New Thoughts (1/6/04-1/9/04)
The official historian of the New Testament opens his history with a relatively clear indication of the time at which the events he relates took place. The opening statement, that the story opens with Herod as king over Judea, is sufficient to place the time of the events somewhere between 37 and 3 BC. Other events later in this chapter will provide further definition of the timing from which we could perhaps work backwards and determine things with greater precision.
There is another matter buried in Luke's words which would provide the mathematician willing to pursue it the means of determining that timing down to one of two weeks within the year. We are told that Zacharias was of the division of Abijah. What does that mean? Well, David, who did so much to establish the orderly worship of God in His yet to be established temple, organized the tribe of Levi, of which the priests were part, to ensure that there were always priests and Levites present in the house of God to serve. Thus, he divided the priestly families into twenty four divisions or teams, each of which would serve for a period before the next took up the task. Abijah and his descendents, we learn, formed the 8th of these teams. However, there came the Babylonian exile, and when Israel returned, only four of these divisions remained. Abijah's was not among them. What to do? Well, it was decided to subdivide the remaining divisions to form the original count of twenty four. It was further decided to retain the original names for the twenty four groups. Thus, we read of Zacharias as being of Abijah's division, not as being of the sons of Abijah, as Elizabeth is of the daughters of Aaron.
OK, so here's what we learn about these divisions. According to notes in Robertson's Word Pictures, each of these divisions served in rotation for one week, twice per year, performing their duties for eight days at a turn, from Sabbath to Sabbath. This, by the way, would keep two divisions present on any given Sabbath. It is further noted that all twenty four divisions would be on hand for the Feast of Tabernacles. Now, I come up with 49 weeks from this, as the Feast is of eight days' duration. Looking at the Jewish calendar, the year consists of somewhere between 50 and 51 weeks, the year having 355 days. If one were so inclined as to 'run the numbers,' we could work back to where the Jewish year began in each of the years of Herod's reign. A little further research would doubtless be required to reconcile the 49 known weeks of priestly service with the apparent 50+ weeks of the calendar. There are doubtless records of some sort which would provide a positive identification of 'week 1,' from which one could cycle backwards to find weeks 8 and 32 of the years in question.
In the next section, Luke will offer us one more detail which, if the records remain, would suffice to pinpoint the event. He tells us there that Zacharias was chosen to enter the Temple to burn incense. More on the significance of that in the next study. For now, it suffices to note that such service a priest was permitted to perform but once in his lifetime. I have seen, in our resident rabbi's offices, the evidence of how carefully the records of the years are kept by the Jews. Volumes upon volumes indicate where the festivals fall in a particular year. Doubtless, given this once in a lifetime service, records were also kept of who served when. How much of this was lost in the fall of Jerusalem, and in the ensuing years?
Why is this of interest? I think it is of critical import, in spite of its being almost a curiosity to us at this point, an intellectual game for number crunchers. At the time, this was not the case. At the time, the records of Jerusalem were still intact. At the time, the events were at most 120 years past, and more likely half that or less. The point is this: for anybody reading Luke's history, our mysterious friend Theophilus especially, the veracity of what Luke wrote could be fairly easily verified. Go to the records, find out when Zacharias had his turn. Immediately, an anchor is in place by which to time and confirm the remainder of the history. One could imagine that Luke had done this himself, given his purpose of determining whether the things taught by the apostles were true. That he writes this down is clear indication that he found it to be so. It ought to be clear indication to us today that we, too, can safely and reasonably accept what we are reading as a true record of the true events of the True Son of the True God.
The historical reality being established, there is more that is of immediate use to us which can be learned in looking at this priesthood in which Zacharias served, which will serve well to lead into the lesson for us in this passage. To begin with, it is worth noting that, although descent from Aaron was an absolute prerequisite for service as a priest, it was not an absolute guarantee that one could serve. Aside from lineage, there were other requirements, primary among which was an extremely high degree of purity. This, I think, may be what the Pharisees had latched onto, in some ways. The purity demanded of the priests was a purity both spiritual and physical. Not only did they need to remain sanctified in spirit, but if they suffered any physical disfigurement, they were disqualified from serving.
There are a few interesting things to note in this regard. First, the ISBE points out an interesting thing regarding Miriam and Aaron's rebellion. Only Miriam was punished with leprosy as a result of this action. Aaron was left untouched in God's anger. How is this? The encyclopedia suggests that it was precisely because of the physical requirements for priesthood. Had Aaron been struck with the same sort of retribution, he would also have been disqualified as a priest, and at the time, if there were only his two sons to take up the office should he be forced to relinquish it. Events would show that these two were in no way fit to assume the position of their father. Indeed, they were themselves disqualified from serving not for physical defect, but for clear moral defect, an inability to obey the God they were to serve. Can you see God's Providence in action? Do you see the evidence of His omniscience in this? He knew what would result, and so assured the line of the priesthood.
There's another interesting story along the same lines associated with Herod and his clan, again drawn from the ISBE. Hyrcanus was one of the last Hasmonean rulers over Israel, but fell under the influence of Herod's father, who convinced him to invite Rome in to back his claim to the throne. In the end, though, Rome's backing installed Antipater, and Hyrcanus was appointed high priest. Now, it is doubtful that he had the moral prerequisites for the job, and I'm not sure that the lineage was correct either. I would think it could not have been, given the separation of priest and king in Jewish history. At any rate, after Herod ascended to his tetrarchy, there came a time when he was forced to flee to Rome, and Israel fell under Parthian domination. During his absence, his brother controlled Jerusalem, but Hyrcanus' brother successfully attacked the city in his own hope of taking control. He successfully took both Hyrcanus, his rival, and Phasael, Herod's brother prisoner, but Phasael killed himself. Hyrcanus' brother then cut off Hyrcanus' ear. Why? This was done to ensure that he could not return to the position of priest. It was one final disqualification for duty which could not be hidden or denied.
In this, we can see, I think, how far things had deteriorated at the time. As I noted, it seems to me that Hyrcanus was clearly unqualified on at least two counts when he was high priest. He had neither the lineage nor the spiritual purity that the task called for. Clearly, at least one of these was lacking, for if he sought the kingship but was not of the Judean tribe, then he was breaking God's established rule in doing so. If, on the other hand, he was of the Judean tribe, then he was not of the sons of Aaron, and ought not to have been in the office of priest. However, he was in that office, and for whatever reasons, no issue was made of his clear lack of qualifications. His unfitness could be overlooked. They could pretend not to know his lineage, they could pretend that he had managed all his political machinations without violating the Laws of holiness. Why not? They were used to pretending that they could live a life that didn't violate that same Law!
It took undeniable physical disfigurement to finally keep him out of the office. I wonder. This is attributed to his brother's doing, but is it not once more an evidence of God's Providential involvement in His people's history? All things hidden will be revealed, says the Word. That which both priest and people sought to hide from their sight, the unfitness of this one who pretended to serve the Most High, the Most High made undeniable. Now, any number of physical defects could have been hidden under robe or turban and the deception would have continued, but the injury was chosen in one of the few places that could not be covered up. Lesson number one: when God says He will insist on purity, He means it.
There remains another thing we can learn with regards to this priesthood, that from Scripture itself. Hear God's warning to Aaron at the very establishing of His priesthood. "You and your sons and your father's household with you shall bear the guilt in connection with the sanctuary, as well as the guilt in connection with your priesthood" (Nu 18:1). Insomuch as the reputation of God's house suffers, it will be required of the priest. Insomuch as they are faithless in their duties, it will be required of the priest. Oh! May the fear of God be upon us who have been declared a nation of priests in this day! How we need to feel the full impact of this warning in our own lives!
Paul tells us more than once that we are now the temple of God. It's not about the buildings, as nice as the buildings are. It's about this flesh and blood which God has hallowed. We are all of us priests of the Most High. He has declared us so. We are also the temple with which He is most concerned. Now then, is there anything about this temple of flesh which is bringing shame upon the reputation of God who is enthroned within? For myself, I know the answer, and the answer - with this present line of thought in mind - is cause to tremble. I have a twofold weight of guilt in the matter, for I am both temple and priest, and thus answer not only for the things I allow in the flesh as my own doing, but also as having allowed it to be done in me! Inasmuch as this flesh brings shame to my Father, I bear the guilt, for the conditions of the sanctuary have been allowed to fall short of His glory. Inasmuch as I alone have responsibility for this temple of flesh, the priest in charge of its maintenance, I again bear the guilt for allowing its condition to be so. Oh, how great my need for my Redeemer!
Surely, Lord, I would be crushed by my iniquity except You had been willing to take that burden from me! If Your Justice were not one with Your Mercy, Holy God, who could stand? How is it possible, my King, that any has ever stood before You with the audacity to claim their purity in Your sight? How can we be so blind? My God, it is a fearsome thing to be a priest according to Your word. It is impossible that I should serve you aright, yet the penalty for failure is so great! Lord, I am so grateful for the forgiveness I know is mine, for the Atoning blood of my Jesus, when I consider this. How else could I bear to even seek You out! Surely, were it not for You, I should have to run as far as I could to hide from You! Praises be to Your name, and may Your purifying work be done in me that I can serve You as I ought.
The primary lesson to take away from this passage, though, the moral application if you will, is that the worth of righteousness is wholly dependent upon what we are obeying. Who is setting our rules? Righteousness is a matter of obedience, doing what is required. The Pharisees were one source of such rules, and they accounted those righteous who obeyed the rules they set out. Indeed, they thought themselves righteous on that same basis. They obeyed in the minutest of details. Unfortunately, it was the wrong details.
We tend towards the same habit. We don't like to feel unrighteous, don't really like being disobedient all that much, so we set up a new order of rules, attainable goals. We set the standards for ourselves so that we stand a chance of meeting the standards. Occasionally we may try to raise the bar. This is sort of the traditional season for such things, as the new year begins. But we don't generally take the raised bar too seriously, and fully expect to fall short, at which point we'll simply put the bar back where it was and declare victory.
Worse yet, we tend to find those whom we view as being in worse shape than ourselves and make them our standard for what is required. Not even willing to keep the bar where it is, we lower it a bit so we can feel even better. Look! We're actually exceeding expectations! And if it doesn't, we'll simply find a lower goal to achieve instead. If we can't pass the test, we've been well trained to change the test until we can.
And God comes and says all our righteousness is but filth. We've obeyed, but we've obeyed the wrong things. He crashes through all these false standards we've set up and point us back to the one real standard for righteousness from His perspective. He points us back to His standards and tells us to shed every other rule. We look where He points and see the impossible. Nobody can attain to that! It cannot be done! Then He points to our Redeemer. We see Him, dressed in flesh like our own, human as we are human, but see! He has attained it! All His life, He has walked as the commandments of God required, never settling for man's righteousness lite. Now comes the most amazing part. The obedience we have seen in His chosen one? It was done for us. The primary obedience He maintained in all His obedience was to God's purpose to do for us what we clearly cannot do for ourselves. So, as He was clothed in our flesh for a time, He willingly set aside that flesh, and clothed us in His righteousness. What more could we ask of our God?
It was for this reason that the prophets of old, the fathers of Israel, had been declared righteous, every one that ever was declared so. They had not rested on their own abilities. Scripture makes that abundantly clear. The best of the Bible's heroes is shown to be faulty. The most righteous of men presented to us is yet never presented as sinless. Every one of them died knowing his or her need for a better Righteousness, and knowing that because God had purposed it to be so, a better Righteousness would come, and would make Himself theirs.
Look now at the couple before us. They were, we are told, both righteous in God's sight. That's the key, isn't it? It's not what we think, nor even what the people we deal with think. It's what God thinks. It's not what we, who can only see the surface of things, consider righteousness, it's what He who has seen the end since the beginning determines. What was it about this couple that caused God to declare them righteous? I think the answer is threefold.
First, there is their persistence in doing what was right. I really like the way Young's translation has this: "going on in all the commands and righteousnesses of the Lord blameless." Are we to take this as indicating that they never fell short? It cannot be. None has done that but our Lord and Savior, and none ever could. It doesn't declare them perfect in their obedience, only blameless. How can that be? To fail of one clause of the Law is to be guilty of the whole!
This, I think, brings us to the second, most critical factor: They knew they were not perfect. They, like Abraham, like David, like Elijah, knew that their righteousness must depend on something greater. They had no false pretensions about where they stood. They stood on the Hope of Israel, and never faltered in their faith that the Redeemer would come, and that they would stand among those He led captive from their captivity.
There remains the third factor to their righteousness which I think we in the modern west really need to take to heart. Their obedience was not dependent upon God's material blessings. They were not obeying for what obedience might bring. They didn't tithe looking to the multiplied return on their investment. They didn't walk with God simply to ensure they'd have a nice house in the city. They obeyed Him for simple love. Indeed, that last verse of this brief passage makes plain that their obedience was not insuring them the blessings that the world expected of such things. "Yet, they were childless because Elizabeth was barren."
Perhaps the point becomes clearer if I turn things around a bit. They were getting on in years and still had no child to carry on the family name, yet they continued going on in all the commands and righteousness of the Lord. They were standing on the fact that righteousness is its own reward. It needs no further reason for pursuit. It is God who commanded, and that is more than sufficient cause to obey. That He may choose to bless us is well and good, but we would do better to think this an unrelated grace - which in all fairness it is. The righteousness we have, in spite of the effort we may put into it, is not really our own. Our best efforts remain a flawed affair, far short of the goal. And it remains just as true that to fail of one least instance of God's Law is to be guilty of the whole. From that perspective our condition is and always will be hopeless. The righteousness by which we are commended to God is not ours, but our Brother's. What cause, then, has God been given to bless us? Absolutely none. If His blessings come, it is simply because He has chosen to bless. It is another undeserved grace, not some reward for being good.
As I considered this point this morning, I was put in mind of a comment I had read in Spurgeon's "Morning by Morning:" "He who follows Christ for his bag is a Judas; they who follow for loaves and fishes are children of the devil; but they who attend Him out of love to Himself are His own beloved ones." He wrote this considering a verse in Job, but the point is the same as what I am seeing here in Luke. God saw them as righteous precisely because their effort was clearly not hinging on His giving to them their desire. Their hearts longed for a child, it is quite clear, but they didn't quit serving their God because He appeared to withhold that blessing. No! They were going right on obeying. Job put it this way: "Though He slay me, I will hope in Him" (Job 13:15). He was going on obeying the Lord.
What about me? Lord, I want to think that if I went through the trials of Job, if I went through what I see friends of mine going through now, that it would be said of me in the end that I kept going right on obeying You. If there could be one thing said of me when my life is through, I would this were it, that no matter what came in life, I kept right on obeying You. I know, though, that if this is to be so, it will only be so by the strength of will that You give to me. It will be the one gift of Your grace that was truly mine whether any sign remained of the other blessings I have known from Your hand.
Lord, I look about me and can properly be in shock at how richly You have rewarded me. I live in a house that is almost shockingly spacious. You have enabled me to provide for Your own house to an extent beyond my imagining. When I consider what condition my finances were in when You first called me, and I consider where I am right now, it truly is an amazing thing. Yet, it's not the important thing.
Holy Father, You know the stresses that are part and parcel of my present, when it comes to matters financial. We have had our time of plenty, and, though we have hardly entered a time of poverty, we've assuredly entered a time that demands prudence. You have made plain to me what Your heart desired as my family's contribution to Your house. How I long for You to make equally plain how it is You want me to fulfill that. Yet, we are going on obeying. I suppose in this I have some evidence of my desire, yes? If it gets no easier, Lord, if it gets even harder, I pray You will hold me still, keep me willing still, to stand firm, to walk on, the continue obeying You no matter what. Indeed, I pray that there would be evidence of this beyond the financial, that in every way it could be said of me that I obeyed no matter what.
That, Lord, from where I stand, is a tall order, but then, You are a great God. And I know beyond doubt that You desire righteousness in Your children. So, I feel safe in asking this of You, that You would so strengthen my spirit by Your Spirit that I would be found faithful in the day to day, just as I know by Your promise that I will be presented spotless at the end.
Whether or not we are experiencing the tangible, earthly benefits of obedience to our God, still that obedience is the right course. That is the lesson we can learn from Zacharias and Elizabeth. That is the fundamental lesson we learn, or we have not even begun to approach maturity.
Now, I would like to pursue a few final thoughts regarding this passage. "There was a certain priest," a particular priest, a priest worthy of notice. We have already seen one thing that made him stand out, his faithfulness in pursuit of obedience. There were other things. First, his wife was also of priestly descent. Robinson's "Word Pictures" tells us that "To be a priest and married to a priest's daughter was a double distinction." Rather like it is a blessing to us to hear of a family which has served the Lord through consecutive generations. It is a distinction to be able to claim that not only is one a pastor, but so also was his father before him. Indeed, the further back down the generations one can point, the more clear it becomes that here indeed was a family trained in righteousness.
I think also of the pastor of my youth, who is also presently pursuing a study of the Gospels, and whose messages I receive in the mail almost daily. Here is a man of God who has known the blessings of a woman of God throughout his ministry. The two have served side by side in many churches and missions in many lands, and it is clear that they both truly served. I can say with certainty that this man considers himself doubly blessed.
Now, let us notice the names of this noteworthy priest and his wife. Names are so important in Scripture, tell us so much about the named one. Would that we still took such care in the naming of our children! So, here we have Zacharias, whose name means "God has remembered." What is it God has remembered? If we were to look at Zacharias' personal story, we could say God has remembered the obedience we have been discussing, and decided to bless him with a child after all. More significantly, after the long centuries of silence on His part, it was well for Israel to know that God had remembered His promise. The Messiah would come, and indeed was coming quickly. God has remembered.
We find ourselves now in a position not unlike Israel at that day. We await a long unfulfilled promise from God, the coming King, the returning Messiah. In many ways, the Church at large is wandering the same side streets that the religious officialdom of Israel had wandered in those days. Tradition has overtaken the Word in some. In others, there is such total disregard for both Word and tradition that pretty much anything goes. We live in an age where the official church stance in some circles appears to be that God's holiness must make way for man's filth, indeed we hear it proclaimed that God actually wants the filthy to serve Him! Would that those who made such claims would peruse Aaron's commission with understanding! Even something so seemingly minor as a physical blemish was cause for dismissal. How much moreso the morally disfigured that these have allowed in! God will not be mocked.
But back to my point. God has remembered. We, living now, need to know this. He is not slow to fulfill His promises as it may seem to us. He has set the day. The day has been set since before the foundation of the world. And He will do it.
Look also at Zacharias' wife. She bore the name Elizabeth, God of the oath, God of seven, God of completeness. What a powerful name! Powerful not only for what it says, but for she who first bore that name in Scripture. There is but one other Elizabeth to be found in those pages, and she was the wife of Aaron. In their union, God was uniting the tribes of Levi and Judah, bringing together the lines of priestly and kingly descent. Here again was a fitting reminder of God's promise which was about to be fulfilled! Zacharias, named for the prophet, and Elizabeth, named for she in whom king and priest first found union, are presented united in righteousness. Standing before the people are a couple who physically present us with the prophet, the king, and the priest united. Once more, God chooses to have a living parable of what is to happen, and this living parable will bear the messenger that Mark reminded his readers of, the one God sends before the face of Him in whom prophet, king, and priest will be joined forever! And to think, I didn't think there was anything symbolic in this passage!
Come back again to Elizabeth's name, `El sheba`, the Almighty God of seven. Seven is the number of completeness, of sacred fullness. On the day of completeness, God rested from His work of Creation. This is a highly significant number in Jewish thought, so significant that the same word 'seven' was used to indicate the taking of an oath. Strong's dictionary tells us that one taking an oath was said to 'seven himself,' the idea being that he had sworn to this particular thing seven times. The triple repetitions we find in Scripture, such as the angels' "Holy, Holy, Holy," are meant to convey the magnitude and certainty of the thing repeated. If three is certain, seven is beyond revocation! The Almighty God, when He speaks, speaks words beyond revocation. He is the God of oath.
Now place our couple together again, side by side. He is the Almighty God of oath, of irrevocable word, and He has remembered. He sent forth His word, and His word does not return to Him void. He declared that Messiah would come, and He is not one to speak idly. He has remembered. The Promised One is on His way. He has sent forth the Word, and the Word did not return to Him void, but accomplished all that He was sent to accomplish! What an awesome God we serve!
He is the God of oath, and we are made in His image. In Scripture we find many occasions when God enters into covenant with man, when both God and man swear an oath. We find, also, several warnings in this regard. Indeed, Jesus told us to swear by nothing, but to simply allow our words to be reliable. Among men, oaths are required and oaths are sworn precisely because our words are unreliable. Fallen and sinful, we know better than to trust each other because we don't even trust ourselves. It requires oaths and witnesses and the threat of legal recourse to hold us to our promises.
But, we are made in the image of God, and if we have life in us, we are being remade daily, growing into a more complete compliance with the image intended. We no longer think so much in terms of swearing oath to God. Indeed, if we do think about it, it should be with fear and trembling. Abraham entered into oath, but he did so on shaking knees. He knew too well that it was impossible that he should uphold his end of the bargain, yet he willingly walked between the severed halves and said, "so be it done to me if I fail to honor this covenant." Solomon comes along later and warns us against making foolish vows. Don't be quick to seven yourself in the house of God. If you do so, be swift to fulfill all that you have promised, for He does not gladly suffer fools.
It is a fearsome thing indeed to make a promise to God. We tend to forget that. We get into a bind and how quickly comes the "Get me out of this, God, and I'll do this, and I'll do that." He answers, but we do no more than say a quick thank you, if that much, and forget all about the promises we made. But God has remembered. Indeed, how often are we called to repeat this prayer or that? How often do we consider the words we echo? How often do we actually think about what we're saying? We are called over and over again to come seven ourselves before our God, and all too often we do so without considering our actions.
Well, whoever may be reading this, I add one more call to the list. But, I call you to consider well before you answer. Know that, like Abraham, it is impossible that you should uphold your oath. Know that you are inviting the dividing of your flesh, the death of your flesh, indeed ensuring it, if you choose to swear. Even so, the God of oath would enter into covenant with you, would ask that you declare with all the saints of Scripture that you will go on in obedience to His commands and His righteousness blamelessly, without fail, without regard for reward, without question. He would enter in even knowing who you are. He would have you enter in knowing yourself, knowing like Abraham that your failure is inevitable. Still, He would hear from you the "Even so, let it be done to me when I fail," because He desires the death of the flesh that you might be reborn, born of the Spirit, and sealed to an inheritance of true and eternal life. That is His side of the covenant, to which He sevens Himself, and He alone is the Almighty God of oath, whose Word is unbroken. And He has remembered.
Praise be to His name forever and ever!
