Sermon. St Michael and All Angels,
Little Ilford. 18.10.20
Feast of St Luke, Apostle and Evangelist
Luke 10.1-9
If, as in the parable, so in life,
some people are given one talent, some two, and some five talents, then surely
St Luke, whom we celebrate today, is a five talent man. He was talented.
Even hard-bitten secular historians might agree with this, with one proviso –
providing, that is, that it is allowed that the writer of the Gospel of Luke
and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles was Luke, or providing we allow
ourselves to call him “Luke” (whatever his name).
Whoever wrote the two-volume work
Luke-Acts was a talented person. The Greek of this work is fluent, fluid and
eloquent. You might say: Well, of course it is; this is the Bible we are
talking about; only the best is good enough. But if you thought that, you’d be wrong.
The Greek of the New Testament varies greatly. Mark’s Greek, for example, is
rough to the point of crude. Not so Luke, elegant, eloquent Luke.
What’s more, those hard-bitten
secular historians will also agree that Luke – or “Luke” is - by New Testament
writers’ standards, prolific. Who are, in terms of quantity, the
great authors of the New Testament? There is no contest: it is Paul and it is
Luke; each wrote over a quarter of the New Testament. Of no one else can
that be said.
And what’s more still, those same
historians will agree that Luke is one who sets out to write a detailed
account, to attend to detail. How he ranks as a historian by modern
standards is much disputed. But by ancient standards, he is surely a worthy
contender. This is clearly his intention. I give you his first sentence (brace
yourselves) [Luke 1.1-4]:
Since many have undertaken to set
down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among
us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating
everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for
you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning
the things about which you have been instructed. Full stop!
Some associate this will to attend to
detail and get it right the disposition of the doctor, the medic.
And indeed, he is detailed about the healings he records, and some of his terminology
seems to come from medical expertise.[1]
This has long been one of the reasons to link him to “Luke, the beloved
physician” who sends greetings in the Letter to the Colossians [4.14 Loukas
ho iatros ho agapetos].
Here, though, we are beginning to
stray from secular history into the territory of tradition. Nothing
wrong with that, I think we are likely to think. Well, by ancient tradition,
Luke was not only a skilled physician, but he was also a gifted… artist.
By tradition, Luke was the first iconographer, the first painter, or
rather (to use the preferred term) the first writer of icons. The
originals of some ancient icons of Mary and the child Jesus are – believe it or
not – attributed to Luke. Why the connection?
Well, attention to detail again,
sure. Every brush stroke with exquisite care. But it is also surely plausible
to say that Luke knew, or at least at some point met, Mary. Think about it. It
is through Luke, and Luke alone, that we have
·
the
story of the birth of Jesus from Mary’s perspective;
·
the
Annunciation,
·
the
Visitation;
·
the
Magnificat;
·
the
Circumcision;
·
the
Presentation;
·
the
child Jesus’s visit to the Temple;
·
and
not least the refrain: “but Mary pondered all these things in her heart”
All of this we owe to no one other
than Luke.
By tradition, Luke was one of the seventy
apostles sent out by Jesus, which is why we have today’s gospel. One of the
Seventy, note, not one of the Twelve. But this is difficult (I don’t say
impossible), if Luke is also held to be a gentile. There’s another
tradition which (I’ll be honest) rather appeals to me, both rationally and
emotionally. It is that Luke was the one accompanying Cleopas on the road to
Emmaus (too humble to name himself). This is why he is able to tell that particular
Easter story (which I know many of us love) so vividly.
·
Luke,
writer (writer at length and in depth);
·
Luke,
historian (pioneer Church historian);
·
Luke,
physician;
·
Luke,
artist.
If you’re anything like me, if you
are not careful, you will have to work at not disliking Luke at this point. Too
talented for his own good, we might find ourselves thinking. The perfect
perfectionist! Certainly, of no earthly use to me. Not someone I can relate to.
Well, take heart, brothers and
sisters! It is not that simple. It can be said that, even if Luke intended to
be a meticulous and perfectly accurate historian, he may not always manage
it. Some examples.
·
Most
historians say that Luke got Christmas wrong! He tells us that the
Emperor Augustus ordered a census, which was the first while Quirinius was
governor of Syria, which meant that all went to their ancestral towns for
reasons unspecified [2.1-3]. It’s very hard to bring all this together
historically, and Quirinius was not governor, anyway (he was legate).
·
Luke
tells us that Mary and Joseph went to present Jesus to the Lord in the
Temple, as if that were required by the law of Moses. But there’s no reference
to the presentation of new-borns in the Temple (or Tabernacle) in the Torah of
Moses.
·
Again,
in Luke’s account of the lowering of the paralysed man through the roof
for healing [5.18-26], Luke has his friends pulling away tiles from a
full-blown roof - as we would understand a roof. But that’s unlikely. It would
be a major operation, and it’s also not what roofs were in 1st
century Palestine. Roofs were loose affairs, fabric, or slats held together by
mud.
So, Luke, ever diligent, never
perfect. Perhaps we can relate after all.
If we had a chance to ask Luke what
was good about him, what do you think he would say? We don’t know. I know
we don’t know. I am not suggesting we know. But answer this as an imaginative
exercise. If Luke were asked what was good about him, what would he say?
I have a suggestion, which works, if (even
if just for now) we take the biblical record as it is, in the round. You’ve
heard it, today. In the account of Paul’s sustained sufferings in 2 Timothy,
the writer says: “Only Luke is with me” [Loukas estin monos met’emou 4.11].
Only Luke has been faithful, faithful in the time of trial. Luke got
stuck in, and stayed stuck in, and stuck it out.
To be blunt, I cannot tell you if
that was the historical situation. I can tell you, that if we think of the
biblical hero, Luke, as the Bible presents him, this was what was most obviously
good and what was best about Luke.
It’s also the case that this is
something we can take on, we can do. Whether we consider ourselves to be a
five-talented, a two-talented, or a one-talented person (and by the way we
often underestimate ourselves on precisely that point), wherever we
stand in whatever order of success or acclaim, we can be faithful.
·
I
cannot tell you if our plans for our own church community will work out. We
can be faithful.
·
I
cannot tell you what hardships are ahead in this country. We can be faithful.
·
I
cannot tell you if civilisation can survive all the crises it is unquestionably
facing. We can be faithful.
Think of your name. Think of your
name now. Think of your name when I say “Name” now.
·
Only
[Name] is with me.
·
[Name]
is with me.
·
[Name]
is faithful.
·
With
[Name] with me, I can bear all that I have to bear.
Welcome to your vocation of faithfulness.
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment