How can it be?

"And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" - Luke 1:43

So said Elisabeth, cousin of Mary, in wonder and worship.

And so should we say... how can this be granted to me, that the Lord of glory should come to me?

Should carry my sins up the accursed hill of rejection and bleed and die for them?

How can it be, that the Son of God should love me and give himself for me?

How can the pure and holy one who fills time and eternity remember me, and make me an heir of glory?

And how often do we actually say that?

Let him hear! (2)

The challenge of the parable of the sower is powerful - for those who have ears to hear it.

What is the difference between one hearer of the word and another?

The difference in the parable was not in the sower. It was not in the seed sown. The same seed was sown everywhere, by one sower.

The difference was where it fell.

If there are people in the world who are far more godly and useful in Christ's service than you or I are, then why is that?

Why is one believer prayerful, holy, self-denying, resistant to the world, serious, Bible-studying - a shining light, a fruitful servant of Christ; and yet you are not?

It's not the sower.

It's not the seed.

It's the ground that the seed falls in.

Lord, change my heart today, whatever it costs and wherever it takes me.

He had better hear!

Despite studying a few languages and being a Bible student for many years, somehow this point foot-noted in the .Net Bible escaped me until this week...

"Let (person) do (action)" is the classic English form of the imperative, not the permissive... well, I knew that; but I never managed to apply it to my reading of the gospels.

The comment that .Net gives each time we get the verse which is historically translated "he who has ears, let him hear!" reads thus:

"The one who has ears to hear had better listen!" - The translation “had better listen!” captures the force of the third person imperative more effectively than the traditional “let him hear,” which sounds more like a permissive than an imperative to the modern English reader. This was Jesus’ common expression to listen and heed carefully.

A friend not so long ago commented similarly that, even though he had been familiar since childhood with the archaic KJV forms, which frequently give additional information to that available in modern English, he had in 40 years of Bible reading missed every time what Simeon was saying:

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: (Luke 2:29)

That is not an interrogative (a request, "please let your servant depart in peace") but a simple indicative statement - because he had now seen the Lord's Messiah, he was now departing in peace; it had come to pass. His eyes had seen salvation and peace had thus been obtained. Amen!

Not just one step ahead

There's a beautiful and ironic/humourous touch in the story of Simon the Pharisee and the woman who came into his house:

Luke 7:39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

Simon the Pharisee wonders why Jesus cannot perceive what he sees as he looks at the woman, and judges him for his lack of spiritual insight. Meanwhile, Jesus knows exactly what Simon is thinking... and wants to expose to him his lack of spiritual insight.

How often do we wonder why Jesus cannot see what we can see, and do something about it?

Meanwhile, Jesus not only sees what we can see, but wants us to learn to think of it differently.