Another look at Luke: What's unique?

[Mendalla]

Actually, I think @unsafe's suggestion has some merit given the context.

Zechariah's question seems reasonable to us today, but in that milieu he should have been the one listening for God's Word and wisdom. Receiving a message from God should have been a "nod and say 'yes'".

Mary's encounter was out of the blue and totally unexpected. She could be excused for it being a WTF moment.

 

[unsafe]

paradox3 said: "How can I be sure of this?" strikes me as a reasonable question for Zechariah to ask. He may have been seeking reassurance rather than expressing doubt in God.

I say -----This is the scripture below that shows that Zechariah should have trusted God as he had the knowledge of scripture of the Old Testament and was teaching others about God and His laws ------ He really had no excuse to doubt his age as he would have known about Abraham and Sarah's situation about him being 99 years old when he got Sarah pregnant --age was not a factor for God and he should have been trusting what the angel said to him ---no questing was needed

scripture from Luke 1

8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

 

[paradox3]

8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

He was serving as a priest before God, yes. Does this mean Zechariah would have had extensive knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures?

Wasn't serving as a priest an inherited role? Priests stood as intermediaries between God and people, but were they teachers, too? I have the impression they looked after the temple, raised animals for sacrifice, offered sacrifices to God, etc. They welcomed sinners seeking atonement but I am not sure about their knowledge base.

In the new testament, we hear about chief priests, elders and experts in the law. Different groups with different functions, I think.

 

[unsafe]

Reflection verse for today

or the instant the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Mary Visits Elizabeth
39 At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40 where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”


My view here -----

if you look at verse 41 you see that the word is stating this fact before Elizabeth states the fact to Mary in verse 44 ---and in verse 41 it states that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she hears the greeting from Mary -----Now Elizabeth had already had the Holy Spirit who impregnated her ---but now she is filled with the Holy Spirit ----there is a difference here ---being Filled with the Holy Spirit beings a Quickening ----so what is that


Strong's Concordance

zóopoieó: to make alive​

Definition: to make alive
Usage: I make that which was dead to live, cause to live, quicken.

HELPS Word-studies
2227 zōopoiéō (from 2221 /zōgréō, "alive" and 4160 /poiéō, "make") – properly, make alive (zōos); i.e. "quicken," vivify ("animate"); (figuratively) cause what is dead (inoperative) to have life; empower with divine life.

2227 /zōopoiéō ("make alive, enliven") is particularly used of God infusing His life in the believer. The Lord infuses eternal life (zōē) into us each time we receive (obey) faith from Him.


I say ---my view ----the baby leaping for joy was not a natural occurrence ---it was a supernatural motion brought on by the filling of the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth when she heard the greeting of Mary and also Elizabeth with this filling of the Holy Spirit would have been given Spiritual gifts ---like prophecy so she would have believed that May was carrying the Prophesied Messiah -----


There is a difference in the believer receiving the Holy Spirit and then person being filled with the Holy Spirit

 

[Mendalla]

Not sure how priests worked in the Jewish world. In the Roman world, it was basically a job and often an appointed one at that. In imperial times, the emperor held the title of Pontifex Maximus normally but after that, he appointed other priests to the state cult. There were exceptions, like the Vestals, for whom it was more of a vocation as we would understand it. But perhaps @unsafe has some evidence that Jewish priests were actually trained in some formal way (apprenticeship or whatever)?

 

[unsafe]

paradox 3
Zechariah, was Priest who was allowed to be burning incense ---which was done on the alter of incense behind the first curtain -----so he in my view would have been schooled on the Old Testament scriptures and laws -----Jesus came under the Old Testament and He read from the Old Testament scrolls -----So for me I believe the Priest would have had scriptural knowledge ------

 

[paradox3]

I say ---my view ----the baby leaping for joy was not a natural occurrence ---it was a supernatural motion brought on by the filling of the Holy Spirit in Elizabeth when she heard the greeting of Mary

A baby leaping in the womb is both poetic and wonderful, whatever the cause.

Your supernatural interpretation is certainly a possible explanation for this text.
The text draws a strong connection between the two mothers and the two unborn babies.

Both mothers will live through their offspring going off to preach around the countryside, being called into the wilderness and enduring brutal executions.

Back to the priestly ancestry of John and the humble beginnings of Jesus. It is an interesting contrast, especially in the context of some of John's later comments (not being worthy to untie the strap of His sandals, etc.) Luke 3:16

 

[paradox3]

Zechariah, was Priest who was allowed to be burning incense ---which was done on the alter of incense behind the first curtain -----so he in my view would have been schooled on the Old Testament scriptures and laws -----Jesus came under the Old Testament and He read from the Old Testament scrolls -----So for me I believe the Priest would have had scriptural knowledge ------

Okay, but is this an assumption you are making about Zechariah or is there any scripture that backs up the idea? I get that he was a priest; I am just not certain how schooled he would have been.

Yes, Jesus did read from those scrolls. I wonder why he was given that honor. Was he recognized as a gifted teacher? Seems possible to me. There has been some speculation He was associated with the Pharisees but I don't think we can know for certain.

 

[Mendalla]

Both mothers will live through their offspring going off to preach around the countryside, being called into the wilderness and enduring brutal executions.

That was a thought I had as well. There's so much joy in this scene but then later we have one child beheaded and the other crucified. Not so much joy there.

 

[paradox3]

That was a though I had as well. There's so much joy in this scene but then later we have one child beheaded and the other crucified. Not so much joy there.

Those wilderness experiences would be hard on a mother, too. It reminds me of a line from that beautiful hymn, I Was There to Hear Your Borning Cry:

I was there when you were but a child, with a faith to suit you well.
In a blaze of light, you wandered off, to find where demons dwell.

(VU 644 v.2)

 

[Mendalla]

I vaguely know that one. Heard it sung more than I have sung it, I think.

 

[JRT]

It does not matter whether or not Zechariah and Elizabeth are real people. The story is modeled on Abraham and Sarah and is intended to demonstrate that God's work in the world continues on. This is in the Hebrew/Jewish literary tradition of haggadic midrash that is so common throughout the Bible. It is a "truth story" rather than a "true story".

 

[Mendalla]

It does not matter whether or not Zechariah and Elizabeth are real people. The story is modeled on Abraham and Sarah and is intended to demonstrate that God's work in the world continues on. This is in the Hebrew/Jewish literary tradition of haggadic midrash that is so common throughout the Bible. It is a "truth story" rather than a "true story".

That's kind of what I was trying to get at by pointing out the similarities between the Abraham-Sarah-Isaac story and the Zechariah-Elizabeth-John story. You explain it well.

I find it a well-told and, supernatural events aside, fairly believable story, though. And the supernatural events fit well with the story Luke is trying to tell and the meaning he is trying to convey.

 

[paradox3]

What do we make of Zechariah being struck dumb by the angel? Is this a punishment for disbelief or is there a more complex meaning to Gabriel's action?

When Zechariah came out of the Holy Place, gesturing and being unable to speak, the people realized he had seen a vision.

He went home and "after some time" Elizabeth became pregnant. Is there a reason she didn't conceive immediately?

 

[Waterfall]

It's interesting that Luke 2:11 has Jesus becoming the Christ at his birth but in Acts 5:31 he has Jesus becoming the Christ at his resurrection. And he is born the son of God in Luke 1:32-35 and in Acts 13:33 he is the son of God at the resurrection.
In Acts 3:20 he only becomes the saviour at the parousia or second coming.

There are some biblical scholars that think the first two chapters of Luke were added and many scholars that don't.
If these books are claimed to be by the same author it does seem odd that these verses contradict each other.

 

[Waterfall]

What do we make of Zechariah being struck dumb by the angel? Is this a punishment for disbelief or is there a more complex meaning to Gabriel's action?

Maybe Elizabeth found him more attractive when he wasn't speaking.

 

[Mendalla]

Maybe Elizabeth found him more attractive when he wasn't speaking.

I had a joke sitting in drafts but I like yours better.

 

[paradox3]

Luke 1: 57-80: The Birth of John the Baptist

Elizabeth gives birth to her baby and neighbors & relatives rejoice with her.

On the eighth day, it is time to circumcise the child. Others want to name the child Zechariah after his father. But Elizabeth insists his name is to be John. Zechariah asks for a writing tablet, and writes, "His name is John."

Immediately, Zechariah is able to speak again and he is filled with the Holy Spirit. He offers the song of thanksgiving we know as the Benedictus, praising both his own son and the Messiah who is to come.

For reflection:

Because of our God's tender mercy, the dawn will break upon us from on high; (Luke 1: 78 NET)

 

[paradox3]

The Benedictus, or the Song of Zechariah, is a very beautiful passage. You can find it at Luke 1: 68-79.

 

[paradox3]

Zechariah asks for a writing tablet

He gestured for it, of course.

I have been contemplating that the Magnificat and the Benedictus come to us from Luke's unique material. The writers, Mary and Zechariah respectively, had the encounters with the angel. Luke's storytelling has both of them spontaneously uttering the prose.

Does this sound like mythology to you? I does to me.

But does it matter? There is depth of meaning to be found here. Poetry often says things that touch our souls:
Because of our God's tender mercy, the dawn will break upon us from on high;