{"id":652,"date":"2013-12-20T09:00:52","date_gmt":"2013-12-20T15:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/?p=652"},"modified":"2024-05-05T23:14:21","modified_gmt":"2024-05-06T04:14:21","slug":"december-20-december-27","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/2013\/12\/20\/december-20-december-27\/","title":{"rendered":"December 20 – December 27"},"content":{"rendered":"

Friday, December 20<\/strong><\/p>\n

Luke 1:26-38: To Mary\u2019s inquiry\u2014\u201cHow can this be, since I do not know a man?\u201d (1:24)\u2014Gabriel gives an adequate and very reassuring response, whereas Zachariah\u2019s inquiry was not only denied, but the man himself was punished for even making it!<\/p>\n

The difference between the two cases is not hard to discern. Mary\u2019s question is actually a request for further instruction. Since she is a virgin, and Gabriel is telling her she is about to become a mother, Mary really does need<\/em> more information. Her question to Gabriel means something like \u201cTell me what I am supposed to do.\u201d There is no arrogance here, nor doubt.<\/p>\n

On the contrary, Mary\u2019s attitude is summed up in her final words to Gabriel: \u201cBehold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word\u201d (1:38). Such was clearly not the case with Zachariah.<\/p>\n

God promised Abraham, \u201cone who will come from your own body shall be your heir\u201d (Genesis 15:4). This promise was paralleled in the words of Gabriel, as he announced the coming Messiah: \u201cBehold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son\u201d (Luke 1:31).<\/p>\n

There is a further point of correspondence between the two cases in what we may call a \u201cdifficulty\u201d standing in opposition to the promise. Nothing is really difficult for God, of course, but from a merely human perspective both promises appeared improbable. In the instance of Abraham, the difficulty had to do with the advanced years of both him and his wife. This thought, we are told, crossed Abraham\u2019s mind at the time: \u201cShall one be born to a man who is one hundred years old? And shall Sarah yet give birth, who is ninety years old?\u201d (Genesis 17:17)<\/p>\n

The Mother of Jesus, for her part, mentioned a similar consideration to the angel of promise: \u201cHow can this be, since I do not know a man?\u201d (Luke 1:34) In both instances, we observe, the \u201cdifficulty\u201d was raised in question form.<\/p>\n

In each case—Abraham and Mary—Sacred Scripture ascribes the conception of the promised child to the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, St. Paul, contrasting the promised Isaac with Ishmael, said the latter \u201cwas born according to the flesh,\u201d whereas the child of promise was born \u201caccording to the Spirit\u201d (Galatians 4:23,29). With respect to the promised Jesus, the angel declared to Mary, \u201cThe Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you\u201d (Luke 1:35). Both the barrenness of Sarah and the virginity of Mary provided the occasion for the outpouring of God\u2019s power on human inadequacy. The Holy Spirit, that is to say, is the \u201cSpirit of promise\u201d (Ephesians 1:13).<\/p>\n

Saturday, December 21<\/strong><\/p>\n

Luke 1:39-56: As Mary draws nigh and the sound of her voice reaches the ears of Elizabeth, the pre-born infant John leaps (eskirtesen<\/em>) in his mother\u2019s womb. Elizabeth observes this and comments on it. I cite the Greek verb, skirtao<\/em> here, because it hints at what Luke has in mind.<\/p>\n

The Greek Skirtao<\/em> is the root of the Italian scherzare<\/em>, which means something along the lines of \u201cto jump around and have a good time.\u201d Derived from this root, a scherzo<\/em> is an intense form of dance. Such is John\u2019s reaction to the approach of the Holy One carried in the womb of Mary.<\/p>\n

The close reader of Holy Scripture will remember here the scene in 2 Samuel 6, where David dances at the approach of the Ark of the Covenant. This is how Luke thinks of the Mother of Jesus; carrying Jesus, she is the Ark of the Divine Presence.<\/p>\n

Revelation 21:19-27: All of history is symbolized in two women, who are two cities. We have already considered the scarlet woman who is Babylon\/ Rome. The other woman is the Bride, the New Jerusalem, whose proper place is heaven, but who also flees to the desert, where she does battle with Satan (Chapter 12). Now that battle is over, however, and she appears here in her glory. That other city was seated, as we saw, on seven hills, but this New Jerusalem also sits on a very high mountain, which everyone understood to be symbolized in Mount Zion (cf. Ezekiel 40:1-2). John\u2019s vision of the gates on the city is reminiscent of Ezekiel 48.<\/p>\n

John\u2019s vision here, especially verses 19-21, is also related to Ezekiel 28:12-15, where we find joined the themes of the mountain and the precious stones. This city is also the Garden of Eden, where those stones first grew (cf. Genesis 2:10-12).<\/p>\n

The symbolic number here is twelve, which we already considered in Chapter 12, where it was the number of the stars around the head of the heavenly woman. The identification of twelve stars with twelve stones is obvious in our own custom of birthstones to represent zodiacal signs. The symbol is not only astrological, however, but also historical, because it is the number of the patriarchs and apostles. Here, in fact, the twelve gates bear the names of the twelve tribes, who are the seed of the twelve patriarchs, while the twelve foundation stones of the city are identified as the twelve apostles.<\/p>\n

We recall that one hundred and forty-four thousand\u2014the number of the righteous\u2014partly involves squaring of the number twelve. In the present chapter John stresses that the plane geometry of the holy city is square, as in Ezekiel 45 and 48. John goes beyond Ezekiel, however, in viewing the New Jerusalem as a cube, as in the Holy of Holies of Solomon\u2019s temple (1 Kings 6:20).<\/p>\n

Sunday, December 22<\/strong><\/p>\n

Revelation 22:1-11: The biblical story begins and ends in paradise. Thus, in John\u2019s vision of the river of paradise we remember the four-branched river of paradise in Genesis 2. Both here and in Ezekiel 47:1-12 there are monthly fruits growing on the banks of the river, twelve in number, obviously. Just as Adam\u2019s curse drove the whole human race out of paradise, so the leaves of the paradisiacal tree of life are for the healing of all the nations.<\/p>\n

The theme of the living waters is very much central to the Johannine corpus (cf. John 4:7-15; 7:38; 19:34; 1 John 5:6-8).<\/p>\n

Heaven, portrayed here as vision and worship with the angels (verses 8-9), is for all those whose foreheads are sealed with the mark of the living God. This sealing, of course, stands in contrast to the mark of beast. (It is curious to note that, outside of the Book of Revelation [7:2-3; 9:3-4; 13:16-18; 14:1.9; 17:5; 20:4], the word \u201cforehead\u201d does not appear in the New Testament.) The literary background of John\u2019s sealing is apparently Ezekiel 9:1-4.<\/p>\n

The urgency of John\u2019s message is indicated by the command that he not seal it up for future generations. The Lord\u2019s coming, in fact, will be soon, and it is imperative for John\u2019s readers to \u201cget out\u201d the message. John\u2019s visions are not sealed, concealed, esoteric codes to be deciphered by future generations. John clearly expects his own contemporaries to understand what he is writing. These things \u201cmust shortly take place\u201d (verse 6); it will all happen \u201csoon\u201d (1:1,3). John is warning his contemporaries that a special moment of judgment and grace is upon them and that they had better prepare themselves for it, because it is later than they think.<\/p>\n

Monday, December 23<\/strong><\/p>\n

Psalms 115 (Greek and Latin 113b); One way of approaching this psalm is through the consideration of space. It speaks of heaven, earth, and the nether world, and all of these references are related to the question, posed in an early verse, about where God is to be located: \u201cSo where is their God?\u201d<\/p>\n

This question, posed by the unbelievers as a mockery (\u201cWhy should the Gentiles say\u201d), is answered by the psalmist: \u201cBut our God is in heaven.\u201d The affirmation here is not merely spatial, so to speak, for he goes on immediately to draw an inference that becomes a theme of the psalm: God \u201cdoes<\/em> whatever He pleases.\u201d The verb, to \u201cdo\u201d or \u201cmake\u201d (\u2018asah<\/em> in Hebrew) appears now for the first time and may be seen as a key to the psalm\u2019s meaning. This psalm is about a God who does<\/em> things.<\/p>\n

Nothing more is said about space until a dozen verses later, when the psalmist speaks of \u201cthe Lord, who made<\/em> heaven and earth.\u201d The word \u201cmade\u201d here is \u2018oseh<\/em>, the active participle of the same verb as before; it could be translated even as a substantive\u2014God is a doer<\/em>. The Lord does<\/em> things.<\/p>\n

Here, then, is heaven once more, not simply a spatial reference but a symbol of God\u2019s omnipotence. Just as, earlier, \u201cheaven\u201d had to do with God\u2019s activity (\u201cHe does whatever He pleases\u201d), so now the reference to God\u2019s activity leads back immediately to the thought of heaven: \u201cThe heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n

In contrast to heaven there is the earth: \u201cBut the earth He has given to the children of men.\u201d God is in heaven; He is omnipotent. Men dwell on earth; they are not omnipotent. Indeed, they will die and \u201cgo down into silence,\u201d and this brings us to the psalm\u2019s final reference to space—the nether world, where the \u201cdead do not praise the Lord.\u201d The \u201csons of men\u201d are, in themselves, but creatures of a day. They are unlike God, for there are very strict limits to what they can do. And that was exactly the note on which our psalm began: \u201cNot unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but to Your name give glory.\u201d<\/p>\n

In contrast to God, what can men—on their owndo<\/em>? They can make idols. In fact, left to themselves, making idols is exactly what they will<\/em> do.<\/p>\n

These idols he calls \u201cthe work of men\u2019s hands,\u201d the noun \u201cwork\u201d translating here ma\u2018aseh<\/em>, a Hebrew passive participle of the same verb we have been examining all along. That is to say, idolatry is the only thing that the children of men, left to their own devices, can<\/em> do. Once again, then, we continue the theme of man\u2019s utter weakness contrasted with God\u2019s omnipotent activity: \u201cNot unto us, but to Your name give glory.\u201d<\/p>\n

The psalmist seems to enjoy meditating on the futility of these idols, \u201cthe work of men\u2019s hands,\u201d for he spends considerable effort describing their impotence. Using the mystical number seven, a standard biblical symbol of perfection, he goes on to tell what these idols cannot do<\/em>: (1) \u201cThey have mouths, but they do not<\/em> speak;\u201d (2) \u201cEyes they have, but they do not<\/em> see;\u201d (3) \u201cThey have ears, but they do not<\/em> hear;\u201d (4) \u201cNoses they have, but they do not<\/em> smell;\u201d (5) \u201cThey have hands, but they do not<\/em> handle;\u201d (6) \u201cFeet they have, but they do not<\/em> walk;\u201d and (7) \u201cNor do<\/em> they mutter through their throat.\u201d There you have it. These idols, \u201cthe work of men\u2019s hands,\u201d are perfectly imperfect. They are infinitely nothing; there is simply no limit to their imperfection and nothingness.<\/p>\n

And what becomes of the men who devote their lives to the making of these idols? They, too, become nothing: \u201cThose who make them are like them; so is everyone who trusts in them.\u201d The makers of idols (which includes any one of us who insists on going his own way) will, in the end, have nothing to show for their efforts and their lives: \u201cThe dead do not praise the Lord, nor any who go down into silence.\u201d The silence of the idols becomes the unending silence of eternal loss. Those who make them become like them.<\/p>\n

The children of men, therefore, must not put their trust in the works of their own hands, which are destined to perish with them. Where, then, put our trust? \u201cO Israel, trust in the Lord . . . O house of Aaron, trust in the Lord . . You who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two days from now, it will be Christmas. God is going to do<\/em> something.<\/p>\n

Tuesday, December 24<\/strong><\/p>\n

Matthew 1:1-17: The Evangelist, St. Matthew, as though encouraging the preacher to deliver a three-point sermon on the subject, is careful to break the genealogy of Jesus into three parts. He writes, \u201cSo all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.\u201d<\/p>\n

This very simple chronological sequence thus divides salvation history—from Abraham to Jesus—according to the history of the monarchy. Thus, the three sections are pre-monarchical, extending from the 18th century before Christ to the beginning of the 10th; then, the period of the monarchy, from the year 1000 to the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century; and finally, the post-monarchical period, from the sixth century, starting in 538, to the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n

Saint Augustine speculated that the period from Abraham to David could be called man\u2019s adolescence—adulescentia<\/em>, whereas his \u201cyouth\u201d (iuventus<\/em>, classically understood as the period between ages twenty and forty) began with David. This is why, says Augustine, history is divided at this point (The City of God<\/em> 16.43).<\/p>\n

If one observes it closely, Matthew\u2019s historical division also corresponds roughly to the three parts of the Hebrew canonical Scriptures: the Torah in the pre-monarchical period, the Prophets during the monarchical period, and the Writings during the post-monarchical period.<\/p>\n

One of the most striking features of this genealogy is indicated in verse 16. After fifteen verses tracing what one would naturally think to be the biological lineage of Jesus of Nazareth (very much like the various genealogies in the Old Testament), we suddenly learn that it is nothing of the sort. We are minutely instructed with respect to the biological lineage of Joseph, only to be informed that there existed no biological link between Joseph and Jesus! There is a great irony in this legal—as distinct from biological—lineage. Supremely the Heir to God\u2019s covenants with Abraham and David, Jesus is in no way dependent upon them. On the contrary, the final significance of Abraham and David is derived entirely from their relationship to Jesus.<\/p>\n

Wednesday, December 25<\/strong><\/p>\n

Luke 2:1-20: This reading continues the theme of Jesus\u2019 relationship to David. Both are born in Bethlehem, which is here called the \u201ccity of David.\u201d In the Old Testament this expression, \u201ccity of David,\u201d normally refers to Jerusalem, but Luke refers it to Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the fifth chapter of Micah (which we also read today). Bethlehem, which means \u201chouse of bread,\u201d becomes the birthplace of Him who came as the living bread from heaven.<\/p>\n

Luke\u2019s final chapter, in fact, will speak of Christians knowing Him in the breaking of the bread, a deep reference to our Eucharistic meal. It is worth bearing in mind that the word \u201cChristmas\u201d means \u201cChrist\u2019s Mass,\u201d which makes the Church supremely \u201cthe house of bread.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hebrews 2:1-10: In these verses we find our earliest extant Christian commentary on Psalm 8, which is a treatise on the Incarnation. The question under consideration is \u201cWhat is man?\u201d or, if the translator is sensitive to feminist concern, \u201cWhat is a human being?\u201d That is to say, in some recent translations of the Psalms, this question introduces considerations of anthropology.<\/p>\n

According to the author of Hebrews, however, the reliable way to a correct anthropology—the accurate response to the question, \u201cWhat is a human being?\u201d\u2014depends on the answer to a prior theological question: \u201cWhat do you think of the Christ? Whose son in He?\u201d In other words, the proper address to anthropology is through the gate of Christology.<\/p>\n

The most correct wording of the dogma of the Incarnation is the one to which we are accustomed: \u201cHe became man.\u201d This translation, which leaves the implied article undetermined, means Christ is the archetype of man, bearing all of humanity in Himself. \u201cIt was for the new man that human nature was established from the beginning,\u201d wrote St. Nicholas Kavasilas; \u201cthe old Adam was not the model of the new, it was the new Adam that was the model of the old.\u201d Christ is how the author of Hebrews approaches the subject of human beings.<\/p>\n

This approach to anthropology, taken from Holy Scripture, is normative in Christian thought. According to the Christian faith, when God gave our forefather Adam dominion over the earth and its fullness, that act was a prophecy of the universal subjection of creation to the reign of Christ. Such is the true meaning of Psalm 8: \u201cYou have made Him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under His feet.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thursday, December 26<\/strong><\/p>\n

Matthew 1:18-25: In today\u2019s reading Joseph receives two commands that affect his legal relationship to Jesus: \u201cTake to you Mary your wife\u201d and \u201cYou shall call His name Jesus.\u201d In fulfilling these commands, Joseph establishes the legal relationship of King David to Jesus. It is for this reason that Joseph is here addressed as \u201cJoseph, son of David\u201d; this is the only instance in the New Testament where \u201cson of David\u201d refers to someone besides Jesus. Two other features of this text should be noted: First, the name Emmanuel, which is translated as \u201cGod with us,\u201d ties this passage to the very last verse of the Gospel of Matthew, the Lord\u2019s promise to be with us always. Second, the expression \u201cthat it might be fulfilled,\u201d which here appears for the first of the eleven times that it is found in Matthew, more than in all of the other three Gospels combined.<\/p>\n

Acts 6:8—8:3: Israel\u2019s recent killing of the Messiah, Stephen argues, is of a piece with all of Israel\u2019s earlier sins. He begins to recount these, stage by stage, starting with the call of Abraham in ancient Mesopotamia. His point in starting in Mesopotamia is to show that God\u2019s Word is not limited to the Holy Land nor tied to the temple or any Jewish institution.<\/p>\n

To demonstrate this point, Stephen speaks of the endless wandering characteristic of the patriarchal period. Even the covenant itself, he notes, was prior to Israel, whose son Isaac was not conceived until afterwards. (This characteristic of the covenant with Abraham, particularly its priority to the Mosaic Law, will be an important aspect of the treatment of Abraham in Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews.)<\/p>\n

In Stephen\u2019s discussion of Joseph (verse 9), he begins to introduce the theme of jealousy and rebellion, taking the attitude of Joseph\u2019s sinful brothers as a foreshadowing of Israel\u2019s rejection of Jesus. Their cruel treatment of Joseph makes him a type or figure of the coming Messiah, who, albeit innocent and unoffending, would also be condemned, sold, arrested, and put in prison.<\/p>\n

Then, Stephen goes on, a pagan Pharaoh would receive favorably the very one that the sons of Israel had rejected, accepting him as their \u201cleader.\u201d Again those events formed a foreshadowing of Jesus\u2019 rejection by the Israelites and His turning to the Gentiles. Here Stephen is addressing one of the most important messages of the Acts of the Apostles.<\/p>\n

Friday, December 27<\/strong><\/p>\n

John 1:1-18: We will be reading only the first two chapters of John during the Christmas season. The rest of this Gospel will be read in the Spring, the season in which John\u2019s Gospel traditionally dominates. Our brief comments today speak of John wholly in the context of Christmas.<\/p>\n

The Jesus presented in John\u2019s Gospel appears as the eternal Word, in whom \u201cwas life, and the life was the light of men\u201d (1:4). Becoming flesh and dwelling among us (1:14), He is the living revelation of God\u2019s glory on this earth. Even though \u201cno one has seen God at any time,\u201d John says, \u201cthe only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him\u201d (1:18).<\/p>\n

1 John 1:1-7: In the opening of this epistle we observe several parallels with the beginning of John\u2019s Gospel. For instance, the \u201cbeginning\u201d in verse 1 matches the same word in John 1:1. The Word\u2019s presence with the Father in verse 2 find its correspondence in John 1:1-2: \u201cthe Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.\u201d The \u201cWord of life\u201d in verse 4 matches John 1:4\u2014\u201cin him was life.\u201d<\/p>\n

When the word appears in each of the first five verses, it always means \u201cwe\u201d as distinct from \u201cyou.\u201d In fact, in each instance it refers to the authority of the apostolic witness. In the verses John\u2019s \u201cwe\u201d signifies the apostles who were eyewitnesses of everything that happened during \u201call the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us\u201d (Acts 1:21). John\u2019s \u201cwe\u201d in these verses is identical to Luke\u2019s \u201cus\u201d in this text from Acts. Thus, John writes,<\/p>\n

. . . we<\/em> have heard . . . we<\/em> have seen . . . we<\/em> have looked upon, and our<\/em> hands have handled . . . we<\/em> have seen, and bear witness . . . was manifested to us<\/em> . . . that which we<\/em> have seen and heard we<\/em> declare to you . . . these things we<\/em> write . . . we<\/em> have heard from Him and declare to you<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, the \u201cwe\u201d of these verses indicates the authority of the apostolic witness itself, the genuine transmission off the divine revelation that took place in Jesus Christ. The identical use of this \u201cwe\u201d is found also near the beginning of John\u2019s Gospel: \u201c . . . we<\/em> beheld His glory . . .\u201d (1:14).<\/p>\n

According to John, this authoritative witness involves the various senses by which the Apostles discerned God\u2019s manifestation in the flesh\u2014hearing, seeing, even touching: \u201cwhich we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Friday, December 20 Luke 1:26-38: To Mary\u2019s inquiry\u2014\u201cHow can this be, since I do not know a man?\u201d (1:24)\u2014Gabriel gives an adequate and very reassuring response, whereas Zachariah\u2019s inquiry was not only denied, but the man himself was punished for even making it! The difference between the two cases is not hard to discern. Mary\u2019s … Continue reading December 20 – December 27<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/652"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=652"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/652\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":653,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/652\/revisions\/653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.touchstonemag.com\/daily_reflections\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}