the book of Luke. Just think of the stir among the priesthood caused by the angels appearance to Zechariah; all of them waiting and waiting for him to emerge after offering the incense. Was he dead? Would he come out at all? Then he came out but was silent! Surely he's seen a vision! And he remained there in the temple until his term of service was done. Think of the questions, the pointing fingers, the late night discussions.
Zechariah was chosen by God to break the 400 years of silence. And after all that silence, Simeon and Anna were in the temple listening. Of all the amazing things recorded in the Bible, the events Luke records in chapters 1 and 2 of his narrative may be the most amazing of all.
God, who spoke to the forefathers in various partial, hazy and often impossible to understand ways spread over thousands of years, spoke a final time. He spoke the Word.
Six books were written between 450 and 400 BC. It's an interesting list: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1&2 Chronicles, and Malachi. Interesting because [some] traditions say that Ezra wrote Ezra, Esther, and 1&2 Chronicles. Nehemiah, Ezra's successor, probably wrote Nehemiah, but some believe Ezra and Nehemiah were one book, written by.....you guessed it, Ezra. Malachi, a prophet, surely wrote his own book, but it was at the same time period as Ezra. You remember Ezra and Nehemiah [and Zerrubbabel] were the leaders of the long effort to rebuild Jerusalem, it's walls and temple after the exile. So my research turned up a surge of information recorded over a 50 year period before 400 BC, and then..... nothing. The birth of Christ, which we all know was in 0.... and viola, 400 silent years.
This info turned my thoughts two different directions. One turn was towards Hebrews 1:1 and 2: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made made the universe." The book of Hebrews which I dearly love, goes into great detail about how utterly different and amazing this complete revelation, Jesus, is than every partial revelation before him.
The other, and more relevant direction my mind went, and the reason I was digging around to begin with, was to think about how stunning the angelic announcements in Luke 1and 2 would have been to those who heard them. No prophets. No writings. No official words from God to the nation of Israel...[that's as far as I'm able to take my definition of silent] for 400 years. Who would still be listening?
Amazingly, some were. Granted, Zechariah was surprised, mostly that he and his wife's old bodies would have a part to play in this new revelation. Yet after Mary's visit and 9 months to think and study about it, Zechariah shows amazing understanding of the situation. The second his voice returns he sings, "He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David". He knew this son of his, who would "go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him" was the forerunner of the Christ.
Remember how adamant John was in Matthew and John when he was asked who he was? Not the Christ, not the Prophet, nor Elijah. "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord." I think his father had drilled those prophecies from Isaiah and Malachi into this precious son, who would "be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth."
So Malachi 3 and 4, the last two chapters in the Old Testament, actually turn out to be pretty interesting. 3:1 says, "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple...." directly tying the coming of a messenger to the "sudden" appearance of the Lord himself.
That really sets the scene for the book of Luke. Just think of the stir among the priesthood caused by the angels appearance to Zechariah; all of them waiting and waiting for him to emerge after offering the incense. Was he dead? Would he come out at all? Then he came out but was silent! Surely he's seen a vision! And he remained there in the temple until his term of service was done. Think of the questions, the pointing fingers, the late night discussions.
Zechariah was chosen by God to break the 400 years of silence. And after all that silence, Simeon and Anna were in the temple listening. Of all the amazing things recorded in the Bible, the events Luke records in chapters 1 and 2 of his narrative may be the most amazing of all.
God, who spoke to the forefathers in various partial, hazy and often impossible to understand ways spread over thousands of years, spoke a final time. He spoke the Word.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Dr. Luke; the man and the mission
Who was this man Luke, who wrote more words of the New Testament than even the Apostle Paul? The following is what I've read about him; of course you and I both know much of this is speculation, but it's fun to read what "those in the know" speculate.
Luke's heritage was Greek. That makes him the only New Testament writer who was a gentile. Tradition places him in Antioch during the establishment of that first gentile church, which became the key to reaching the rest of the world. He was clearly an educated man; at the time probably the only places he could have gotten such education was in Athens or in Tarsus. That's interesting, since Paul got his education as a Pharisee in Tarsus. One wonders if the Jew of Jews and the Gentile ever crossed paths there in both of their BC states. Because of this educational background we are able to see many facets of the man; doctor, historian, writer, evangelist. He was probably approximately the same age as Jesus and Paul. Tradition says he died in Greece at the age of 84, in AD 170 [which doesn't add up right to me....]
There isn't any internal evidence he wrote the book of Luke. He does cite himself in the book of Acts, though, and since both were clearly written by the same man, the traditional authorship of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles by him has never really been questioned.
The bigger mystery concerning these two books is who they were written to! Theophilus... even non-greek speakers like us can see the words God [Theo] and love [philo] in the name. Is it a real person or just a literary device? Luke refers to his writings in Acts 1:1 as books, not letters. Were the books actually written to a person? Maybe there's a sense of an artist who had a wealthy patron sponsoring the work.
Someone's footnote today said Theophilus was a code name, protecting the real person from persecution from Rome. Of course, in the book of Acts we are going to hear lots of stories that may be incriminating from a Roman government perspective. That's an option.
Luke addresses Theophilus as "most excellent", which translators explain as a specific title, used to address persons of high office or social position. Such a title could support either the wealthy patron or the high Roman official theory.
But the more interesting aspects of Luke's introductory remarks are his attitude towards the work he's undertaken. He speaks of drawing up an orderly account. He's studied previously "handed down" accounts. He's interviewed eye-witnesses; and not just any eye-witnesses but specifically those who were servants of the ministry. He's investigated; in fact the words he chose may mean that he came to belief himself as a result of investigating the claims of Christianity.
Someone named Ellis says of Luke's introduction, "This reflects a conviction that the Christian faith is rooted not in speculative creation but in historical reality". And there's the point of the books. Jesus is a historical person. The disciples were historical persons: Luke interviewed many of them. Mary was a historical person. Luke clearly interviewed her. Paul was a historical person whom Luke traveled with for many years and ministered to up to that Apostle's death.
Of course this morning we looked at some charts too.... I know all of you love my charts! And we had our first assignment. For the next three weeks we'll be reading Chapters 1-6. It will probably take us three weeks to study that section, but that will cover all the beginning stuff... beginning of life and beginning of ministry for this man Jesus.
After that we'll look at the book in three more sections.
6:17-9:50 Jesus travels about, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom
9:51-19:27 Jesus resolutely turns towards Jerusalem
19:28-24 Jesus' last week in Jerusalem
So we're off to a good start. It was so wonderful to gather around Betty's table with you all today and open the Word. I'm anxious to see what we'll all learn this year together.
Luke's heritage was Greek. That makes him the only New Testament writer who was a gentile. Tradition places him in Antioch during the establishment of that first gentile church, which became the key to reaching the rest of the world. He was clearly an educated man; at the time probably the only places he could have gotten such education was in Athens or in Tarsus. That's interesting, since Paul got his education as a Pharisee in Tarsus. One wonders if the Jew of Jews and the Gentile ever crossed paths there in both of their BC states. Because of this educational background we are able to see many facets of the man; doctor, historian, writer, evangelist. He was probably approximately the same age as Jesus and Paul. Tradition says he died in Greece at the age of 84, in AD 170 [which doesn't add up right to me....]
There isn't any internal evidence he wrote the book of Luke. He does cite himself in the book of Acts, though, and since both were clearly written by the same man, the traditional authorship of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles by him has never really been questioned.
The bigger mystery concerning these two books is who they were written to! Theophilus... even non-greek speakers like us can see the words God [Theo] and love [philo] in the name. Is it a real person or just a literary device? Luke refers to his writings in Acts 1:1 as books, not letters. Were the books actually written to a person? Maybe there's a sense of an artist who had a wealthy patron sponsoring the work.
Someone's footnote today said Theophilus was a code name, protecting the real person from persecution from Rome. Of course, in the book of Acts we are going to hear lots of stories that may be incriminating from a Roman government perspective. That's an option.
Luke addresses Theophilus as "most excellent", which translators explain as a specific title, used to address persons of high office or social position. Such a title could support either the wealthy patron or the high Roman official theory.
But the more interesting aspects of Luke's introductory remarks are his attitude towards the work he's undertaken. He speaks of drawing up an orderly account. He's studied previously "handed down" accounts. He's interviewed eye-witnesses; and not just any eye-witnesses but specifically those who were servants of the ministry. He's investigated; in fact the words he chose may mean that he came to belief himself as a result of investigating the claims of Christianity.
Someone named Ellis says of Luke's introduction, "This reflects a conviction that the Christian faith is rooted not in speculative creation but in historical reality". And there's the point of the books. Jesus is a historical person. The disciples were historical persons: Luke interviewed many of them. Mary was a historical person. Luke clearly interviewed her. Paul was a historical person whom Luke traveled with for many years and ministered to up to that Apostle's death.
Of course this morning we looked at some charts too.... I know all of you love my charts! And we had our first assignment. For the next three weeks we'll be reading Chapters 1-6. It will probably take us three weeks to study that section, but that will cover all the beginning stuff... beginning of life and beginning of ministry for this man Jesus.
After that we'll look at the book in three more sections.
6:17-9:50 Jesus travels about, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom
9:51-19:27 Jesus resolutely turns towards Jerusalem
19:28-24 Jesus' last week in Jerusalem
So we're off to a good start. It was so wonderful to gather around Betty's table with you all today and open the Word. I'm anxious to see what we'll all learn this year together.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Another year, another Bible Study
I hope that title doesn't sound like I'm bored. Its very exciting to me to have had the opportunity all these years to meet with women of the church and study the Word together. There is nothing more fun that sitting around a table talking about a passage of scripture. It's so much better than studying alone! Some of us have been at it a long time, but it seriously never gets boring. There's always something to learn and something in your life that needs to change....at least for me.
This year we're going to study the writings of Luke, which you probably all know are the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke is very accommodating in writing out his purpose for both books. Luke 1:1-4 says he has carefully investigated everything from the beginning. And he means the beginning. He starts with the birth announcements of both John and Jesus. He's gathered eye-witness accounts.
He also says he intends to write out an "orderly account". He has painstakingly investigated the matter and is going to set things down in a logical order so that his intended reader, Theophilus, will know the solid historical facts behind the faith he has embraced.
The book of Acts is also addressed to Theophilus. Luke begins Acts by summarizing "book 1" as "all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven", which hints that his sequel will be about what Jesus continued to do after he went up into heaven.
Some Bibles title this second book of Luke as the Acts of the Apostles. Many a preacher has wanted to change that title to Acts of the risen Jesus. But it seems to me (not an original thought) that the book could be called the Acts of the Apostles empowered by the Holy Spirit. (Clearly a too long and not very catchy title.)
Jesus spent a lot of time his last night on earth with his disciples explaining that when he left he would send the Holy Spirit, the counselor, the one who would indwell them for the life to come. He even said it would be better for them that he was going away! That seems crazy! But when you see what these 11 men plus Paul accomplish in the book of Acts you will see what he means! In the gospels you see the disciples hanging out with God. What could be better than that? God hanging out IN the disciples.
I've studied two other gospels, Matthew and John. I've been struck this summer by how different the voices of these two gospels are. Matthew is a fiery book, portraying Jesus as an angry young rebel, throwing fireballs at the Scribes and the Pharisees. John is in awe of Jesus, pointing out miraculous sign after miraculous sign, believing this elegant speaker is more than a great speaker, he's God. Luke's voice is the dispassionate reporter. Just the facts, Ma'am. At least that's what I think in September. We'll see what we all think by Christmas.
I haven't counted it myself but I've read that Luke actually wrote more of the New Testament than Paul. [I should count it; it's hard to believe!] Both books are 52 chapters, so going through them will be about like going through Genesis....a trek that will easily keep us occupied til spring.
I woke up this morning with both Adam's wedding and Bill's chemo behind me, and I'm ready to start. I hope you are too.
This year we're going to study the writings of Luke, which you probably all know are the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke is very accommodating in writing out his purpose for both books. Luke 1:1-4 says he has carefully investigated everything from the beginning. And he means the beginning. He starts with the birth announcements of both John and Jesus. He's gathered eye-witness accounts.
He also says he intends to write out an "orderly account". He has painstakingly investigated the matter and is going to set things down in a logical order so that his intended reader, Theophilus, will know the solid historical facts behind the faith he has embraced.
The book of Acts is also addressed to Theophilus. Luke begins Acts by summarizing "book 1" as "all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven", which hints that his sequel will be about what Jesus continued to do after he went up into heaven.
Some Bibles title this second book of Luke as the Acts of the Apostles. Many a preacher has wanted to change that title to Acts of the risen Jesus. But it seems to me (not an original thought) that the book could be called the Acts of the Apostles empowered by the Holy Spirit. (Clearly a too long and not very catchy title.)
Jesus spent a lot of time his last night on earth with his disciples explaining that when he left he would send the Holy Spirit, the counselor, the one who would indwell them for the life to come. He even said it would be better for them that he was going away! That seems crazy! But when you see what these 11 men plus Paul accomplish in the book of Acts you will see what he means! In the gospels you see the disciples hanging out with God. What could be better than that? God hanging out IN the disciples.
I've studied two other gospels, Matthew and John. I've been struck this summer by how different the voices of these two gospels are. Matthew is a fiery book, portraying Jesus as an angry young rebel, throwing fireballs at the Scribes and the Pharisees. John is in awe of Jesus, pointing out miraculous sign after miraculous sign, believing this elegant speaker is more than a great speaker, he's God. Luke's voice is the dispassionate reporter. Just the facts, Ma'am. At least that's what I think in September. We'll see what we all think by Christmas.
I haven't counted it myself but I've read that Luke actually wrote more of the New Testament than Paul. [I should count it; it's hard to believe!] Both books are 52 chapters, so going through them will be about like going through Genesis....a trek that will easily keep us occupied til spring.
I woke up this morning with both Adam's wedding and Bill's chemo behind me, and I'm ready to start. I hope you are too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)