Eternal Perspectives

I was reading some of the throw-away verses in the Bible last night – you know, those verses we read with our eyes while our brains are going “Blah, blah, blah” – when (with a nudge from a dead guy) I was struck by something I had not before considered.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The passage I was reading was Lk 1.41-45:

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said,

‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.’”

Typically, whenever I decide that it’s time to do a few laps around the gospel block with Luke, I either skip, skim, or glaze over the first two chapters of the book and hurry ahead to get to the Really Important and Truly Inspired part of his two-volume work. But with Norval Geldenhuys (NICNT, 1951) whispering in my inner ear, I was struck by something that I had always missed in earlier non-readings.

To set the stage, let me remind you about who Elizabeth was. She and her husband, Zechariah, were both from priestly lines: he of Abijah, she of Aaron; they were also “advanced” in years and, sadly, childless. To be childless was no small matter in those days, as Craig Keener explains:

To be childless was economically and socially disastrous: economically, because parents had no one to support them in old age . . . socially, because in the law barrenness was sometimes a judgment for sin, and many people assumed the worst possible cause of a problem. Most people assumed that barrenness was a defect of the wife, and Jewish teachers generally insisted that a man divorce a childless wife so he could procreate . . .

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, Zechariah and Elizabeth are clearly righteous . . . and the Jewish reader would immediately think of righteous Abraham and Sarah, who was also barren.” – IVP Background Commentary: New Testament, p 188.

The angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah while he is in the temple burning incense, telling him that his wife will be with child and that their son will be the prophet sent before the coming Messiah. Zechariah, who would have been better off remaining speechless, expresses some doubt about the message and is thus rendered speechless and deaf until the baby is born and circumcised.

So Elizabeth, who is likely in her sixties at this point, becomes pregnant – and not just pregnant, but pregnant with a prophet, the first in four centuries! It is hard to imagine her incredulity and thankfulness at this highly unexpected turn of events.

As she is marking the days to her delivery, having reached the sixth month of pregnancy, she is visited by one of her relatives: the youthful Mary, who has been sent to her by the same angel with news of her own. Elizabeth may be pregnant with the prophet, but Mary is pregnant with the Messiah.

Meaning no disrespect to any women that might read this (because men are little different), I was struck by Elizabeth’s response to Mary’s arrival and news: she praises her and expresses her sense of honor at being visited by the mother of the Messiah. Some – maybe a lot – of women might have felt slighted, upstaged, or resentful that Mary showed up and “ruined” her pregnancy. Elizabeth had waited at least forty years longer than Mary – who was just a teenager in all likelihood – to have a child and now she is thrust into the shadows once again by (of all the luck!) a relative.

But Elizabeth’s response is totally selfless: she is honored that Mary has come to visit her and thrilled that her relative carries the Messiah within her womb. She praises Mary for her faith and happily takes a lesser role in the drama which is only beginning to be played out in their countryside. It is no wonder that her son, John, could say of himself that he must decrease while Christ must increase. Humility was a family trait and handed down from parents to child in the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth.

Lest I be guilty of slighting Zechariah, it should be noted that when he finally regains his hearing and speech that he exults twice as much about Jesus than about John. After stating that his own child’s name is indeed John, he says:

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant

“— as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old—

“salvation FROM OUR ENEMIES, and FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US; to show mercy toward our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the oath which He swore to Abraham our father, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.

“And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; to give to His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, with which the sunrise from on high will visit us, TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” – Lk 1.68-79

Zechariah speaks eight verses (although he probably didn’t know he was speaking in verses at the time) about the Messiah and just four about his own son, John. He rejoices first in the coming of the Savior and only then about his own son.

Clearly, both Elizabeth and Zecharish looked at and lived their lives from an eternal perspective. So were they able to rejoice greatly in the birth of their own son, but far more in the birth of the Son of God. An example for us all to follow.

(Tim Challies has a thought-provoking – but not necessarily influential – post up at his site. I left the following there as a comment but thought I would post it here for anyone who reads EP but not Challies - although I cannot imagine such a person actually existing.)

I’m not sure what the value is of determining who is “most influential” in the Kingdom of Blog. If that appellation is bestowed, should we all rush to the site to be influenced? I don’t understand the point. I read blogs that edify rather than influence me: edifiying blogs facilitate the work of the Holy Spirit; influential blogs facilitate the work of . . . the flesh? the blogger?

Or maybe I don’t understand what is meant by the term “influence” as used here.

This discussion also reminds me of the disciples squabbling over who was going to be greatest in the Kingdom of God. I think we all need to stop looking at our own numbers and accomplishments and begin looking to God for His estimation of what we write. I might be caustic, abrasive, and arrogant (come to think of it, I am all those things) and be very influential and very popular – I won’t name any other names here – or I might tell the truth and spend my time in relative obscurity with only a handful of readers.

(Or, as in my case, I might be caustic, abrasive, and arrogant and then languish in total obscurity!)

Who is greater? More importantly, who among us is fit to say who is greater?

Or maybe I’m just too old for this kind of competition.

Why not this: you read what you want to read and find edifying, and I’ll do the same. What you (Tim) find edifying in the writings of some dead Calvinist, I might find uninspiring; conversely, what I think is profound in the writings of an “heretical” dispensationalist, you might find to be the source of all problems in Protestantism.

Who is most influential is likely to come down to who confirms the biases of most blog readers. Cynical? Perhaps, but probably true all the same. Ultimately, we are influenced only by those whom we allow to influence us, for better or for worse.

Addendum: I was thinking this morning about a sermon I heard long ago by Ron Dunn, a remarkable, expository, Baptist preacher. One of his points in his sermon on prayer was that the apostles had virtually no influence in Jerusalem following the Day of Pentecost. In the corridors of worldly influence, they were paupers.

But, although they didn’t have the influence to keep Peter out of jail, they did have the power to pray him out!

We have mistaken influence for power; we have settled for the influence of political lobbyists, book sales, and blog hits but neglected the power available to us by the Holy Spirit as He answers our prayers.

So there may be blogs of influence, but that is not the same as being a blog of power. Keep the influence, if you like, but I’m hoping to tap into just a small bit of the power of God that He offers to His children.

That’s not meant to sound smug, superior or like “sour grapes” from someone on the far end of the tail, but just a reminder about what is important and what is not, what is valued in the eyes of God and what is valued in the eyes of men.

More than any time in history mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness; the other to total extinction. Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” – Woody Allen

I was reading a post by a blogger greater than most of us (he bestows his blessings on lesser bloggers by honoring them for a week – and that he is greater is clear because “without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater” [Heb 7.7]) -

At any rate, I was reading one of his posts about prayer and was dumbfounded – which is not the same as being “found dumb,” although in some cases it might be – to read the following: (more…)

As I mentioned in my previous post on this matter, the purpose of this brief series is to reduce the judgmentalism of some Christian Pharisees – or at the very least to draw them out – and to comfort some who have suffered as a result of divorce. My first post sought to establish the fact of God’s marriage to the unified nation of Israel in preparation for discussing His subsequent divorce from the northern part of the then-divided kingdom.

The evidence of God’s divorce comes directly from the prophets Hosea and Jeremiah. The former declares, (more…)

Douglas Moo on the connection of theology and Christian living:

Romans has the reputation — well deserved — of being one of the most theological books in the Bible. Unfortunately, this reputation has led many Christians and even some commentators to wonder why Paul bothers with all the practical stuff at the end of the letter. He has finished the theology section at the end of chapter 11. Why say any more?

“Such an attitude betrays a basic misunderstanding of theology and its significance. All theology is practical, and all practice, if it is truly Christian, is theological. Paul’s gospel is deeply theological, but it is also eminently practical. The good news of Jesus Christ is intended to transform a person’s life. Until individual Christians own and live out the theology, the gospel has not accomplished its purpose.” – on Romans 12.1-2, NIV Application Commentary

(Note: This post is prompted by numerous accounts of pain and suffering of Christians due to an inadequate understanding of the nature of divorce in the Bible. My hope is that it would cause the Pharisees among us to stop treating divorced believers as bastard children of God and, in addition, would provide some comfort for those who carry unnecessary guilt because of divorce.)

Those of us quick to adduce Mal 2.16a – “‘For I hate divorce,’ says the LORD, the God of Israel” – would do well to accept an inescapable fact of the Bible: God Himself was divorced. Here, in context, is the aforementioned proof-text used by many to condemn and bludgeon those who are considering, in the process of, or dealing with the aftermath of being divorced: (more…)