Circumcision of Christ (January 1, 2004)
Luke 2:15-21
Now it happened that when the angels had gone from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, ‘Let us go to Bethlehem and see this event which the Lord has made known to us.’ So they hurried away and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger. When they saw the child they repeated what they had been told about him, and everyone who heard it was astonished at what the shepherds said to them. As for Mary, she treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds went back glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, just as they had been told. When the eighth day came and the child was to be circumcised, they gave him the name Jesus, the name the angel had given him before his conception. -- The New Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1995, c1985
A Study
I watched a Discovery (perhaps it was History) Channel "documentary" the other night in which an astronomer with astrological information had deduced that the only date on which Saturn was in Capricorn -- an omen of a historic birth, according to him -- was April 17, 6BC.
The interesting thing about his theory is that Jesus needed to be born before 4BC in order for Herod to be the king, and many scholars have decided that He was likely born in the springtime between 6BC and 4BC.
Another interesting point about this text is that it shows the very Jewish observance of circumcision and naming that, by the Law, occurred on the eigth day of a male child's life.
A Reflection
Mary pondered these things in her heart. What mother would not, being visited out of the blue by strangers who smelled of sheep, telling her that angels had sent them? Did this confirm what had become a suspicion on her part, long after the angel's visit, that the child she had carried was indeed to become the Savior?
Or is this Lukan addition used to justify the story of a divine birth which otherwise we would be forced to take on faith alone? Did Luke and Matthew both feel the need to "improve" the story so as to make it more palatable to their respective Greek and Jewish audiences?
In my Education for Ministry seminars, a Sewannee four-year program, we are now in our Church's second year; so there are new first-year students studying the Hebrew Bible, while we second-year people are studying the New Testament. It is fascinating to hear the new people ask some of the same questions about the first eleven chapters of Genesis that we asked, and some new ones, as well. We all believe that it is a legend, a mythology that the Jewish people created for themselves. Yet there is something about Genesis 1-11 that says that it is also a divine story -- not necessarily (nor even likely) historical -- but at almost the DNA level, a "true" story about humans' relationships with YHWH.
So it is easy to accept -- or forgive -- embellishments to the core of the Gospel Story. Isn't anything that serves to amplify Jesus into our understanding is good for us?
The Collect
Eternal Father, who gave to your incarnate Son the holy name of Jesus to be the sign of our salvation: Plant in every heart, we pray, the love of him who is the Savior of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, in glory everlasting.
9:38:00 PM 
|
