For a description of the (Y2) reading plan, see the “About” page.
Luke 2
Trace the responses of Mary through this chapter. What can you learn from her? Luke said twice that Mary treasured the words and events surrounding the described events concerning her son in her heart. In the NIV, both statements are started with the word, “but”, as if in contrast to the responses of those around her. I’m not sure why, but Luke seems to have thought this a significant detail. Perhaps he made this point to emphasize the reliability of the stories. These weren’t just the recollections of the people involved or the stories as passed down through the grapevine. These were the memories of a loving, reflective mother who intentionally pondered and stored every detail away deep in her heart.
Whatever his purpose, Luke’s statement tells us something about Mary’s character. Though she certainly did not understand all the implications of it, more than any other she knew who her son was because she had fully believed and accepted all that the angel, Gabriel, had told her. Therefore, she took careful note of the things that happened, seeking understanding of all that her son was and how she fit into God’s plan. In other words, she lived her life with intention, setting aside self and seeking to respond from a Godly perspective. That is an attitude I could stand to apply more in my own life.
Ezek. 33-34
What does Ezekiel’s call to be a watchman suggest about individual responsibility? About God’s grace? This entire passage about the watchman, the righteous person who disobeys, and the wicked person who repents is a repeat of Ezekiel 18. As I always say when stuff gets repeated like this, it must be important. However, I’m not sure I completely understand the message. There are a few surface level messages I get out of it, but when I stop to think about them a little deeper, something doesn’t quite add up with the thoughts.
I get that if the watchman doesn’t warn of God’s coming wrath, he will share responsibility for the death of the sinner. But who is the watchman? On the surface, this seems to say that the one who knows the truth is responsible to tell it but is not responsible for the outcome. While I’m sure there is some truth to that statement, it seems like something is missing. The watchman is clearly an appointed one. With the son of man reference, this could be a representation of Jesus and His message of repentance. But then the part about a failure to speak out making the watchman accountable for the sinner’s blood doesn’t make sense.
It’s a similar situation with the discourse about the righteous and the wicked. On the surface, this says that the past doesn’t matter. A righteous past will not carry a person through disobedience. Likewise, a wicked past will not prevent repentance. But this makes salvation sound like a matter of timing, which isn’t right at all. Furthermore, the whole scenario sounds very works based. When boiled down to bare bones, the message is, “obey and live or disobey and die”. And it all seems rather pointless, since we know that none of us can maintain a righteous state over a very long period of time.
I think maybe the key to the whole thing is what God says toward the end. “Yet your people say, ‘the way of the Lord is not just.’ But it is their way that is not just.” (Ez. 33:17). Perhaps the whole discourse is less about how things happen and more about the basis for God’s actions. If the watchman doesn’t do his job, he is just as guilty as the people. If the righteous sin, their former righteousness can’t save them. And if the wicked repent, they will be saved. Each person is responsible for his own actions. It is a just system in spite of the fact that we cannot comply with it.