progressive involvement

Advent 4 ::: Luke 1: 26-38

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

Translation:  But in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a town of Galilee named Nazareth to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name (was) Joseph, out of the house of David.  And the name of the virgin (was) Miriam.  And he came to her and said, "Rejoice, graced one.  The Lord is with you."  But she was thoroughly confused at the word and pondered what sort this greeting might be. 

And the angel said to her, "Fear not, Miriam, for you have found grace from God.  And behold!  You will become pregnant in womb and you will bring forth a son, and you will call his name Jesus.  He will be great, and will be called son of the highest, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of David, his father.  And he will reign upon the house of Jacob into the eternal, and his kingdom will not end." 

But Miriam said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"  The angel answered and said to her, "A holy spirit will come upon you, and the highest power will overshadow you.  Therefore, the one being born will be called holy, a son of God.  And behold!  your relative Elizabeth has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month of her, the one said to be barren.  For each word from God will not be impossible."  But Miriam said, "Behold a servant of the Lord.  Let it be with me according to your word."  And the angel departed from her.

Background and situation:  The passage appears only in Luke.  The book of Luke has just begun and we can already see brought to expression at least two major themes in Luke:  his accent on the role of women, and the role of the Holy Spirit. 

More than any other gospel--and they all do--Luke lifts up women.  For example, his annunciation story follows right after the visit of the angel Gabriel to Zechariah.  True to form for Luke, the man, Zechariah, doesn't really get it, but the woman, Miriam, does. 

In regard to "spirit", the child in Elizabeth will be "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb" (1:15) and have the "spirit of Elijah" (1:17).  The Holy Spirit is intimately connected with the conception of Jesus (1:35).  Luke will frequently use the phrase "in the power of the Spirit" in both Luke and Acts. 

The annunciation:  In the late first century, it appears that the early church was beginning to deal with the question of when Jesus became "Son of God."  Paul, writing in the 50's, doesn't seem particularly interested in this question, though sometimes gives the impression that Jesus became "Son of God" at the resurrection.  (See Rom 1: 3-4, for example.)

The earliest gospel writer, Mark, writing around AD 70, starts his gospel with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.  For Mark, it appears that this is when Jesus became God's son.  If all we had was the gospel of Mark, we'd all be "adoptionists," i.e. the idea that Jesus was "adopted" by God in his baptism and that this is when he became the "Son of God."

Matthew and Luke, writing 10-15 years later than Mark, roll Jesus' divinity back to his birth.  Jesus was the "Son of God" at his conception.  Naturally, the birth of a divine figure would be accompanied by miraculous signs, such as the virginity of his mother, which is why the two gospels which proclaim Jesus' divinity from birth are the same two gospels which mention the virginity of Mary.

Even this, of course, was not enough for the author of the fourth gospel, writing c. AD 95.  The author of the fourth gospel rolls the divinity of Jesus back before the beginning of creation.  Subsequent theology has sided with the fourth gospel. 

Mary--more properly, "Miriam"--was betrothed to Joseph, which meant that they were engaged to be married.  Engagement in those days was tantamount to marriage.  It was a binding agreement.  The young woman would typically continue to live with her parents for up to a year, although it was not unknown for the couple to begin to live together right away. 

Essentially, an engagement in those days amounted to the passing of control over the woman from the father to the husband.  Marriages were arranged by families.  The girls would usually be married right after puberty, around the ages of 12-14, the men around the ages 17-22.  

Luke draws a close parallel between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus.  The birth of John is announced to Zechariah and Elizabeth, in the temple.  The angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah, who is "terrified."  Gabriel tells Zechariah not to be afraid, and that "Elizabeth will bear you a son."  He is to be named John, and he "will be great."  

The birth of Jesus involves Miriam and Joseph (1:27), in Nazareth (1: 26).  Gabriel appears to Miriam, who is "perplexed."  Gabriel tells Miriam not to be afraid, and that "you...will bear a son."  "You will name him Jesus," and "he will be great."  (See Joseph Fitzmeyer, The Gospel according to Luke, pp. 314-315.)

The two stories are connected for an important reason.  For Luke, John the Baptist is the "symbol, synthesis, conclusion and consummation of the Old Testament" (Borg and Crossan.  See The First Christmas, pp. 113ff).  This is why his mother is presented as aged.  She is like Hannah, who gave birth to the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1: 1-19). 

As the "old age" is consummated in John the Baptist, the "new age" begins with the birth of Jesus.  His mother is not old, but rather a young virgin.  Elizabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist close one age.  Joseph, Miriam, and Jesus inaugurate the new.

The angel Gabriel addresses Miriam three times in this text.  That amounts to one speech for each use of the word "virgin."  Luke probably intended this.  The word "virgin" appears twice in verse 27, which is followed by two of Gabriel's speeches.  Miriam uses the word herself in verse 34, whereupon Gabriel gives her his most important and final message:  The child is from the "Holy Spirit" and "the highest power." 

In his first speech, Gabriel greets Miriam with xaire, which literally means "grace to you."  This was a common greeting in the world of that time, like "good day" or "howdy".  Luke probably intends the literal meaning as well.  Gabriel calls Miriam a "favored one"--or "graced one"--and says, "The Lord is with you." 

In his second address, Gabriel tells Miriam not to be afraid, and that she has "found grace" with God.  Her pregnancy is announced by idou--behold!--(unfortunately not translated in NRSV).  Like John the Baptist, her child "will be great," but unlike John the Baptist, Jesus will be "son of the highest," and will rule on the "throne of David" over the "house of Jacob."  Luke thus associates Jesus with Israel's greatest king and with Israel's primary progenitor.

In Gabriel's third speech, the angel tells Miriam that the child will be born from the Holy Spirit and the "highest power"--"Most High," in NRSV.  The child will be "holy," "a son of God."  

Readers will notice that Luke mentions the "highest power" twice.  The "highest power" in the world of that time was Caesar Augustus.  (The word "augustus" means "worthy of being worshipped."  Caesar Augustus was the adopted son of Julius Caesar, who had been elevated to "god-hood."  You could tell because, it was said, the new comet that appeared in July, 44 BC, was the "Julian star," the spirit of Caesar as he entered divinity.  Said the Roman poet Ovid: "Take up Caesar’s spirit from his murdered corpse, and change it into a star, so that the deified Julius may always look down from his high temple on our Capitol and forum."  Since his adopted father, Julius, was now a god, that made Caesar Augustus a "son of god".  He stamped "divi filius"--"son of god"--on his coins, which was the ancient world's most effective means of propaganda. 

Luke is being subtly subversive.  He is saying that, no, Caesar is not the "highest power."  God is.  And Caesar is not the true "son of God."  Jesus is. 

Also in Gabriel's third speech, the angel tells Miriam of Elizabeth's conception.  Any first century Jewish person would have recognized the parallels between Elizabeth's condition and that of both Sarah (Gen 17: 7) and Hannah in the Old Testament.  Elizabeth's conception, Mary would have understood, is through an action of God.

"For each word from God will not be impossible," then says Gabriel.  Miriam is to understand that though her situation is some different from Elizabeth's, Sarah's, and Hannah's--she is not aged, for example--nevertheless, her conception is from God and will happen. 

Mary responded with her own "behold" statement:  "Behold, a servant--doule, slave--of the Lord.  Let it be with me according to your word."  "Let it be" is genoito, (aorist, middle, optative).  It implies origin, either from natural causes, or through special agency.  Miriam promises non-interference in what God may be doing.

This is at the heart of Luke's purpose.  The important characteristic of virginity, for Luke, is that it means the child can only be met with receptivity by human beings.  We humans can do nothing to bring the new age about.  We can not kick it into gear, or make it happen.  We may only "let it be to me."

This is indeed a great word of wisdom.  "When I find myself in times of trouble / Mother Mary comes to me / Speaking words of wisdom, let it be."  Letting things be is, you might say, spiritually "going with the flow."     

Note also that, in Luke's other work, the book of Acts, after the resurrection of Jesus and just after his ascension, the disciples are all together and among their number are "certain women," and Miriam, "the mother of Jesus," and his brothers. 

As Mary was present, obviously, at the birth of Jesus, so Mary is also present at the birth of the church.  She is the human link between these two miraculous births. 

Image:  Annunciation, John Collier

 

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

Translation:  But in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a town of Galilee named Nazareth to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name (was) Joseph, out of the house of David.  And the name of the virgin (was) Miriam.  And he came to her and said, "Rejoice, graced one.  The Lord is with you."  But she was thoroughly confused at the word and pondered what sort this greeting might be. 

And the angel said to her, "Fear not, Miriam, for you have found grace from God.  And behold!  You will become pregnant in womb and you will bring forth a son, and you will call his name Jesus.  He will be great, and will be called son of the highest, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of David, his father.  And he will reign upon the house of Jacob into the eternal, and his kingdom will not end." 

But Miriam said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"  The angel answered and said to her, "A holy spirit will come upon you, and the highest power will overshadow you.  Therefore, the one being born will be called holy, a son of God.  And behold!  your relative Elizabeth has conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month of her, the one said to be barren.  For each word from God will not be impossible."  But Miriam said, "Behold a servant of the Lord.  Let it be with me according to your word."  And the angel departed from her.

Background and situation:  The passage appears only in Luke.  The book of Luke has just begun and we can already see brought to expression at least two major themes in Luke:  his accent on the role of women, and the role of the Holy Spirit. 

More than any other gospel--and they all do--Luke lifts up women.  For example, his annunciation story follows right after the visit of the angel Gabriel to Zechariah.  True to form for Luke, the man, Zechariah, doesn't really get it, but the woman, Miriam, does. 

In regard to "spirit", the child in Elizabeth will be "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb" (1:15) and have the "spirit of Elijah" (1:17).  The Holy Spirit is intimately connected with the conception of Jesus (1:35).  Luke will frequently use the phrase "in the power of the Spirit" in both Luke and Acts. 

The annunciation:  In the late first century, it appears that the early church was beginning to deal with the question of when Jesus became "Son of God."  Paul, writing in the 50's, doesn't seem particularly interested in this question, though sometimes gives the impression that Jesus became "Son of God" at the resurrection.  (See Rom 1: 3-4, for example.)

The earliest gospel writer, Mark, writing around AD 70, starts his gospel with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.  For Mark, it appears that this is when Jesus became God's son.  If all we had was the gospel of Mark, we'd all be "adoptionists," i.e. the idea that Jesus was "adopted" by God in his baptism and that this is when he became the "Son of God."

Matthew and Luke, writing 10-15 years later than Mark, roll Jesus' divinity back to his birth.  Jesus was the "Son of God" at his conception.  Naturally, the birth of a divine figure would be accompanied by miraculous signs, such as the virginity of his mother, which is why the two gospels which proclaim Jesus' divinity from birth are the same two gospels which mention the virginity of Mary.

Even this, of course, was not enough for the author of the fourth gospel, writing c. AD 95.  The author of the fourth gospel rolls the divinity of Jesus back before the beginning of creation.  Subsequent theology has sided with the fourth gospel. 

Mary--more properly, "Miriam"--was betrothed to Joseph, which meant that they were engaged to be married.  Engagement in those days was tantamount to marriage.  It was a binding agreement.  The young woman would typically continue to live with her parents for up to a year, although it was not unknown for the couple to begin to live together right away. 

Essentially, an engagement in those days amounted to the passing of control over the woman from the father to the husband.  Marriages were arranged by families.  The girls would usually be married right after puberty, around the ages of 12-14, the men around the ages 17-22.  

Luke draws a close parallel between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus.  The birth of John is announced to Zechariah and Elizabeth, in the temple.  The angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah, who is "terrified."  Gabriel tells Zechariah not to be afraid, and that "Elizabeth will bear you a son."  He is to be named John, and he "will be great."  

The birth of Jesus involves Miriam and Joseph (1:27), in Nazareth (1: 26).  Gabriel appears to Miriam, who is "perplexed."  Gabriel tells Miriam not to be afraid, and that "you...will bear a son."  "You will name him Jesus," and "he will be great."  (See Joseph Fitzmeyer, The Gospel according to Luke, pp. 314-315.)

The two stories are connected for an important reason.  For Luke, John the Baptist is the "symbol, synthesis, conclusion and consummation of the Old Testament" (Borg and Crossan.  See The First Christmas, pp. 113ff).  This is why his mother is presented as aged.  She is like Hannah, who gave birth to the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1: 1-19). 

As the "old age" is consummated in John the Baptist, the "new age" begins with the birth of Jesus.  His mother is not old, but rather a young virgin.  Elizabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist close one age.  Joseph, Miriam, and Jesus inaugurate the new.

The angel Gabriel addresses Miriam three times in this text.  That amounts to one speech for each use of the word "virgin."  Luke probably intended this.  The word "virgin" appears twice in verse 27, which is followed by two of Gabriel's speeches.  Miriam uses the word herself in verse 34, whereupon Gabriel gives her his most important and final message:  The child is from the "Holy Spirit" and "the highest power." 

In his first speech, Gabriel greets Miriam with xaire, which literally means "grace to you."  This was a common greeting in the world of that time, like "good day" or "howdy".  Luke probably intends the literal meaning as well.  Gabriel calls Miriam a "favored one"--or "graced one"--and says, "The Lord is with you." 

In his second address, Gabriel tells Miriam not to be afraid, and that she has "found grace" with God.  Her pregnancy is announced by idou--behold!--(unfortunately not translated in NRSV).  Like John the Baptist, her child "will be great," but unlike John the Baptist, Jesus will be "son of the highest," and will rule on the "throne of David" over the "house of Jacob."  Luke thus associates Jesus with Israel's greatest king and with Israel's primary progenitor.

In Gabriel's third speech, the angel tells Miriam that the child will be born from the Holy Spirit and the "highest power"--"Most High," in NRSV.  The child will be "holy," "a son of God."  

Readers will notice that Luke mentions the "highest power" twice.  The "highest power" in the world of that time was Caesar Augustus.  (The word "augustus" means "worthy of being worshipped."  Caesar Augustus was the adopted son of Julius Caesar, who had been elevated to "god-hood."  You could tell because, it was said, the new comet that appeared in July, 44 BC, was the "Julian star," the spirit of Caesar as he entered divinity.  Said the Roman poet Ovid: "Take up Caesar’s spirit from his murdered corpse, and change it into a star, so that the deified Julius may always look down from his high temple on our Capitol and forum."  Since his adopted father, Julius, was now a god, that made Caesar Augustus a "son of god".  He stamped "divi filius"--"son of god"--on his coins, which was the ancient world's most effective means of propaganda. 

Luke is being subtly subversive.  He is saying that, no, Caesar is not the "highest power."  God is.  And Caesar is not the true "son of God."  Jesus is. 

Also in Gabriel's third speech, the angel tells Miriam of Elizabeth's conception.  Any first century Jewish person would have recognized the parallels between Elizabeth's condition and that of both Sarah (Gen 17: 7) and Hannah in the Old Testament.  Elizabeth's conception, Mary would have understood, is through an action of God.

"For each word from God will not be impossible," then says Gabriel.  Miriam is to understand that though her situation is some different from Elizabeth's, Sarah's, and Hannah's--she is not aged, for example--nevertheless, her conception is from God and will happen. 

Mary responded with her own "behold" statement:  "Behold, a servant--doule, slave--of the Lord.  Let it be with me according to your word."  "Let it be" is genoito, (aorist, middle, optative).  It implies origin, either from natural causes, or through special agency.  Miriam promises non-interference in what God may be doing.

This is at the heart of Luke's purpose.  The important characteristic of virginity, for Luke, is that it means the child can only be met with receptivity by human beings.  We humans can do nothing to bring the new age about.  We can not kick it into gear, or make it happen.  We may only "let it be to me."

This is indeed a great word of wisdom.  "When I find myself in times of trouble / Mother Mary comes to me / Speaking words of wisdom, let it be."  Letting things be is, you might say, spiritually "going with the flow."     

Note also that, in Luke's other work, the book of Acts, after the resurrection of Jesus and just after his ascension, the disciples are all together and among their number are "certain women," and Miriam, "the mother of Jesus," and his brothers. 

As Mary was present, obviously, at the birth of Jesus, so Mary is also present at the birth of the church.  She is the human link between these two miraculous births. 

Image:  Annunciation, John Collier

Christmas Day ::: John 1: 1-18

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

Translation:  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.  This (Word) was in the beginning with God.  All came into being through him, and apart from him nothing happened in that which begins.  In him was life and the life was the light of humanity.  And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it.

It happened, a man named John sent from alongside God.  This man came to witness in order that he might witness concerning the light so that all might trust through him.  He was not that light, but in order that he might witness concerning the light.  The true light which enlightens all humanity was coming into the universe.  He was in the universe, and the universe became through him, but the universe did not perceive him.  He came into his own, and his own did not receive him.  But as many as received him, he gave them power to become children of God, the ones trusting into his name, who were born not of bloodshed nor out of flesh-will, nor out of man-will, but out of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived in us and we have beheld his glory, glory as only-born from alongside the Father, full of grace and truth.  John witnessed about him and he cried out, saying, "This is he whom I said the one coming after me happened before me because he was first of me."  For out of his plentitude we all have received, grace against grace, for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ.  No one has ever seen God, only-begotten God, the one into the bosom of the father, he has translated.

Background and situation:  The text reverberates with well-known Johannine themes--Word (logos), light, life, witness--and also some that are less well-known, such as "cosmos," "faithing," "all humanity," and the Greek word ginomai, in its various forms, a word whose fundamental meaning is "to bring into being," and which can be legitimately translated in a variety of ways.

This is not surprising, of course, considering that the fourth gospel has many affinities with the book of Genesis and the original story of creation.  (For a detailed sketch of John 1 compared with Genesis 1, see here.)   

One of the more obvious of these is the opener:  "In the beginning."  In the beginning, the Word--logos--was fully equal with God.  In fact, the creation itself came into being through the Word.  This is indeed the highest of high Christologies, and the basis for much of the trinitarian theology which would later be formulated in the third and fourth centuries.  

Compare the various New Testament writers on this question:  When and how was Jesus the Son of God?  Paul, the earliest New Testament writer, seems not terribly interested in this question, but sometimes gives the impression that it was in his resurrection that Jesus became Son of God (Rm 1).  Mark, writing about twenty years after Paul, seems to say that Jesus became Son of God at his baptism.  Matthew and Luke, writing about ten to fifteen years after Mark, roll this back to the birth of Jesus.  

Just after Matthew and Luke, the later Pauline writings--Ephesians, Colossians--accent the cosmic sweep of God's work in Christ, just as does the fourth gospel.  The fourth gospel goes them one better though.  Where, for Colossians, Christ the "first-born of all creation," he is not born at all in the fourth gospel.  The Word was always with God even before creation began.

The logos:  "In the beginning was the logos."  Logos varies in meaning depending on what period in history it is being used.  The original meaning of the word was "to gather."  It later came to refer to human reason. 

By the time of Jesus, logos had come to mean the creative power of God and the kingship of God over all things.  Philo, a first century philosopher, saw logos as flowing from God himself, and as the mechanism through which God created the universe.

Logos translates the Hebrew dabar, a word which also has a rich wealth of meaning, but most commonly refers to God's self-communication, or the relating of God, who is unseen, to the created world.  Logos combines the concepts of thought, deed, and power.  For the author of the fourth gospel, logos is an expression of God's innermost nature which is present in the world.

After relating the creation of the world, the fourth gospel asserts:  "In him was life and the life was the light of humanity.  And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it."  Life, light, and humanity all appear at once.  Then, the "darkness" is acknowledged, though not defined.  Yet, no matter what, the darkness cannot "overcome" or "over-power" the light.  Nor, it should be said, does the light "over-power" the darkness either.  The darkness cannot "win," but the victory of the light is yet to be established.

Witness:  It might seem surprising that the figure of John makes an appearance so early in the fourth gospel.  He is identified as "sent" by God.  Interesting:  The verb form--apestalmenos, "sent"--is used frequently in the fourth gospel, but the noun form--"apostle"--is never used.  For the fourth gospel, the gospel is not a static thing, but something that is being done.  Moreover, John is sent para God--from alongside of God.  This is high praise indeed.

John's purpose is to "witness" to the light, a strong theme in the fourth gospel.  The author quickly asserts that John is not the light himself, lest anyone get any ideas.  (The community around John the Baptist continued even after his death and was likely still around at the time of the writing of the fourth gospel.)  The fourth gospel is clear that John witnesses to Christ.  He is sent from God, yes, but for the purpose of pointing to Christ.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world--a striking statement of universality, especially considering that the "cosmos" (mentioned four times in two verses) was created through this light, but that very "cosmos" also rejected the light.  Even "his own" did not "receive" him.

How children of God are made:  For those who did "receive" him, however, "he gave them power--exousian--to become children of God."  Becoming "children of God" is all about "trusting into his name"--a name which, as yet, we do not know!  (The word translated as "believe" is pisteuein.  Unfortunately, "believe" is not quite the meaning of pisteuein, which really means "radical trust," an orientation of one's entire self, and not just the intellect as the word "believe" would imply.) 

The status of "children of God" has completely to do with trust, and is certainly "not of bloods."  The word aimaton is actually in its plural form, and, according to Wes Howard-Brook, the word is a Hebrew idiom for "bloodshed" or violence.  Children of God do not attain their status through violence and war.

Nor are children of God born out of "flesh-will"--not, in other words, through the established ways of the world.  Wes Howard-Brook again:  "('Flesh-will') is the manner of behavior that is focused on superficial satisfaction, the culturally acceptable, the easy and comfortable."

Nor are children of God formed "out of man-will."  The fourth gospel has heretofore used the broadly inclusive word anthropos to refer to human beings in general.  Here, the author picks a word that specifically relates to men, andros.  One of the primary characteristics of the Johannine community was egalitarianism and gender equality.  This will become more and more clear as the gospel unfolds.  Male headship does not create children of God.  Only God does.

Word become flesh:  Then comes the famous line:  "And the Word became flesh."  God's self-expression enters into actual human flesh.  This is yet another instance of the word ginomai.  (I count ten uses in eighteen verses.)  The word has to do with creation, origin, "happening."  Here, you might say, the source of all being enters into the realm of becoming.  The essential enters into the existential.

The Word "dwelt" or "tented" with us.  This recalls the days of ancient Israel when YHWH "tented" with his people.  This dwelling, or "tenting," is "in us"--en hamin.  No, this is nothing about Jesus "living in your heart."  It's about the mutual indwelling between Christ and his followers, a resounding theme all through the fourth gospel.  Not only does Christ indwell his followers, but he indwells God.  Likewise, God indwells Christ, and Christ's followers indwell him. 

The text is not, in other words, about individual salvation.  There is none of that here.  The fourth gospel is all about the community indwelling with each other and with God.  It is not about the individual's appropriation of Jesus, but rather God's appropriation of humanity through Christ and how God lives in the greatest intimacy with his followers.  All through the gospel the words are plural, not singular.

The word "glory" is introduced and then emphasized--"glory as only-born (monogenous) from alongside (para) the Father."  This Word is "full of grace and truth."  The Greek words here translate the Hebrew chesed v'emet, i.e. "lovingkindness."  (Jose Miranda) 

John makes another appearance, asserting yet again the pre-eminence of Christ over himself, and, following that, fullness and grace words resound again.  It seems that whenever John speaks, his words are preceded and followed by words like light, life, grace, and glory.  Charis--"grace"--appears three times. 

The fourth gospel then asserts that, yes, the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth come through Jesus Christ.  For the first time, the name of Christ is mentioned, as if the entire prologue were oriented toward this climactic moment.  This is the name in whom his followers trust:  "Jesus Christ."

"No one has ever seen God"--not Moses, in other words--but the "only-son"--monogenous again--who is from the very bosom of God has "translated" God to us.  The word is exegesato, from where we get our word "exegesis."  It does not mean "interpretation" so much, but rather "translation," the transformation of thought into another language--in this case, the "translation," and the articulation, of God into "flesh." 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’) From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

Translation:  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.  This (Word) was in the beginning with God.  All came into being through him, and apart from him nothing happened in that which begins.  In him was life and the life was the light of humanity.  And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it.

It happened, a man named John sent from alongside God.  This man came to witness in order that he might witness concerning the light so that all might trust through him.  He was not that light, but in order that he might witness concerning the light.  The true light which enlightens all humanity was coming into the universe.  He was in the universe, and the universe became through him, but the universe did not perceive him.  He came into his own, and his own did not receive him.  But as many as received him, he gave them power to become children of God, the ones trusting into his name, who were born not of bloodshed nor out of flesh-will, nor out of man-will, but out of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived in us and we have beheld his glory, glory as only-born from alongside the Father, full of grace and truth.  John witnessed about him and he cried out, saying, "This is he whom I said the one coming after me happened before me because he was first of me."  For out of his plentitude we all have received, grace against grace, for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ.  No one has ever seen God, only-begotten God, the one into the bosom of the father, he has translated.

Background and situation:  The text reverberates with well-known Johannine themes--Word (logos), light, life, witness--and also some that are less well-known, such as "cosmos," "faithing," "all humanity," and the Greek word ginomai, in its various forms, a word whose fundamental meaning is "to bring into being," and which can be legitimately translated in a variety of ways.

This is not surprising, of course, considering that the fourth gospel has many affinities with the book of Genesis and the original story of creation.  (For a detailed sketch of John 1 compared with Genesis 1, see here.)   

One of the more obvious of these is the opener:  "In the beginning."  In the beginning, the Word--logos--was fully equal with God.  In fact, the creation itself came into being through the Word.  This is indeed the highest of high Christologies, and the basis for much of the trinitarian theology which would later be formulated in the third and fourth centuries.  

Compare the various New Testament writers on this question:  When and how was Jesus the Son of God?  Paul, the earliest New Testament writer, seems not terribly interested in this question, but sometimes gives the impression that it was in his resurrection that Jesus became Son of God (Rm 1).  Mark, writing about twenty years after Paul, seems to say that Jesus became Son of God at his baptism.  Matthew and Luke, writing about ten to fifteen years after Mark, roll this back to the birth of Jesus.  

Just after Matthew and Luke, the later Pauline writings--Ephesians, Colossians--accent the cosmic sweep of God's work in Christ, just as does the fourth gospel.  The fourth gospel goes them one better though.  Where, for Colossians, Christ the "first-born of all creation," he is not born at all in the fourth gospel.  The Word was always with God even before creation began.

The logos:  "In the beginning was the logos."  Logos varies in meaning depending on what period in history it is being used.  The original meaning of the word was "to gather."  It later came to refer to human reason. 

By the time of Jesus, logos had come to mean the creative power of God and the kingship of God over all things.  Philo, a first century philosopher, saw logos as flowing from God himself, and as the mechanism through which God created the universe.

Logos translates the Hebrew dabar, a word which also has a rich wealth of meaning, but most commonly refers to God's self-communication, or the relating of God, who is unseen, to the created world.  Logos combines the concepts of thought, deed, and power.  For the author of the fourth gospel, logos is an expression of God's innermost nature which is present in the world.

After relating the creation of the world, the fourth gospel asserts:  "In him was life and the life was the light of humanity.  And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it."  Life, light, and humanity all appear at once.  Then, the "darkness" is acknowledged, though not defined.  Yet, no matter what, the darkness cannot "overcome" or "over-power" the light.  Nor, it should be said, does the light "over-power" the darkness either.  The darkness cannot "win," but the victory of the light is yet to be established.

Witness:  It might seem surprising that the figure of John makes an appearance so early in the fourth gospel.  He is identified as "sent" by God.  Interesting:  The verb form--apestalmenos, "sent"--is used frequently in the fourth gospel, but the noun form--"apostle"--is never used.  For the fourth gospel, the gospel is not a static thing, but something that is being done.  Moreover, John is sent para God--from alongside of God.  This is high praise indeed.

John's purpose is to "witness" to the light, a strong theme in the fourth gospel.  The author quickly asserts that John is not the light himself, lest anyone get any ideas.  (The community around John the Baptist continued even after his death and was likely still around at the time of the writing of the fourth gospel.)  The fourth gospel is clear that John witnesses to Christ.  He is sent from God, yes, but for the purpose of pointing to Christ.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world--a striking statement of universality, especially considering that the "cosmos" (mentioned four times in two verses) was created through this light, but that very "cosmos" also rejected the light.  Even "his own" did not "receive" him.

How children of God are made:  For those who did "receive" him, however, "he gave them power--exousian--to become children of God."  Becoming "children of God" is all about "trusting into his name"--a name which, as yet, we do not know!  (The word translated as "believe" is pisteuein.  Unfortunately, "believe" is not quite the meaning of pisteuein, which really means "radical trust," an orientation of one's entire self, and not just the intellect as the word "believe" would imply.) 

The status of "children of God" has completely to do with trust, and is certainly "not of bloods."  The word aimaton is actually in its plural form, and, according to Wes Howard-Brook, the word is a Hebrew idiom for "bloodshed" or violence.  Children of God do not attain their status through violence and war.

Nor are children of God born out of "flesh-will"--not, in other words, through the established ways of the world.  Wes Howard-Brook again:  "('Flesh-will') is the manner of behavior that is focused on superficial satisfaction, the culturally acceptable, the easy and comfortable."

Nor are children of God formed "out of man-will."  The fourth gospel has heretofore used the broadly inclusive word anthropos to refer to human beings in general.  Here, the author picks a word that specifically relates to men, andros.  One of the primary characteristics of the Johannine community was egalitarianism and gender equality.  This will become more and more clear as the gospel unfolds.  Male headship does not create children of God.  Only God does.

Word become flesh:  Then comes the famous line:  "And the Word became flesh."  God's self-expression enters into actual human flesh.  This is yet another instance of the word ginomai.  (I count ten uses in eighteen verses.)  The word has to do with creation, origin, "happening."  Here, you might say, the source of all being enters into the realm of becoming.  The essential enters into the existential.

The Word "dwelt" or "tented" with us.  This recalls the days of ancient Israel when YHWH "tented" with his people.  This dwelling, or "tenting," is "in us"--en hamin.  No, this is nothing about Jesus "living in your heart."  It's about the mutual indwelling between Christ and his followers, a resounding theme all through the fourth gospel.  Not only does Christ indwell his followers, but he indwells God.  Likewise, God indwells Christ, and Christ's followers indwell him. 

The text is not, in other words, about individual salvation.  There is none of that here.  The fourth gospel is all about the community indwelling with each other and with God.  It is not about the individual's appropriation of Jesus, but rather God's appropriation of humanity through Christ and how God lives in the greatest intimacy with his followers.  All through the gospel the words are plural, not singular.

The word "glory" is introduced and then emphasized--"glory as only-born (monogenous) from alongside (para) the Father."  This Word is "full of grace and truth."  The Greek words here translate the Hebrew chesed v'emet, i.e. "lovingkindness."  (Jose Miranda) 

John makes another appearance, asserting yet again the pre-eminence of Christ over himself, and, following that, fullness and grace words resound again.  It seems that whenever John speaks, his words are preceded and followed by words like light, life, grace, and glory.  Charis--"grace"--appears three times. 

The fourth gospel then asserts that, yes, the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth come through Jesus Christ.  For the first time, the name of Christ is mentioned, as if the entire prologue were oriented toward this climactic moment.  This is the name in whom his followers trust:  "Jesus Christ."

"No one has ever seen God"--not Moses, in other words--but the "only-son"--monogenous again--who is from the very bosom of God has "translated" God to us.  The word is exegesato, from where we get our word "exegesis."  It does not mean "interpretation" so much, but rather "translation," the transformation of thought into another language--in this case, the "translation," and the articulation, of God into "flesh." 

Hallelujah, thine the glory; revive us again!

 

Half-way through the 2016 Democratic Convention

Political conventions are the World Series of politics.  For four days, national delegates are immersed in a matrix of politics and policy, celebrity-gazing and camaraderie, late nights and early mornings.  

The highlights of the convention, the major speeches seen on television, show us each time the centrality and power of the spoken word.  In ancient Greece and Rome, rhetoric and oratory were major subjects of study.  A Roman politician worth his salt had to be able to speak in public.  Julius Caesar and Mark Antony were both noted for their speech-making as well as their war-making.  

Day one got off to a raucous start for the Democrats, but the ship righted itself quickly and the first evening went off without a hitch.  More than that, it inspired, it moved, it united, and it cheered Democrats who (finally) got to tell their story.

The biggest part of that story was the speech by Sen. Bernie Sanders.  The agenda of that first evening was to accent the progressive wing of the party, closing with a speech from the current leader of that wing.  His speech was all that the Clinton campaign could have wanted.  His endorsement was full-throated.  He discouraged his "Bernie or bust" supporters. High marks should also go to Sarah Silverman, who seemed to put the shouters in their place;  anyway, it got a little quieter after she told them they were being "ridiculous".  

Sen. Sanders spent most of his speech pushing for his issues--the banks, free tuition, minimum wage--with which most delegates mostly agree, and which is now written in the party platform.  Hillary and Bernie worked out this out pretty much flawlessly.  He got what he wanted--his biggest issues in the party platform, and respect for his movement--and she got what she wanted:  Bernie on the team 100%.  (If the Democrats take the Senate, Bernie may suddenly become a very prominent Senator, especially in a Democratic administration.)  

The platform was an easy "give" for Hillary.  Nobody pays much attention to party platforms.  I always think of the story about Robert Kennedy who was trying to decide whether or not to run in 1968.  Arthur Schlesinger said that he should not run, and should instead push for an anti-war plank in the party platform.  RFK reportedly said, "Arthur, when was the last time millions of people rallied to a platform?"

Still, party platforms aren't entirely irrelevant.  They signal a direction, and, in this case, the platform is a reflection of the progressive wing of the party being in the ascendant.  In the past, the most progressive candidate would get about one-fourth of the Democratic primary vote.  Bernie pushed that up to 42%.  Plus, Hillary pretty much agrees with Bernie herself.  Bernie's candidacy pushed her to the left, as predicted, but she didn't have to be drug kicking and screaming.  Hillary has been for a "public option" in health care since 1993.  She's a progressive too.

The nation got a preview of a some day presidential candidate in Sen. Cory Booker, one of the Democratic Party's best orators.  His stirring speech riffed on Maya Angelou's poem, "Still I Rise," and set the stage nicely for Michelle Obama.  The First Lady's inspiring and poetic speech included a truly impressive endorsement of Hillary.  She'd trust Hillary with her kids!  Portions of the First Lady's are already oft-quoted on Facebook.  Michelle rocked the house two weeks in a row!   

President Bill Clinton has been a featured speaker at Democratic conventions since 1988.  While his 1988 speech was one of his worst, his 2016 speech was one of his best.  He started off in an unusual way--no paeans to the crowd, no thanking anyone, no mention of distinguished dignitaries--and launched into the story of their relationship.  "In the spring of 1971, I met a girl..."  This story went on for quite awhile.  

Then, just when you were wondering where he was going with all of this, he spoke of "the real Hillary" versus the "made up" one.  The lengthy build-up was necessary to the point:  The person he talked about was the real Hillary, and the person talked about at the GOP convention was a "cartoon." 

Some commentators didn't like the speech--too long, said one;  all that relationship business wasn't feminist, said another.  But Joy Reid called it, almost to her surprise, as "kind of genius."  He submerged his own centrality to the story and made Hillary the center.  He told stories that even long time Clinton supporters didn't know.  He encouraged those on the fence to take a second look at someone they thought they knew, but really didn't.  

He has completely grey hair now, and wrinkles on his face, but when it comes to touching the heart of an issue and relating it to real life, he's still the master.

 

Pentecost 7 ::: Luke 10: 1-11, 16-20

After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. ²He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. ³Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. ⁴Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. ⁵Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’ ⁶And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. ⁷Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. ⁸Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; ⁹cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ ¹⁰But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ¹¹‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ ¹²I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town. ¹³“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. ¹⁴But at the judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. ¹⁵And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. ¹⁶“Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

¹⁷The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!” ¹⁸He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. ¹⁹See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. ²⁰Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Translation:  After this, the Lord lifted up seventy-two others and sent them two by two before his face into every city and place where he was about to go.  And he said to them, "The harvest is indeed great, but the workers few.  Therefore, pray the Lord of the harvest that he might send workers into his harvest.  Go.  Behold, I am sending you as lambs in the midst of wolves.  Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes, and greet no one by the way.  Into whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.'  And if a child of peace is there, your peace will be resting upon him.  If not, it will return upon you.  Remain in that house, eating and drinking alongside them, for the worker (is) worthy of his pay.  Do not go from house to house.  And into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you, and heal those who are weak in it, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has approached upon you.'  But into whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets, (and) say, 'And the dust of the city, that clinging to us into the feet, we wipe off to you.  But know this, that the kingdom of God has drawn near.'"

"The one hearing you, hears me, and the one who rejects you, rejects me.  And the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me."  The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, the demons are subject to us in your name."  But he said to them, "I was seeing Satan fall like lightning out of heaven.  Behold, I have given you power to tread over snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will hurt you, no nothing.  But do not rejoice in this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."

Background and situation:  The passage is mainly Markan in source, with some Q material, and a dash of Special Luke.  See Mark 6: 7-13 and compare to Luke 10: 4-11.  (Note that, in Mark, the mission involves "the twelve."  Luke changes this to the "seventy-(two).")  Q material would include the saying concerning the harvest (10:2), which is identical in Matthew (9:37).  Verses 17-20 are unique to Luke.

Within Luke, note connections with 7:27, 9:1-6, and 9:51-56.  Verse 7:27 refers to the sending of John the Baptist.  John subsequently was killed.  In 9:1-6, the disciples are "sent"--as was John--and are given power over demonic forces.  Their instructions are similar to those in this week's text.  In 9:51-56, Jesus again "sends" messengers--in that case, the disciples.  With these texts in mind, the stage is set for the mission of the 70/72.

Advance work:  As the scene opens, Jesus, identified as "Lord," is clearly in charge.  The opening sentence sounds regal:  "...the Lord lifted up seventy-two others and sent them two by two before his face..."  (Most translations render anadeiknumi as "appointed."  I have translated it as "lifted up" because the word includes a sense of public declaration, which is not necessarily the case with an appointment.)

The manuscript evidence is not clear on whether the number should be 70 or 72.  Most scholars appear to opt for 72 on the grounds that early copyists would have been more likely to change 72 to 70, a more common number, than to change 70 to 72.

What is the significance of 70/72?  Genesis 10 numbers the nations of the world at 70 or 72, depending on whether you read the Hebrew or Greek version.  Moses appointed 70 elders (Num 11), to which were added Eldad and Medad, making 72.  In Numbers, the Lord God had also given some of Moses' "spirit" to these 70/72.  This is mentioned three times (Num 11:17, 25, 29). 

By drawing on these associations, Luke may be comparing these messengers in Luke 10 to those of Moses.  As then, they are "spirit-filled."  In light of the number 70/72, this spirit-filled mission will be universal and world-wide.  The saying in regard to the harvest (10:2)--along with the exhortation to "go!"--adds a sense of urgency. 

The 70/72 go "before his face."  They will go forth as closely identified with Jesus.  These messengers go forth with his message.  The phrase also recalls the same unswerving resolve which Jesus showed in 9:51 when he "set his face" to go to Jerusalem.

These 70/72 will be his "advance team."  In terms of the history of the period, it seems likely that Jesus was leading a movement, largely of poor people, who were to transform society through living differently than the dominant culture.  The "way" of following Jesus included treating all people with respect, healing social divisions, with open tables for all. 

One presumes the "advance team" did more than simply announce "Jesus is coming."  They also identified those they thought might be open to Jesus' message, taught others its benefits, and, in so doing, helped generate interest--and crowd-size--for Jesus' future visit.

Jesus sends these missionaries as "lambs in the midst of wolves," then heightens their vulnerability by taking away food, money, and shoes.  As Tannehill notes, they will be "completely dependent on whatever hospitality local people may offer" (p. 174).

Peace to this house:

Into whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.'  And if a child of peace is there, your peace will be resting upon him.  If not, it will return upon you.  Remain in that house, eating and drinking alongside them, for the worker (is) worthy of his pay.  Do not go from house to house.  And into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you, and heal those who are weak in it, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has approached upon you.'  But into whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets, (and) say, 'And the dust of the city, that clinging to us into the feet, we wipe off to you.  But know this, that the kingdom of God has drawn near.'"

The greeting--"peace to this house"--was a common one, but Luke intends some meaning or he wouldn't have mentioned it.  It should be understood, however, that this "peace" is the Hebrew "shalom," not the mere absence of conflict or the presence of warm fuzzies.  "Shalom" casts its net broadly, over the whole community, and includes abundance, security, and spirit.

The lection suggests that "shalom" can be manifested in daily life.  Peace is something that can be conveyed and received.  It has a palpable reality when met in a "child of peace."  This "child of peace" may be one who is receptive to the message of Jesus, or even perhaps one who already lives out the "way of Jesus" in his or her own circumstance.

The extensive description of missionary life presumes more than a meal here and there.  The missioners are reliant upon a high level of hospitality to sustain them.  They are to "remain in that house" that receives them.  They are not itinerant beggars, but rather laborers in the harvest.  Their "pay" is to be members of a household.

In verse 8, the focus shifts from a home to cities.  A similar attitude is encouraged.  If they are welcomed, they are to be low-maintenance--"eat what is set before you."  In cities, it would appear that the missioners are to ratchet down their expectations of hospitality.  They go from "eating and drinking," which suggests a certain festivity, to eating whatever there is to eat.

In cities, they are to heal "those who are weak" (astheneis).  The word is usually translated as "sick," but astheneis is more "loss of strength" or "weakness," and is so used as a medical and psychiatric term even today.  This type of healing may indicate actual curing of disease.  It may also mean other methods of restoring strength to the weak, such as re-arrangement of those social forces that brought on the debility in the first place.  Either way, this healing is a sign of the kingdom.

If, however, a city does not welcome them, a public rebuke is in order.  "Go out into the streets" and make a public testimony against that city.  "Wiping dust" is a formalized style of separation.  Even your dust, we reject.  Even then--perhaps especially then--they are to announce publicly that God's kingdom has "drawn near."  In both cases, the kingdom has been present and is manifested either in healing or judgment.

"The one hearing you, hears me, and the one who rejects you, rejects me.  And the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me."  The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, the demons are subject to us in your name."  But he said to them, "I was seeing Satan fall like lightning out of heaven.  Behold, I have given you power to tread over snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will hurt you, no nothing.  But do not rejoice in this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."

The latter part of the lection (17-20) begins with a saying that emphasizes the closeness of Jesus to his mission and asserts that rejection of the mission is, therefore, a rejection of him, and, in turn, a rejection of God.  God had sent Jesus, and Jesus had sent them.  Reject the missionaries and you reject Jesus and God himself.

When the missionaries return, we are told nothing of their actual mission.  They are described as joyful, however, and properly address Jesus as "Lord" before exulting that "demons are subject to us in your name."  These missionaries had not been told that such would be the case in this instance, though in 9:1 he had given the disciples "authority over all demons".  Presumably, that power had been given the 72 as well.

Jesus, too, seems exultant.  "I was seeing Satan fall like lightning out of heaven," he says.  This does not refer to a specific event, either primordial or in the future.  Note the imperfect tense of the verb.  In the advancement of the kingdom, Jesus "was seeing" Satan fall.  As the kingdom progresses--as the way of human dignity and social healing and open table fellowship becomes manifest in the world--Satan falls.  The way of the kingdom of God advances and ultimately wins against all demonic forces.

The ultimate enemy is Satan.  Therefore, the Jesus mission is, at its heart, a spiritual and cosmological struggle.  But Satan also has minions in this world--"snakes and scorpions"--who do his bidding.  (Rome?)  Nevertheless, Jesus again asserts victory.  Nothing any of them can do can ultimately harm--"no nothing."

Jesus issues a mild corrective to the missionaries.  They had earlier rejoiced that "demons are subject to us in your name."  Jesus slightly amends this phrase.  "Do not rejoice that spirits submit to you," he says.  (One wonders if the more generic "spirits" includes the good ones as well as the bad.)  In any case, that kind of rejoicing is rejected.  Instead, rejoice that your salvation is assured.  When it comes to the power of names, it is through Jesus' name that demons are subjected, and it is his power which assures that "your names" are written in heaven.

Image:  Christ sends out the 72, artist and date unknown. 

After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. ²He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. ³Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. ⁴Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. ⁵Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’ ⁶And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. ⁷Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. ⁸Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; ⁹cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ ¹⁰But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ¹¹‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ ¹²I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town. ¹³“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. ¹⁴But at the judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. ¹⁵And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. ¹⁶“Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

¹⁷The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!” ¹⁸He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. ¹⁹See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. ²⁰Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Translation:  After this, the Lord lifted up seventy-two others and sent them two by two before his face into every city and place where he was about to go.  And he said to them, "The harvest is indeed great, but the workers few.  Therefore, pray the Lord of the harvest that he might send workers into his harvest.  Go.  Behold, I am sending you as lambs in the midst of wolves.  Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes, and greet no one by the way.  Into whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.'  And if a child of peace is there, your peace will be resting upon him.  If not, it will return upon you.  Remain in that house, eating and drinking alongside them, for the worker (is) worthy of his pay.  Do not go from house to house.  And into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you, and heal those who are weak in it, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has approached upon you.'  But into whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets, (and) say, 'And the dust of the city, that clinging to us into the feet, we wipe off to you.  But know this, that the kingdom of God has drawn near.'"

"The one hearing you, hears me, and the one who rejects you, rejects me.  And the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me."  The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, the demons are subject to us in your name."  But he said to them, "I was seeing Satan fall like lightning out of heaven.  Behold, I have given you power to tread over snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will hurt you, no nothing.  But do not rejoice in this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."

Background and situation:  The passage is mainly Markan in source, with some Q material, and a dash of Special Luke.  See Mark 6: 7-13 and compare to Luke 10: 4-11.  (Note that, in Mark, the mission involves "the twelve."  Luke changes this to the "seventy-(two).")  Q material would include the saying concerning the harvest (10:2), which is identical in Matthew (9:37).  Verses 17-20 are unique to Luke.

Within Luke, note connections with 7:27, 9:1-6, and 9:51-56.  Verse 7:27 refers to the sending of John the Baptist.  John subsequently was killed.  In 9:1-6, the disciples are "sent"--as was John--and are given power over demonic forces.  Their instructions are similar to those in this week's text.  In 9:51-56, Jesus again "sends" messengers--in that case, the disciples.  With these texts in mind, the stage is set for the mission of the 70/72.

Advance work:  As the scene opens, Jesus, identified as "Lord," is clearly in charge.  The opening sentence sounds regal:  "...the Lord lifted up seventy-two others and sent them two by two before his face..."  (Most translations render anadeiknumi as "appointed."  I have translated it as "lifted up" because the word includes a sense of public declaration, which is not necessarily the case with an appointment.)

The manuscript evidence is not clear on whether the number should be 70 or 72.  Most scholars appear to opt for 72 on the grounds that early copyists would have been more likely to change 72 to 70, a more common number, than to change 70 to 72.

What is the significance of 70/72?  Genesis 10 numbers the nations of the world at 70 or 72, depending on whether you read the Hebrew or Greek version.  Moses appointed 70 elders (Num 11), to which were added Eldad and Medad, making 72.  In Numbers, the Lord God had also given some of Moses' "spirit" to these 70/72.  This is mentioned three times (Num 11:17, 25, 29). 

By drawing on these associations, Luke may be comparing these messengers in Luke 10 to those of Moses.  As then, they are "spirit-filled."  In light of the number 70/72, this spirit-filled mission will be universal and world-wide.  The saying in regard to the harvest (10:2)--along with the exhortation to "go!"--adds a sense of urgency. 

The 70/72 go "before his face."  They will go forth as closely identified with Jesus.  These messengers go forth with his message.  The phrase also recalls the same unswerving resolve which Jesus showed in 9:51 when he "set his face" to go to Jerusalem.

These 70/72 will be his "advance team."  In terms of the history of the period, it seems likely that Jesus was leading a movement, largely of poor people, who were to transform society through living differently than the dominant culture.  The "way" of following Jesus included treating all people with respect, healing social divisions, with open tables for all. 

One presumes the "advance team" did more than simply announce "Jesus is coming."  They also identified those they thought might be open to Jesus' message, taught others its benefits, and, in so doing, helped generate interest--and crowd-size--for Jesus' future visit.

Jesus sends these missionaries as "lambs in the midst of wolves," then heightens their vulnerability by taking away food, money, and shoes.  As Tannehill notes, they will be "completely dependent on whatever hospitality local people may offer" (p. 174).

Peace to this house:

Into whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.'  And if a child of peace is there, your peace will be resting upon him.  If not, it will return upon you.  Remain in that house, eating and drinking alongside them, for the worker (is) worthy of his pay.  Do not go from house to house.  And into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you, and heal those who are weak in it, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has approached upon you.'  But into whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets, (and) say, 'And the dust of the city, that clinging to us into the feet, we wipe off to you.  But know this, that the kingdom of God has drawn near.'"

The greeting--"peace to this house"--was a common one, but Luke intends some meaning or he wouldn't have mentioned it.  It should be understood, however, that this "peace" is the Hebrew "shalom," not the mere absence of conflict or the presence of warm fuzzies.  "Shalom" casts its net broadly, over the whole community, and includes abundance, security, and spirit.

The lection suggests that "shalom" can be manifested in daily life.  Peace is something that can be conveyed and received.  It has a palpable reality when met in a "child of peace."  This "child of peace" may be one who is receptive to the message of Jesus, or even perhaps one who already lives out the "way of Jesus" in his or her own circumstance.

The extensive description of missionary life presumes more than a meal here and there.  The missioners are reliant upon a high level of hospitality to sustain them.  They are to "remain in that house" that receives them.  They are not itinerant beggars, but rather laborers in the harvest.  Their "pay" is to be members of a household.

In verse 8, the focus shifts from a home to cities.  A similar attitude is encouraged.  If they are welcomed, they are to be low-maintenance--"eat what is set before you."  In cities, it would appear that the missioners are to ratchet down their expectations of hospitality.  They go from "eating and drinking," which suggests a certain festivity, to eating whatever there is to eat.

In cities, they are to heal "those who are weak" (astheneis).  The word is usually translated as "sick," but astheneis is more "loss of strength" or "weakness," and is so used as a medical and psychiatric term even today.  This type of healing may indicate actual curing of disease.  It may also mean other methods of restoring strength to the weak, such as re-arrangement of those social forces that brought on the debility in the first place.  Either way, this healing is a sign of the kingdom.

If, however, a city does not welcome them, a public rebuke is in order.  "Go out into the streets" and make a public testimony against that city.  "Wiping dust" is a formalized style of separation.  Even your dust, we reject.  Even then--perhaps especially then--they are to announce publicly that God's kingdom has "drawn near."  In both cases, the kingdom has been present and is manifested either in healing or judgment.

"The one hearing you, hears me, and the one who rejects you, rejects me.  And the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me."  The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, the demons are subject to us in your name."  But he said to them, "I was seeing Satan fall like lightning out of heaven.  Behold, I have given you power to tread over snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will hurt you, no nothing.  But do not rejoice in this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."

The latter part of the lection (17-20) begins with a saying that emphasizes the closeness of Jesus to his mission and asserts that rejection of the mission is, therefore, a rejection of him, and, in turn, a rejection of God.  God had sent Jesus, and Jesus had sent them.  Reject the missionaries and you reject Jesus and God himself.

When the missionaries return, we are told nothing of their actual mission.  They are described as joyful, however, and properly address Jesus as "Lord" before exulting that "demons are subject to us in your name."  These missionaries had not been told that such would be the case in this instance, though in 9:1 he had given the disciples "authority over all demons".  Presumably, that power had been given the 72 as well.

Jesus, too, seems exultant.  "I was seeing Satan fall like lightning out of heaven," he says.  This does not refer to a specific event, either primordial or in the future.  Note the imperfect tense of the verb.  In the advancement of the kingdom, Jesus "was seeing" Satan fall.  As the kingdom progresses--as the way of human dignity and social healing and open table fellowship becomes manifest in the world--Satan falls.  The way of the kingdom of God advances and ultimately wins against all demonic forces.

The ultimate enemy is Satan.  Therefore, the Jesus mission is, at its heart, a spiritual and cosmological struggle.  But Satan also has minions in this world--"snakes and scorpions"--who do his bidding.  (Rome?)  Nevertheless, Jesus again asserts victory.  Nothing any of them can do can ultimately harm--"no nothing."

Jesus issues a mild corrective to the missionaries.  They had earlier rejoiced that "demons are subject to us in your name."  Jesus slightly amends this phrase.  "Do not rejoice that spirits submit to you," he says.  (One wonders if the more generic "spirits" includes the good ones as well as the bad.)  In any case, that kind of rejoicing is rejected.  Instead, rejoice that your salvation is assured.  When it comes to the power of names, it is through Jesus' name that demons are subjected, and it is his power which assures that "your names" are written in heaven.

Image:  Christ sends out the 72, artist and date unknown. 

Why Hillary?

Someone asked me not long ago, “Why are you for HIllary?”  Off the top of my head, I responded with this: “Because I think her husband did a good job, and she’s smarter and tougher than he is.”  As I’ve thought it over since, I’ll stick with that assessment.

One could tout the many accomplishments of Hillary on behalf of children and working families.  One could add her tenure as Secretary of State, advocating for the United States on the world stage, with in-depth knowledge of virtually every world issue.  One could also note that she’s on a first name basis with most of the leaders of the world. 

One could run down her stalwart history of moderate progressivism, her long history of support for and support from working people and minority communities, and her decades-long support of equal rights for every person. 

One could even toss in the history-making, and “establishment”-busting, effect of being the first woman president.  All that, and much more, could be fairly said about her, and any one of them is reason enough to vote for her.

What sets Hillary apart even further is the determination, energy, intelligence, consistency, and courage she’s shown over the years.  Nobody in modern political life has worked harder for progressive principles, and done more, and suffered more slings and arrows for it, than Hillary Clinton.

Yet, despite the 20 year-long smear campaign against her, she became, and remains, one of the most liked and admired people in the world, and is one of the most popular politicians in the United States.  (46% “favorability” sounds low, until you compare it to every other political figure in the country.  Do that and it’s right at the top.) 

 

Why not Bernie?

 

One.  He has no record of accomplishment.  He’s been in office for 25 years and can’t point to any achievement.

Two.  He’s not a Democrat, and has repeatedly said so over the years.  You have to admire the sheer gall of a person who regularly trashes the Democratic Party, yet would condescend to accept that party’s nomination.

For many of his followers, Bernie’s not being a Democrat is a plus, not a minus.  They don’t like the Democratic Party anyway, and Bernie’s not being a Democrat only makes him more “pure” in their eyes.

Some of us, however, are Democrats.  We recognize that the only thing standing in the way of President Cruz and a GOP Congress doing just about anything they want is the Democratic Party.  This is not a time for the indulging of fantasies, but cold-eyed realism.  Which leads to:

Three.  Bernie can’t win.  As John Kasich said, if Bernie were the nominee, the Republicans would win all 50 states.  Give Karl Rove two weeks and $100,000,000 and the American people will be convinced that Bernie Sanders is Leon Trotsky. 

Bernie would be made into a political leper.  Any Democrat on the ballot would run for cover.  When Bernie came to campaign, they’d be off somewhere doing whatever they could to avoid being photographed with him.  Only Congresspeople in the bluest districts would survive.  Democrats would be devastated.

The Bernie wing argues that they will bring in many new people, and these new people will overwhelm the Republicans.  The McGovern campaign said that very same thing, and he got shellacked.  Personally, I liked George McGovern, happily worked for him, and happily voted for him.  His candidacy, however, was a disaster at all levels.  Some of us have seen this movie and know that it doesn’t end well.

Four.  Bernie’s nomination would be a rejection of the presidency of Barack Obama.  Bernie doesn’t like the president much more than he likes the Democrats.  He pronounces rather grandly that he would be better at pretty much everything than President Obama has been.

Besides, the President took contributions from the financial sector and is “corrupt,” just like pretty much everybody who is not named Bernie Sanders.  Does the Democratic Party really want to sabotage the legacy of the first African-American president?

Five.  Even if, by some fluke, he should be elected, Bernie would be a powerless president who wouldn’t get anything done.  The GOP still controls Congress, and that fact is unlikely to change any time soon. 

Bernie’s answer to this is not to elect more Democrats and take control of Congress.  No, he expects to “have millions of people” descend on Congress and pressure them to pass his program. 

Suddenly, masses of people are going to take to the streets on behalf of socialism?  That’s not going to happen, and, even if it did, you can bet they would be met by an equal or greater number of well-armed teabaggers.  We already have a divided electorate.  Moving beyond our divisions will not be accomplished by dueling mobs pressuring Congress.

Six.  If, again by some fluke, Bernie’s program were actually enacted, it doesn’t have a prayer of working.  For one thing, the numbers are way off.  Economists of a liberal bent have said Bernie’s economic plan is somewhere between 1 and 3 trillion dollars short.  Austan Goulsbee says Bernie’s plan started with “puppies and rainbows” and “evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

 

Why Hillary again?

 

She understands that the first priority is defeating the Republicans.  You can’t take on the 1% until you defeat their “political action wing”.  So far, Hillary has raised $32,000,000 for Democrats and the Democratic Party.  (Bernie has raised $1000.)

Her supporters know that Hillary Clinton has been one of the most lied-about politicians in American history.  Her opponents gone through her entire life--every check she ever wrote, every phone call she ever made--and they have come up with precisely nothing every single time.  Bernie calls her “corrupt.”  Her supporters know that Hillary Clinton is one of the most ethical people in public life.

Yes, her husband did a good job--22 million jobs in the longest sustained period of prosperity in our nation’s history.  And Hillary is smarter and tougher than he is.

 

Hillary's closing statement in last night's debate

“You know, we agree that we’ve got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck Main Street again. But here’s the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on.

 

“And here in Wisconsin, I want to reiterate: We’ve got to stand up for unions and working people who have done it before, the American middle class, and who are being attacked by ideologues, by demagogues. Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right.

 

“But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday. And we would still have governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions. So I’m going to keep talking about tearing down all the barriers that stand in the way of Americans fulfilling their potential, because I don’t think our country can live up to its potential unless we give a chance to every single American to live up to theirs.”

Former Kansas governor calls for audit of election vote

John Carlin:  Starting the day after the election (November 6, 2014) I heard concerns, primarily from Republicans, that something was wrong, that there were too many complaints coming from voters who left the voting place less than confident that their votes were going to be accurately counted. Often the specific case was when they voted for Governor, clicking the Davis button then reviewing their ballot before submitting, it showed they had voted to re-elect Governor Brownback. They obviously corrected the mistake, feeling confident it wasn’t their error. I also picked up some of this here in Riley County but assumed that maybe this was driven more by disappointment than an actual issue. As the days and months passed, I continued to hear concerns that the numbers just didn’t add up, that something was wrong, and again, this was coming from individuals who I highly respect.

Did Brownback steal it?