Skip to main content

Born Is The King Of Israel (Lk 2:22-35)

I could very well be imagining things; I can't say I felt totally contemplative in reading this Gospel. Still, the things which kept sticking out to me were "your people Israel" and, "the consolation of Israel." I can't get away from the joy and the sadness of what it must've been like, to wait, knowing that the transgressions of the covenant left God's People with a very circuitous route to the experience of His mercy. Simeon was faithful Israel, in his own way, carrying around in his body, and in his yearning, the death of Christ.

And Mary is faithful Israel par excellence. We don't need to wonder at foolish questions, like whether Mary could die for us; she is not the Savior. We have an impoverished view of our God and Lord, in fact, if the only thing we love Him for is his sinlessness. In any case, if we don't see that we participate in what God is doing for His People Israel, we have no idea how great the New Covenant is. Most of us reading this are Isaiah's "people walking in darkness." We have no earthly business being in on this party, and yet, we are. God restored his covenant people, and he invited the riff-raff (us) to fill out the crowd. Mary gets a share in the Cross, not because she is equal to her Son, but because He loves her. That's what Jesus always does with His loved ones; we'd better get used to it.

Isaiah prophesied, "He shall see his offspring; they shall prolong his days," and we read in St. Paul, "so that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." That's us again. Are you ready to think that the joy of seeing you in Heaven carried Jesus through the darkness of the Passion? That's how much he loves us! If you haven't heard that in awhile, well, there you go.

I knew someone who hated the worship song "Above All," because he thought it was too self-centered. Fair enough; in some contexts, he might have a point. But consider the chorus:

Crucified, laid behind a stone
You lived to die, rejected and alone
Like a rose, trampled on the ground
You took the fall*
And thought of me
Above all.

This is actually true. It just is. God is big enough that every single person is valuable enough to be the center of His attention simultaneously. Some of you live in big houses, or have smartphones, and you can't rest until you revile yourself sufficiently. The only thing stupid about this is that self-abasement isn't a material thing, unless you are using it to help others. Anyway, despise yourself for the right reasons.

And know that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob loves you and me so much that He came in human flesh to break the chains of whatever is holding us back.

*I don't think the Father was punishing the Son for us. That is heresy. But He did swallow up all our sins with His gift of love to the Father on the Cross. Well, it's complicated. "He was crushed for our iniquities," true. But I want to conceive of that in a non-Calvinistic way. Ahem.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un