These are hopeless days for lots of people. The economy is getting worse. People are losing their jobs. They can’t afford homes. They can’t afford health care. Everybody is scared of the swine flue. We’re selling our country to China. There is no end in sight to the war in Iraq. Terrorism is a constant threat. So is crime.

So we have a lot to be thankful for.

Wait. What?

Look at Zacharias in Luke 1:67-79 to see what I mean. Here’s a man who loses his job (a priest without a voice is not a priest) and can’t explain why to his wife. At least, not with words. And not only that, but as with all Jewish people about 2000 years ago in Israel, they were heavily taxed by the oppressive Roman government. We can’t say for sure, but I have to wonder if Zacharias lost his home (They say John grew up in the wilderness. Why, if he had a home?) And on top of it all, he’s got a son coming. And Zacharias, if he is as old as he says, probably won’t be around long enough to see John reach adulthood.

Yet as we read what Zacharias says, he praises God for what God is about to do in and for Israel through his son, John. Things are not great for Zacharias, but he sees a glimmer of light. In verses 78-79, he talks about the morning light that is about to break upon those who sit in the darkness of the shadow of death. He is talking about himself and all those in Israel who are in similar situations. Also, he is quoting from Psalm 107, which is about how to give thanks to God, even in the midst of misery and despair. Psalm 107 lays out four different groups of people who are facing misery, despair, and even death. When they cried out to God, He intervened, and so they give thanks.

As a nation, and for many of us as individuals, we are at the place where these four groups were at in Psalm 107, and where Zacharias was before the birth of John. But if we cry out to God for rescue, we can expectantly thank Him for the deliverance that will follow. Tough times are not times to despair, but times of opportunity for our faith and thankfulness to grow.

There are lots of people losing their jobs these days, and millions more worried about losing their job. About two years ago, I lost a job, and went without work for about three months.  During this time, I experienced great stress, fear, shame, and anger. I would not wish such a thing on anybody. Thankfully, I now have a good job.

In Luke 1:18-25, Zacharias loses his job. As a priest, he needed to be able to speak, so when he was struck speechless, it was like getting fired. Unless he got his voice back, he would be out of work. I doubt they had much back then in the way of severance pay or social security, and women couldn’t work. Zacharias probably experienced much of the shame, fear, and questions that we feel today. Even more so when a few weeks later, Elizabeth becomes pregnant.  When it rains in poors. He loses his job; she gets pregnant.

Of course, Elizabeth’s pregnancy was also a blessing. It was an answer to prayer for her and Zacharias. Furthermore, as Luke records in Luke 1:25, by getting pregnant, her reproach (or shame) was removed. So while Zacharias gains shame, Elizabeth gains honor. I am not sure if Zacharias intentionally tried to honor his wife, but he certainly had a part in getting her pregnant…

Seek the Honor of Others
Does this mean that when we experience a downturn, we should seek to honor someone else, thereby helping us get out of our slump? Well, I suppose so. It could be taught that when you experience a downturn in your life, and you begin to experience shame, fear, and doubt, one good way to break out of it is to work for the honor of someone else. Seek to make their dreams come true. Try to bring them success. If you are going through a time of shame and disgrace, look around you to see who you can serve and praise. It may be that your shame will result in their honor, which in turn, may bring you honor as well (See Philippians 2).

Grace and Disgrace
But I’m not content with that.  The thing that surprises me in this text is the statement of Elizabeth in Luke 1:25. If possible, read it in a few different Bible translations to get the flavor and passion of her statement. One of them (the NLT) put it this way, “How kind the Lord is!” I wonder if Zacharias was thinking the same thing. One would hope that he was rejoicing with his wife in her pregnancy. But maybe he was thinking, “How mean the Lord is! To take away my job. To remove from me anything meaningful. I loved to teach Torah, and now, I can’t even talk!” There’s no way to know if he was thinking such things.

But here is what we do know. Priests entered the Holy Place of the Temple with the fear of the Lord, knowing that if they entered with sin that was not taken care of, they could be struck dead. Zacharias certainly went through all the purification rituals, washings, sacrifices, and prayers that were necessary to enter…and then, when he is actually IN the Holy Place, lighting the incense, he blows it all by sinning! If it is one thing to enter with a previous sin, it is quite another to actually sin while you are in there! Truly, Zacharias probably could have been struck dead. But instead, he is only struck mute. From one perspective, that Zacharias lived is one of the greatest examples of grace in this passage. Sometimes, perspective is everything.

The Question of Sin
Of course, then we get into the issue about how Zacharias sinned. All he really did was ask the angel a question. Is it wrong to ask questions? Is it wrong to raise doubts? Is it wrong to express our fears, worries, and confusion? Absolutely not. The Psalms are full of such questions. Mary the mother of Jesus asks an almost identical question later in 1:34. Zacharias sinned because he should have known better. He was praying for a son, he was a Priest, a teacher of Israel, a student of Scripture. He knew the angelic messenger was sent directly from God. So it appears that questions are unwise when all the evidence points in a particular direction, but we still raise questions.

But guess what? Even in this, God’s will was accomplished, and Zacharias was raised again to honor. His nine months of silence only magnified his obedience at the birth of his son when there was a controversy about what to name him, and Zacharias wrote on a tablet, “His name is John” (1:63). And then, he was given his voice back, and the first words out of his mouth were in praise to God.

Are you facing a loss in your life? Recognize that whether it is the result of sin or not, God can use this loss to accomplish His good purposes for your life. The great themes of Scripture (and life) are death and resurrection. Life leads to death, which in turn, gives birth to life. The losses we experience can be resurrected to new life, new directions, new relationships, new experiences. The waiting is hard, but let the loss run its course, looking expectantly for what God will raise up from the ashes.

Do you think that when angels are sent by God with a message, they understand the message they deliver?

The reason I ask is that for three weeks now, as I have tried to work on a post for this blog, I have been struggling to make sense of what an angel says in Luke 1:17. Though I wrote an explanation of Luke 1:17 in my commentary, I don’t fully understand it.

At first, the verse seems rather straight forward. But if you check the average commentary, and you will see that nobody really knows what to do with it, or what it means. Oh sure, everybody agrees that the general thrust of the verse is that John, when he comes, will help prepare Israel for the Messiah. That is clear from the last phrase of the verse, “to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” But what does the rest of the verse mean?

First, the angel states that John will be a prophet like Elijah, one of the greatest Hebrew prophets. Then he quotes from Malachi 4:6, the last verse in the English Old Testament (but NOT the last verse in the Hebrew Scriptures, which is 2 Chronicles 36:23). But the angel doesn’t quote all of Malachi 4:6, but only part of it. Instead, he says something odd about wisdom and righteousness, and then moves on to the point everybody understands, that John will prepare the way for the Messiah.

1:17a
The more you dig, the more questions you uncover. In the first part of the verse, who goes before whom? Does John go before the Messiah, or does the Lord God go before John 9 (cf. 1:16)? Furthermore, why does the angel say that John will be a prophet like Elijah, but John never does any miracles like Elijah? At least, none that are recorded in Scripture. And why does John later deny that he is the Elijah that was to come (John 1:21), but then Jesus later says that John was this Elijah (Matt 11:14; 17:12)?

1:17b
And why does the angel quote from Malachi 4:6, but only part of the verse? Does he mean to recall the whole verse, or just the part he quotes? For example, Malachi 4:6 talks about a curse on the land. By leaving this out, was the angel implying that it was to come, or purposefully excluding it? Maybe he was saying that the curse depended on how the people responded.

1:17c
And how are we to understand the reference to children and fathers? Does this refer simply to families, such as something you might get from James Dobson at Focus on the Family, or it is figurative language for how John will call the children of Israel back into faithful obedience to God, in the same manner as their forefathers (cf. 1:16)? But this seems backwards, for the angel says that John will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. Furthermore, if this verse really is about how John is going to bring families back together, and reinforce family values, how does this fit with passages like Micah 7:5-6, Luke 12:51-53, 14:25-27, and 18:29 which reveal that Jesus, in some sense, came to tear apart families? Is John supposed to bring families together just to prepare them for Jesus who will tear them apart?

Maybe it not about families exactly, but the “family of Israel.” The children would be those Israelites alive at the time of John, while the fathers would be the forefathers. But if the angel is talking about the children of Israel and their forefathers, how can people who are dead turn their hearts back to their descendants? It doesn’t make sense.

1:17c
Does the statement in 1:17 about wisdom and righteousness shed any light on how the angel is using Malachi 4:6? If so, is it by parallellism or contrast? In other words, does fathers=disobedient and children=the just, or is it vice versa? Maybe the angel is explaining the second (unquoted) line of Malachi 4:6, in which case the children=disobedient, and the fathers=the just. Or maybe this comparison is completely off track, and it has nothing to do with families or ancestors, but simply about wise and foolish people. Or maybe God is the wise father, and the Israelites are the disobedient children, and they need to return to God? But if so, then again, how does this fit with the quote from Malachi 4:6? In what way is the heart of God turning back to His children?

And the questions go on and on. I have found commentators and pastors who have stated all of the above ideas in one way or another, and have attempted answers in their own fashion. But what really is the angel saying?

One possible solution, which I don’t remember reading anywhere, is that the angel is referring specifically to Zacharias. He is a man who is about to be a father. For years he has been praying for a child, and now he is about to receive one. Maybe this is specific instructions to Zacharias to raise his son in a way that will enable John to be the prophet who will prepare the people for the coming of the Messiah. Of course, both “fathers” and “children” are plural, so this is probably not the best option.

The Angelic Explanation
Ironically, as I write this, I can’t help wishing that the angel who said this would show up and, shaking his head at me, say, “Here is what I meant…” Or maybe he would just say, “Sheesh! Don’t read so much into it! Forget all your questions, and just read the dang story!”

Yeah, that’s probably good advice, but I just can’t let it go. So rather than depend on an angel to explain to me what he meant, I have to depend on something better – You! (cf. Ps 8:5; 1 Cor 6:3; 1 Pet 1:12). In fact, since angels are messengers, speaking the words God has given them to say, maybe this angel didn’t fully understand what he was saying either, and is waiting for someone like you to explain it to him! So mosey on over to the online commentary, register (it’s free), and post your own insights on 1:17.

This post is based on the Grace Commentary for Luke 1:5-7.

Obama gave his health care speech tonight. So here’s a question: Do you think that following Jesus should influence one’s viewpoint on the health care debate? Why or why not?

Interestingly, about 2000 years ago, a high-ranking public official named Theophilus was asking similar questions about the political plans of Caesar. Luke writes to Theophilus about Jesus to help answer these questions.

Foremost in the mind of Theophilus was almost certainly this question: “If I follow King Jesus, declaring that He is my Lord, how will that affect my current position in the Roman Empire and my statement of allegiance to Caesar as Lord?”

Luke addresses this question in an indirect way throughout his Gospel. He begins to do this in the section before us, Luke 1:5-7, by writing about Herod instead of Caesar. This approach is repeated throughout the Gospel. Luke constantly pits Jesus and the Kingdom of God, not against Caesar, but against Herod the Great (and his son, King Herod Antipas; cf. 1:5-7; 2:1-2; 3:1-22; 7:18-33; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:8-11). In the Gospel of Luke, there seems to be an ongoing contest between King Herod and King Jesus. Ultimately, King Herod (the son of Herod the Great) seems to “win,” for under his reign, Jesus is put to death.

So the Gospel of Luke presents a dual message about what kind of Kingdom Jesus brought: The Kingdom of God is both a direct challenge to the Roman Empire, and at the same time, absolutely no threat at all.

Those who belong to the Kingdom of God challenge governments and rulers, not by threats of rebellion and insurrection, but simply by the way we live. We seek to do the things and accomplish the programs which governments and rulers promise, but which they can never fulfil. Most of the things that governments and rulers promise can only be accomplished through the church. So in this way, we are no threat at all. They can imprison us, or kill us, but we seek only to be a blessing on our community and nation (24:47).

Certainly, Theophilus didn’t understand all this after reading Luke 1:5-7. And maybe it’s a new and challenging idea for you too. Maybe you are thinking about all the promises and prophecies in Scripture that Jesus will destroy all the wicked nations and wayward rulers and rule the world, and wondering how that fits in with the idea that the Kingdom of God is no threat to the kingdoms of men. Maybe Theophilus had such questions as well. Maybe as a public official within the Roman Empire, he was a little bit nervous. He didn’t want to be on the “losing side” when Jesus destroyed the Empire. What should he do?

I feel these questions personally, for I am a “government employee” as well. But even if I wasn’t, all of us who live in Twenty-first Century Western Civilization are part of “The Empire.” Like the Roman Empire, we have the best military. We consume the vast majority of the world resources. We think that it is our responsibility to bring Pax Americana to the rest of the world. We think other cultures need to adopt Western culture, Western ways, and Western ideals.

But really, is “The West” really the best? If it is, should we be fighting for it? If it isn’t, should we be fighting against it? Either way, is fighting really the answer?

Maybe there is a different Kingdom, with a different King, which is calling for our time, energy, and attention. And maybe that Kingdom can function in any society, any culture, any government, because it is not of this world. Maybe that Kingdom, when it expands, doesn’t overthrow Kings and rulers and governments through power and might, but redeems them through service, sacrifice, generosity, kindness, justice, forgiveness, mercy, and most of all, love.

Hopefully, Luke will help us with some of this. But at this point, all we have are questions. Theophilus has heard rumors of another Kingdom, and he wants to find out more. I hope that by the time we get to Luke 24, we understand what Luke was telling Theophilus to do.

This post is based on the Grace New Testament Commentary for Luke 1:1-4.

Science Cannot Prove History
In the movie Religulous (which I recently reviewed), Bill Maher challenged Francis Collins (the leading geneticist of the Human Genome Project) to scientifically prove that Jesus really lived, died, and rose again. This is not really an area of expertise for Francis, but he did a decent job of stating something about how the Four Gospels are historically reliable. Maher scoffed at this of course, but then moved on to some other topic.

But guess what? Maher is somewhat right. It is impossible to scientifically prove that the events of the Gospels are true. This is not because Jesus did not live, or the events recorded in the gospels did not happen, but because it is impossible to scientifically prove any historical event. By definition, historical events cannot be scientifically proven. You cannot scientifically prove that George Washington was the First President of the United States, that Michael Jackson recently died, or even what you had for breakfast this morning. Why not? Because to prove something scientifically, it needs to be observable and repeatable. Historical events, while observable by the people who happen to see it, are not repeatable.

History Can Still Be Learned
But this doesn’t mean we can’t know anything about history. We learn about and study history all the time, and for the most part, believe that what we read really happened. Generally, we come to learn about history through the accounts of the eyewitness. They saw something happen, and then they tell stories or write about it. Then others listen to what they say, or read what they wrote, and write history.

Are the Gospels Reliable History?
When we come to the Gospel of Luke, this is what he says he is doing.  He is not an eyewitness to the events he writes about, but he has carefully investigated these events, and records what he has learned.

Of course, who is to say Luke is a reliable historian? For that matter, how do we know any historian is reliable? Well, to help in this area, historians have come up with various tests to help determine the accuracy of an account. I don’t have space to get into them here.

But various historians, many of them “secular”, have stated that based on the various tests for historic reliability, the Gospels are some of the most historically reliable documents of that time period. The Gospel writers can be shown to be more reliable than such historians as Josephus, Herodotus, Plutarch, Thucidydes, and Julius Caesar. World renowned archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, after setting out to prove that the Gospels were full of errors, concluded that “Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.” Similar quotes from other historians and scientists could be multiplied.

But let’s be honest. Just because Ramsay and numerous other scholars say the Gospels are reliable, doesn’t mean they really are. I’m sure Gospel critics could stack up numerous quotes from many famous archaeologists, historians, and scientists who say the Gospels are full of errors. And I’m sure they have their own research and documentation to prove it.

So…Are the Gospels Reliable or Not?
So where does that leave us? Are the Gospels accounts historically reliable or not? Personally, I think they are reliable. I think that the events recorded in the Gospels actually happened. But you want to know what else? I think that the entire question is the wrong question. Debates and argues about the historical reliability of the Gospels would have surprised the Gospel writers. They would have listened to such arguments, scratched their heads, and said, “What are you doing? That’s not why I wrote at all!” The purpose of the Gospels is not to provide a historical reliable account of the life of Jesus. I think this is a by-product; but it is not their purpose.

The Purpose of the Gospels
So what is the purpose of the Gospels? If it was not to give us a historically reliable account of the life of Jesus (though I think they do provide us this), why were they written? Simply this: life change.

Take Luke, for example (since that’s the book under discussion). He is writing specifically to Theophilus. As I mentioned in the commentary, most believe that his title indicates he was a high ranking public official. As we study through the Gospel of Luke, we are going to see that it is a very political book. Luke constantly takes things that Caesar promised the people, and shows how these things can only be provided and accomplished through Jesus. For a high ranking public official in the Roman Empire, these ideas are treasonous. Imagine how the mind and heart of Theophilus must have raced as he read this volatile book by Luke! Luke was challenge the Lordship of Caesar! He was challenging the Pax Romana, the peace of Rome! As Theophilus read this book, he was faced with a choice – to accept or deny the message, to live as he had up until then, or to change and live in light of what Luke wrote.

And the challenge is the same for us today. We may not be high-ranking public officials, but the challenge of Jesus remains. You cannot read about Him and come away unscathed. Just as watching any movie or reading any book changes a person, so also, studying and reading about Jesus will change you.

So Let’s Read!
So frankly, if someone tells me they believe the Bible is full of errors, and they don’t believe in the historical accuracy of the Gospels, my typical response is, “OK.” I don’t argue. Then I say, “You want to read it anyway? We could discuss it together if you want.”

I don’t know where you stand in your view of Scripture and the reliability of the Gospels, but regardless of your view, I invite you to join with me in learning about Jesus. It’s where the only true “CHANGE” is found.