Luke 4:20-30
By J.D. Myers | February 6, 2010
Luke 4:20-30 reveals the reaction of the people to Jesus after He taught from Isaiah 61:1-2a. They respond by trying to kill Him. Such a response is initially surprising since there does not seem to be anything offensive or controversial in the text that Jesus expounded. The verses He read seem to promise only blessings and restoration to the Jewish people, and through them, to all the earth.
Of course, Luke does not record the actual teaching Jesus provided, and so maybe His explanation was more controversial than we assume. Whatever Jesus said, there are hints in the passage which explain why the Jewish audience would have taken exception with Jesus when He taught this text in the Nazareth synagogue. These will be seen as the text unfolds.
4:20. After Jesus had read from Isaiah 61:1-2a, He closed the book (probably a scroll). It is unclear if Luke has recorded the entire Scripture portion that Jesus taught from that day, or only the crucial text for his narrative. Some argue that this could not be the entire text because Jewish tradition required that Sabbath-day teachings come from at least three verses of text, whereas Jesus had only read one-and-a-half. But this is a later tradition which was most likely not universally followed at the time of Jesus. Even if it was, Jesus was known for breaking with certain traditions if it would prove a point and did not break any of the Mosaic Law.
And if that is what Jesus did here, it would have made His point quite clear. After mentioned the Year of Jubilee (the Year of the Lord’s Favor), Isaiah 61:2 then speaks about the day of vengeance of our God. The Jewish expectation was that when the Messiah arrived, He would not only restore the fortunes of Israel, but would do so by destroying her enemies. But Jesus does not read that part. Instead, He seems to make a point about stopping in midsentence, and closing the book. Luke, it seems, knows the point that Jesus is making, and so emphasizes the fact that it was here that Jesus stopped and closed the book. With His actions, Jesus emphatically shows that He is not going to talk about the vengeance of God upon the enemies of Israel, not even upon the Roman Empire, Israel’s current captor. Such an exclusion was unthinkable for most Jews. Deliverance from captivity was not complete without some sort of destructive judgment upon the enemies of God who enslaved them. Think of their deliverance from Egypt! Think of the entrance into the Promised Land. Think of the times of the Judges! Think of the deliverance from the Babylonian Empire, and the Medo-Persian Empire. In all these cases, deliverance came through the destruction of their enemies. It should be no different with the Roman Empire.
And after He closed the book, He gave it back to the attendant—who may have been the Synagogue Ruler or some other person in charge of caring for the scrolls—and then sat down. The teacher would generally stand to read the Scripture portion for the teaching, and then sit to explain it.
Since Jesus stopped reading mid-way through Isaiah 61:2, and had stopped right before “the good part,” He certainly had the attention of all who were there: The eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. They were eager to know what He would say about the text and read, and more importantly, why He had stopped where He did.
4:21. The words of Jesus recorded here are not the entire sermon. Luke only records what Jesus began to say. After reading the text, Jesus started His teaching by saying, ”Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” In homiletic terminology, this would be “the hook” or the attention grabber. It is the introductory statement which gets the audience interested in what will be said. It is certain that following this statement, Jesus goes on to explain the text of Isaiah 61:1-2a, explaining what the statements mean and how they were fulfilled in their hearing. It seems unlikely that Jesus is saying that the statements were literally fulfilled right at that moment—either spiritually or physically—for He still had most of His earthly ministry ahead of Him, including His death and resurrection. So maybe what He explained is how they would be fulfilled in His ministry as the Messiah and in the life of those who followed Him.
4:22. The custom was that the audience would let the teacher finish his lesson before any questions were asked or additional comments were made. But after Jesus finished His teaching, the people all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. It seems that their initial response was quite positive. However, in the following verses, their response quickly turns negative. How did this happen? There are three possibilities. First, it could be that some received and accepted what Jesus while others did not. Those who received it are mentioned here, and those who are critical are described later. This option seems unlikely in the context.
A second option is that they were all initially impressed by what Jesus said, but when He clarifies in verses 23-27 that He is referring not just to the Jewish people but also to the Gentiles, and specifically their Roman Captors, the mood of the audience turns sour. The primary problem with this option is that verses 23-27 seem to be to a defense against an accusation. Does Jesus manufacture this accusation Himself in verse 23 just so He can refute it in verses 24-27? That seems unlikely. He either knew their critical thoughts (cf. 6:8), or they actually said something which showed their disdain and disagreement with His exposition.
The third option is that the audience disagreed with Jesus all along, and make a statement of disagreement here in verse 22: “Is this not Joseph’s son?” In this case, they would be saying, “This is the son of Joseph, a carpenter! Didn’t he grow up here? Doesn’t he know how we feel and how we understand this text?” With this understanding, the opening words of verse 22 are better translated, “And all witnessed against Him, and were amazed at the words of mercy that came out of His mouth” (Bailey 2008:151). They did not speak in favor of Him, but murmured against Him. They are not amazed at His great teaching, but instead, shocked at His claim that God desires to show mercy to the enemies of Israel. They were looking for a ruling Messiah who would throw off Roman occupation and lead Israel to world domination.
But Jesus left all that out of His sermon and instead, indicated that He had come to be a light and blessing to the Gentiles. This definitely would have offended the Jewish audience of that day. At that time, many Jews viewed Gentiles as scum of the earth, as dogs only fit to be kicked around. Some Jews thought that the only reason God created Gentiles was to be fuel for the fires of hell (Barclay 1975:10). So for Jesus to have taught that God’s blessings were also intended for Gentiles would have shocked many in the Jewish audience. He sees their shock and outrage, and so continues to defend His explanation in the following verses.
4:23. One of the ways Jewish prophets proved the validity of their message was with the use of signs and predictions (cf. Deut 18:21-22; John 2:18; 1 Cor 1:22). The other method Jewish people used to decide if a prophet spoke the truth or not was by comparing his teaching with what was already recorded and commanded in Scripture. If the prophet had signs and miracles but contradicted the Word of God, they should still not heed his teaching (cf. Deut 13:1-3). The proverb which Jesus refers to, ”Physician, heal yourself” has this background in mind. If a physician says he can cure colds but he always has a cold, his “cure” should not be trusted. The sign that he is unreliable is his inability to cure himself.
In the case of a prophet, the Jewish people expected to see signs as proof that what the prophet taught was true. Specifically, the signs that were done in Capernaum they wanted Jesus to do here also in Nazareth. Luke has not recorded any signs that were done in Capernaum, but as this passage is already one year into Jesus’ ministry, He has already taught and performed signs in other locations (cf. John 2:1-11; 4:43-54). The Jews want Jesus to perform some of those same signs here. They do not want to accept the eye-witness reports that came from Capernaum and Galilee, but want Jesus to perform signs for themselves also.
This isn’t necessarily an unreasonable request, since Jews were instructed by God to test the prophets in such a manner. However, they themselves (as quoted by Jesus) admit that Jesus has already performed signs. This report they have received—and apparently believed—should be enough for them to accept and believe the message of Jesus. But they want to see the signs for themselves.
Jesus responds to this request in two ways. First, in verses 24-27, He takes them back to Scripture to provide proof of the validity of His message. In so doing, Jesus shows that signs—as important as they were for the Jewish people—still take second place to being consistent with Scripture.
4:24. The reason, Jesus says, that they won’t accept His teaching is not because He hasn’t done any signs, but because no prophet is accepted in his own country (cf. John 4:44). The word country does not refer literally to “the country of Israel” but could also be translated “hometown” and so refers to the region or area that Jesus grew up, which was Nazareth. It is often argued that the reason Jesus was not accepted in Nazareth is that the people there were so familiar with Him as a young boy, and watched Him grow up and become a carpenter, they had trouble recognizing Him as a teacher and a prophet, let alone the promised Messiah. While this may be part of the reason, the account that Jesus relates in the following verses hints at a deeper reason that prophets do not minister in their own country.
4:25. Jesus points the audience to the Prophet Elijah. When Elijah lived and ministered, many widows where in Israel. And certainly, these widows had great need, especially since the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land. For three and one-half years it did not rain, which resulted in famine. It is likely that many died as a result.
4:26. During this family, God did not send Elijah to minister to any of the needy people of Israel, not even the widows who had no one else to provide for them. Instead, Elijah was [/b]sent[/b] elsewhere by God. This is one reason why some prophets are not accepted in their home country. While sometimes it is due to a lack of faith (Matt 13:38), most often it is because God sends the prophet elsewhere. The rule is not universally applied, since some prophets do minister in their home region.
In this case, God sent Elijah to Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. Though there were many widows in Israel who were in dire need of aid, God sends Elijah to someone that the Jewish people would have despised and looked down upon. Not only was this person a woman, but she was a Gentile woman. With this example, Jesus shows that God is concerned about the needs of Gentiles; not just those of Israelites.
4:27. Jesus provides a second example from another great prophet to prove the identical point. In this example, many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian. If a Gentile woman was bad, a Gentile leper was worse. Not only that, but Naaman was the general of the Syrian army, which had killed and enslaved many of the Israelite people. At the time of Elisha, Naaman was one of the most hated men in all of Israel. When it was discovered he had leprosy, those Jews who heard of it must have rejoiced that God had judged him for his sins against Israel. Many may have viewed Elisha as a traitor when he healed Naaman.
The point, once again, is that God wanted to show His compassion and love for all people, not just the Israelites. And He was so intent on showing the Israelites His love for all people, He chose the most hated man in Israel to show that love to.
So Jesus is not telling His Jewish audience that He can’t or won’t do miracles in Nazareth. He can and He does. Instead, Jesus is trying to address their deep-seated sense of superiority, their hatred toward Gentiles, and especially their neglect of God’s plan for them to be a blessing to the nations. Though they expected the Messiah to overthrow the enemies of Israel and rule and reign over the world from Jerusalem, Jesus is showing them that He, as the Messiah, has come to be a blessing to all the world, as God has always intended.
4:28. When the people in the synagogue hear what Jesus is saying about God’s concern for Gentiles and the Messianic mission to all people, they were filled with wrath.
4:29. The people were so angry with Jesus, that they rose up and took Him out of the city…to the brow of the hill where they intended to throw Him down over the cliff. The people of Nazareth disagreed so strongly with what Jesus taught, that they tried to kill him by stoning Him. There were two different kinds of stoning. The more familiar kind is when a crowd of people throw stones at a person until he or she dies. The second kind involved taking the person to a cliff, and throwing him off of it so that the legs broke. Then they would drop stones down on top of the person until they were crushed. This people from the synagogue were trying to stone Jesus using this second method. He had taught something different than what they believed the Bible taught, and since He had refused to “produce a sign” they felt justified in stoning Him. In their minds, Jesus was a false prophet.
4:30. But the people were unsuccessful in stoning Jesus. Instead, passing through the midst of them, He went His way. Jesus miraculously escapes the mob and gets away safely. Ironically, they asked for a sign, and when they refused to accept His teaching, He gave them a sign to prove that what He had taught was true.
There is a parallel here between this event and the third temptation of Jesus in Luke 4:9-12. There, the devil led Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, and challenged Jesus to throw Himself off the temple in the sight of all the people below. The devil quoted Scripture to say that God would send angels to protect Jesus from hitting the stone courtyard below. Jesus stood against that temptation since it was not God’s will or God’s timing. But here, as Jesus is following God’s will in God’s way, God does protect Jesus from “striking his foot against a stone” and being put to death. This miracle was performed in the sight of the Jewish people, and Jesus escapes from them unharmed. The sign they asked for was granted, but only after they revealed their heart of unbelief and hatred for God’s desire to show mercy and compassion to the Gentiles.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 4:16-19
By J.D. Myers | January 17, 2010
From a thematic perspective, Luke 4:16-30 may be the central passage of the Gospel. This passage contains a mission statement from Jesus about His ministry and also provides a foreshadow for how His ministry will be received. The rest of the Gospel of Luke unfolds how Jesus fulfilled this mission, and yet was continually misunderstood and rejected by the people He worked among.
Above even this, it could be argued that Luke 4:16-30 is the foundation passage for the Book of Acts. If the Gospel of Luke shows how Jesus fulfilled the mission mandate of Jesus as recorded in Luke 4:18-19, then the Book of Acts shows how the church, guided and empowered by the same Spirit, worked to carry on the ministry of Jesus.
As discussed in Luke 4:14-15, this event occurs after one year of ministry, and Jesus is now beginning to transition from gaining disciples to training them.
4:16. To initiate these two years of training His disciples, Jesus traveled to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. It was in Nazareth where Jesus Himself received His training, and where He grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52). So it is natural for Him to choose Nazareth as the place where He will begin focusing on training His disciples.
Luke writes that it was the custom of Jesus to go into the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Attending the synagogue was part of the normal, weekly routine of Jesus. The synagogue setting is probably the background foundation for many of the practices of the early church. It is uncertain from history when exactly the Hebrew people started meeting in synagogues, but most believe it was around the time period of Ezra and Nehemiah. The primary purpose and function of the synagogue was to provide a place for Jewish people to pray and study the Scriptures in community (the meaning of synagogue is literally “assembly”). It was required that at least ten men commit to faithfully attending and supporting a synagogue before one could begin. Ten such men could be found in most Jewish communities, and so nearly every town had at least one synagogue, while some of the larger cities had several. It is reported that at the time of Jesus, Jerusalem had over 400 synagogues.
Luke records that Jesus went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, which is Saturday. The Sabbath was the primary day that the Jewish people attended the synagogue, but it was not the only day. Other common days of attendance were Monday and Thursday, while some attended every day.
No matter what day a person attended the synagogue, the primary synagogue activities were prayer and the teaching of the Scriptures. Though we cannot be certain about the order of events in the average synagogue at the time of Jesus, later Jewish tradition codified set prayers and passages for each day of the week and year. Depending on which tradition is followed, the Torah (the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible) are taught through either once per year, or once every three years. If Jesus used a cycle, it was probably the Triennial cycle, as it is known to have been in use in Palestine during the First Century AD. It also contained additional passages from the Prophets which the One-Year cycle did not contain, and the passage Jesus reads from is not found in the One-Year cycle. (See the article on the Triennial Cycle.)
Whichever cycle was used, the synagogue gatherings were used to read, interpret, and explain the weekly Torah readings. Also, depending on the Torah reading for the day, related passages from the historical books and prophets would also be taught (these were called Haftarah, meaning “parting” or “taking leave”). At the time of Jesus, the Haftarah passages were probably not codified, and so the man asked to teach the concluding Sabbath lesson (he was called the maftir) was allowed to choose his own text. (See the article on Haftarah.)
On this Sabbath, Jesus was probably this concluding teacher, because when he stood up to read, He read not from the Torah, but from one of the Prophets.
4:17. Jesus was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. As the Hebrew Scriptures were written on scrolls, the entire Bible could not be contained on one scroll. Sometimes, longer books (like Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), would fill multiple scrolls. The scroll that was handed to Jesus probably contained the second portion of the book of Isaiah (Chapters 40–66). He opened the book and found the text He was going to read from that day. The text He reads is primarily from Isaiah 61:1-2. This specific text is not contained in the modern one-year cycle of Haftarah readings, though the first weekly portion (Bereshit, Genesis 1–6) does contain a reading from Isaiah 42:6-7 which has similar content, while the fifty-first portion (Nitzavim, Deuteronomy 29–30) contains Isaiah 61:10-11. Regardless of how the text of Isaiah 61:1-2 was chosen, it became the basis for the sermon of Jesus which followed the reading and interpretation.
4:18. From Isaiah 61:1-2, Jesus explained to the people of Nazareth what He came to do. The six statements in this passage very aptly summarize His earthly ministry. While we don’t have the full text of His explanation of this passage (all we have is the opening statement in verse 21), we can guess at what Jesus said by how He fulfilled these verses throughout the rest of His ministry.
The text appears to be originally spoken by Isaiah about himself. He didn’t see himself to be the Messiah, but He did correctly believe that God had chosen and prophetically anointed him to help lead the people of Israel back into righteous obedience to God (cf. Isa 6:7-13). Here, however, Jesus applies the passage to Himself, and by inference, to all who would follow Him.
The passage states that The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me. This is a reference to the Holy Spirit. He is the source of empowerment for godly ministry, and even the Messiah had to depend on the Spirit for guidance and power. Prior to Pentecost in Acts 2, the Spirit only came upon certain individuals (like prophets, priests, kings, and artisans) for a period of time to help them accomplish specific tasks. After Pentecost, the Spirit permanently dwells within all who believe in Jesus for everlasting life. The purpose of this indwelling stays the same: to guide and empower people to accomplish specific tasks. Jesus, of course, lived prior to Pentecost, and so it can be assumed that He, as the Messiah, permanently had the Spirit upon Him to guide and empower Him for ministry. The Book of Acts records how the Spirit that was upon Jesus came also to indwell believers, so that the church could carry on the mission and ministry of Jesus to the entire world.
The Spirit anointed Jesus to accomplish specific tasks. In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 61:1, which Jesus was reading from, the text refers to “the anointed one,” which could also be translated “Messiah.” And so the play on words is that when Jesus read that the Spirit has anointed Him, He is implying that the Spirit has anointed Him to be the Messiah. The rest of verses 18-19 reveal six mission tasks that the Messiah would focus on.
There is much disagreement over how to understand these six statements of Jesus, primarily about whether they should be understood spiritually or physically. Did Jesus come for those who were materially poor, or for all who are spiritually poor? Did He set out to deliver those who were captive to Rome, or those who are captive to the devil? Did He want to heal those who were physically blind, or those who couldn’t see what God was doing in their midst?
The best way to solve this debate is to look at what Jesus actually did during His ministry, and assume that most of His actions were in fulfillment of these six statements. When this is done, it immediately becomes clear that we do not have to choose between the two. The ministry of Jesus focused on both physical and spiritual needs. Meeting a physical need often led to meeting a spiritual need, even if these needs were not always for the same person.
The first mission task of Jesus was To preach the gospel to the poor. The term preach the gospel is really one word in Greek (euangelizō; cf. Luke 1:19; 4:43), which is where English gets the word “evangelize.” It might be best translated “to proclaim the good news.” This proclamation involves both words and actions, as evidenced by the life of Jesus (cf. Luke 9:6). Both sermons and service are used to reveal the gospel to other people.
So while preaching the gospel is often thought to be only a spiritual issue, such a view is a distortion of the biblical gospel. The gospel is concerned with much than simply how people can receive eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. While that truth is central to the gospel, it is not the entire gospel. Instead, when the background of the term gospel is understood, and it’s usage in the New Testament is carefully studied, the biblical gospel is best defined as
[quote]good news for everybody, whether Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, regarding the benefits and blessings which come to us from the person and work of Jesus Christ. …[The] gospel contains everything related to the person and work of Jesus Christ, including all of the events leading up to His birth, and all the ramifications from Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for unbelievers and believers. (Click here for article)[/quote]
This means that the gospel is not just about spiritual issues and needs, but also the various forms of physical deliverance that came in and through Jesus Christ. The gospel is not just about Jesus providing grace and forgiveness to sinners through His death and resurrection, but also about healing sicknesses, helping the poor, delivering those in captivity, and everything else done by Jesus and His apostles in the Gospels and Acts. In fact, though this statement in 4:18 is the first of six mission statements, it could also be the title statement (with 4:19 being the summary), which is explained in more detail by those that follow. In this way, “preaching the gospel” includes things like healing the brokenhearted, proclaiming liberty to the captives, and giving sight to the blind.
This understanding is further supported by the fact that the gospel will be preached to the poor. There are two terms for the poor in Scripture, penes and [/i]ptochos.[/i] The penes were the poor who worked in the fields, and are contrasted to rich landowners who did not work. The ptochos, however, are those who don’t even have jobs. They are reduced to begging, and are destitute of all resources, including other family members. It is this “begging poor” that have the focus of attention in the gospels (cf. Matt 26:11; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 7:22; 14:21-23; 16:19-31; Acts 3:1-10. See article by Neyrey for more on “the poor.”).
So the physically destitute are the primary focus of this first mission statement of Jesus, which reveals that preaching the gospel to them is more than just telling them how they can receive eternal life. Proclaiming the gospel also requires us to feed, clothe, and train the poor so their physical needs are met.
Admittedly, a few places in Scripture do talk about being spiritually poor (Matt 5:3; Rev 3:17), but both seem to refer to believers who have not recognized or taken advantage of the riches that are theirs in Jesus Christ. Unregenerate people are not referred to in Scripture as being spiritually “poor.” Therefore, if this first mission statement of Jesus has any reference at all to meeting spiritual needs, it refers not as much to telling unbelievers how to receive eternal life, as to believers to take advantage of their spiritual riches in Christ. From a spiritual perspective then, the “preaching of the gospel” in this context is closer to “discipleship.”
Ultimately though, the primary emphasis in this context, and in the Gospel of Luke as a whole, is that the first mission intention of Jesus was to provide for the needs of those who were physically destitute. In His ministry He showed them through words and actions that they mattered to God, and that God was concerned to meet their needs.
Second, Jesus reads that He was sent…to heal the brokenhearted. This phrase is not in all Greek manuscripts, and so some translations omit it. However, since this phrase is included in Isaiah 61 that Jesus is reading, we can be fairly certain that Jesus read it on this day. It would be uncommon for a Jewish Rabbi to skip a phrase from the text he was teaching.
This mission purpose, unlike the other five, is very difficult to read in a strictly spiritual sense. Whereas the other five statements are often taught only for their spiritual application (e.g., Jesus is freeing people from sin, death, and devil), this one cannot be so easily spiritualized. Maybe that is why some prefer to omit it.
However, if Jesus came to deliver people not only from sin, death, and the devil, but also from enemies, injustice, addictions, and heartache, then this second mission statement of Jesus fits in quite well. Jesus came to heal, or restore, the brokenhearted, that is, people with deep emotional pain and distress. In the Gospels, Jesus is constantly portrayed as a man of sorrows (cf. Isa 53:3) who is intimately associated with our pain and grief, so that He can turn the tears into the laughter, and the grief into joy.
All of this, of course, was good news to Jewish people at the time of Jesus. Many of them had lost loved ones, land, and jobs due to the policies of the Roman government and the practices of the Roman military. Even more, due to sicknesses and poor living conditions, it is estimated that a child had only a fifty percent chance to live until the age of ten (Carter 2006:116). This means that most families probably experienced the death of one or more children. There was much to be brokenhearted about, and Jesus states that one of His purposes is to mend their hearts and restore their joy.
Third, Jesus has come to proclaim liberty to the captives. Again, while this can refer to both spiritual and physical deliverance, the original context and meaning heavily favors physical deliverance. The term liberty (Gk. aphesis) could also be translated “release” or “forgiveness” (cf. Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47) and primarily “denotes eschatological liberation” (TDNT I:650). A primary element in Jewish history and theology was that national sin and rebellion against God led to conquest and captivity by foreign powers. The reverse was also true. If Israel was in captivity, repentance from sin led to forgiveness (aphesis) by God, which resulted in the deliverance from captivity, and the restoration of the land and the temple. With this understanding, aphesis, or “forgiveness” is not just the removal of guilt from past offenses against God, but in response to repentance, leads to the future deliverance from one’s enemies.
This understanding is how Jesus’ audience would have understood Him. He lived and ministered at a time when the Hebrew people were captives of Rome. The hope and expectation was that if the Jewish people repented and returned to God as a nation, then God would throw off their captors, and restore Israel to her rightful place among the nations. This is what John the Baptist declared would happen when the Messiah came (cf. Luke 3:3). Jesus seems to affirm this view here.
The objection, of course, is that Jesus didn’t accomplish anything like this. To the contrary, at the end of the Gospels, it appears that rather than overthrowing the Roman rule in Israel, it is the Roman rulers who have defeated Jesus by crucifying Him (Mark 15:24-27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18). And His resurrection doesn’t result in the overthrow of the Roman Empire either.
For this reason, many argue that Jesus is applying this text to Himself in a spiritual sense only. It is then taught that Jesus came to deliver people from spiritual bondage. In this way, the term captives is understood as those who are possessed by demons, enslaved to sin, or captive to addictions. This application of the text cannot be denied since Jesus certainly did these things during His ministry.
However, it must be emphasized that this is not the way Jesus’ audience would have understood His words, and not the way Isaiah meant them when they were written. This “spiritualized application” is not the primary intended meaning of the original author or audience. Among those who accept a literal, physical fulfillment of this third phrase, there are three perspectives on how Jesus accomplished it.
The first view is that Jesus meant to accomplish this task of overthrowing the Roman Empire, but failed because Israel did not fully repent, nor did they accept Him as their Messiah. Those who hold this view argue that if the Jewish people had repented and accepted Him as their promised Messiah, then the long-awaited kingdom would have been inaugurated immediately. Jesus would have declared Himself as King, and would have led a militaristic revolt against Rome. This, of course, did not occur, and so in this view, the overthrow of various wicked human governments is now a future event, to be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
The second view is a combination of this first view and the spiritualized understanding of this text. This view argues that Jesus did seek to overthrow the Roman Empire (not just set people free from sin and Satan), but that the overthrow was not through violence and military might, but through the gentler and slower methods of love, mercy, and compassion. In this view, Jesus never intended to use violent force against the Roman Empire, for that would be using the same methods they used. So in this way, Jesus defeated the Empire and inaugurated His Kingdom in a different way; He showed people how to live through love, mercy, and compassion, rather than by the Empire’s methods of force, power, and coercion. Those who followed Jesus’ example in this found they had no fear of Rome, and were able to accomplish God’s will and purposes despite Roman interference. Effectively, though the Roman Empire still existed, for those who followed the way of Jesus, the Roman Empire was defeated.
The third view is a combination of the first two. In alignment with the first view, Jesus truly did intend to physically overthrow the Roman Empire, as well as any human government that was based on greed, corruption, and an improper use of might. Also, it didn’t fully happen during the earthly ministry of Jesus. In alignment with the second view, the means by which Jesus wanted to accomplish this overthrow was not through violence and force, but through acts of mercy and forgiveness. The unique element of this view is in regard to the timing. The first view says that Jesus failed in His first coming, while the second view says He finished what He set out to do, but in a spiritual sense. This view argues that Jesus neither failed nor finished, but only began to accomplish this third mission element. What He began, He wanted His followers to finish, not just in Israel with the Roman Empire, but in the entire world, with all who take others captive.
This third view seems to be best supported by Luke’s second volume, the Book of Acts. It shows how the followers of Jesus continued to live and practice the kingdom principles that Jesus initiated, and reveals how these peaceful methods worked to overthrow and defeat powers and authorities, not with violence and might, but with love and compassion. Sometimes, those who are captive are set free (Acts 12), while others are given the opportunity to preach the gospel to kings and governors (Acts 24:24). Much of the rest of the New Testament supports this view. There is even one particular way of reading the Book of Revelation which reveals the methods for this nonviolent overthrow (cf. Carter 2006:124-128).
When Jesus read out of Isaiah 61 that He would bring liberty to captives, while this did include the spiritual captivity to sin and Satan, it also referred to the physical and temporal captivity to wicked rulers and abusive empires. Followers of Jesus are to continue the work that Jesus began and seek justice and righteousness on the earth through the methods of love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, generosity, and grace.
The fourth mission statement of Jesus is that He would bring recovery of sight to the blind. This can easily be understood in both a physical and a spiritual sense. During the ministry of Jesus, He healed numerous people who were blind (Matt 9:27-31; 12:22; 15:30-31; 20:30-34; Luke 14:13, 21; 18:35; John 9:1-32; etc.) It could be argued that all these healings were symbolic for the spiritual blindness of the Israelites (Matt 15:14; John 9:39-41). As Paul writes later in the New Testament, the devil has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they will not believe in Jesus (2 Cor 4:4). Part of the mission of Jesus was to remove this spiritual blindness. It must also be noted that it is occasionally believers who are called “blind” and so spiritual blindness does not refer only to unbelievers (cf. Rev 3:17).
However, even though Jesus did seek to remove the spiritual blindness of other people—especially that of the Jewish religious leaders (cf. Matt 23:14-26)—the emphasis in this passage must be placed on physical healing. The reason is that healing the blind was not just a nice thing for Jesus to do, but was a clear sign to the Jewish people that the Kingdom of God had arrived, and that He was the promised Messiah (cf. Matt 11:5; Isa 35:5).
Fifth, Jesus came to set at liberty those who are oppressed. The term liberty is the same word used earlier (Gk. aphesis) and can be translated as “release, deliverance, set free, or forgiveness.” See above for a further discussion on this term. In this case, rather than the captives being set free, it is the oppressed (Gk. thrauō). This is the only time this word is used in the New Testament. The only other place where the exact form is used is Isaiah 58:6, where God declares that He wants His people to loosen the chains of injustice and let the oppressed go free. Most other forms of the term in the Septuagint refer to the oppression of Israel by her enemies as a result of their sin (cf. Exod 15:6; Deut 20:3; 28:33; 2 Chr 6:24). One significant passage is Numbers 24:17 which is a prophecy of how the Messiah will overthrow the enemies of Israel, but with these nations, the Messiah will oppress (or crush) them.
As with all the other terms, there is a spiritual element to this mission statement. Certainly, people are emotionally and spiritually oppressed by the circumstances of life and evil, demonic forces. Acts 10:38 is often used to support this point, but the word used there is not the same as used here. Nevertheless, the Bible frequently speaks of the evil forces arrayed against us, and how God, through the Spirit, empowers us to stand against them (cf. Eph 6:10-20). Jesus came to destroy the devil’s work (Heb 2:14; 1 John 3:8).
4:19. The final statement describing the mission of Jesus is a summary of the first five. Jesus has come to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. This is primarily a statement about the Year of Jubilee when slaves were set free, the land reverted to the original owner and was not plowed, planted, or harvested, and all debts were cancelled (cf. Leviticus 25). This was supposed to happen every 50 years, but there is some question as to whether it ever happened in Israelite history.
Regardless, Jesus is saying that He intends to inaugurate a Year of Jubilee. And since the Year of Jubilee primarily affected people who were in slavery, hardship, or debt, Jesus is showing with this concluding summary statement that He was concerned not only with mankind’s spiritual needs, but also with their physical wellbeing. Along with the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, Jesus wanted to bring relief from suffering, sickness, slavery, injustice, crushing debt, generational poverty, and governmental oppression.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 4:14-15
By J.D. Myers | November 28, 2009
The ministry of Jesus finally begins in Luke 4:14-15. And yet, these verses are not really the beginning of ministry for Jesus. Chronologically, they do not immediately follow the events of 4:1-13. There is actually about a one year gap in between verses 13 and 14. When the Gospel of Luke is compared with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is discovered that only John says anything at all about the first year of Jesus’ ministry. All three of the others, Matthew, Mark and Luke, when they begin to talk about the ministry of Jesus, begin with the second year (Bock 1994:386). A quick survey of almost any Harmony of the Gospels reveals the following:
First Year
John 1:19-34 John introduces Jesus
John 1:35-51 Points disciples to Jesus
John 2:1-12 Water turned to wine at Cana
John 2:13-22 Temple cleansed
John 3:1-21 Jesus & Nicodemus
John 3:22–4:3 Jesus in Judea, baptizing
John 4:4-42 Jesus & Samaritans
Second Year
Matt 4:12 Jesus returns to Galilee
Mark 1:14
Luke 4:14-15
John 4:43-45
John 4:46-54 Nobleman’s son healed (Cana/Capernaum)
Luke 4:16-30 Jesus rejected at Nazareth
So according to John, sometime after the period of temptation in the wilderness, Jesus gained a few followers from John the Baptist and went with them into Galilee (John 1:43). While there, Jesus attended a wedding feast where He performs His first miracle of turning water into wine (John 2:1-12). After this, Jesus went to Jerusalem for the Passover (John 2:13). But in Jerusalem, He found the temple full of merchants and corrupt moneychangers, and so He made a whip out of cords and cleansed the temple (John 2:13-22). His actions and his teachings sparked controversy among the Pharisees, and one of them named Nicodemus came to Jesus by night to question Him about eternal life (John 3:1-21).
Jesus and some of His disciples went out into the Judean wilderness and started to baptize Jewish people who came to them (3:22–4:3). This started further controversy, and so Jesus left that region and headed north for Galilee again. On the way there, they traveled through Samaria where Jesus met and talked with a Samaritan woman about how to worship God (John 4:1-42). As a result, many Samaritans believed in Him for eternal life (John 4:39-42).
After this, He went again to Galilee, and it is at this point that Luke picks up the story. One year has passed. Jesus has been to Jerusalem and back. Many have believed in Him for eternal life, and many more have become His followers. He has taught, performed some miracles, and initiated a few controversies.
Why does Luke (and Matthew and Mark) neglect to write about this first year of ministry? First of all, it is impossible for Luke to record everything (cf. John 21:25). All writers, including biographers, must be selective in what they record. When writing about a person’s life, the biographer records events that seem important and definitive. Or they write about events which fit a particular theme or perspective. From reading the opening chapters of the Gospel of John, it appears that in His first year of ministry, Jesus focused on inviting people to believe in Him for eternal life. As Jesus went about from place to place, John writes that Jesus constantly told people that in order to receive eternal life, all they had to do was believe in Him for it. The word “believe” is found 22 times in the first four chapters of John. Over and over and over again, Jesus does something or teaches something to get people to believe in Him. The overriding purpose of this first year of ministry was to make believers. And in this first year, Jesus gains hundreds, if not thousands, of believers.
In the second year of ministry, Jesus transitions from gaining believers, and focuses on turning those believers into disciples. He not only focuses on making disciples, but specifically on pouring His life into twelve disciples, so they can be the apostles who continue His work after He is gone.
So why does John record these first-year events while Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not? The reason is due to purpose and theme. The Gospel of John is often called the Gospel of Belief. The word “believe” is found almost 100 times in John. One of the primary purposes of John is to tell people how they can receive eternal life (John 20:30-31). John records in numerous ways that eternal life is given to anyone who simply believes in Jesus for it (cf. John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47, etc.).
But the purposes of the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke are different. If John was written to help people believe in Jesus for eternal life, Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written to help people who had already believed become fully-committed followers of Jesus. The Gospel of John helps with this too, but while discipleship is a twin purpose to John, it is the only purpose for Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
This helps explain why Luke did not record anything of Jesus’ first year of ministry. Jesus was mainly concerned about gaining believers His first year of ministry, but Luke is mainly concerned with making disciples. So Luke skips the first year and jumps straight to the disciple-making years. Luke is writing to Theophilus, and wants to impress upon him that the path of discipleship has no end. After coming to faith in Jesus, there is always more to learn (Bock 1994:387). With this in mind, verses 14-15 contain two of the things Christ focused on in His ministry and in His disciplemaking: the Spirit and Truth (cf. John 4:23). In this way, Luke continues to portray Jesus as a new Moses. Just as Moses was guided by God in leading and teaching the Israelites, so also is Jesus.
4:14. Verse 14 focuses on how the ministry of Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit. Luke writes that Jesus returned…to Galilee. Since Jesus returned to Galilee at least twice in his first year of ministry (John 1:43; 4:43-45), Luke probably intends this as a summary statement of Jesus’ movement. See 4:44; 5:15; 7:17; 8:1-3 for other similar summary statements which provide structure and movement for Luke’s narrative.
There is a special emphasis in Luke 4:14–9:50 regarding the region of Galilee, and this section of Luke is often referred to as “The Galilean Ministry.” This is not simply a title, for it also describes a mode or method of ministry that Jesus undertook. Galilee was a fertile, agrarian region composed of both rich and poor, cities and rural villages, highly educated and relatively uneducated (cf. Green 1997:200-203; Barclay 1975:45). That Luke places such an emphasis on Galilee reveals Luke’s conviction that Jesus is a Messiah for all people. While Jesus caters to the political, religious, and cultural expectations of all people He encounters, He also challenges, redeems, and transforms these expectations in order to call people to a new way of thinking and living (Green 1997:203).
The ministry in Galilee was by in the power of the Spirit, indicating that Jesus was led and guided by the Holy Spirit on where to go and what to do. It was in this first year that Jesus called His first disciples (John 1:35-51), performed His first recorded miracle (John 2:1-10), cleansed the temple (John 2:13-25), and reached out to both religious elite (John 3:1-21) and religious rejects (John 4:1-42). While the birth narratives of Jesus provided a constellation of Jewish expectations for the Messiah (Luke 1:1-3:38), the early ministry actions of Jesus show how He is actually going to perform His ministry (Green 1997:297). In the context here, Luke mentions nothing about miracles, but focuses primarily on the teaching of Jesus. This reveals that for Luke, the primary ministry of the Spirit is to guide Jesus and equip Him for teaching the Scriptures (Bock 1994:391).
As a result of what Jesus did and taught during His first year of ministry, news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. The word for news is pheme which is the origin for the English word “fame.” (Bock 1994:391). People were talking about Him, wondering about Him, and trying to figure out if He was just another teacher, or maybe a prophet, or perhaps the long-awaited Messiah. It was the miracles of Jesus, the signs that followed His teaching, which authenticated His claims to be the Messiah. Miraculous signs have always been the means by which God proved to the Israelites that He had chosen a particular person for a special prophetic task (cf Exodus 4; Pentecost 1981:136).
4:15. If verse 14 focuses on the Spiritual ministry of Jesus, verse 15 emphasizes the teaching ministry, which, of course, is empowered by the Spirit. The text says He taught in their synagogues. The term synagogue means “gathering” and it was the central place of religious life for Jewish people in a particular community. There was only one temple, and it was in Jerusalem. Every community that had a least ten Jewish men would have a synagogue where they gathered for prayer and teaching. They gathered at least weekly on the Sabbath (Saturday), but many would gather much more frequently (cf. Edersheim 1988:432). The primary activity when they gathered in the Synagogue was teaching and instruction in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. They went weekly, if not daily, to the synagogue to learn the Bible. In fact, sometimes, rather than call them Synagogues, they were referred to as a “school” or “House of Instruction.” The synagogue was the local religious school where Jews went as often as they could pray and learn the Word of God (Edersheim 1988:439-450).
So when Luke records that Jesus taught in their synagogues, it means that every week, at least on the Sabbath, but maybe more frequently, Jesus was in a local synagogue, teaching the Scriptures to the others who had gathered to learn. It can also be shown from other sources that the typical method of synagogue teaching was book by book, verse by verse. Typically, when Jewish Rabbis taught the Torah, they taught it straight through (cf. Neh 8:8), and this is probably how Jesus taught (cf. Luke 4:16-21; 4:31; 6:6; 13:10). Jesus “took the Old Testament Scriptures, read them, explained them, and caused the people to understand them” (Pentecost 1981:137). This practice was also used by the early church (Acts 2:42; 13:14-15; 14:1-3; 15:21; 18:4; 19:8-10; etc.). Lightfoot records that the one who taught this way was often referred to as “an interpreter,” and the teaching as an “interpretation” (Lightfoot 1989:68; Edersheim 444). This is partly because the readings were in Hebrew, while some of those in the synagogue may have only understood Greek or Aramaic (cf. Edersheim 1988:432). So the text was read in Hebrew, then if an interpreter was present, it would be interpreted into a language everyone could understand, and then explained and taught so it could be understood and applied. This is what Jesus did in the synagogues He visited.
Parallel to the end of verse 14, Luke reiterates that the Spirit-empowered teaching of Jesus resulted in Him being glorified by all. However, Luke will go on to show in 4:16-30 that not everyone appreciated His teaching and His claims. Nevertheless, the ministry of Jesus was marked by a perfect balance between the Spirit and the truth, and as a result, many believed in Him, became His disciples, and praised His name among their friends and family.
Jesus has begun His ministry with the power of the Spirit and the teaching of Scripture. These themes are mentioned again in 4:42-44, forming an inclusio around 4:16-41, which contain specific examples of Jesus’ Spirit-empowered teaching and ministry. These two primary themes dominate the narrative of Luke 4:16–9:50 (cf. Green 1997:199), as seen especially in Luke 4:16-30.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 4:1-13
By J.D. Myers | October 31, 2009
Luke 4:1-13 contains a description of the forty days of temptation Jesus experienced in the wilderness. The placement fits perfectly in the narrative as it immediately follows the genealogy of Jesus and precedes the beginning of ministry of Jesus. The genealogy concluded with a reference to Adam, the son of God (3:38), which recalls for the reader the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). Jesus, if He is going to make right what went wrong with Adam, must pass the tests which Adam failed. In this section Jesus faces similar temptations and the same foe as did Adam and Eve. As the genealogy in Luke 3 was technically that of Mary, the temptation of Jesus begins to reveal how God would crush the serpent’s head through the seed of the woman in fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.
Once Jesus has passed the temptation and stood against the tempter, He was able to begin His mission, that of reversing what went wrong with Adam (See 4:16-21). This period of temptation was like an entrance exam before beginning His ministry. The flow of the narrative reveals that Luke is making many parallels between the life and ministry of Jesus, and the history of the Israelite people. The baptism of Jesus by John represented the baptism of Israel by Moses in the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:2), the genealogy of Jesus is like the first census of Israel before they were instructed to enter Canaan (Numbers 1-3), and the forty days of testing in the wilderness represent the forty years of discipline in the wilderness (Num 14:33-34). Other similarities are brought out in Matthew 2. Such parallels help the reader see that Jesus is inaugurating a renewed Israel: His ministry reveals what God desired Israel to be and do for the world.
4:1. The forty days of temptation began when Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit. Being filled with the Spirit is being led, or controlled, by the Spirit. And curiously, in this instance, the Spirit is guiding Jesus into a time of temptation and testing. Generally, it is assumed that being filled with the Spirit brings an absence of temptation and testing, and not being filled leaves one open to the devil and his temptations. However, while God does not tempt anyone (Jas 1:13), He does allow people to be tempted (1 Cor 10:13), and even leads people to places where they will face temptation. The place where Jesus will be tempted is the wilderness, which was part of the region of Judea, east of Jerusalem. It was 35 miles long by 15 miles wide, and was called Jeshimmon, “The Devastation.” The hills are like dust heaps; the limestone looks blistered; the rocks are bare and jagged (Barclay 1975:43). As indicated previously, Jesus being led into the wilderness for testing is reminiscent of Israel being led by God in the wilderness for their time of testing and refinement.
4:2. Whereas Israel spent forty years in the wilderness, Jesus was tempted for forty days. Luke’s reference here to forty days also recalls the 40 days spent by Moses on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:28) and the 40 day journey by Elijah to Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19:48). In all cases, the time period was for the purpose of preparing these men for the next stage in their ministry. It appears by how Luke phrases this that Jesus was being tempted for the entire forty days (cf. Mark 1:13). If so, then the temptations as recorded here are only summaries, and also explain why the accounts in Mark 1 and Matthew 4 differ in their details and order of events.
The temptations Jesus faced were brought to Him by the devil. Just as the devil, through the serpent, caused Adam and Eve to fall into sin in the Garden of Eden, so also he was now trying to stop God’s plan of redemption in Jesus by also getting Jesus to sin. The reverse the curse God placed upon creation as a result of sin, Jesus must resist the temptations of the devil, and remain sinless (Heb 4:15).
There are three temptations brought by the devil, which fit with the three temptations described in 1 John 2:16 as the primary temptations that people face. These three temptations are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. These three temptations are similar to the ways Israel was tempted in the wilderness, and similar to the ways Adam and Eve were tempted in the garden of Eden (Gen 3:6). Specifically, Eve saw that the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), that it was pleasing to the eyes (the lust of the eyes), and that it was desirable to make one wise (the pride of life). Jesus was tempted by the devil in three similar ways. The devil tried to get Jesus to turn stone into bread (the lust of the flesh), to take a shortcut in receiving the kingdoms of the world (the lust of the eyes), and to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple in order to easily declare himself as the Messiah and prove that God was working in Him (the pride of life).
Those are the devil’s three primary temptations. It is also seen that the devil has only one tactic in these three categories of temptation. No matter what the temptation is, the devil tries to raise doubt about the Word of God. The devil twists the Word of God by making subtle changes to it such as adding to it, subtracting from it, or quoting verses out of context.
During the time in the wilderness, Jesus ate nothing. Not only was this time of fasting important for Jesus to withstand the testing He was about to enter, but forty days without eating is another way that Jesus is showing Himself to be like Moses and Elijah, both of whom spent forty days fasting while they communed with God and prepared for the ministry God had for them (cf. Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9-11; 10:10; 1 Kings 19:8).
After the forty days had ended, He was hungry. This is most certainly an understatement, as by the end of forty days without food, Jesus was probably nearing starvation. His hunger sets up the first temptation.
The Lust of the Flesh (4:3-4)
4:3. The first temptation plays on Jesus’ hunger, which, after forty days of fasting, is a pressing need. When the devil came to tempt Jesus, he begins by recognizing who Jesus is. The If is first class conditional and could be translated since you are the Son of God (cf. also 4:9). He is not challenging the identity of Jesus, but is basing the temptation on it.
The identify of Jesus as the Son of God is not equivalent to saying that Jesus is God, let alone the Second Person of the Trinity. Though Paul and later New Testament writers may have infused the term with Trinitarian teaching, the term did not contain this idea in Roman and Jewish culture at the time Jesus lived (see IDB 4:408-413; NIDNTT 3:634-648). The term Son of God is sometimes used of angels, the nation of Israel, as well as Israelite kings (cf Gen 6:2-4, Job 1:6; 38:7; Exod 4:22; 2 Sam 7:14; Psa 2:7; 89:27). In the context of Jesus, it is primarily a kingly title, and is equivalent to “Messiah” or “Christ” (cf. Matt 26:63; Luke 4:41; John 20:31).
So the devil is saying, “Since you are the Son of God, you have certain rights and privileges.” All of the temptations are based on this premise, that Jesus, as the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of Israel, has certain rights and privileges. This first temptation is based on the hunger of Jesus. The devil tells Jesus that to satisfy his hunger, all he has to do is command this stone to become bread. Many of the stones in that region are about 8-10 inches in diameter, round, and sun-baked brown. They look almost exactly like loaves of bread. The devil uses this similarity to tempt Jesus to turn one stone into bread. The devil was not asking for anything large and excessive, just one stone to help satisfy the hunger of Jesus. On the surface, the temptation is really quite harmless. The sensation of hunger is given by God to help humans know when their bodies require food. It is healthy to eat, and food is a gift from God.
Furthermore, since it appears that Jesus was intentionally portraying Himself as a prophet like Moses and as the one who will renew the people of Israel, it would be natural for Him to do for Himself what God had given to Moses and Israelites when they were in the wilderness. When they got hungry, God sent them manna, “bread from heaven.” We don’t know if the devil used this approach, but if the temptations as recorded in the gospels are only summaries of the extensive and trying periods of temptation that Jesus faced (4:2 indicates that Jesus was tempted for the entire forty days), then the devil probably used every approach and persuasive argument possible. Few temptations we experience as humans are ever over in a second or two, and the temptations of Jesus were just as strenuous, of not more so, than ours (Heb 4:15).
If this is how the devil tried to persuade Jesus (as it appears to be from the answer of Jesus is 4:4), then the devil is using his one and only tactic to tempt Jesus. He is trying to raise doubt about God’s Word, or twist it to teach something it does not. He is trying to get Jesus to just do for Himself what God did for Moses and the Israelites. However, when when the Israelites received bread from heaven to satisfy their hunger, they were relying upon God’s provision. “Though the manna was on the ground, it was still a test of faith for the people. They had to believe that God’s Word was trustworthy” (BKC 2:213). and that if they did things God’s way, He would provide for them daily.
If Jesus were to do what the devil was suggesting, He would be committing the same sin that some of the Israelites committed. In the wilderness, the people were only supposed to collect what they needed for one day, and then on the sixth day, collect enough for two days so they would not have to collect food on the Sabbath. But initially, some of them collected enough for multiple days, and when they woke up, the extra they had collected was rotten and was full of maggots. So then on the sixth day, they failed to collect enough, and so went hungry on the Sabbath when no manna appeared on the ground. The temptation for the Israelites was to attempt to provide for themselves rather than trust in God. If they wanted daily sustenance, they had to daily trust in God to provide it.
This is the same temptation Jesus faces. If Jesus performed a miracle to make bread for Himself, He would be relying on Himself rather than on God. Satan wants Jesus to selfishly use His abilities to meet His own desires. That’s the lust of the flesh. Jesus does similar things later in his ministry when He turns water into wine (John 2), or feeds multitudes of people with just a few loaves and fish (Matthew 14; Luke 9). But in those cases, it was not just Himself He was feeding, and more importantly, He was following God’s guidance. Here, He would be selfishly meeting only His own needs, and the guidance came not from God, but from the devil.
4:4. In all three temptations, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy. Though the devil can twist Scripture, Jesus knows how to use it properly to help Him stand against the temptations of the devil. In this first instance, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3, which helps support the idea that this first temptation is related to Jesus being a prophet like Moses, the one who will inaugurate a renewed Israel. Deuteronomy 8 contains a reminder from Moses to the people of Israel about how God provided manna, the bread from heaven, to meet their needs when they were hungry. Moses says there, as Jesus quotes here, that ”Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” The point of Moses, and therefore the point of Jesus, is that feeding the body is not what is important, but obeying God. God did not provide manna to the people of Israel just so they could be fed, but also so they could practice obedience to His word.
Furthermore, in the context of Deuteronomy 8, Moses reminds the people that God promised to bring them into their own land. If He helped them escape Egypt, and delivered them through the Red Sea, He would certainly make sure they didn’t starve in the desert. So also, Jesus knows that God would not protect Him as He was growing up, promise that He would be the Messiah, and then allow Him to starve in the wilderness. Jesus trusts God’s Word, and bases His faith and decisions upon it.
The Lust of the Eyes (4:5-8)
4:5. The implied response of Jesus to the first temptation was that God had promised Jesus would be the Messiah, not only for Israel, but for the whole world. Since God’s promises could be trusted, God would not let Jesus starve in the wilderness. The second temptation of the devil builds upon these Messianic promises. The devil recognizes that Jesus is to be the Messiah, the Son of God (cf. 4:3), and seeing now that Jesus wants to follow the promises of God, takes Jesus up on a high mountain for the next temptation. The text does not indicate which mountain this was, though some believe it was not a literal, physical mountain, since from it, Jesus was shown the entire earth, and no mountain affords that kind of view. However, it seems more likely that the mountain was a physical, earthly mountain, and while there, Jesus was given a vision of all the kingdoms of the earth. This also fits better with the growing imagery of Jesus being a prophet like Moses (and Elijah) who went up on a mountain to receive revelation and direction from God. High mountains were thought to be places one could meet with the gods. This is why shrines and temples were often built on top of mountains (cf. Psa 121:1).
While on the mountain, the devil tempts Jesus with the second temptation: the lust of the eyes. The devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. There is some question as to whether Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the entire world or just those of the known world. Also, is Satan offering all the kingdoms throughout time, or just those in existence at that time? The phrase in a moment of time may refer to the latter, since it could also be translated “at that moment of time.” Otherwise, it is hard to discern the reason for showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant.
4:6. Now that Jesus has seen the kingdoms, the devil offers them to Jesus, and specifically, the authority and glory that comes with them. Both the devil and Jesus know that authority over the nations is something that was supposed to be given to the Messiah (cf. Matt 28:18; Php 2:9-10; Rev 19:15). This right to rule over the nations was something that God promised to the people of Israel, with the Messiah on her throne (cf. Deut 15:6; Psa 22:28). The devil, however, states that authority over the nations had been delivered to him, and he can give it to whomever he wants. The devil again twists and distorts the truth. The first part of his statement is true. When Adam listened to and fell before Satan, Adam, in essence, gave up his power, his dominion, to Satan. He forfeited the earth to Satan. So he does have authority over the nations, and is the god of this age (2 Cor 4:4). However, it is not true that he owns the nations and can give them to whomever he wishes. Though Satan took control of the earth, it is not Satan’s to give away. That belongs to God alone (Dan 4:32).
4:7. The devil, of course, is trying to obtain the authority that belongs to God alone, and so just as the devil was able to wrest away from Adam authority over the earth, in tempting Jesus, the devil is trying to wrest authority away from the Messiah, and ultimately, from God. Therefore, the devil says to Jesus that ”If You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” The devil is offering to Jesus what Jesus is on earth for. The Messiah was supposed to gain rulership over the earth.
The one condition was that Jesus had to worship the devil. The word for worship (Gk. proskuneses) literally means “to bend the knee.” To kneel before someone represents swearing an oath of fealty to them. So by asking Jesus to worship him, the devil is asking Jesus to give an oath of fealty to him. Satan knows that unless he can get Jesus to kneel before him, the day will arrive when he must kneel before Jesus (Php 2:10).
If Jesus bows to the devil, then the universe, which ultimately belongs to Jesus, would be given to the devil, and that is how the devil could then “give it to whomever” he wishes. So the offer by the devil is a shortcut to the plan of God. Jesus knows that God’s plan includes pain, suffering, ridicule, and scorn. Only after He suffers and dies as a human will Jesus receive the right to rule the world. The devil offers to Jesus a way to the ultimate goal, but through a path that avoids all the pain and suffering.
It is possible that there is a parallel here between what the devil offers Jesus, and what God offers to Moses on Mount Sinai after the people of Israel began to worship other gods (Exod 32:10). God tells Moses that due to the idolatry of the Israelites, God was going to wipe them out, and start over with Moses. Moses declines the offer, and instead, intercedes with God on behalf of the idolatrous Israelites. Jesus knows, as did Moses, that by putting his own desires first, He would be destroying the lives of countless multitudes.
4:8. The reply of Jesus to this temptation is first of all to command the devil. Jesus says, “Get behind me, Satan!” This indicates the conviction of Jesus that the devil must follow Him in service, not He follow the devil. To support this claim, Jesus quotes once again from Deuteronomy, this time from 6:13. In this passage, Moses instructs the people that when they get into the Promised Land, and gain the authority and glory that has been promised to them, they must not forget God by worshiping, or bowing the knee to false gods. Instead, they must continue to worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.
Although Moses warned the Israelites about this, Scripture reveals that they did not obey. Instead, they frequently turned after other gods. Jesus is not about to make that mistake. He will not fail as Israel failed. He knew His Bible, and knew that there is no shortcut to achieving God’s promises. If He worshiped the devil, and knelt before him, Jesus would then have to serve the devil, not God.
The Pride of Life (4:9-13)
4:9 In the second temptation, Jesus was able to rebuff the attempts of the devil to gain immediate rulership over the kingdoms of the world. Though Jesus, as the Messiah, will ultimately gain dominion over the earth, He had to obtain it in God’s way with God’s timing. The third temptation builds upon the Messianic understanding of Jesus. The devil tries to get Jesus to proclaim Himself as the Messiah in a miraculous fashion. In order to be the Messiah, Jesus would eventually have to be recognized as such, and so the devil urges Jesus to reveal Himself to the Jewish people.
With this goal, He brought Jesus [/b]to Jerusalem[/b] which is, of course, the center of Judaism, and the nexus of all the Messianic hopes. It was expected that the Messiah, when He appeared, would proclaim Himself in Jerusalem. And the devil brought Jesus, not just to Jerusalem, bu to the pinnacle of the temple. If Jerusalem was the political and religious center of Judaism, the temple was the center of Jerusalem. The temple itself embodied all the political and religious expectations for the Messiah. By placing Jesus at the the pinnacle of the temple, the devil was symbolically placing Jesus above it, putting Jesus, in a sense, in authority over the temple.
This highest point of the temple was probably the southeast corner of the temple which loomed over a cliff of the temple mount. If this is where Jesus stood, He would be about 450 feet above the bottom of the cliff and would be able to oversee all of Jerusalem, and all the people in the Temple courts below (Nelson’s 1999:1257). From here, the devil tempts Jesus to throw Himself down. The devil is not tempting Jesus to commit suicide, but to perform a miracle in the sight of all the worshipers below. This becomes clear by what the devil says next.
4:10 In the previous two temptations, Jesus has used Scriptural quotes to defeat the temptations of the devil. With this third temptation, the devil uses what is written in Psalm 91:11-12 to tempt Jesus. To support his suggestion that Jesus throw Himself from the pinnacle of the temple, the devil quotes a Scripture which says that God will give His angels charge over you, to keep you. this means that God will send angels to protect Jesus.
4:11. The devil continues to quote from Psalm 91 to show what the angels will do for Jesus. He says that “In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.” The devil is trying to show Jesus that if He casts Himself from the Temple, God will have angels catch Jesus before He hits the ground.
The devil, however, misquoted the text, and in so doing, twisted it to mean what it does not say. Where the devil inserts the word and, he removed several key words from Psalm 91:11. The verse actually says, “He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways.” When properly read in context and applied to Jesus’ situation, the text reveals that the angels are not there to keep Jesus from committing suicide, but to help Him walk in the ways God has laid out for Him, to help Him obey God.
The devil twisted Scripture to try to get Jesus to perform an amazing demonstration of power before the multitudes of people below. To perform this miracle in the Temple would have helped Jesus immediately be recognized as the Messiah. Of course Jesus wanted to be recognized as the Messiah, but again, it had to be done in God’s ways with God’s timing.
4:12. Jesus again responds with Scripture. He does not challenge or question the devil on his misuse of Scripture, but simply quotes a verse used properly in context, from Deuteronomy 6:16. Jesus said, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.” In this passage, Moses reminds the people of when they doubted whether God was with them or not (Exod 17:7). They had seen God miraculously provide for them time after time. But then the days in the wilderness got long and hot, and they ran out of water, and they began to wonder if God had forgotten about them, or abandoned them. They accused Moses, and therefore God, of bringing them into the desert just to die. But what they were really doing, according to Exodus 17:7, was testing God. In their complaining, they were saying, “If God is really there, and if He really loves us, He will provide water for us.” God did provide water for them – out of a rock – but He was not happy about their lack of trust.
Jesus sees many similarities between this incident with the Israelites in the wilderness and what the devil is tempting Him to do. Satan is tempting Jesus to test God by saying, “If God is really there, and if He really loves me, He will protect me as I throw myself from the highest point of the temple.” But Jesus chose wisely where the Israelites did not. Where the Israelites tested God, Jesus would not.
4:13. Jesus has overcome every temptation brought against Him, and so the devil departed…until an opportune time. There were several other opportunities for Jesus to sin during His years of ministry. One is when Satan, through Peter, tells Jesus that He will not have to take the road to the cross. There, just like here in verse 8, Jesus says, “Get behind me, Satan.” Another attempt might have been on the night before his crucifixion in the Garden of Gethsemane. But Jesus was victorious over all temptations.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 3:23-38
By J.D. Myers | September 17, 2009
After writing about the baptism of Jesus, and His anointing by the Holy Spirit, it would seem natural for Luke to transition immediately into the ministry of Jesus. But instead, he records the genealogy of Jesus. Issues as to why Luke does this, and how to understand this genealogy abound. The approach here will be to first address three issues related to the genealogy and then work through the genealogy one name at a time.
The Issues
1. Why Have Genealogies?
The first issue is why there are genealogies in Scripture in the first place. It must be emphatically stated that since genealogies are Scripture, and all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable (2 Tim 3:16), the genealogies must also be profitable. This includes the genealogy here, as well as those in Genesis, Numbers, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Matthew. Each genealogy is different, and each must be considered in context to determine its profitability.
Nevertheless, there are some basic, overarching truths which help make all genealogies profitable.
First, and most obviously, genealogies are lists of names. Such lists are reminders that the Scriptures are rooted in history. The Scriptures were not invented out of someone’s imagination, but contains the stories and ideas of real people who lived and died, worked and played, got married and had children, and tried to follow God. Though we do not recognize most of the names on these lists, to many Jewish families, the lists of names bring to mind great stories of faith in the midst of trials and perseverance in adversity (Wright 2004:39). For those who knew the stories, genealogies would be read with the same interest as a college football fanatic reading a list of Heisman Trophy winners or a politician reading a list of the Presidents of the United States. For us, some of the names are prominent and well-known, while others are obscure and unknown. However, all were needed to bring Jesus to the world.
Second, genealogies point the reader to the sovereignty of God. Since the lists contain names of real people, these people have stories of things that happened in their lives, many of which can be read about in Scripture. These written accounts reveal how God is at work both behind the scenes and in miraculous ways to accomplish His plans and purposes within the world.
Third, genealogies within Scripture reveal that God is a list maker. He keeps records. Though He does not need them to aid His memory, He has put them in Scripture to remind us that He is watches our lives, cares about us, and keeps records of the things that matter to Him. Genealogies reveal that people matter to God.
This leads to the fourth truth about genealogies. They reminder the reader that God knows our names. Psychologically and emotionally, it is comforting to know that somebody knows our name. Remembering someone’s name makes them feel accepted, cared for, and important.
Fifthly, genealogies help reveal that God’s blessings are for all people. Many in Luke’s day, as in ours, believe that God reserves His blessings for only a select few, the people who are good enough to receive it, or the people of a particular race or denomination. But genealogies often contain the names of some people who lived very questionable lives, as well as people from other backgrounds and people groups than were commonly “accepted.”
Finally, in certain cultures, genealogies are badges of honor. Greater honor was given to those who could trace their line the furthest, and if prominent people were on the list, the honor was greater still. Malina and Rohrbaugh (2003:365) write this:
Recent studies of genealogies indicate that genealogies can serve a wide range of social functions: preserving tribal homogeneity or cohesion, interrelating diverse traditions, acknowledging marriage contracts between extended families, maintaining ethnic identity, and encoding key social information about a person. Above all, genealogies established claims to social status (honor) or to a particular office (priest, king) or rank, thereby providing a map for proper social interaction.
2. Why Place One Here?
A second issue is why Luke placed this genealogy here. Matthew, for example, began his Gospel with a genealogy. Why does Luke wait until here to record the genealogy? It seems out of place. If it were not here, 4:1 could naturally follow 3:22 (cf. Matt 3:17-4:1; Mark 4:11-12). But Luke intentionally places the genealogy here for multiple reasons.
First, the genealogy lends credence to the immediately preceding events, and particularly, the statement from God that Jesus is His Son (3:22). To support this statement, Luke provides the genealogy of Jesus, which goes all the way back to “Adam, the son of God” (v. 38). This, in turn, provides the basis for the first temptation in the wilderness when Satan questions whether Jesus really is “the son of God” (4:3).
Of course, since all humanity originated with Adam, it could be argued that we are all “descendants” of God in a similar way. But this is actually a second point of Luke. By beginning with Jesus and ending with God (the genealogy is reversed in Matthew 1, and begins with Abraham, not Adam), Luke shows that Jesus is not only the son of God, but also the representative of all mankind.
Third, it may be that Luke, who was a traveling companion of Paul, was influenced by some of Paul’s thought about Jesus being “the second Adam” (1 Cor 14:45). Just as Adam was the son of God, so also now Jesus is called the son of God, indicating that with Jesus, humanity has a new start. This point is supported by the fact that Luke reverses the usual genealogical order by beginning with Jesus and ending with Adam, the son of God. This places Adam nearer to the temptation of Jesus in 4:1-13.
Fourth, Luke is making a political statement as well. While Caesar claimed to be “the son of God,” Luke is showing that Jesus is the true “Son of God.” It is interesting to note that (depending on how two textual variants are handled) there are 77 names in the genealogy. If the two variants are added in, there are still 77 names, not counting Jesus and God.
Fifth, the genealogy, which points to both the human and divine origins of Jesus, prepares the reader for the three temptations of Jesus by Satan in the following passage. If Jesus was only human and not divine, such difficult temptations by Satan Himself would be unnecessary. But if Jesus was only divine and not human, Jesus would be above temptation.
Finally, the fact that Jesus has a genealogy while John does not proves once and for all that Jesus is superior to John and has surpassed him in every way (Green 1997:189). Prior to this, the narrative has gone back and forth between John and Jesus. After this, while John is occasionally mentioned, the focus of the text is entirely upon Jesus.
So with Luke’s purpose, theme, and context, the genealogy fits perfectly at this point in the narrative. It proves that in every way — in his humanity, divinity, Jewishness, and royal lineage — Jesus is the Messiah.
3. Why is it Different than Matthew’s?
Finally, there is much debate about why this genealogy of Jesus is different than the one recorded in Matthew 1.
Though many solutions have been proposed, the preferred solution is that Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke records that of Mary (cf. Pentecost 1981:36-39). This is culturally and prophetically significant. In verse 23, Luke writes that Jesus was the supposed (Gk. nomidzo) son of Joseph. The phrase Luke uses could also be variously translated: as was the custom, as it was assumed, as was acknowledged by law, as was entered in the ledger, or as it is on record (cf. Green 1997:189; Zodhiates 1998:1014; Henry 1997:1835).
But as Luke has already revealed, Jesus had no earthly father. Born of a virgin, Jesus only had an earthly mother. However, the official legal documents of the Roman Empire did not allow women to be listed in genealogies. So whoever recorded the genealogy of Jesus on the official records put down Joseph, even though it was Mary’s genealogy (contra. Bock 1994:352).
This is culturally significant from a Jewish perspective as well. Jewishness is passed down from the mother, not from the father. So a genealogy through Mary shows that Jesus was fully Jewish. Matthew, who writes to show that Jesus is the promised King of Israel, takes the genealogy back through Joseph since royal lineage was passed down from father to son. So when Luke takes his genealogy all the way back to Adam, it reminds the reader what God told Adam and Eve, that one would come from the seed of the woman, and he would crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15).
The differences in the two genealogies are prophetically significant as well. Joseph is in direct lineage of Solomon, the heir to the throne. But Jeconiah (Also called Jehoiachin or Coniah; see 2 Chr 36:8-9.), one of Solomon’s descendants, was so evil, God pronounced that with Jeconiah, the royal line was cut off. (He ruled for only three months! See 2 Chr 36:9. I prefer the view that he was eighteen. See 2 Kings 24:8; 1 Chr 3:17-19.) No one from Jeconiah’s family line would ever sit on the throne of David (Jer 22:28-30). So Joseph, although he was technically and legally of the royal line of David through Solomon, could never have sat on the throne because that line had been spiritually cursed by God. Nevertheless, God had promised to David that someone from his family would always sit on the throne (2 Sam 7:12-13). Luke reveals how this promise was fulfilled. Once the royal line of Solomon was cut off with Jeconiah, God brought the royal line through Nathan, a different son of David, all the way up through Mary to Jesus, the promised Messiah and King of Israel. Receiving an inheritance through women had precedent in Jewish Law (Num 27:1-7).
So in this way, Jesus had every right to the throne. By Roman legal systems, he was an heir to the throne through Joseph. By blood, he was Jewish through Mary. Prophetically and spiritually, he was heir through Mary and Nathan to David. However the issue is approached, Jesus is the heir to the throne of David.
The Genealogy
As in any genealogy, there is limited information on some names, while whole books could be written about others. The approach here will be to summarize what we know about each of the names. Most commentaries say little or nothing about the names in a genealogy, and so most of the information about the names was gleaned from Bock 1994:353-360.
3:23. When Jesus..began His ministry He was about thirty years old. In Greek society, this was the age that most men entered public service. Up until that age, they would be learning their craft or trade, and at thirty they would start to practice it on their own. It was the same for the Hebrew people, but especially for the Levitical priesthood. Levites did not start to serve in the temple until they were thirty (Num 4:3; 23-47). It was at thirty that a Jewish man was allowed to enter legal disputes (Evans 2003:45). This is also the age at which Joseph began serving before Pharaoh (Gen 41:46) and David became the king of Israel (2 Sam 5:4). In the days of Jesus, when the average life span was 45-50 years, a thirty-year old would be equivalent today to someone in their mid 40’s (cf. Malina 2003:239).
The genealogy begins by stating that Jesus was assumed, or supposed as being the son of Joseph. As indicated above in the section on Issues with this genealogy, Luke is indicating that Jesus was not the actual son of Joseph, but was on record as such. This genealogy is really that of Mary. See above for more explanation. This is the only place where the word son (Gk. uios) is used. Everywhere else it is supplied by the English translators. It seems this may be another way in which Luke hints that something different is going on with Jesus being the son of Joseph.
Joseph was of Heli, though this was actually Mary’s father. Nothing is known about him, though it is debated about whether he was the physical father of Mary or Joseph. Rabbinical literature speaks of “Mary the daughter of Heli” as hanging by the nipples of her breasts and hell is hung on her ear (Lightfoot 1989:55). If this is Mary the mother of Jesus whom the writers are trying to vilify, then the record shows that Heli was in fact her father.
For more, see the discussion above about why Luke’s genealogy is different than Matthew’s (cf. Bock 1994:918-923)
3:24. Matthat. Nothing is known about Matthat, though there are others in this genealogy and Scripture with similar names (Ezra 10:33; 2 Chron 3:29; Luke 3:25, 26, 29, 31).
Levi. Nothing is known about Levi, though there are others in this genealogy and Scripture with the same name (Gen 29:34; Luke 3:29). The original Levi became the forefather of the Hebrew Tribe of Levi, which is the tribe of Priests. Some believe that since Mary and Elizabeth were relatives (1:36), and Elizabeth was a descendant of the Levitical Aaronic Priesthood (1:5), Mary was also of the Tribe of Levi, thereby qualifying Jesus for the Levitical Priesthood. The main problem with this is that the Messiah is to be of the Tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10; Rev 5:5).
Melchi. Nothing is known about Melchi. The name appears again in 3:28.
Janna. Nothing is known about Janna. This is the only place this name appears in Scripture.
Joseph. Nothing is known about Joseph, though there are others in this genealogy and Scripture with the same name (Gen 30:24; Luke 3:23, 26, 30).The story of the Patriarch Joseph can be found in Genesis 37-50.
3:25. Mattathiah. Nothing is known about Mattathiah, though this is a common Jewish name (1 Esdr 9;43; Ezra 10:43; Neh 8;4; 1 Chr 9:31; 1 Macc 2:1, 14). There are similar names in this genealogy (3:24, 26, 29, 31).
Amos. Nothing is known about Amos, though kings (2 Kings 21:18) and prophets (2 Kings 19:2; Amos 1:1) had the same name.
Nahum. Nothing is known about Nahum, though a prophet had the same name (Nah 1:1).
Esli. Nothing is known about Esli. This is the only place this name appears in Scripture.
Naggai. Nothing is known about Naggai. This name appears one other time (1 Chr 3:7).
3:26. Maath. Nothing is known about Maath. This name appears two other times (1 Chr 6:35; 2 Chr 29:12).
Mattathiah. Nothing is known about Mattathiah, though this is a common Jewish name (1 Esdr 9;43; Ezra 10:43; Neh 8;4; 1 Chr 9:31; 1 Macc 2:1, 14). There are similar names in this genealogy (3:24, 25, 29, 31).
Semei. Nothing is known about Semei. This is the only place this name appears in Scripture.
Joseph. Some translations have this as “Josech.” Nothing is known about Joseph, though there are others in this genealogy and Scripture with the same name (Gen 30:24; Luke 3:23, 26, 30).The story of the Patriarch Joseph can be found in Genesis 37-50.
Judah. Nothing is known about Judah, though there are others in Scripture with the same name (Gen 29:35; Luke 3:33). The Judah in Genesis 29-50 was one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and was one of the two Tribes that made up the southern kingdom (1 Kings 12:20-21).
3:27. Joannas. Nothing is known about Joannas, though a similar name appears in Ezra 10:6 and 2 Chronciles 23:1. There is some speculation that Joannas might be the same person as Anania in 1 Chronicles 3:19, the son of Zerubbabel, but the main problem with this is that Luke has Rhesa as the son of Zerubbabel, not Joannas.
Rhesa. Nothing is known about Rhesa. This is the only place this name is recorded in Scripture. However, some speculate, based on the theory that Joannas (above) was actually the son of Zerubbabel, Rhesa might therefore be a title for Zerubbabel, meaning “Prince.” However, the lack of other titles in this genealogy argues against such a view. Of course, the other genealogy of Zerubbabel does not list Rhesa as a son (1 Chr 3:19), so either way, there is a problem. Most likely, 1 Chronicles 3:19 simply does not list all the sons of Zerubbabel.
Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel was the leader of the Tribe of Judah who led the people out of captivity in Babylon back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple around 539 BC (Ezra 2:2; 3:2).
Shealtiel. There are some problems with his name since 1 Chronicles 3:19 lists Pedaiah as the father of Zerubbabel, but most other references have Shealtiel (Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23; Ezra 3:2, 8, 5:2; Neh 12:1). A possible solution is that Shealtiel died childless, and so according to Levitical law, Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel (1 Chr 3:17-18) married Shealtiel’s wife. Their first son together would be considered the son of Shealtiel (Deut 25:1-10). If this was the case, Zerubbabel could be the son of both Pedaiah (biologically) and Shealtiel (by law). But of course, if these two were brothers, and were both sons of Jeconiah (1 Chr 3:17-19), then a problem is encountered about the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30 (discussed in the Issues section above), and why Luke lists Shealtiel as the son of Neri, rather than Jeconiah.
Neri. Both 1 Chronicles 3:17 and Matthew 1:12 have Jeconiah as the father of Shealtiel, not Neri. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, if Shealtiel and Pedaiah were brothers and sons of Jeconiah, then a problem would arise from the prophecy of Jeremiah 22:28-30. But when it is remembered that Jeconiah was only eighteen when he became king (2 Kings 24:8) and he only ruled for three months (2 Chr 36:9), it becomes clear that he could not have had numerous sons at such a young age by only one wife. Probably, he took multiple wives, and some of them already had children. Therefore, it seems possible that while Shealtiel and Pedaiah were brothers, they both had different mothers and fathers. Shealtiel, the biological son of Jeconiah, died childless. Pedaiah, the biological son of Neri and adopted son of Jeconiah, married Shealtiel’s wife, and had Zerubbabel. This solution, while highly speculative, allows all the details to fi, and also helps explain why Jeconiah was such an evil king: he was stealing wives from other men.
So having picked up with Neri, the genealogy moves into names prior to the exile, and begins to work back toward Nathan.
3:28. Melchi. Nothing is known about Melchi. This name appeared earlier in 3:24.
Addi. Nothing is known about Addi. This is the only time this name appears in Scripture.
Cosam. Nothing is known about Cosam. This is the only time this name appears in Scripture.
Elmodam. Nothing is known about Addi. This name appears one other time in Scripture (Gen 10:26).
Er. Nothing is known about Er. This name is somewhat common in Scripture (Gen 38:3; 1 Chr 2:3; 4:21).
3:29. Jose. The Greek here is actually Iesou which is normally translated “Jesus.” Nothing is known about this Jesus, though the name in Hebrew, Yashua or “Joshua” is well known (cf. Exod 17:9; Josh 1:1).
Eliezer. Nothing is known about Eliezer. This name appears other times in Scripture (Gen 15:2; Exod 18:4).
Jorim. Nothing is known about Jorim. This is the only time this name appears in Scripture.
Matthat. Nothing is known about Matthat. though there are others in this genealogy and Scripture with similar names (Ezra 10:33; 2 Chron 3:29; Luke 3:24, 25, 26, 31).
Levi. Nothing is known about Levi, though there are others in this genealogy and Scripture with the same name (Gen 29:34; Luke 3:24). The original Levi became the forefather of the Hebrew Tribe of Levi, which is the tribe of Priests..
3:30. Simeon. Nothing is known about Simeon. There are others in Scripture with the same name, including Simeon, one of the twelve sons of Jacob (Gen 35:23) and the Simeon which Luke writes about in 2:25.
Judah. Nothing is known about Judah, though there are others in Scripture with the same name (Gen 29:35; Luke 3:26). The Judah in Genesis 29-50 was one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and was one of the two Tribes that made up the southern kingdom (1 Kings 12:20-21).
Joseph. Nothing is known about Joseph, though this is also the name of the legal father of Jesus (Luke 3:23) and one of the Patriarchs of Israel (Gen 37-50).
Jonan. Nothing is known about Jonan, though there are others in Scripture with similar names (1 Chr 26:3; Neh 6:18).
Eliakim. Nothing is known about Eliakim, though there are others in Scripture with similar names (2 Kings 18:18; Matt 1:13).
3:31. Melea. Nothing is known about Melea. This is the only time this name appears in Scripture.
Menan. Nothing is known about Menan. This is the only time this name appears in Scripture.
Mattathah. Nothing is known about Matthathah, though there are others in this genealogy and Scripture with similar names (Ezra 10:33; 2 Chron 3:29; Luke 3:24, 25, 26, 29).
Nathan. This is David’s third son (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chr 3:5; 14:4; Zech 12:12). Little else is known about him. This is where the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 diverges from the genealogy here. Matthew traces the line through Solomon, while Luke traces it through Nathan. As indicated in the Issues section above, this is to fulfill prophecy from Jeremiah 22:28-30 that no one from the line of Jeconiah, who was a descendant of Solomon, would sit on the throne.
David. In Scripture, David is a key figure. Much of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles records the events of his life, and he is the author of most of the Psalms. David is frequently mentioned in the New Testament as well. In the rest of his writings, Luke continues to point the reader back to the fact that Jesus is a direct descendant of King David as a way to show that Jesus is the heir to the throne of David (1:27, 31-35, 69; 2:4, 11; 18:38-39; Acts 2:25-31; 13:34-37). From this point on, the genealogy follows similar lists in Matthew 1, 1 Chronicles 2:1-15; and Ruth 4:18-22. These references will not be repeated for each name below.
3:32. Jesse. This is David’s father. Jesse and his eight sons were of the Tribe of Judah and lived in Bethlehem (1 Sam 16:1; 17:12; 20:27; Ruth 4:22; Acts 13:22; Rom 15:12).
Obed. Nothing is known about Obed. There are others in Scripture with the same name (1 Chr 2:37; 11:47).
Boaz. This is one of the main individuals in the Book of Ruth. He owned grain fields and married a Moabite woman named Ruth.
Salmon Nothing is known about Salmon, and is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Nahshon. There is one other man in Scripture with the same name, which might possibly be the one mentioned here. This other man lived at the time of Moses, and was one of the chiefs of the twelve tribes (Exod 6:23; Num 1:7). If so, his sister married Aaron.
3:33. Amminadab. Nothing is known about Amminidab, and if he is the father of the Nashon mentioned in Exodus 6:23, is the only person in Scripture with this name
Ram. There is a difficult textual problem with this name, which may lead to the possible inclusion of two other names at this point, Admin and Arni. Given the diversity of views, it is difficult to say anything about Ram (or Aram, as in some translations).
Hezron. This is likely the Hezron mentioned in Genesis 46:12. Nothing else is known about him, but there are others in Scripture with the same name (Exod 6:14; Num 26:6).
Perez. This individual is also listed in Genesis 38:29 and 46:12. This was Judah’s son through Tamar when Judah slept with her thinking she was a prostitute. The genealogy in Ruth begins with Perez.
Judah. This is the founding father of the Tribe of Judah, and was one of Jacob’s ten son through Leah (Gen 29:35; 35:23). More can be read about him in Genesis 37-49. A man with an identical name was mentioned in 3:30.
3:34. Jacob. This is one of the founding fathers of Israel. He was the son of Isaac and Rebekah, and the younger twin brother of Esau (Gen 25:19-26). His name is changed to Israel in Genesis 35:10, and the names of the Twelve Tribes take their names from Jacob’s twelve sons. There are technically thirteen tribes, with two tribes being named after Joseph’s two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 48:5). Levi received no land, and so there were still only twelve divisions.
Isaac. This is the son born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age (Gen 21:1-7). He also is considered one of the founding fathers of Israel.
Abraham. This is the original founding father of Israel. He is the man of faith from whom God decided to call out a people from the world for Himself (Genesis 12-25). He is the father of faith, and one of the leading figures in all of Judaism. Matthew’s genealogy begins with Abraham. The names on the rest of this genealogy come from Genesis 5:1-32; 11:10-26; 1 Chronicles 1:1-26. These references will not be repeated with each name.
Terah. Terah is the father of Abraham. They lived in Ur. Joshua 24:2 indicates that he worshiped idols, as did Abram until God revealed Himself to Abram as the one, true God.
Nahor. Nothing else is known about Nahor. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
3:35. Serug. Nothing else is known about Serug. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Reu. Nothing else is known about Reu. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Peleg. Nothing else is known about Peleg. He is the only person in Scripture with this name. Genesis 10:25 indicates that in his days, the earth was divided. It is not known exactly what the biblical author meant by this.
Eber. Nothing else is known about Eber. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Shelah. Nothing else is known about Shelah. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
3:36. Cainan. Nothing else is known about Cainan. There is another person with the same name in 3:37. Noah has a grandson named Canaan, which is similar, but not identical (Gen 9:18).
Arphaxad. Nothing else is known about Arphaxad. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Shem. This was one of Noah’s three sons. After Noah got drunk, Ham mocked his father, but Japheth and Shem covered their father’s nakedness. As a result, Noah blessed Japheth and Shem (Gen 9:22-27).
Noah. It was during the lifetime of Noah that the great flood came upon the earth (Genesis 6-9). Due to his faith in building the ark, he is frequently mentioned in Scripture.
Lamech. Little is known about Lemech. He is known for killing another man, but declaring his own innocence (Gen 4:23-24).
3:37. Methuselah. Little is known about Methuseleh except that Scripture records he lived longer than any other man (Gen 5:27).
Enoch. The Scripture states that Enoch walked with God, and so God kept Enoch from death (Gen 5:24; Jude 14). Nothing else is known about Enoch.
Jared. Nothing else is known about Jared. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Mahalalel. Nothing else is known about Mahalalel. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Cainan. Nothing else is known about Cainan. There is another person with the same name in 3:36.
3:38. Enosh. Nothing else is known about Enosh. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Seth. Little else is known about Seth. He was the third son of Adam and Eve, after Cain was cursed for murdering Abel. He is the only person in Scripture with this name.
Adam. This is the father of the human race. He was created from the dust of the ground, given life by the breath of God, and given the earth to tend. Bringing the genealogy all the way back to the first man, Adam, helps focus the reader on two related concepts. First, by going all the way to Adam, rather than stopping at Abraham, Luke shows that the Gospel of the Kingdom is not only for the Jewish people, but is for all who are children of God — all who are sons of Adam. And yet, Luke will soon show that Jesus is the son of God in a special and unique way (Wright 2004:40).
But second, just as the first Adam led humanity into rebellion against God when he sinned by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2-3), so also, the second Adam, Jesus Christ, must provide a way of redemption and reconciliation. But of course, before He can do this, He must succeed where Adam failed, in facing the temptations of the devil. This provides a perfect transition to Luke 4, and the 40 days of temptations Jesus faced in the wilderness.
God. The final name on the genealogy is God. No other genealogical record in Scripture or extra-biblical literature ends in this way (Malina 2003:366). Once again, this is Luke’s way of showing that in some sense, all humans are sons of God, not just Caesar. And Jesus is the ultimate “son of God” (cf. 3:22; 4:3). Here also is a reminder that Adam was created in the image of God, and so also, in some sense, all who are human bear God’s image. But through sin, that image has been marred. Jesus Christ perfectly reveals God, wants to restore the image, and reveals what it looks like to be the image of God.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 3:15-22
By J.D. Myers | September 3, 2009
John’s ministry was to prepare the Jewish people for the coming of the Messiah. In such a prophetic role, it was inevitable that people began to wonder if he himself might actually be the Messiah. When questioned about this, John answered that he was not the Messiah, but that the Messiah would come after John, and be greater than him. John prophetically spoke more than he knew, since Jesus was greater than John in every way, not only in His ministry, but also in His death.
3:15. The people were in expectation for the coming of the Messiah. They knew the promises of God and prophecies of Scripture, and were constantly waiting, looking, hoping, and praying for the Messiah to arrive, lead the nation in perfect obedience to the Torah, set Himself on the throne of David, restore proper Temple worship, and subject the nations of the world to the kingdom of Israel. Numerous prophets had come and gone in recent Israelite history – some had even been hailed as Messiah – but none had amounted to much (Wright 1996:151-155). So as John began to carry out his prophetic ministry, the people all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not. Like many prophets before him, John ministered and worked in the wilderness, called people out to him, and baptized them in the Jordan. All this signified that a new Exodus was underway, and that this renewed Israel did not rely on the Temple (Wright 1996:160).
In light of what John was preaching and doing, many wondered if he was the Christ,[I] which is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew “Messiah.” Both terms literally mean “anointed” and can refer to anyone who has been chosen and anointed by God to carry out a specific task (cf. [i]TDNT, IX:493-580). It is used of various human figures in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, it is only used in reference to Jesus. Here, of course, the Jewish people thought that John might be the Christ. This reveals some of the Jewish expectations for the Messiah, as well as some of the things they were not expecting. While they did expect the Messiah to be one like Moses, who would preach and teach in the wilderness, calling out a people who were set apart, they didn’t expect the Messiah to be born of a virgin, or to be divine. These latter two ideas are not inherent within the title “Christ.”
3:16. To those who wondered if he was the Messiah, John explained that while he did indeed do things that the Christ was expected to do, he was not the Christ. Though John does baptize…with water this does not prove he is the Christ. Many teachers of the time baptized people with water, and most Jews practiced the ritualistic purification mikvah which was similar to John’s baptism. Performing baptisms was not something that proved the identity of the Messiah. After all, Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone (John 4:2). So John’s statement here is more of a reference to what baptism symbolized, namely, that since Judaism has become corrupt, a new Exodus was occurring, and those who repented and were baptized where helping prepare the way for the Messiah.
As an emissary should do, John points the people beyond himself to the One mightier than[b] John who [b]is coming after him. John is only the emissary going before the King, and as such, the Messiah will be mightier than John in every way (cf. John 3:30). John indicates his own lowly position by stating that he is not even able to undo the sandal strap of the Messiah. In the Middle East at this time, sandals and feet often became quite dirty from walking on the roads, and with numerous animals on the road, the feet may even reek of animal droppings. Only the most lowly of servants were asked to remove the master’s sandals and wash their feet. John says he is too low to even perform such a shameful and menial task. Jesus, during His ministry, outdoes John even in this. Jesus, as the master, would never have had to wash His own feet, let alone those of His disciples. And yet in John 13, Jesus humbles Himself and washes all their feet.
John goes on to emphasize his own lowly position by stating that when the Christ arrives, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. John was simply baptizing with water. The baptism with the Holy Spirit is a permanent, spiritual baptism. It first occurred at the birth of the Church in Acts 2 during the Feast of Pentecost. When the later New Testament writers speak about the baptism into Jesus Christ, it is this Spirit baptism they are referring to. When new believers are baptized in water, they are outwardly symbolizing the inner, spiritual baptism that took place when they believed in Jesus for eternal life. Though the Jewish people certainly knew the prophecy out of Joel 2:28-29 about God pouring out His Spirit on His people, it is uncertain how much John and his Jewish hearers understood about the baptism of the Spirit.
A related issue is John’s reference to fire. In connection with the baptism of the Spirit, one common view is to associate this fire with the tongues of fire that alighted on the head of each disciple in the Upper Room in Acts 2:3. That view is possible, but it seems better to take the reference to fire in the same way John uses it in context (3:9, 17), and also in the way it is used in Joel 2, as a reference to divine discipline and judgment upon Israel. John is saying that one way or another, through the Spirit or through fire, the nation will be cleansed.
3:17. John elaborates on this theme of blessing on some and judgment on others through the image of grain threshing, which is the process of separating grain from the chaff. The person doing the threshing would typically use a tool called a winnowing fan, which looked like a cross between a rake, a shovel, and a fan. It was used to scoop up the grain and toss it in the air, and in the same motion, create a gust of wind to blow away the chaff, thereby allowing the grain to fall back down to the ground. The job was made easier if there was a light breeze to blow the chaff away.
The threshing was done on a threshing floor which was a level surface made of stone. This was where the mixture of grain and chaff was piled. As the grain was tossed into the air, the chaff blew off onto one side, and the cleaned grain was then raked off onto the other side. When all was separated, the wheat was gathered into the barn. This is symbolic of the ingathering that the Messiah would accomplish for Israel, brining many people back into covenant faithfulness, and therefore, usefulness for God’s plan on earth.
However, not all would be brought in. Some would continue in their rebellion. Their end will be like that of the chaff which is burned with unquenchable fire. As with the other references to fire in the context, this refers to physical, temporal discipline from God (cf. 3:9; cf. 12:49). It does not refer to hell. Even if it did refer to hell, this verse could not be used to support the idea of eternal conscious torment in hell. The fact that the fire is unquenchable does not mean that it burns forever, but that is burns until all is burned up. It finishes the work it set out to do, which is to burn away the chaff. Chaff, of course, burns very quickly, and leaves almost no ash, and therefore no evidence that it was once there. This is what it means for the chaff to be burned with unquenchable fire. When it refers to temporal divine discipline, the image fits better. The Messiah, when he comes, will divide the nation into wheat and chaff. The wheat will be gathered into the storehouse where it will be used to feed and bless the nations; the chaff will be burned up until no trace of it is left. The former receive the Spirit, the second only fire (3:16).
3:18. Such was John’s typical message when he preached to the people. His message was exactly in line with that of other Hebrew Prophets: the nation of Israel must turn from their disobedience and return to faithfulness to God. Those who did so would be used be God; those who refused would be disciplined.
3:19. This message of exhortation was not for the people only, but also for Herod the tetrarch. This Herod was one of the sons of Herod the Great, and he ruled mainly from Jerusalem. Like his father, he claimed to be the King of the Jews, but was actually Idumean, and was politically, religiously, and morally corrupt. As Luke records, at one point Herod took Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife as his own wife. Aside from stealing his brother’s wife, Herodias was also Herod’s niece (Barclay 1975:36). Such an action was detestable, and so John rebuked Herod for this, as well as for all the evils which Herod had done. John, as a Prophet of God, longed to see justice restored on the earth, the wicked to be destroyed, and the Kingdom of God inaugurated. As many prophets had done before, John dared even to speak against the corrupt leaders and rulers of Israel, and condemn them for their immoral actions.
3:20. In light of the sort of message John preached, about blessing to the faithful, and the fire of judgment to the rebellious, when John preached against Herod, the people probably expected Herod to either repent of his sin or receive divine discipline. However, neither happened. Instead, above all the other evils which Herod had done, he shut John up in prison. Josephus records that Herod imprisoned John because he feared John might start a rebellion (Barclay 1975:35). Whatever the reason, Luke does note record here what happened to John in prison, but maintains the suspense. Theophilus, Luke’s first reader and a high-ranking public official in the Roman Empire, certainly knew of Herod’s reputation, and also knew that most likely, John would die in prison. But if the Messiah was coming, and when He arrives He will overthrow wicked rulers, then maybe John would be delivered, Herod would be cast down as the King of the Jews, the Messiah would be set upon the throne, and the Kingdom would be restored. This incident begins a contest of power between the Rulers of the World and the Agents of God’s Kingdom (cf. 7:18-33; 9:7-9; 13:31-33; 23:8-11).
3:21. Before John was arrested, while John was still baptizing, Jesus also was baptized. The other gospel accounts go into greater detail about this event (cf. Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; John 1:29-34). Nevertheless, the context here raises a key issue: Why did Jesus need to get baptized? The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance (cf. 3:3). It was a baptism for people who had sin to turn from. Luke doesn’t reveal it here, but later New Testament writers explain that Jesus never sinned (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15).
The solution is twofold. First, the baptism was more than just a baptism of repentance. It was also a symbolic way of showing that the one being baptized was dying to corrupt Judaism, and was being raised to new life in covenant faithfulness to God. This was certainly what Jesus was about. Much of His teaching and miracles were directed at the corruption within Judaism, and how He was introducing a new way of maintaining fellowship with God. His baptism revealed that He was not there to support First Century Temple Judaism, but following the example of John, was leading people out of Judaism and into a new way of living with God and with each other.
Secondly, though Jesus never sinned, His baptism helped Him associate with a sinful nation. This foreshadows His ultimate association when He dies on the cross for the sins of the whole world.
While the other gospel accounts go into greater detail about the baptism of Jesus, only Luke writes that Jesus prayed. Luke writes more about Jesus praying than the other Gospel writers, which reveals a key to His power and effectiveness in ministry. In this case, when He prayed, the heaven was opened. It is uncertain how Luke intends this phrase to be understood. Did clouds roll back like a scroll? Most likely, the term is simply a figure of speech for “receiving an answer from God” (cf. Ezek 1:1).
3:22. God answered the prayer of Jesus by sending the Holy Spirit. As with prayer, the Holy Spirit is a prominent theme in Luke’s writings, and another key to the power and effectiveness of Jesus. Luke records that when the Spirit came upon Jesus, He descended in bodily form like a dove. Though this may be a figure of speech indicating that the Spirit descended as a dove would, and not actually in the form of a dove, the most straightforward explanation is that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. He descends onto Jesus before He begins His ministry, showing that the Holy Spirit provides empowerment to Jesus for His ministry.
After the Spirit came upon Jesus, a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.” This is the voice of God the Father, and He indicates, in the presence of all, that Jesus is His Son, and God is proud to be His Father. Such a statement was certainly comforting and reassuring to Jesus, that He was doing His Father’s will, but the voice was just as much for the crowds who witnessed these events. The voice was a sign to them that God’s Messiah had arrived.
Aside from this being a key verse for the doctrine of the Trinity, since all three members are present and interacting with each other, the imagery of verse 22 unmistakably points the reader back to the original creation, where God’s Spirit hovers like a bird over the surface of the waters, and from heaven, God speaks to bring about creation (cf. Gen 1:1-3). With such imagery, Luke shows that Jesus brings a new creation.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 3:7-14
By J.D. Myers | August 2, 2009
Luke 3:7-14 contains the specific call to repentance by John top certain individuals of the multitude who had come out to see him in the wilderness. These specific examples continue to show that John is not trying to tell people how to get into heaven or receive eternal life, but rather how to make the necessary changes in their life so that they will prepare themselves and their nation for the earthly Kingdom of God (or “Rule of God,” see Edersheim 1988:265-271) under the Messiah (cf. Barclay 1975:33). If the necessary preparations were not made, the people could expect only discipline and judgment from the Messiah when He arrived. The Messiah’s message would build upon and exceed the message of John (cf. 3:15-18). This message of John is in fulfillment of the words of the angel to John’s father, Zacharias (1:14-17) and the prophecy from Isaiah 40:3-5 (cf. Luke 3:4-5).
3:7. Verses 7-9 provide the general call to repentance that John preached. It was a message with an accompanying symbol. It was the multitudes who heard John preach. Matthew 3:7 directs John’s speech toward the religious leaders, which does not cause any problem here, since John undoubtedly preached the same message numerous times to various audiences.
When they heard him, they desired to be baptized by him. This baptism was most likely the Jewish mikvah, a purification ritual, which indicated a person’s desire to change their life, die to their old ways, and live a new life of obedience and faithfulness to God. See the commentary on Luke 3:3 for more about this.
Nevertheless, it appears John believed that just as with many of the other Jewish rituals of that time, some were going through the outward motions without any inner change of heart. Some people were coming out to John to be baptized by John, but they had not repented of anything. So his words to such people are pointed and direct. The term brood of vipers is a slanderous term, telling the people that they were offspring of snakes. Aside from the fact that snakes are unclean animals according to Jewish law, John was, in a sense, calling them “snake bastards” (Malina 2003:236). Jesus will later use this same terminology in reference to the religious rulers (Matt 12:34; 23:33).
The term is also an allusion to Annas, the High Priest (3:2). As was mentioned in the commentary there, Annas was known as “the viper” since he went about “hissing” or whispering in ears of politicians and other authority figures to influence their decisions. Other literature of the time refers to political rulers as “snakes” and “vipers” and so John’s accusation is political as well. He believes that many of those who have come out to him have aligned themselves with the corrupt political practices of Roman rulers.
Finally, the reference to vipers is an allusion to the serpent of Genesis 3, which was the devil. To be the brood of vipers, or “begotten” by vipers means that these people were acting like the devil (cf. John 8:44) and were therefore children of the devil, rather than children of Abraham as they claim (Bock 1994:303).
There are numerous ways John’s question to the crowd can be taken: ”Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (cf. Bock 1994:304). The best option is that John wants to make sure that those coming to him for baptism understood what they were doing, and were not just getting baptized for appearance sake. If it was for appearance only, and no true repentance was taking place, they were only maintaining their hypocrisy and compounding the judgment that would come upon them. The wrath to come which John refers to is not hell, but is instead the temporal and physical judgment that would come upon the nation of Israel if they persisted in their rebellion and rejected their Messiah when He arrived. This is generally how the term “wrath of God” is used in Scripture, and is perfectly in line with the immediate context (cf. v 9; Isa 13:9; Zech 1:15), with what the Hebrew Scriptures foretold (cf. Deut 28:15-68 and all the Prophets), and with what actually happened to Israel in 68-70 AD (cf TDNT V:430-446).
3:8. Escaping the discipline of God is one reason to turn from sin. Yet John knows that many of those coming out to be baptized have no intention of repenting of anything, nor do they believe that divine discipline will come. So he challenges the multitudes that if they really want the baptism of repentance (3:3), they should bear fruits worthy of repentance. They should prove that they are actually repenting of something by taking definite and concrete steps to admit their sin and turn from it. They should state what sin they are turning from, and explain what corrective changes they will make in their life. Such changes are the true fruits, or results, of repentance. Without such changes, repentance did not take place.
Many of the Jews, however, felt that it did not matter whether they had personal failures or not. They believed they could rest on their patriarchal heritage, rather than on personal holiness. There was a belief among some of the Jews that due to the great faith and obedience of certain Jewish forefathers, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, God would never judge Israel. All Israel had part in the world to come. This sort of thinking is what John is referring to when he says, do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ Some even believed that in regard to eternal judgment, God had Abraham sit at the gate of hell to keep any Israelite from accidentally going there (Edersheim 1988:271). Yet John does not want such thoughts to even enter their mind (do not begin to say…[/b]). “By itself the richest of biological connections is worthless spiritually if the spiritual environment and exhortations are ignored” (Bock 1994:305).
The Jews believed that as the chosen people of God, they were necessary to accomplish the plan and will of God. They knew the Messiah would come through them and that they must inherit the earth and so God could never set them aside, or do away with them as a people, lest His promises fail. John’s response is that God’s promises will never fail, for if God has to, He is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. If John was speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic, there would be a wordplay here between “stones” ([i]eben) and “children” (ben; cf. Evans 2003:72).
John probably has several allusions and images in mind with such a statement. First, the reference to these stones may refer to the twelve stones which were taken from the Jordan River by the Israelites when they entered the Promised Land with Joshua (Josh 4:2; 20-22; cf. 1 Kings 18:31-32; Evans 2003:72).
Second, John may be alluding to the prophetic image of God being able to use any person for His purposes, even if they have hearts of stone (Zech 7:12). God is not as concerned with family and lineage as with loyalty and faithfulness. “God’s children are not born at physical birth, but are transformed from the heart” (Bock 1994:301).
Finally, John may be alluding to Isaiah 51:1-2 where God reveals that Israel was figuratively hewn from a rock, which was Abraham. If God had done it once, He could certainly do it again. God can accomplish His purposes with rocks if necessary (cf. a similar argument by Paul in Romans 11:17-21). Later, the Gospel writers show how certain “stones” rejected by the people of Israel are raised up by God to become the new people of Abraham (cf. Luke 19:9-10; 20:17; Matt 16:18; Mark 3:14-16).
3:9. Therefore, the Israelites must be careful, because even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. It is uncertain whether John has particular types of trees in mind with this image, but in Jewish imagery, Israelite leadership and the nation as a whole is often portrayed as a tree, specifically, a fig tree (Hos 9:10). When every man had his own fig tree, it was a symbol of national peace and property (1 Kings 4:25; 2 Kings 18:31; Micah 4:4; Zech 3:10). Therefore, if the trees were cut down, it indicated judgment and discipline, often at the hands of enemies (Jer 2:21-22; Hos 10:1-2; Joel 1:12). John is saying here that just as every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down, so also, if the nation does not produce the fruit of repentance, they too will be cut down. Later in His ministry, Jesus told a similar parable (cf. Luke 13:6-9), and caused a fruitless fig tree to wither, symbolizing what would happen to the fruitless nation of Israel (Matt 21:19-21).
John goes on to say that when a fruitless tree is cut down, it is thrown into the fire. As with most of the references to fire in Scripture, this is not a reference to hell, but a way of speaking about temporal divine discipline on earth (cf similar prophetic speech in Mal 3:2; 4:1; Jer 22:7). “Both Jer 11:16 and Ezek 15:6-7 used the image to speak of the consuming destruction that crushed the nation and produced the exile… In the NT as well, fire is a picture of consuming destruction (Luke 3:17; 9:54; 17:29; Matt 5:22, 29; John 15:6)” (Bock 1994:307). This is what John speaks of here, and what began to happen to Israel in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem.
The bottom line of John’s message is that being the elect nation of God was not enough to save them from His discipline. If the people did not repent and change their ways, discipline and judgment would come.
3:10. Many of the people who heard John’s words were convicted of their need to repent, and so asked him, saying, “What shall we do then?” In response, John provides three admonitions about what could be done to show the fruit of repentance. These admonitions struck at some of the core political, religious, and social issues of that day, but primarily at the issue of finances and greed. The people were greedy, and needed to repent and turn from their greed by being generous, honest and content (BKC II:211). “He does not call the crowd to his ascetic lifestyle, nor does he call for a commitment to a series of ritual religious acts, nor does he point to the sacrifices associated with the Jewish faith. Rather, he points to meeting the needs of others” (Bock 1994:309). True “religion” is not about doing things to please and appease God, in singing many songs and attending numerous meetings, but is found in being a blessing to others, serving them, and meeting their needs, especially for those less fortunate than ourselves (cf. Jas 1:27).
3:11. The first admonition was directed toward the people in general. It had no specific target group, but was intended for all. John said to them, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” John instructs the people to be generous with their possessions, to share with those who have less. People tend to hoard possessions out of greed or for a sense of personal security. “John could see the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. A start had to be made to get things back on track” (Wright 2004:35). Such a start begins, not with changing laws, electing officials, or public demonstrations, but by followers of God doing what is right in their own lives with their own possessions. John instructs the people that the proper fruit of repentance for those who own more than others is to give some of their food and possessions away.
This is not something that John came up with himself, but is rather a clear instruction from the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Ps 41:1-2). James says something almost identical when he instructs believers to do more than simply believe that God can help others with their needs, but to actually help those in need (Jas 2:14-26).
3:12. In verses 12-14, John provides specific instructions to two specific groups who were renowned for using their positions of power for their own advantage at the expense of others. The two groups mentioned by Luke were despised and looked down upon by the average Jew. They were viewed as traitors of Israel and agents of Roman Imperialistic power. So in once sense, when these two groups ask John what they must do to repent, most people who were present would have approved, thinking that such sinners did indeed need to repent and be baptized. However, John has preached and Luke has shown that everyone in Israel needed to repent and be baptized, all the way up to the High Priests. Yet only these two groups, who were considered traitors to Israel, asked about how to repent. So it is they who are preparing for the Messiah, and therefore it is they who are loyal to Israel. Those who didn’t think they needed to repent of anything were not preparing for the Messiah, and were the actual traitors. It could be that these sinful yet repentant groups represent the “stones” from which God raises up new children of Abraham (cf. Luke 19:9-10).
The first of these groups was the tax collectors. There were numerous taxes in the Roman Empire, including a poll tax which all citizens paid, toll taxes on roads, land tax for all landowners, sales tax for both buying and selling, gate taxes to enter a city, and numerous other taxes which could be levied (cf. Bock 1994:311). Generally, a Jewish family could expect 30-40% of their income to go to such taxes (Neyrey, “Who is Poor in the New Testament?”). To collect these taxes from Jewish citizens, the Roman government hired Jewish tax collectors. This is due to the fact that zealous Jews would often murder Roman tax collectors, but would not murder Jewish tax collectors, even though the Jewish tax collectors were viewed as traitors, and were not allowed into the Synagogues.
Due to their position, the Jewish tax collectors often took advantage of their situation. Rome instructed the collectors to send in a set amount of taxes. Anything collected above that amount could be kept by the tax collector to cover his own expenses and provide himself with a salary (cf. Bock 1994:311). Though most tax collectors were honest and fair, some became wealthy by collecting well beyond what Rome had set for them (Malina 2003:416). Yet they are among those who feel convicted by what John has been preaching, and ask, “Teacher, what shall we do?”
3:13. John does not tell them to give up their profession, and quit working for a foreign, occupying government. Instead, he tells them to Collect no more than what is appointed. Doing so would mean that the tax collector would no longer be taking a salary. If they collected only what was appointed by Rome, they would have to send to Rome everything they collected. But this is the fruit of repentance. It is not only stopping the sinful behavior, but going in the opposite direction to do what is right. Repentance is often painful and costly. Certainly, of course, many of them would have already had large estates and great wealth stored up. John says nothing about that here, at least, not as recorded by Luke. Later, Luke does show Zaccheus the tax collector, when he repents, giving back fourfold what he had wrongly taken from others (Luke 19:1-10).
3:14. Another group which frequently abused their power and authority were the soldiers. It is unlikely that garrisoned Roman soldiers would come out to the Jordan for a Jewish ritual baptism. So these were likely Jewish soldiers conscripted by the Roman military, or possibly Jewish temple guards, personal body guards for the rich, or Herodian palace guards (Wright favors Herodian palace guards, 2004:36; cf. Bock 1994:312). Whatever their position, soldiers often took advantage of the weak and the poor. They not only had weapons to wound, or even kill people, but also had the authority to imprison people if they wanted. As a result, many would make false accusations to intimidate or extort others for money and power. Sometimes, they would even go on strikes and refuse to defend the public officials unless their wages were increased (Harrison 1973:203).
John’s instructions to them is that they not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with [their] wages. As with the tax collectors, John does not tell the soldiers to quit their jobs. Instead, they must be content with what they were getting paid, instead of trying to garnish their wages or increase their power through extortion, false accusations, and the acceptance of bribes. The phrase not intimidate means “to shake violently” and is equivalent to the English slang expression “to shake down” (Bock 1994:313). Wages were generally set at a particular level, and since steady inflation was relatively unknown in ancient times as it is in modern Western economies, employees did not have to seek pay raises. So the soldiers are told to be content with their pay, rather than use the excuse of low pay to rob and pillage (Wright 2004:36).
John’s call for the people is to follow the righteous requirements of the Law in providing for those who were less fortunate, and in working hard and honestly at their jobs. It was okay for tax collectors and soldiers to be employed by the Roman Empire, but they should not abuse the power and authority that had come with the job. Though Caesar saw himself as a dispenser of judgment and wrath upon rebellious people, and though Caesar generally allowed those in his government to use their power any way they saw fit as long as peace was maintained, John warned those who worked for Caesar to be more concerned about the wrath of God, and to prepare for the coming Messiah by working honestly and living generously. In this way, Luke begins to show the reader that though a person may live in a corrupt nation with corrupt leaders, this did not mean that all people who were part of that nation or empire were also corrupt. People have a choice for how they live and perform their jobs.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 3:1-6
By J.D. Myers | July 4, 2009
Luke now transitions from writing about the birth and early years of Jesus, to the events immediately preceding the beginning of His mission (Luke 3:1–4:13). Continuing the pattern of alternating between Jesus and John, Luke now turns to talk about mission of John in preparing the way for the Messiah. John’s message is one of national and personal reform. It is not a message about how to receive eternal life, but rather about how the Jewish people must prepare to welcome the King of Israel.
3:1. Luke indicates a jump forward in time by providing a new historical time reference. As with the other time references (1:5; 2:1), the names listed not only provide a time reference, but also foreshadow some of the themes Luke will emphasize in the text that follows. Here, Luke’s point seems to be that the entire nation, politically and religiously, has become corrupt.
The events that follow take place in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, which is between September of 27 AD and October of 28 AD (Keener 1994:196). Tiberius Caesar, the adopted son of Augustus Caesar, was generally a good Roman emperor, not wasteful with money, and not too prone to war or excessive abuses of power. Nevertheless, as with many rulers of the time, he increasingly suspected that many of those near to him were engaged in treasonous plots, and so in 26 AD, he moved to the remote island of Capri, and never returned to the city of Rome. He continued to rule as the Roman Emperor, but only by correspondence with the Senate, his generals, and the governors of Roman provinces (Grant 1975:84-107). So at the time of the events in Luke 3, the empire was being ruled by an absent and suspicious Caesar. It was during these years of self-imposed exile, that Tiberius’ rulings became cruel and cold-blooded (Grant 1975:105). The entirety of Jesus’ public ministry was during the absentee reign of Tiberius, who died in 37 AD.
Luke next turns his attention to the local rulers of Palestine. After King Herod died in 4 BC, the territory he ruled became a Roman province, and a governor named Pontius Pilate was placed in command. The province of Judea had always been one of the most difficult regions in the Roman Empire, as the Jews frequently rebelled against Roman rule (Horsley 2003:35-54), but during his rule, Pilate was able to bring some semblance of peace.
However, just before Jesus began His public ministry, he seems to have deliberately provoked the Jewish people into rebellion when he sent a company of troops into Jerusalem carrying their standards with the images of the gods on them, and telling the people to worship and pray to these gods, and pledge their complete allegiance to Caesar. Aside from such a display violating the First Commandment, this was a way of saying that the God of Israel had been conquered and subjected to the Roman gods. Crowds of Jewish people prostrated themselves before Pilate’s house for five days in protest. When they refused to disperse, he ordered his soldiers to surround them, and threatened the people that if they didn’t leave, he would have them all beheaded. When they heard this, the Jewish people bared their necks to the soldiers and said that they were ready to die rather than break the Law. At this, Pilate relented (as reported by Josephus in Horsley 2003:48). Occasionally, Pilate did resort to punishment by death, as alluded to in Luke 13:1, and as he did with Jesus and the two other criminals (Luke 23).
Under the governorship of Pilate, the province of Judea was further sub-divided into various regions which were ruled by three tetrarchs. The first of these was Herod Antipas, the [/b]tetrarch of Galilee.[/b] Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, had been raised at the imperial court, and was especially skilled at extracting tax revenues from Galilee (Horsley 2003:15). Like his father, he used these revenues not only to support imperial Rome, but also to engage in large-scale construction projects. Among these, he built two new cities, Tiberias and Sepphoris. This caused great financial stress on the people of Galilee (Horsley 2003:34, 61, 85).
Later in the Gospel accounts, Herod imprisoned John for condemning his marriage to Herodias, who had been the wife of his brother Herod, who is also called Philip (Luke 3:19-20; Mark 6:17; Matt 14:3). Herodias did not like such criticism, and so was able to convince Herod to behead John (Matt 14:1-11). It was also Herod Antipas who, together with Pontius Pilate, agreed to have Jesus crucified (cf. Luke 23). Such actions were often taken by the Roman ruling structure to quell what they viewed as acts of terrorism and rebellion against the Roman Empire (Horsley 2003:27).
Second is the half-brother of Herod Antipas, and another son of Herod the Great, Philip. The genealogy get somewhat confusing. Herod the Great had two wives. The first was Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Together, they had the Philip mentioned here. Herod the Great also married Mariamne II, and they had Herod Antipas, Herod Archelaus, and Herod/Philip. Herod/Philip married Herodias, and together, they had a daughter named Salome before Herodias left her husband and married Herod Antipas. Salome married Philip, her half-uncle whom we read about this verse.
Luke records that this Philip was the tetrarch of Iturea and…Trachonitis. These regions spread from Galilee up toward Damascus, and though sparsely populated, were important to the Roman Empire for their trade routes and as a first line of defense against the Nabateans and Parthians. This region contained very few Jews, and Josephus records that Philip ruled with justice and benevolence, gaining the respect of his subjects (Josephus, Antiq. 18.4.6). He remained in this position from 4 BC to 34 AD.
The third that Luke writes about is Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene. Very little is known of Lysanias or the region of Abilene. Some have concluded that Luke made an historical error, but there are a few vague references to such names and places in Josephus which indicate that the problem is our own ignorance, not Luke’s.
Altogether, these five names not only provide an accurate time reference for the events that follow, but more importantly, reveal that the nation of Israel was under foreign occupation. And not only were these rulers foreign, bu they were corrupt and merciless in carrying out their plans. Therefore, Israel was praying for a deliverer like Moses to lead them out of bondage to Rome.
3:2. Generally, in such situations, the people would look to the religious leaders for such deliverance. However, if the political scene in Israel was corrupt, the religious scene was even worse. Luke records that both Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. First, there was only supposed to be one high priest. The fact that there were two indicates that something is wrong. But secondly, historical records reveal that both Annas and Caiaphas had been put into their positions by Pontius Pilate (Horsley 2003:15, 33), and constantly used their power to line their own pockets and increase their own authority. Annas was even sometimes called a viper who hissed or whispered in the ears of judges and politicians in order to influence their decisions (Edersheim 1988:263) Archeological explorations from the time indicate that the high priestly families built increasingly elaborate mansions for themselves in Jerusalem. This could have only occurred through close collaboration with the Roman rulers of the region (Horsley 2003:33).
The list of names indicate that the political and religious condition of Israel was so fallen and corrupt, it was clearly time for the Messiah to be revealed. Israel needed a new deliverer, not just to deliver them from political bondage and foreign rule, but also from spiritual and religious corruption.
But before the Messiah is fully revealed, a prophet must rise and call the people back to God, to prepare the way for the Messiah. With terminology from the Hebrew Scriptures, the rest of verse 2 introduces the last of the Old Testament prophets. Though Luke has listed one emperor, one governor, three tetrarchs, and two religious high priests, the word of God comes to a relatively unknown man living in the wilderness. Luke references John’s location to show two things. First, that John was separate from the political-economic scene and the religious apostasy that was common in his day. He was separate from all this. Second, Luke wants to portray John like Moses, who came out of the wilderness to rescue Israel from Egypt. Luke is raising the question in the reader’s mind about John, and whether he will be the one to deliver Israel. Luke answers this question in 3:16.
In chapter 1, Zacharias had been told by an angel of the Lord that his son, John, would be a prophet in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (1:17). Now, 30 years later, this promise is about to come true. John is living in the wilderness, and the Word of the Lord came to him.
3:3. John spoke the word from God in all the region around the Jordan. Prophets generally localize their ministry to a particular region. John stayed and preached along the Jordan river. This was important since part of his ministry involved the baptism of repentance. Furthermore, his ministry in the region of the Jordan river also points to him being like the prophet Elijah who spent his last days in the Jordan river area (2 Kings 2:1-13). John was coming in the spirit and power of Elijah to herald the way for a King.
The message John spoke is widely misunderstood and misapplied. Some refer to John’s message as the gospel, and while it is part of the gospel message, John is concerned primarily with the message of good news to the people of Israel about how God’s promises of land and inheritance could be fulfilled (cf. Barclay 1975:33). John is not telling the people of Israel how to escape hell, receive eternal life, and get into heaven. Rather, he is telling them how to prepare the way for the Messiah and all that they hoped would come with Him. The people wanted freedom and deliverance from Roman occupation, to be restored unto their land with the right to rule themselves, and the Messiah to set Himself up as King in Jerusalem, reigning over the whole world. John’s message about the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins explain how the people can prepare their lives and their communities for these Messianic expectations.
His basic message is “turn or burn” as verses 7-14 make clear, but not “burn” in the sense of “go to hell” but face the dire temporal consequences for their continued rebellion against God. To avoid further enslavement and destruction, the people needed to clean up their lives, and return to living righteously before God. This is what John meant when he preached about a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
This baptism of repentance was also known as John’s Baptism (cf. Acts 1:22; 19:3-4). It is not exactly the same type of baptism that Jesus instructed his disciples to follow, nor is it the type of baptism that occurred at Pentecost or that Paul talks about in Romans 6. There are numerous types of baptism mentioned in Scripture, some that involve water, and some that don’t. Some are physical, some are spiritual.
The word baptism (Gk. baptizo) means “immersion” and can refer to several different events or ideas. It can refer to being washed with water, or being identified with the death and resurrection of Jesus, or fully receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, or facing the full force of God’s judgment, or even to being fully instructed (i.e., immersed) in a particular subject or topic. John’s baptism was of the symbolic kind, and was a baptism of water reserved especially for Jewish people. There is, in Judaism, a baptismal practice whereby Gentiles who want to become Jews must, among other things, must undergo a ritual washing of purification, or baptism, called a mikvah. The Jewish Talmud, in the Mikva’ot tractate, states that when a Gentile wishes to become a Jew, he must be instructed according to the 613 commandments of the Torah, must be circumscribed, and must go through a Mikvah, that is, be baptized. When he goes under the water, he goes under a Gentile. When he comes back out, he comes out a Jew, born again like a new-born babe, with a new soul, spiritually and ritually pure. It is said that just like a baby is surrounded by water in the womb, so in a Mikvah, the person is surrounded by water. And just as the baby, when it comes out of the water, is born to a new life, so also, the person who comes up out of the waters of the Mikvah, is born to a new life as a Jew.
However, once a person becomes a Jew, they will often continue this practice of ritual washings. Devout Jews will often go through numerous mikvahs per year, sometimes as frequently as once per day. These washings are intended to purify the person from ritual impurity that occurred throughout life (cf. 2 Kings 5:24; Sirach 34:25; Mark 7:4). This is a way of maintaining purity.
It is something similar to this that John was calling the people of Israel to in his day. The Jewish religious system and political scene had become corrupt, and John was calling the people to turn away from the corruption, and be restored to a new life of faithful obedience to God. .
This is why it’s called a baptism of repentance (Gk. metanoia Just as baptism symbolizes a death to the old self and the raising up to a new and different self, so repentance is a mental and moral turning from the old habits of life, to a new and righteous pattern. John’s baptism was a representation or picture of repentance, of turning from the old toward the new. It is, in a sense, a visual sermon.
Through this baptism of repentance the Jewish person would receive the remission of sins. In Western individualistic theology, this term has come to mean “forgiveness of my sins so I can get eternal life and go to heaven when I die.” This is not what it meant for the Jewish people in John’s day. The term remission (Gk. aphesis) literally means “deliverance” or “release” and means to be delivered or freed from bondage of sin. It carries with it the idea of the release of captives, of setting prisoners free (cf. Luke 4:18-19). But more than that, in Jewish thinking, sin and rebellion against God was always coupled with bondage and enslavement to foreign powers. When the nation gained deliverance from their sin, they would also gain deliverance from foreign rule (cf. comments on 1:77).
This idea is seen clearly in Jeremiah 31, where New Covenant language ties forgiveness of sins with the As the language from the New Covenant explains in Jeremiah 31, the forgiveness of sins was tied with the Israelite expectations for God’s rule on earth. During this time, God would reign in righteousness over all the earth from Jerusalem, Israel would be delivered, and evil destroyed. It is for this that the Messiah would come. It is for this that John preached.
3:4. John’s message and ministry was in fulfillment of prophecy, as written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet. Isaiah is, as many have noticed, the Bible in miniature. It contains 66 chapters, just as the Bible contains 66 books. Isaiah is divided into two parts, the first part being chapters 1-39, which correspond to the first 39 books of the Bible. The second part of Isaiah (chapters 40–66) is 27 chapters long, and correspond with the general theme and ideas of the New Testament. The passage that Luke refers to here comes from Isaiah 40:3-5, the opening sentences to the second part of Isaiah.
The prophet Isaiah declared that before the Messiah arrived, a prophet would come before Him, who would be recognized by particular actions. First, he would be a voice…crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord. This is significant on two levels.
First, Isaiah is portraying this prophet as an emissary who goes before an Emperor or King to prepare the way. In the Roman Empire, when the Emperor planned to visit a city, he would send an emissary or herald before him to announce his coming. But this emissary would do more than just announce the coming of the Emperor. He would act as an inspector. He would go around the city, and make a list of things that needed to be cleaned and repaired. Sometimes this would involve rounding up criminals and putting them in prison, and instructing others how to behave when the Emperor arrived. Such preparations were vitally important, for if the Emperor arrived and the city was not prepared for him, he might mete out judgment and punishment upon the city and its rulers.
He follows the typical pattern of Caesar biographies of that time by showing a man named John acted as the emissary preparing the way for Jesus. In this way, Luke puts Jesus on the same level with Caesar, the Emperor of Rome. Both have emissaries who go before them to prepare the way for their arrival.
But secondly, as Isaiah reveals, this emissary does not go into the cities of Jerusalem to preach and prepare the people in the cities for the Messiah. But this emissary, says Isaiah, will declare his message in the wilderness. This is curious because the wilderness is not where the people were. They were in the cities. But spiritually, morally, and politically, they were in the wilderness, as Luke has already hinted at with the list of names in verses 1-2. Mention of the wilderness also evokes images of the wilderness wanderings of Israel. Such wanderings served as a time of purification for the nation, after the Exodus from bondage in Egypt, but before entrance into the Promised Land. By preaching in the wilderness, John is forcing the people who want to hear him, as multitudes do, to experience a personal Exodus from the cities, and come out to the wilderness for purification. In so doing, John was preparing the people for the Messiah who, it was hoped, would bring about the national Exodus of the Israelites from bondage to Rome.
This is what Luke (in quoting Isaiah) refers to in the next several descriptive phrases. First, the quote from Isaiah says this emissary will make His paths straight,[/b] that is, the prophet will make straight paths for the Messiah. Again, when Roman dignitaries visited cities, massive excavation, construction, and beatification projects were often undertaken in the cities and surrounding areas prior to his arrival.
3:5. Sometimes the work performed would be to such a great extent that every valley would be filled in and every mountain and hill brought low. One of the things expected was that the path or road he arrived on was straight and level. This would protect him from getting lost by having to make too many turns, from danger by not being able to see around corners, and from weariness (or his horse from weariness) by having to go up and down too many hills. Through parallelism, Isaiah says that the crooked places shall be made straight and the rough ways smooth. Such terminology hints, of course, that when it comes to the Messiah and the prophet that would prepare the way before Him, God is not concerned about the roads and buildings, but about the spiritual and moral lives of His people. He wants them to straighten out the crooked ways in their lives, and smooth out the rough places.
3:6. The result of all of these preparations is that all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’ This verse, in connection with Luke’s reference to the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins in verse 3, has caused many to believe that John is telling people how to “be saved,” which to many, means “get eternal life, escape hell, and go to heaven when you die.” But this is not what John is preaching, nor what Luke is referring to, nor how the term “salvation” is most often used in Scripture. In Scripture, the “salvation” word family (save, saved, salvation, etc.) most often refers to being delivered from some physical, temporal calamity such as sickness, enemies, and storms. Sometimes it refers to being delivered from the enslaving power of sin in our lives. Only rarely does it refer to having something to do with going to heaven when we die (e.g., Eph 2:8-9), and even then, the terminology is debatable.
Here in this context, Isaiah, Luke, and John are all clearly referring not to eternal life and going to heaven, but rather to being delivered from one’s enemies, and more particularly, from the Roman occupation and religious corruption Luke referred to in 3:1-2. Individually, this will occur as each person makes the necessary preparations in their own lives by making steps to be delivered from sin. John tells them how to do this in verses 7-14. So here, [i]the salvation of the Lord refers to freedom from sin and freedom from foreign rule, and a return to all flesh, that is, all the world, being ruled by God. When this happens, the power and domination of paganism will be broken, God will return to Zion, the covenant will be renewed, Israel’s (and all the world’s) sins forgiven, the long-awaited ‘exodus’ will happen, the Temple will be rebuilt, and all the other promises fulfilled (Wright 1996:xviii).
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 2:41-52
By J.D. Myers | June 20, 2009
Although Scripture does not provide much information about the first thirty years of the life of Jesus, Luke records one event which took place when He was twelve years old. Luke includes this event to show that even at a young age, the prophecies about Jesus and the expectation for Him as the Messiah were already coming true.
The passage really begins with 2:40, but since this was discussed in 2:36-40, only a summary of the commentary on that verse will be repeated here. Verse 40 serves as a conclusion to 2:1-38, and an introduction to 2:41-52. It is a hinge verse, pointing back to a similar statement made about John in 1:80, and also pointing forward to a final summary statement in 2:52. This shows that the text of 2:41-51 builds on all the expectations of Jesus that were announced in 2:1-39, and also reveals that since two of the three statements are about Jesus, He will surpass John. The two statements about Jesus enclose 2:41-51, a passage which shows how Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man, even from a young age.
That Luke includes only this one account from the childhood years of Jesus is not surprising. The emphasis in all Four Gospels of Jesus are about the ministry and mission of Jesus, and so the writers had to be selective in their use of material. Furthermore, “Hellenistic biographies usually featured one childhood incident that was taken to foreshadow the character of the adult. Luke provides this for his knowing (educated) Greco-Roman readers. In this section of the narrative Luke is also engaged once again in moving Jesus up the scale of honor” (Malina 2003:234).
2:41. To provide an historical and cultural reference, Luke records that Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem for [/b]the Feast of Passover[/b] which is also the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Feast of Passover commemorates the deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt through the death of all the first-born sons. With the image of Passover, Luke raises again the Jewish expectation for a Redeemer who will deliver Israel, both from sin and Roman occupation.
2:42. Luke states that this Passover was when Jesus was twelve years old. Other than this event, and His birth, circumcision, and blessing in 2:1-38, we know nothing else of the first thirty years of Jesus’ life. That Jesus is twelve is significant in light of what follows. Generally, it was between the ages of twelve and fourteen that young Jewish men began their formal training in the synagogue, were received into Judaism as a “son of the law,” and were expected to begin strict obedience to the law (Barclay 1975:29; Bock 1994:264; Edersheim 1988:235; Harrison 1973:200; Keener, 1994:195; Pentecost 1981:76; Radmacher 1999:1254). Since Jesus is twelve indicates he is surpassing what was expected for someone His age. Josephus records that the Prophet Samuel began his work as a prophet at the age of twelve, and so there may be an allusion here to Jesus being in the story of Samuel’s birth and upbringing (Evans 2003:62).
Joseph and Mary went with Jesus up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. Jews were expected to go to Jerusalem three times a year, for the Feast of Unleavened Bread (which begins with Passover), the Feast of Weeks (which begins with Pentecost), and the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. Exod 34:23). Nevertheless, most Jewish people who lived far from Jerusalem were able to attend only once in their lifetime. Yet attendance was mandatory for those living within fifteen miles of Jerusalem (Barclay 1975:29). Joseph and Mary went each year (v 41), indicating their piety and obedience (Bock 1994:263)..
The feasts play an important role in the New Testament, as God frequently seems to do something important when a large number of Jewish people are gathered together in Jerusalem. This allowed God to spread a message or show a sign to a large number of people. When the people who heard the message or saw the sign went home, the light from Jerusalem spread with them. For a good summary of the historical and political landscape of this time period, see Edersheim 1988:233-254.
2:43. Joseph and Mary most likely did not spend the entire Sabbath week in Jerusalem. They were allowed to return home on the third day if they desired. Furthermore, it was only during the week of Passover that the religious leaders held their public discussions in the temple courtyards (Edersheim 1988:246). If Joseph, Mary, and Jesus had remained in Jerusalem for all seven days of the Feast, Jesus would not have been able to remain behind and participate in such discussions (contra. Bock 1994:265; Pentecost 1981:76). So, Joseph and Mary probably departed on the third or fourth day. The Boy Jesus however, lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it. Very likely, Joseph and Mary had other children at this point, which they were looking after. The term Luke uses to describe Jesus as a boy (Gk. pais) refers to a young child, still dependant upon it’s parents. This is probably how Mary and Joseph viewed Jesus, though the text reveals progress in this matter. Here, Jesus is a child. In 2:48, He is a son (Gk. teknon) of Joseph and Mary. But in 2:49, Jesus explains that His Father is God, and by inference, a Son (generally the Gk. huios of God. In this way, Luke is revealing the transition from boyhood to adulthood, and beyond.
2:44. Joseph, Mary, and their family did not make this trip alone. Since Jewish families from all over the Roman Empire would journey to Jerusalem for this feast, they would often travel together. The women would generally leave first, since they traveled more slowly, followed by the men, who would catch up to them by nightfall (Pentecost 1981:76). So Joseph and Mary, if they traveled separately, both assumed that Jesus was with the other parent, or in the company[/] of other friends and family from the vicinity of Nazareth. The journey from Jerusalem to Nazareth was 80 miles, and would take a caravan of people three or four days (Bock 1994:264). After the end of the first [b]day’s journey, Joseph and Mary searched for Jesus among their relatives and acquaintances.
2:45. When they were not able to find Jesus, Joseph and Mary returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. Verse 45 is almost certainly hides the frantic concern that Joseph and Mary felt in their search for Jesus. They had been given responsibility to teach, raise, and protect the promised Messiah of Israel, and now, they had lost Him. It was not due to carelessness, however, as both assumed He was with one of the others in the caravan.
2:46. It took Joseph and Mary three days to find Jesus. It is uncertain if Luke means that they searched Jerusalem for one day, which when added to the two days of travel (one day away from Jerusalem, one day back) makes three days, or if Luke means they searched for three days, making the total separation five days (one day of travel out, one day of travel back, three days of searching). The second option seems best. Furthermore, if they spent three days in Jerusalem for the Feast, two days traveling, and then three days searching, they would have found Jesus in the Temple on the eighth and final day of the Feast of Passover. But whether the total time of absence was three or five days, Joseph and Mary were almost certainly filled with worry. When they finally found Jesus, He was in the temple. This is the last place the average parent expects to find their twelve year old son, but that is where they found Jesus.
Luke also records what Jesus was doing in the temple. He was sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. This does not suggest that Jesus is lecturing or teaching the religious leaders. Rather, it simply shows that He was fully engaged in the theological discussions of the teachers (Evans 2003:63). It was the custom of the teachers to meet in public in the temple courts during the Feasts to discuss religious and theological questions where everyone could listen and learn (Barclay 1975:29). During Passover, they most likely discussed questions and issues related to Passover history, tradition, and observance (Edersheim 1988:248). This is where Joseph and Mary find Jesus, among a crowd of other students. Questions from the crowd of students were often permitted, and Jesus was among those who asked questions of the teachers, and helped provide answers.
2:47. Those who heard Jesus were astonished at His understanding and answers. This foreshadows the future reactions of the crowds to the teaching and miracles of Jesus (e.g., 4:32; 5:9; 8:56; 9:43). Such amazement indicates that He is gaining honor in their eyes (Malina 2003:235). At twelve years old, His wisdom and understanding of the Scriptures were on par with that of the religious leaders of the day. Through must reading and study as a young boy, Jesus had gained such great knowledge and insight into the Scriptures, that He was able to converse with the most learned teachers. Later, the questions and answers between Jesus and the religious leaders would become a challenge-riposte contest, where each tries to bring shame on the other. But here, the crowds are amazed at Jesus, which hints at the possibility that the Jewish religious elite would accept Jesus as the Messiah.
2:48. However, in contrast to the amazement of the crowds, when Joseph and Mary found Jesus, they also were amazed, but for different reasons. They were amazed that Jesus had been in the temple for so many days, knowing that Joseph and Mary were looking for Him and worried about Him. Mary even chastises Jesus by saying, ”Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” Joseph and Mary were understandably a little upset at Jesus. She calls Him son (Gk. teknon), which might be better translated “child.” She still views Him as a child, but he corrects her in His reply. The word anxiously (Gk. odunomenoi) indicates “deep mental pain or trauma” (Bock 1994:268). The reader is reminded of Simeon’s words in 2:35 that a sword would pierce Mary’s heart. The inner trauma she has experienced here foreshadows the future pain she will suffer. She has been frantically looking for Him, and now, when they find Him, He is calmly sitting in the temple, studying Scripture. Mary’s frustration is understandable, and she states it using the language of complaint (Bock 1994:268).
2:49. The wisdom of Jesus is evident even here, and set in contrast to Joseph and Mary. Though they have been worried about Him, He gently explains to them that there was no need to seek for Him. They probably should have known that if He was the Messiah, the most logical place for Him to be was the temple. Furthermore, as the Messiah, He would be about [His] Father’s business. Some texts read in my father’s house which does not significantly affect the meaning of the text (cf. the views in Bock 1994:269). Either way, He was doing what God wanted Him to do, and in so doing, was under God’s protection (cf. John 4:34). He is gently telling his earthly parents that He must do the will of God, and they must entrust His safety to God. Furthermore, Jesus turns Mary’s use of father in verse 48 to explain that His true Father was in heaven.
There is some debate about when Jesus knew Who He was. It seems that from this text, He at least knew by the age of twelve that He was not the son of Joseph, but rather, the Son of God. Pentecost believes that this statement by Jesus proves “that at this time He was fully conscious of His person, His relationship to His Father, and His mission. There never was a time when Jesus did not know who He was, who His Father was, and why He had come into the world” (Pentecost 1981:77; cf. Bock 1994:271).
2:50. However, despite His growing understanding about His identity, they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. Jesus was always being misunderstood, by religious and political rulers, by His disciples, and even by His own family. Part of this is due to His tendency to speak in riddles and parables, but most of it is due to the fact that most people simply didn’t understand what kind of Messiah Jesus came to be. All of them must come to understand Who Jesus was, and what He came to do, which is something it seems He already understood. The statement of Jesus in 2:49 is enigmatic in that Joseph and Mary probably didn’t think of God as the Father of Jesus, and so the family business was that of Joseph: carpentry. The wisdom and stature of Jesus is set in contrast to everyone else around Him.
2:51. And lest the reader get the idea that Jesus was rebellious and rude, Luke makes sure to write that Jesus went down with His parents to Nazareth, and was subject to them. Jesus was about His Father’s business, and part of that business at this point in His life was to obey His parents; to be subject to them. He submitted to them even though they didn’t understand what He was about. Their uncertainty about His identity and mission would not only mirror that of other characters in the Gospel, but also those who read Luke’s account. In this way, the reader is encouraged to keep reading, and investigate the claims made by Jesus, what He does to prove the validity of those claims, and see how various people responded to such claims. The reader is thus invited to make a similar decision about who Jesus is.
Mary, as usual, kept all these things in her heart. Luke has recorded several times now how Mary wonders and ponders about the things she learns about her Son (1:29; 2:19, 33). Possibly, Mary recalls the words of Gabriel that her son would be named Jesus, and be the Son of God (1:31-32, 35). Now, all have been fulfilled (Green 1997:153). He was named Jesus (2:21), was designated as holy (2:23), and proclaimed Himself as God’s Son (2:48-49).
2:52. This verse concludes the triple inclusio began in 1:80 and continued in 2:40. As such, it indicates the conclusion of the birth and childhood development narrative, that Jesus has surpassed John. The primary difference between 1:80, 2:40, and 2:52 is that now Jesus is said to not only be increasing in wisdom…and in favor with God as have been emphasized previously, but now Jesus is also growing in stature and increasing in favor with men. The first shows that Jesus is growing physically, but the second shows that as the promised Messiah, Jesus is fulfilling all expectations which have been spoken about Him by Zacharias, Mary, Elizabeth, the angels, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna. The stage is set for Jesus to begin His Messianic mission.
Luke seems to be intentionally making the birth narrative of Jesus parallel to that of the Prophet Samuel (Quote is from Evans 2003:63):
Just as Samuel is presented to the lord (1 Sam 1:22), so is Jesus (Luke 2:22); just as Hannah (Anna in Greek) sings praises of thanksgiving because of the birth of Samuel (1 Sam 2:1-10), so does Anna when she sees the infant Jesus (Luke 2:36-38); just as Eli blesses Samuel’s parents (1 Sam 2:20), so Simeon blesses Jesus’ parents (Luke 2:34); just as Samuel’s growth is summarized (1 Sam 2:21, 26), so is that of Jesus (Luke 2:40, 52); just as Samuel ministered in the temple and showed remarkable spiritual discernment (1 Sam 3:1-18), so Jesus visited the temple and impressed the religious leaders (Luke 2:41-51).
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
Luke 2:36-40
By J.D. Myers | June 12, 2009
Anna is the third of three witnesses to the birth and presentation of the Messiah (cf. Green 1997:150). She is presented by Luke as the female counterpart to Simeon (Green 1997:143). Anna is not mentioned by the other gospel writers, and serves to bring together several key Lukan themes. First is Luke’s emphasis on women being used by God. Luke refers to the ministry of women in a positive light more than any other New Testament writer. Second, by calling Anna a prophetess, Luke once again reveals that God is at work speaking to and through certain individuals.
Finally, Luke is trying to show the universality of the Messiah Jesus. In the first two chapters, Luke has written of a religious spiritual leader whose prayers are answered after years of service, an older woman who finally receives a child, a young unmarried woman who is surprised by a miracle from God, a working class man who must uproot and move to obey the government, a group of young men who are the first to see what God is doing in their country, a older man whose spiritual insight and understanding allows him to be the first to bless the Messiah, and now, an older woman, whose life of pain and loneliness is matched by her prayerfulness and love for God, gets to be the final witness that the Messiah has arrived (cf. Wright 2004:27).
2:36-37. Just as with Simeon, the account of Anna begins with a description of her characteristics. First, here name, Anna, comes from the Hebrew words for grace, Hannah and reminds the reader of the account of Hannah and her son, Samuel (1 Sam 1-2), which will play a part in 2:41-52. The grace of God clearly was upon her, for Luke reveals next that she was a prophetess. There are several women in the Bible who have this privilege and distinction; Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14) and Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:9) are examples of others. Anna’s work as a prophetess was to speak the Word of God, and share what she knew about Jesus with all who would listen to her. This is what the text says she did (v 38), according to the basic ministry task of all prophets in the Bible.
Third, Luke informs his readers that Anna was the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. We are not sure who Phanuel was, but the tribe of Asher was one of the ten northern tribes of Israel carried off into captivity by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. Some call them the “Ten Lost Tribes” because unlike the two Southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin, these northern tribes were unable to maintain their Hebrew distinctiveness and identity while in captivity, and never returned from exile the way the southern tribes did. But Scripture reveals here (and elsewhere; cf. 2 Chr 15:9; 30:11) that not all members of the ten northern tribes were carried off into captivity. There were many who had relocated to the south, into Judah.
There is some speculation that the reason Luke mentions that Anna is from the tribe of Asher is that women from Asher were known for their beauty, and as such, the only women fit to marry a High Priest or King of Israel (Edersheim 1988:200). While this seems chauvinistic, the terms Luke uses later to describe Anna seems to portray her as being married to God, in that she devotes all her time and energy to serving Him.
Fourth, Luke writes that Anna was of a great age. While it is also believed that Simeon was of great age, Luke gives specifics as to the age of Anna. However, what he writes is not as clear as it could be. Luke writes that she had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years. Does Luke mean that she had been a widow for eighty-four years? If so, and assuming she got married as young as 15, she would be 106 years old (15+7+84; cf. Bock 1996:94). The second option, that she was an eighty-four year old widow, would still have her being a widow for over 60 years (cf. Bock 1994:252). Either way, she had lived well beyond the normal life expectancy of a person at that time, which was about 44 years. God certainly gave her much grace in giving her a long life.
But her life was not spent in futile pursuits, nor filled with bitterness and anger at losing her husband after only seven years of marriage. A widow at that time would be nearly destitute unless there were extended family members who were willing and able to take care of her. Luke does not tell us how her physical needs were met, but he does tell us about how she relied night and day on the Lord.
The final descriptive element about Anna is that she did not depart from the temple. This probably doesn’t mean that she lived at the temple, or slept as a homeless person in its courtyards. Not even Priests lived in the temple. The High Priest alone had chambers there, but even he did not live there. Rather, Luke uses some hyperbole to say that she was at the temple as much as possible, with nearly every waking moment, at all the times of prayer (Lightfoot 1989:42). And what did she do there? She served God with fastings and prayers night and day. In a sense, Anna had taken God as her husband. While most wives were at home, serving their husband and children night and day, giving them food and talking with them, Anna served God in the temple night and day, not eating any food (maybe she didn’t have much?), and talking with God in prayer (cf. 1 Tim 5:5).
2:38. As a woman of God who spent her life in prayer and fasting, she is the perfect person to be the third witness to the birth of Jesus the Messiah. She was coming in that instant, as Simeon was speaking to Joseph and Mary, and after seeing Jesus, and most likely hearing from Simeon that this was the one he had been waiting for, she gave thanks to the Lord. Like Simeon, she directs her thanksgiving and blessing toward God.
But Anna did not stop with thanking God for sending the Messiah, she also spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Like the shepherds, she told everyone what she had seen and heard, especially those who, like her, were looking for the Messiah to arrive. The term redemption in Jerusalem has a threefold meaning in this context. First, it recalls what Mary and Joseph were doing in Jerusalem in the first place. As was revealed in 2:22-27, they were there to redeem Jesus. As their firstborn son, they needed to “buy him back” from the Levites. So Anna’s message plays on this picture. She saw the Redeemer of Jerusalem being redeemed in Jerusalem.
This points secondly, to what Jesus will do for Jerusalem. Jerusalem, as the capital of Israel, stands for the nation (Bock 1994:253). So just as He Himself was redeemed, or “bought back,” He will buy back Jerusalem, or Israel. Though it had become enslaved both to corruption and foreign powers, the Messiah was expected to provide redemption and deliverance from such things. In this way, He would be like Moses, who delivered and redeemed Israel out of bondage to Egypt about 1500 years earlier. The idea of redemption, with it’s ties to the Tenth Plague and the Israelite Exodus from Egypt, would recall all of these images and expectations to the mind of any Jewish reader. This point is supported by documents and coins from the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD) which spoke of the “redemption of Israel” and the “freedom of Israel” from her enemies (Evans 2003:56).
Finally, since Jesus the Messiah would accomplish all this, He could be called the Redeemer of Jerusalem. He was the embodiment of Redemption in Jerusalem. And it was He that Anna proclaimed. These things she proclaimed are mirrored in the statements of Mary and Zacharias of Luke 1:46-55, 68-79.
2:39. He now writes that Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the the law of the Lord. The term law of the Lord[/I is used interchangeably with [i]law of Moses (cf. 2:22, 24) and refers to the law of God given through Moses. Luke is careful to show that Joseph and Mary were very observant Jews, and did everything required of them by the law.
He also reports that they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. Luke often signals a transition by the use of travel. This transition will bring Luke to write about a significant event in the life of Jesus when He was twelve. What Luke does not record, which we know from Mathew 2:13-23, is that before they returned to Nazareth, the wise men showed up in Bethlehem, where Joseph and Mary had probably been living and working for about two years. Joseph had probably just gotten his business back up and running again in Jerusalem. However, after the Wise Men came and left, Joseph was warned that Herod wanted to kill Jesus, and so they fled to Egypt. Since Herod died in 4 B.C., they were not in Egypt long before Joseph was told to go home (Pentecost 1981:71; Edersheim 1988:202-220). Only then did they return to Nazareth.
2:40. This verse might better be placed as an introduction to 2:39-52, but since it also serves as a conclusion to 2:1-38, it will be discussed here. Luke 2:40 is more than just a summary of the first twelve years of Jesus’ life. Luke completes his account of the birth of Jesus and the three Israelite witnesses who testified about Him with the using an inclusio which both points back to a similar statement at the beginning of this section (1:80). There, however, the statement was about John. However, the inclusio is not yet complete. Luke employs a rare three-part inclusio which concludes in 2:52. This shows that the text of 2:41-51 builds on all the expectations of Jesus that were announced in 2:1-39, and also reveals that since two of the three statements are about Jesus, He will surpass John. Chapter 3, however, begins talking about John. But this is going too far ahead.
Here, as with the parallel statement about John in 1:80, Luke records that Jesus grew, which refers to His age. But Jesus did not just grow physically, He also grew spiritually and mentally. Like John, He became strong in spirit. This means that He learned to be filled, or controlled by the Holy Spirit, to rely on His leading and guidance. These are the two phrases with which Luke points us backward to 1:80. He now introduces two phrases which point the reader forward to 2:52 and the account in between.
The first is that Jesus was filled with wisdom. Wisdom is a distinctly Greek virtue (cf. 1 Cor 1:22), and yet all Jews knew that wisdom came only from God (cf. Prov 1-2; Jas 1:5). So nearly everybody in the Hellenistic-Jewish culture would desire wisdom. And furthermore, from the Jewish perspective, to be [i]filled with wisdom is to know God’s will for your life (Bock 1994:254). Jesus, from a very young age, knew what God expected of Him. The account of 2:41-52 will prove this.
Alfred Edersheim provides a fascinating and detailed account of how the education of Jesus might have progressed (1988:221-234). He concludes by saying that from earliest childhood, the Scriptures “must have formed the meat and drink” of Jesus (Edersheim 1988:324). Here are a few of the details:
While the earliest teaching would, of necessity, come from the lips of the mother, it was the father who was ‘bound to teach his son.’ …Very early the child must have been taught what might be called his birthday-text – some verse of Scripture beginning, or ending with, or at least containing, the same letters of his Hebrew name. …The regular instruction commenced with the fifth of sixth year…when every child was sent to school (230).
The children were gathered in the Synagogues, or in School-houses, where at first they either stood, teacher and pupils alike, or else sat on the ground in a semicircle, facing the teacher… The principle was always the same, that in respect of accommodation there was no distinction between teacher and taught (231).
Up to ten years of age, the bible exclusively should be the text-book; from ten to fifteen, the Mishnah, or traditional law; after that age, the student should enter on those theological discussions which occupied time and attention in the higher Academics of the Rabbis. …The study of the Bible commenced with that of the Book of Leviticus. Thence it passed to the other parts fo the Pentateuch; then to the Prophets; and finally, to the Hagiographa. What now constitutes the Gemara or Talmud was taught in the Academics, to which access could not be gained till after the age of fifteen. …The teaching in school would, of course, be greatly aided by the services of the Synagogue, and the deeper influences of home life (232).
Secondly, Luke writes that the grace of God was upon Jesus. This is the first and only time grace is explicitly mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, but it has been hinted at in stronger and stronger ways all the way through the first two chapters of Luke. Zacharias doubts God, but is not struck down. Elizabeth conceives in her old age. Mary is blessed with being the virgin mother of the Messiah. Zacharias receives his voice back at the circumcision ceremony of his son. Lowly shepherds in the field are the first to witness the newborn Messiah. Simeon is allowed to live well past the normal life span just to bless the Messiah. Anna, whose name means “grace” is similarly allowed to see Jesus. But now, the grace of God is explicitly mentioned, and it is not said to be upon any of these other, though they did receive grace, but rather upon Jesus. It is He who is the embodiment of God’s grace.
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Please Leave Comments in the Commentary Forum
« Previous Entries