Jeremy Myers

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

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). The second Son of God must succeed where the first son of God failed (Bock 1994:366). Jesus, if He is going to make right what went wrong with Adam, must pass the tests which Adam failed. “If Jesus is the descendant of Adam, he must now face not only what Adam faced but the powers that had been unleashed through human rebellion and sin” (Wright 2004:42). 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. Fidelity to God is proven in the midst of testing (Green 1997:191).

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 (cf. Wright 2004:43; Green 1997:192). 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. Where they failed; He succeeds. What they were supposed to do; He begins to accomplish.

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.

However, God does test people, and in fact, the term used in this passage for temptation are used elsewhere in the LXX of God testing humans (Gen 22:1-19; Exod 16:4; 20:20; Deut 8:2; 13:2ff) and humans testing God (Exod 17:2). Such tests are for the purpose of testing covenant loyalty (cf. Malina 2003:240). Pentecost states that in the case of Jesus, Jesus “forced Satan to put Him to the test so that His true character might be revealed” (Pentecost 1981:97), but this seems somewhat unlikely. Temptation is part of being human, and such temptations come whether we want them to or not. Jesus certainly does not want to be tempted, but since He was in submission to God and led by the Spirit, He is not acting on His own, or according to His own desires (Green 1997:191).

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; cf. Pentecost 1981:96). In the Gospels the wilderness is often portrayed as a place of demonic activity, (cf. Luke 8:29, 11:24), but in other situations, it is where Jesus goes to commune with God (Luke 1:80; 3:2; 5:16; 7:24). In this instance, Jesus both communes with God and faces the devil (Bock 1994:369). 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; cf. Barclay 1975:43; Bock 1994:370). 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 (cf. Evans 2003:87 who argues that Luke transposed the order of events so that they conclude in Jerusalem as a foreshadowing for the life of Jesus, which will also conclude in Jerusalem).

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). In Hebrew thought, the devil (Gk. diabolos; Heb. satan) was “a celestial entity…whose task it is to test a person’s loyalty to God. The original ‘Satan’ was a Persian secret-service agent (like the FBI) who tested loyalty to the king” (Malina 2003:240).

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 (Green 1997:193). 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; Bock 1994:372; Pentecost 1981:100). 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; Evans 2003:84). 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 Greco-Roman culture, the title “Son of God” was used in reference to Caesar, who was a mediator between heaven and humanity (Evans 2003:84). In reference to 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 (cf. Barclay 1975:43). 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. He is simply tempting Jesus to (mis)use His power to feed Himself in the wilderness (Evans 2003:84). 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. “Thus the devil’s estimate of human life is, that the only reason for man’s loyalty to God is that God meets every demand of his need as it arises; and moreover, that man’s happiness consists in the satisfaction of his material nature” (Morgan, quoted in Pentecost 1981:101). So while on the surface the temptation seems harmless, the devil is really suggesting that God has abandoned Jesus by failing to look after His physical needs (Bock 1994:373).

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.” The text doesn’t reveal the devil using 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 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. 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. Furthermore, as a human, Jesus “had to live His personal life (1) within the limits necessary to man, and (2) in perfect dependance upon God. …Had Christ by a direct miracle fed Himself, He had lifted Himself out of the circle and system of humanity, had annulled the very terms of the nature which made Him one with man” (Fairbairn, quoted in Pentecost 1981:101).

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. Jesus knows that “human livelihood consists in more than the mere meeting of daily needs (Bock 1994:374).

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. 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). 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 (cf. Evans 2003:86). 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. Edersheim says that Moses, Elijah, and the Messiah mark the three stages of the history of the covenant:

Moses was it’s giver, Elijah it’s restorer, the Messiah it’s renewer and perfecter. …Moses fasted in the middle, Elijah at the end, Jesus at the beginning of His ministry. Moses fasted in the Presence of God; Elijah alone; Jesus assaulted by the Devil. Moses had been called up by God; Elijah had gone forth in the bitterness of his own spirit; Jesus was driven by the Spirit. Moses failed after his forty days’ fast, when in indignation he cast the Tablets of the law from him; Elijah failed before his forty days’ fast; Jesus was assailed for forty days and endured the trial. Moses was angry against Israel; Elijah despaired of Israel; Jesus overcame for Israel” (Edersheim 1988:294).

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. The term used forworld is oikoumenes and refers more the inhabited world, or known world, than to all the world (which would be kosmos as in Matt 4:8). 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. There may also be an allusion here to when God takes Moses to a high mountain to show him the length and breadth of the Promised Land which the people will inherit, but Moses himself will not be able to enter because of his sin (cf. Deut 34:1-4).

4:6. Now that Jesus has seen the kingdoms, the devil offers them to Jesus, and specifically, theauthority and glory that comes with them. “In the place where Jesus has nothing, he is about to be offered everything” (Bock 1994:375). 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). Previously, Luke recorded that “all the world” was under the rule of the Roman Emperor (2:1; 3:1). But 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 2:8; 22:28). It was also something prophecies in Daniel as something that belonged to “the one like a son of man” (Dan 7:13-14). When the Messiah came, it was expected that He would overthrow all foreign rulers, and sit Himself upon the throne in Jerusalem to rule the entire world.

The devil, however, states that authority over the nations had been delivered to him, and he cangive 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 to the devil the right to rule the earth. So he does have authority over the nations, and is the god of this age (2 Cor 4:4). Luke himself has already recorded the words of Zacharias that the world sat in darkness, under the shadow of death (1:78-79), which are clear allusions to sin and the devil. So biblically, “until the earth is redeemed by God’s power, it lies in the hands of the evil one” (Bock 1994:376).

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). It is possible that the devil believes that since he rules earth, he owns it, but if so, he is self-deceived (Bock 1994:376). Jesus, during His ministry, was working to gain authority over the earth (cf. Mark 2:10; 10:45).

4:7. The devil, of course, is trying to obtain the authority that belongs to God alone (cf. Isa 14:14; 2 Thess 2:4). 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 devil knows that unless he can get Jesus to kneel before him, the day will arrive when he must kneel before Jesus (Php 2:10). The word for worship (Gk. proskuneses) literally means “to bend the knee,” but could also be translated “honor.” To kneel before someone represented swearing an oath of fealty to them, and look to that person as their patron and provider. To worship the devil by kneeling or bowing before him is akin to defecting from God and swearing allegiance to the devil (Bock 1994:377).

“The devil makes the audacious claim to be God’s broker, saying that both the kingdoms of the world and the right to dispose of their resources in whatever manner he wishes has been given to him” (Malina 2003:241). 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.

Another possible parallel is when King Nubuchadnezzar commands that all his subjects bow down and worship a golden statue of himself. Some of the young Jewish men refuse, and though they are faced with being burned to death in the fiery furnace, God delivers them from death, and they become leaders in the kingdom (cf. Dan 3:5-15). Jesus is being portrayed like these great prophets and men of faith from Hebrew history.

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 to Jerusalem, which is 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. It is unclear how exactly the devil brought Jesus here, but 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. Furthermore, there was a tradition in Jewish thought that when the Messiah came, He would announce Himself from the pinnacle of the temple. One writer says, “Our Rabbis give this tradition: In the hour when King Messiah cometh, He standeth upon the roof of the Sanctuary, and proclaims to Israel, saying, Ye poor, the time of your redemption draweth nigh” (Edersheim 1988:293).

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 (Radmacher 1999:1257; Barclay 1975:44; Bock 1994:379). Josephus records that when he climbed to the top of the Royal Portico, which was part of the temple complex, and looked over all Jerusalem and down into the valley below, he became dizzy with the height (Evans 2003:86). If Josephus was able to climb to the pinnacle of the temple, it seems that there may have been steps up to it, and maybe a platform to stand on. Edersheim confirms this by stating that it was from this pinnacle of the temple that a priest would stand every morning to watch for the rising of the sun in the East, so as to announce the signal for the morning sacrifice (Edersheim 1988: 303). 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.

Bock contends that since no temple worshipers are mentioned, there were probably no worshipers (1994:380). This is especially true if this temptation took place as a vision, and Jesus was not actually taken to the pinnacle of the temple. If this is the case, the temptation would not be about the desire of Jesus to be recognized as the Messiah by the masses, but a desire to prove that He was righteous. In this way, verses 10-11 (see below) are quoted as proof that if Jesus is as righteous as He claims, God will protect Him. This view, however, requires that the devil has correctly quoted and applied these verses, which as the discussion below indicates, he has not.

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. This was a good text for the devil to use against Jesus, since it was traditionally thought that Psalm 91 provided promises from God for protection against demons and evil spirits (Evans 2003:86). 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. According to the devil, Jesus is to let go and let God (Bock 1994:380).

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. It would reveal Himself “to be a Son of Wonder, clothed in marvels, living a life that struck the senses and dazzled the fancies of the poor vulgar crowd” (Fairbairn, quoted in Pentecost 1981:103). 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. Even later, after God had shown the Israelites that He could provide water from a rock, they complain again. This time, it is Moses, however, who also falls into sin. Whereas before, God told Moses to strike the rock, this time God told Moses to speak to it. But Moses struck the rock. The action may have been out of frustration, or he was just doing what he had done before, or maybe he was trying to give a visual demonstration to the people of his own power and authority. Whatever the reason Moses struck the rock the second time, it was not what God had told him to do, and so Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land (Num 20:11-12).

Jesus sees many similarities between this incident with Moses and 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. It would be a good way to show my power and authority as the Messiah.” But Jesus chose wisely where the Israelites did not. Where the Israelites tested God, Jesus would not. Jesus knows that “the demanding of miraculous protection, where it is not needed, is not faith or loyalty. It is sin” (Bock 1994:381).

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 (cf. Luke 22:3, 28, 31, 53). But even more subtly, these similar temptations continue to arise during the ministry of Jesus. His family encourages Jesus to declare Himself as the Messiah (John 7:3-5), and the crowds frequently want to crown Jesus as King (John 6:15). As Jesus resisted these temptations the first time, He continues to resist them throughout His career.

The devil’s temptations are, from a human perspective, quite logical. “They are plausible, attractive, and make, as we would say, a lot of sense. God can’t want his beloved son to be famished with hunger, can he? If God wants Jesus to become the sovereign over the world (that is, after all, what Gabriel had told Mary), then why not go for it in one easy stride? If Jesus is Israel’s Messiah, why not prove it by spectacular displays of power?” (Wright 2004:43). But God’s ways are different, and Jesus proves He will follow and obey God, and so Jesus was victorious over all temptations, and having conquered all, He is now ready to begin His ministry.

His defeat of temptations has shown how He will approach ministry. He will steadfastly pursue God’s call, in obedience to God’s will. He will not draw attention to Himself, but will direct people to God’s work and God’s Word. He will not use His power and position to serve Himself, but to meet the needs, both physical and spiritual, of those around Him (cf. Bock 1994:363, 367). All this becomes clear when Jesus declares the goal and purpose of His ministry in Luke 4:14-21.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

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 of Genealogies

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.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

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, 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. 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 (cf. John 1:20). Though John doesbaptize…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 (see Appendix 12, “Baptism of Proselytes” in Edersheim 1988:745). 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 [b]One mightier than[b] John who 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. It was so degrading, that Hebrew slaves refused to do it (Bock 1994:321). Yet 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 prophecies out of Joel 2:28-29 and Ezekiel 36:25-27 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 (Pentecost 1981:91; cf. Bock 1994:323). 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 (Bock 1994:324). 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, thewheat 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 (Lev 18:16; 20:21), 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, the greatest evil of all was that 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 (cf. Barclay 1975:37; cf. Pentecost 1981:94). 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 identification with sinful humanity when He dies on the cross for the sins of the whole world (Pentecost 1981:94).

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. When Luke shows someone praying, it is nearly always right before something significant happens (Evans 2003:80). 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 to anoint Jesus (cf. 4:18). 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. This is most likely a figure of speech indicating that the Spirit descended in the same manner as a dove would, but not actually in the form of a dove (Bock 1994:338). Nevertheless, in whatever form the Spirit descended (was it light in the form of a man?), was for all to see (Evans 2003:81). The Spirit 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. This is a key verse for the doctrine of the Trinity, since all three members are present and interacting with each other. Also, the imagery of verse 22 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 (Evans 2003:78; cf. Edersheim 1988:287; contra. Bock 1994:339).

But most important to Luke’s theme is how this statement from God would be understood by Jesus and the multitudes. The words were a sign to them that God’s Messiah had arrived. It also served to show Jesus what His task as the Messiah would be (Barclay 1975:38; cf. Bock 1994:341-342). The first part of the statement, ”You are my son” comes from Psalm 2:7, in the context of God adopting a Son who will overthrow evil rulers and, as the new King over the earth, restore righteousness and justice to all the nations. The second part, ”In you I am well pleased,” comes from Isaiah 42:1, which begins the Suffering Servant portion of Isaiah. So the affirmation of the Father to Jesus is also a call to vocation. It instructed Jesus to be the Messiah, both a Ruling King and a Suffering Servant. This baptism is the inauguration ceremony of Jesus (Bock 1994:344).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

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 Jewishmikvah, 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 thebrood 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 TDNTV: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 ([i]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” (eben) and “children” (ben; cf. Evans 2003:72).

John probably has several allusions and images in mind with such a statement. First, the reference tothese 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 soasked 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 (Pfeiffer 1971:203).

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.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

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. “Behind the list of names and places is a story of oppression and misery that building up to an explosion point” (Wright 2004:32).

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; Barclay 1975:31). Tiberius Caesar, like the Caesars before him, was being worshiped as a god (Wright 2004:32). He was 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. However, since he was not good with people, he was not popular, and it was widely rumored that he had sex with young boys (Evans 2003:67; Grant 1975:103). Also, 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 ruthless, cruel, and cold-blooded (Grant 1975:105; Green 1997:168). 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 the death of Herod the Great, the province of Judea was further sub-divided into various regions which were ruled by three of Herod’s sons, who were called tetrarchs (tetrarch literally means “governor of a fourth part” but later came to refer to a governor of any part; cf. Barclay 1975:31). The genealogy of Herod the Great is confusing. Part of this is because he had two wives, and all his sons had similar names. The first wife was Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Together, they had a son named Philip. 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.

So the first region of Herod the Great was given to Herod Archelaus, who ruled over Judea, Samaria, and Edom. But he ruled so poorly that the Jews petitioned Rome for his removal, and Tiberius, impatient with all the troubles in Judea, removed Archelaus and installed Pontius Pilate, a Roman governor in his place (Barclay 1975:31). 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).

The second son of Herod the Great was Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee. Herod Antipas 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). Tiberias was an affront to the Jews, partly because it was built on a graveyard, but also because it contained numerous images of Roman gods and Caesars (Green 1997:169).

Later in the Gospel accounts, Herod Antipas 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).

Third is the half-brother of Herod Antipas and Herod Archelaus, Philip (not to be confused with the other Philip–also called Herod–who was the first husband of Herodias). 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. During his reign, Philip built Caesarea Philippi.

The third tetrarch that Luke writes about is Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene. Very little is known ofLysanias 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.

The idea of YHWH’s being king carried the particular and definite revolutionary connotation that certain other people were due for demotion. Caesar, certainly. Herod, quite probably. The present high-priestly clan, pretty likely. (Wright 1996:203).

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. The records indicate that the Roman officials were constantly having problems with the High Priests, and kept replacing them, trying to find one who would work with them in controlling the people. Annas was one of these, and served as High Priest from 7-14 AD. He was succeeded by four of his sons, one after the other, and then finally, by Caiaphas, his son-in-law. Caiaphas was the official High Priest according to Roman records, but it was widely recognized that Annas was the power behind Caiaphas, who rarely did anything without the consent of Annas. So both were viewed as “High Priests” (cf. Barclay 1975:32; Evans 2003:68), and explains why Jesus, at his trial, went first before Annas, and then Caiaphas (John 18:13, 24). They 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 2003:15, 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 inthe 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. This is a formulaic expression used of numerous Old Testament prophets (Jer 1:1; 13:3; 1 Kings 12:22; 1 Chr 17:3; Isa 38:4).

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. Furthermore, the baptism John performs in the Jordan would have clearly pictured the “baptism of Moses” in the Red Sea when God led Israel out of Egypt, and also, the similar events at the Jordan River when Joshua finally led Israel into the promised land. Through the baptism at the Jordan River, John was alluding to the fact that a Messiah like Joshua was about to arrive who would lead them out of bondage and into the fulfillment of all God’s promises to them (cf. Wright 2004:33).

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 (cf. Wright 2004:33). 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. Baptism was a sign that the person was terminating their old relationships and old ways of living, and stating allegiance to new relationships and new ways of living (Pentecost 1981:84).

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 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. A promise about forgiveness of sins is a promise about restoration (cf. Malina 2003:364).

In summary, the prophetic ministry of John in the wilderness reveals that John was calling the people to a new Exodus, not from Egyptian bondage, but from corrupt Judaism. Further, the baptism of John indicates that this renewal will take place apart from and outside of Temple worship (Wright 1996:160). The Temple had become the nexus of corruption, and this renewed people of God would have nothing to do with the former corruption.

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 messagein 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. In Jewish thinking, the wilderness was a place of chaos, disorder, and dark spirits (Malina 2003:236). So having John begin his ministry in a place of chaos, disorder, and darkness gives the impression that something new is about to begin, just as when the Spirit of God hovered over the dark chaos before the original creation (Gen 1:1-2).

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 [i]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 filledin 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 (referred to as “all flesh” in verse 6.) He wants them to straighten out the crooked ways in their lives, and smooth out the rough places.

Again, this terminology points back to the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings. Jewish tradition states that the pillar of cloud which went before Israel in the wilderness brought every mountain low, filled in every valley, and cleared their resting places of snakes and scorpions. The Jews applied such terminology to the expectation that through the Messiah, they would once again be led out of captivity (Lightfoot 1989:51).

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, the salvation of the Lord refers to freedom from sin and freedom from foreign rule, and a return of 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).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

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 the Feast of Passover 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; Pfeiffer 1971:200; 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 Jesushowever, 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 [b]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 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 reading and study, Jesus had gained such great knowledge and insight into the Scriptures, that He was able to converse with the most learned teachers. This learning was probably accomplished through His father, Joseph, and from attendance at the local synagogue in Nazareth. 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 Himson (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).

 

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

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? Sheserved 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 is used interchangeably with 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, Hebecame 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 befilled 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.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

The description in 2:21-24 of Mary and Joseph bringing Jesus to the temple to present Him to the Lord introduces the events of 2:25-38, namely two Jewish people who have been waiting for the Messiah, and who are at the temple to meet and bless Him. It seems that Luke, following the instructions of Deuteronomy 19:15 to confirm a matter by two or three witnesses, is intentionally presenting three witnesses to the birth of the Messiah: the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna.

The shepherds have already witnessed the birth of Jesus; Luke now presents two individuals who provide further testimony. The first of these is Simeon in 2:25-35. It is possible that Simeon was a Levitical priest, and it was to him that Mary gave the five shekel redemption offering, and who then pronounced the blessing upon Jesus that Luke records here (Pentecost 1981:65; contra. Bock 1994:240). The blessing reiterates much of the Jewish expectations that were seen in the statements of Mary and Zacharias (1:46-55; 67-79), but includes some new elements as well. Simeon and Zarcharias are placed in parallel, as both are righteous men in the temple who act under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Green 1997:143).

2:25. At the time when Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple for Mary’s purification and to redeem Jesus, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon. Jerusalem was the political and religious center of Israel. Simeon means “God has heard.” There are numerous legends about Simeon. “We are told that he was high priest and successor to Zacharias (cf. Protevangelium of James 24:3-4), that Jesus raised his two sons from the dead (cf Acts of Pilate 17:1), and that he was perhaps the son of the great Rabbi Hillell (b. Shabbath 15a). All of these traditions are dubious” (Evans 2003:54; cf. Bock 1994:238). Though there was a Rabbi Simeon, the son of Hillel, alive at the time Jesus was born, this Simeon mentioned by Luke cannot be Simeon, the son of Hillel. For one reason, Simeon the son of Hillel lived a long time after the birth of Jesus, and later fathered a son named Gamaliel, whom Luke writes about in Acts (Lightfoot 1989:40). From Luke, it appears that this Simeon did not live too much longer, and was probably too old to produce a son. So all we really know about this Simeon are the four things Luke records.

First, Simeon was just (Gk. dikaios), which could also be translated “righteous.” From a Jewish perspective, it refers to one’s right standing before God, specifically in regard to God’s Covenant with Israel. Luke has previously informed his readers that Zacharias and Elizabeth were righteous, “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (1:6), and that the ministry of John the Baptist will include helping people practice the wisdom of living righteously to prepare the way for the Messiah (1:17).

Simeon was also devout, which means he was reverent and pious. Though obedient to the law, he was not proud and arrogant about it (cf. Acts 22:12).

Third, Luke writes that Simeon was waiting for the Consolation of Israel, which is a prophetic term for the Messiah, the One who would bring peace, comfort, and relief from afflictions to the people of Israel. Such consolation is a frequent theme in Isaiah 40-66. Sometimes, in Rabbinic tradition, the Messiah is called a “consoler” (Evans 2003:54; cf. Lightfoot 1989:41). The term Luke uses, paraklesis is used later by John to refer to the coming Holy Spirit (John 14-16).

Finally, Luke records that the Holy Spirit was upon Simeon. Luke writes more about the Holy Spirit than any other Gospel writer. By doing so, he lays groundwork for the birth of the church at Pentecost in Acts 2. Prior to Pentecost in Acts 2, the Holy Spirit only came upon a select few, and only for a short while so they could accomplish a specific task. He would come upon kings to provide leadership, prophets to speak God’s Word, and builders to construct the temple. After Pentecost in Acts 2, He remains in all believers permanently. If Simeon had the Holy Spirit upon him, he was specially chosen by God to do something specific for God.

2:26. The specific task given to Simeon was that he would be a witness to the birth of the Messiah. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Scripture doesn’t say how old Simeon was, or how long he had been waiting, but tradition says he was 113 years old (Wiersbe 1989:177). Again, this is only speculation and tradition, not Scripture (Bock 1994:238).

2:27-28. Luke seems to imply that Simeon was the priest to whom Mary and Joseph brought Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law. As discussed in 2:23, this custom required them to redeem Jesus as their firstborn son with five pieces of silver. As Mary would not be allowed past the Court of Women, this meeting took place there, or possibly in the Court of Gentiles. The location is not without significance. In Israel, the temple was viewed as the center of worship, and the place where God dwelled among men. Yet it is here, in Israel’s temple, that God reveals His plan to send a Messiah who will be for all the world, not just for Israel (cf. 2:30-32; Green 1997:146).

Once the offering was made, the priest would take up the child in his arms, and pronounce a blessing of praise to God, as Simeon does in 2:29-32.

2:29. Simeon begins by stating that he is now ready to depart in peace. The term means that Simeon is ready to die. He has been acting like a sentinel, waiting and watching for the arrival of some great event or person, and now that the task is complete, God can do with Simeon as He wishes (Bock 1994:241). Simeon is ready to die because the promises of God have been fulfilled. Simeon states that these promises were according to Your word, which does not refer to promises in Scripture which Simeon had read, but promises from God which had been spoken directly to Simeon (cf. 2:26). This implies that although God had not spoken to Israel through a prophet in over 400 years, God still spoke specifically to certain individuals who lived in faithfulness to Him. There are, of course, promises from Scripture which Simeon refers to in verses 30-32.

2:30. Simeon states that the reason he can depart in peace is his eyes have seen God’s salvation,namely, the Messiah Jesus. By referring to salvation Simeon is not stating that he now knows he has eternal life, or that he knows that through Jesus, he gets to go to heaven when he dies. Those sorts of questions and issues are relatively new on the theological scene (primarily since the Bubonic Plague hit Europe in the 1340s, killing millions). Throughout biblical history, when people spoke and wrote aboutsalvation, they were referring to physical deliverance from some sort of temporal calamity, such as sickness, premature physical death, enemies, and natural disasters like storms, floods, and famines. In the case of Israelites like Simeon, they most often thought of salvation in the way it is used in prophetical passages like Isaiah 40:5 and 52:10. Salvation is the time when God would deliver Israel from enemy occupation, and restore her to her rightful place among the nations, with the Messiah ruling and reigning over the entire world from Jerusalem (cf. Green 1997:145). This is what Simeon had in mind, as confirmed by what he says in verses 31-32. Forgiveness of sins (national and personal) was definitely a part of this, but only as a prerequisite to the permanent and perpetual deliverance from enemies that Israel hoped and longed for.

2:31. The salvation (i.e., the national deliverance of Israel from her enemies through the Messiah; see v 30) is something that God has prepared before the face of all peoples. The plans which God has for the nation of Israel were intended to reveal something about God to all other nations. Israel was not to be set apart simply for the sake of being different, but so that people could see who God was, and how He wanted to bless them and restore them unto Himself. Due to frequently falling short of the covenant requirements, the nation of Israel never fully revealed to the nations all that God intended, so now Simeon indicates that this will be the task of the Messiah, Jesus.

2:32. The task will generally involve two things, which both involve bringing light to a particular people group (cf. Bock 1994:244-245). First, the light of the Messiah bring revelation to the Gentiles (cf. Isa 42:6; 49:6; 60:1; Luke 1:79). Unlike Israel, the nations were without reliable revelation from God, and without knowledge of how to be reconciled to Him. The Messiah would bring (and be) revelation to the Gentiles and show them how to be welcomed into the family of God. Previously, when Mary and Zacharias spoke of the salvation that would come through the Messiah, they spoke only of deliverance from enemies for Israel (cf. 1:51-55, 69-74). Simeon’s words here both build on that, and reveal more. The salvation will not be just for Israel, but will somehow include the Gentiles as well. Luke’s depiction of the nature and mission of Jesus’ ministry is being molded continually by the shape and progress of the narrative (Green 1997:144).

Israel, of course, would receive what was promised to her as well. The light of the Messiah will bringglory to His people Israel (cf. Isa 46:13). “As Isa. 60:1-3 shows, the nation’s hope was that, with the coming of salvific light to Israel, the attention of all people would be drawn to Israel” (Bock 1994:245). So the coming of the Messiah will accomplish for Israel what they never could accomplish on their own. This, however, does not mean that they will be set aside, but only that asa result of the Messiah, they will be able to enjoy the benefits of the covenant, and achieve all that God intended for them. There will, of course, still be stipulations, but that is addressed later in Luke’s Gospel and elsewhere.

2:33. When Simeon finished speaking these things about Jesus, Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him (cf. 1:29; 2:19). Joseph is mentioned specifically by name (due to a textual variant the NIV and NAS omit his name) because Luke wants to emphasize two things. First, up to this point, when both are mentioned together, Mary has been mentioned first (cf. 2:16). Here, Joseph is mentioned first, indicating his role of spiritual leader in presenting Jesus at the temple. But secondly, up to this point in the narrative, Mary has wondered about Jesus (1:29; 2:19), and nameless crowds wondered (2:18), but nothing has been said about how Joseph responded. Luke now shows that Joseph finally begins to wonder about what kind of son he has been given. They are amazed because of the new things that Simeon has revealed to them about what kind of ministry Jesus will have, specifically, a ministry to bring revelation to the Gentiles. But Simeon is not done revealing surprises. He now turns to speak to Joseph and Mary to present a surprising reversal.

2:34-35. Then Simeon blessed Joseph and Mary. It does not appear that this blessing is recorded in Scripture, as what follows in verses 34-35 is not a blessing, but more of a prophecy. If, however, this is the blessing that Simeon pronounces, “it is not entirely encouraging” (Bock 1994:246). Simeon states that the arrival of Jesus will cause the falling and rising of many. With this statement, is Simeon referring to two groups, one that falls and one that rises, or to one group, which first falls, and then rises (Bock 1994:246)? If the former, then Simeon’s prophecy reveals that not all in Israel will accept Jesus as the Messiah. Some, such as those in power in authority, will fall and others, who are poor and forgotten, will rise (cf. 1:51-53). If, however, Simeon means the latter, then this is a prophecy about the followers of Jesus, who will have to fall, or die to who they were, and rise again to new life in Jesus (cf. the baptism of John in Luke 3:3-6 with Amos 5;2; 8:14; Isa 24:20; Mic 7:8; Prov 24:16). The first option seems best, since a common theme in Jesus’ ministry is that His ministry divides people into two groups (Luke 4:29; 6;20-26; 12:51; 13:28-35; 16;25; 18:19-14; 19:44-48; 20:14-18). Rather than bless the entire nation, as most Israelites expected, Jesus will instead divide the nation (Bock 1994:247).

In this way, Jesus will serve as a sign to the people of Israel. For the people of Israel, signs were always for the purpose of revealing the truth of the words of a prophet. Simeon, by declaring the sign, is indicating that his prophecies will come true, and the sign will prove it. The sign in this case is that though the Messiah has come to Israel, He will be spoken against. This serves not only to validate Simeon’s words, but also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. God’s concern has always been for the condition of the heart, and how Israelites respond to the Messiah reveals what is in their hearts.

Mary also is given some hard words. Though up until now, she has been considered blessed, she now learns that with the blessing comes great pain. Simeon says to Mary that a sword will pierce through your own soul also. There are about ten views as to what exactly the sword pictures (for the views, see Bock 1994:248). It seems that the best option is that since Simeon was speaking prophetically by the Holy Spirit, he probably didn’t know what the sword referred to either, but from our perspective, we can take it as a foreshadowing of the future crucifixion of Jesus, and the intense pain it would cause Mary. However, since a first-time reader may not be aware of the crucifixion of Jesus, the mysterious allusion by Luke encourages the reader to continue (Green 1997:151).

“Luke is warning us that [the work of the Messiah will not] look like what people had expected. In particular, this is becoming a story about suffering. … Simeon speaks dark words about opposition, and about a sword that will pierce Mary’s heart as well. … Mary will look on in dismay as her son is rejected by the very city to which he offered the way of peace, by the very people he had come to rescue. … But…he is also showing that the kingdom brought by this baby is not for Israel only, but for the whole world” (Wright 2004:25-26).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

Mary and Joseph, as the parents to the promised Messiah, were responsible for making sure that Jesus obeyed the Law of Moses and the conditions of the covenants even from birth. This was both to train Him in obedience, and also to make sure that He was able to fulfill the Law in its entirety. They did this by circumcising, naming, and redeeming Him, as well as making sure Mary was ritually pure. All of this reveals that Mary and Joseph were unquestionably pious (Green 1997:140).

2:21. When an Israelite boy was eight days old, the parents were required to circumcise the Child as a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham (Gen 17:11-14; Lev 12:3). That it was done when the boy was eight years old, in a public setting, indicates that the father was publically acknowledging his responsibility to raise the boy according to the Torah (Malina 2003:342). Circumcision was the beginning step in this training, and was done in obedience to Leviticus 12:3. It indicated that the boy was set apart for service to God. This ceremony was so sacred, it could even be carried out on the Sabbath (Barclay 1975:24).

It was at the circumcision ceremony where Jewish parents would officially name their son, and here, Mary and Joseph gave their son the name Jesus. Jesus (Gk. Iesus) means “Yahweh saves” and is equivalent to the Hebrew name “Joshua” (Heb. Yeshua). This name was the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb as Luke recorded in 1:31. As such, it represents ongoing faithfulness to God’s instructions through the angel, and parallels the similar faithfulness of Zacharias in the naming of John in 1:57-66 (Bock 1994:225).

There is some indication that Jesus was not born on December 25 as traditionally celebrated, but more likely on the day when the Feast of Tabernacles began. (The Feast begins at sunset on Tishrei 15, which, depending on the year, falls in late-September to mid-October.) There is really no way to be sure, but if this was the day of His birth, then the day of His circumcision and naming would have fallen eight days later, on the seventh and final day of the Feast of Tabernacles.

It would, of course, be significant if this was the day He was named. The first and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles are sacred, and are treated like Sabbath days – they could do no regular work on those days (Lev 23:33-36). The first six days of the feast were for celebrating Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and how the cloud of God’s glory lived among them, and led, guided, and protected them during the wilderness wanderings. To symbolize this cloud of protection, the Israelites build tents to dwell in during the feast.

One of the key features of the week is the teaching. As indicated by Nehemiah 8, the people would meet in the morning, when a passage was read from the Scripture, and then one of the priests would explain it. After the morning teaching, the people then go and eat, celebrate, sing, and rejoice. In the afternoon, they would gather to hear another teaching from Scripture, followed once again by feasting and celebration. .

This was the typical schedule for the every day of the Feast. But the last day of the feast, called Hoshana Rabba, was the greatest day. It was a solemn day for reflection on what had been learned that week. It was a day to remember all that God had done for them in times past and all that God had promised to do in the future. On this day, during the morning service, the priests would make seven circuits around the altar with palm branches. As they walked, they beat the branches on the floor while those present chanted in unison, “The voice announcing the coming of the Messiah is heard!” (Fuchs 1985:77).

So if this is the day that Jesus was circumcised and named, then as the worshipers chant “The voice of the coming of the Messiah is heard,” Jesus would be crying out in pain from being circumcised. And Joseph, lifting up Jesus in his arms, would be praying, “Our God and the God of our fathers, raise up this child to his father and mother, and let his name in Israel be called Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (cf. Matt 1:21).

Regardless of what day Jesus was circumcised and named, the point is that Mary and Joseph obeyed the Word of the Lord, and in this way, the arrival of the Messiah was announced and His life of obedience begun.

2:22. Mary and Joseph did not only follow the Law regarding the circumcision of Jesus, but also in Mary’s purification according to the law of Moses. Leviticus 12:4-5 requires a woman to wait 40 days after the birth of a son and 80 days after the birth of a daughter before she offers her purification sacrifice. According to Leviticus 12:6-8, the purification offering consisted of one lamb, and one turtledove or one pigeon. Families that were extremely poor could offer two turtledoves or two pigeons instead (cf. v 24).

When Mary came to Jerusalem for her purification offering, she also brought Jesus to present Him to the Lord. This is another aspect of the Law, which Mary and Joseph were careful to observe, and which recalls Hannah’s presentation of Samuel to the Lord (1 Sam 1:22-24). This is explained more fully in v 23. (For discussion about the plural pronouns they and their when only Mary needed purification, see Bock 1994:236).

2:23. The law required Mary and Joseph to present Jesus as their firstborn in the temple (Exod 13:11-16; Lev 27:1-8; Num 18:15-16). The summary of this law is that “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” This law was a result of the tenth plague in Egypt, when God struck dead all the firstborn sons of the Egyptians, and any of the firstborn sons of Israel who did not have the blood of the Passover lamb smeared on the door posts of their house.

In light of the Passover events, God wanted Israel to set apart all the firstborn animals and all the firstborn males for Himself. The firstborn animals were to be sacrificed to the Lord, and the firstborn males were to be set apart for life-long service of the Lord as priests (Exod 13:11-16). Later, however, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the law, and he saw the children of Israel worshiping the golden calf, he called all men to himself who were on the Lord’s side (Exod 32:26). The men of Levi responded to his call, and Moses sent them to kill the idolatrous Israelites. Such obedience revealed their zeal for obeying God, and so the Lord set apart the Tribe of Levi to be the priests of God.

But God didn’t need both the Levites and all the firstborn males. So He set up a way in Leviticus 27 for the parents of firstborn males to redeem, or buy back, their firstborn sons from the Levites, by paying five shekels of silver to the Levites for their son. The Levites then used this money for money for personal and religious needs. Though firstborn sons did not become priests, they nevertheless were always considered as “belonging to the Lord” (Bock 1994:237).

Since Jesus was the firstborn son of Mary and Joseph, they redeemed Him in the temple for five shekels (about 2 oz.) of silver (Lev 27:6; Num 18:16). This must be paid after the boy reached 30 days old, and so most likely, Joseph and Mary brought Jesus with them when they went to Jerusalem for Mary’s purification sacrifice (Barclay 1975:24; Edersheim 1988:194). Mary and Joseph did not have to bring Jesus with them when they paid the five shekels, and so were going above and beyond what the law required (Bock 1994:235). Most likely, the priest who performed the ceremony of redemption was Simeon of 2:25-35 (Pentecost 1981:65).

2:24. Luke now returns to the idea of the purification of Mary, by stating that the sacrifice she brought was according to the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” With this statement, Luke reveals that Mary and Joseph were very poor. Typically, the purification sacrifice required a lamb and a turtledove or pigeon. But those who were poor could bring two turtledoves or two pigeons instead (Lev 5:11; 12:6-8). Mary and Joseph could not afford to bring a lamb for sacrifice. Generally, Jewish people with land also raised sheep on this land, and so it appears that Joseph and Mary did not even own land (Malina 2003:233). Jesus was born into a poor family, which helped Him identify with the very people He came to deliver (cf. 1:52; 4:18-19; 6:20). With both the redemption of Jesus and the purification of Mary, there are numerous details about the Jewish law and customs which would have been followed, and which can be found in Edersheim 1988:194-198.

It seems that Luke’s structure in this short passage intends to emphasize two things. First, the careful and accurate obedience of Mary and Joseph to the Law. Even from birth, Jesus was fulfilling the Law. But beyond this, Luke places the redemption of Jesus at the temple (v 23) between two statements about Mary’s purification (vv 22, 24). In this way, Luke foreshadows the redemption that will come through the Messiah Jesus to all who seek purification through the Law.

The careful obedience to the law on the part of Mary and Joseph and the redemption of Jesus introduce the prophetic messages of Simeon and Anna in 2:25-38.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

Despite the humble birth and lowly beginnings of Jesus, God nevertheless brings glory and honor to Jesus, though once again, not in the way most people would expect or imagine.

2:8. In the same country, namely, the region around Bethlehem, there were shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. The presence of shepherds around Bethlehem indicates that these events took place in late September. The events could not have been in December (as traditionally thought) since flocks were not kept in the fields during the winter (Bock 1994:227; Lightfoot 1989:36). This flock of sheep most likely contained Passover lambs which were being tended for sacrifice about five months later (Barclay 1975:22; Edersheim 1988:186; Lightfoot 1989:36). The shepherds themselves were probably quite young, possibly in their teens, as the tending of sheep was generally reserved for boys and young men. Shepherds were viewed as dishonorable outcasts in Israel (Barclay 1975:22; Malina 2003:232; Pentecost 1981:60; Wiersbe 1989:176; contra. Bock 1994:213). Their work not only made them ceremonially unclean, but their work also kept them away from the temple for weeks at a time so that they could not be purified. Though Scripture sometimes refers to shepherds in a positive light, this only shows that God uses the downtrodden and despised to accomplish his will. By announcing the birth of the Messiah to the shepherds first, God was “exalting the lowly” as Mary had proclaimed (1:52).

2:9. While the shepherds were watching over the Passover lambs in the still of the night, suddenly, an angel of the Lord stood before them. At first only one angel appears. Tradition says it was the angel Michael, but most modern commentaries favor Gabriel (e.g., Green 1997:131). Around him shines the glory of the Lord filling the night with brilliance. In this way, a miraculous dawn has arrived in the midst of the darkness, symbolizing the birth of the Messiah (Green 1997:132). This brilliance was caused by the glory of the Lord which appeared at critical times in Israelite history: to Abraham in Ur (Acts 7:2), in the tabernacle (Exod 40:34-35), at the inauguration of the temple (1 Kings 8:11), and when the glory departed the temple (Ezek 10:4, 18-19; 11:22-23). Now the glory had returned, but not in the temple, and not to priests and prophets, but to shepherds in the fields (Green 1997:131; Pentecost 1981:61). This reveals that God’s story in Israel will now be continued through Jesus. “Luke thus puts us on notice that the new world coming is of a radically different shape than the former one, that questions of holiness and purity must be asked and addressed in different ways, and that status and issues of values must be reexamined afresh” (Green 1997:31).

As a result of his appearance and the bright light, they were greatly afraid. As is often seen in Scripture, when angels appear before humans, the normal response is fear (Evans 2003:52).

2:10. The angel fulfills his task by proclaiming a message. He first tries to calm the shepherds by saying, “Do not be afraid.” He is not there to strike them dead or to announce judgment. Instead, he brings good tidings. The term good tidings (Gk. euangelion) is often translated “gospel” and means “good news.” The angel is “evangelizing” the shepherds, not in the sense of telling them how to receive eternal life, but in the sense of proclaiming to them an element of the good news, that Jesus, the Messiah, has been born (Evans 2003:52). This good news is rooted in texts from Isaiah (40:9; 52:7; 61:1-2). This aspect of the good news, when it is proclaimed to others, will not cause fear and condemnation, but will bring great joy. Just as the darkness was chased away by the glory of the Lord, the shepherds are to trade their great fear (2:9) for great joy (Green 1997:133). And though the angel was appearing to shepherds, the message he brings is not for them alone, but for all people. The idea of bringing joy to all people was a distinctly Messianic expectation. When the Messiah arrived, all people would rejoice and be glad (cf. Ps 53:6).

2:11. The angel explains that the cause of joy is that the Messiah has been born to you this day. He has been born in the city of David, which in context refers not to Jerusalem, but the city of David’s ancestors, Bethlehem (cf. 2:4). The angel reveals that this child will be a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. This is the only place in Scripture where all three of these terms are found together (Bock 1994:216, 225). These titles must all be read in light of Isaiah 9:1-7 and the claims of Caesar Augustus. Caesar had taken all three terms to refer to himself (Green 1997:134-135). Luke merges imperial claims with Messianic prophecy, and raises up Jesus as the true Savior, who is Christ the Lord. As a Savior He was expected to deliver Israel from their bondage to Rome, and lead them forth to world prominence. “Salvation” as the modern concept of “forgiveness of sins so you can go to heaven when you die” was not in view. “Jesus’ birth calls into question both the emperor’s status as Savior and the ‘peace of Augustus’ that gave rise to that acclaimed status” (Green 1997:135).

The term Christ is the Greek word christos and means “Messiah,” that is, the Jewish deliverer. Finally, the term Lord does not refer necessarily to the fact that this Messiah was divine, but to the fact that He would be King and Ruler. In Greco-Roman culture, the term Lord referred to one’s patron (Green 1997:135). The term can refer to God (cf. Deut 32:15; 1 Sam 10:19; Mic 7:7; Hab 3:18; Pss 24:5; 25:1), and in fact, some manuscripts indicate that “Christ the Lord” should be translated “the Lord’s Christ.” However, it seems best to take this as “Christ the Lord,” referring to Christ the King of Israel (Bock 1994:227-228). This would be especially significant for the shepherds, as they were most likely tending their sheep in the fields around King Herod’s immense summer palace. Possibly, as they heard that a new Lord or “King” had been born, their eyes shifted to the palace.

2:12. The angel tells them that this king will not be found in the palace, but elsewhere. He gives them asign for how to find this newborn King. Signs were a way given to the Jewish people as a way to verify the truth of what a messenger had told them (Exod 3:12; 2 Kings 19:29; Isa 37:30). The sign for these shepherds is that they will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger. One reason Luke put so much emphasis on swaddling clothes and the manger in verses 1-7 is that they serve as a sign for the shepherds (Pentecost 2003:61). But beyond that, the location of the Messiah, not in rich robes, but in swaddling clothes, and not in a palace, but in an animal feeding trough, revealed to the shepherds that this Messiah, though a King, would be for people like them, the poor and humble, rather than for the rich, powerful, and mighty. The Kingdom of this Christ would be the antithesis, the exact opposite, of the kingdoms of this world, like that of Caesar Augustas.

2:13. Upon finishing the angelic pronouncement, suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God. The one angel is now joined by a multitude. Their appearance probably made the night shine brighter than the day, and with their glorious light, they gave praise to God. Generally, when a child was born, the friends and family of the woman would gather around the home and sings songs of joy and celebration. Since Joseph and Mary were not at home, this celebration would not have happened. However, with the angels, God provided an even greater choir to sing at the birth of Jesus (Barclay 1975:23).

2:14. The words which the angelic multitude sang were “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” The message was more good news. Glory was to be given to God because through this babe, lying in a manger, God had offered peace to earth. Though Caesar Augustas wanted to be hailed as god, and though he was praised for inaugurating the Pax Romana, the “Peace of Rome,” the Kingly Messiah was offering peace to the whole earth (Evans 2003:53; Keener 1994:194). This peace was not enforced by power and might, but came through humility and service. It was true and lasting peace, because it was inner and spiritual. The Stoic Philosopher Epictetus said, “While the emperor may give peace from war on land and sea, he is unable to give peace from passion, grief and envy. He cannot give peace of heart for which man yearns more than even for outward peace” (Wiersbe 1989:176).

However, this peace is not automatic or universal. Though offered to all people of earth, not all will experience it. The text of 2:14 might be better translated, “…and on earth peace to men of good will.”Men of good will is almost a technical term for God’s elect, for those who live according to God’s will, and would include the God-fearers mentioned by Mary in 1:50-53 (Bock 1994:220). In other words, only people who follow God’s commands will receive this peace (Evans 2003:53; McGee 1983:253). Though all the world clamors for peace, it comes only to those who live according to the will of God in this world.

Isaiah 48:22 says that there is no peace for the wicked. Those who live in wickedness and sin will never have this peace, because peace only comes to those who live as God intended. Instead, peace with God comes through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1), and by living according to the will of God (Eph 2:14-18). This understanding helps resolve the statement of Jesus in Luke 12:51 that He did not come bring peace to the earth. Only those who were following God according to His will would find peace; for the rest, there would be no peace.

But more than this, the angelic announcement is not simply a message that the means to “get right with God” has now arrived. It is more than the announcement about the birth of the Messiah. While it is this, it is also much more. The angelic message is a war cry from heaven. Though the pagan rulers, greedy for power, money, and fame, have brought the world to the brink of ruin, the Messiah has arrived. And with the Messiah, a rival kingdom has appeared, the Kingdom of Heaven. This kingdom, the angels proclaim, will take over the running of this earth. Under His rule and reign, justice, peace, and righteousness will prevail. This is what is behind the words of the angelic host. Some have argued that Luke does not explicitly challenge Roman leadership (Bock 1994:215). However, Luke has referred to Roman leadership (1:5; 2:1), and all readers of his text, especially Theophilus (1:3), would have understood the numerous and clear allusions to Emperor worship and the claims of Caesar Augustus. The claims of Christ were nothing if not an affront to the identical claims of Caesar.

As an example, consider the following remarks from Paullus Fabius Maximus, proconsul of Asia, when he proposed that the Roman calendar be changed to begin on the birthday of Caesar Augustus:

(It is hard to tell) whether the birthday of the most divine Caesar is a matter of great pleasure or benefit. We could justly hold it be equivalent to the beginning of all things…; and he has given a different aspect to the whole world, which blindly would have embraced its own destruction if Caesar had not been born for the common benefit of all (Green 1997:133)

The provincial assembly agreed to honor Caesar as Paullus suggested, and explained their decision in this way:

Whereas the providence which divinely ordered our lives created with zeal and munificence the most perfect good for our lives by producing Augustus and filling him with cirture [sic] for the benefaction of mankind, sending us and those after us a savior who put an end to war and established all things; and whereas Caesar when he appeared exceeded the hopes of all who had anticipated good things…and whereas the birthday of the god marked for the world the beginning of good tidings through his coming…(Green 1997:133).

With sentiments like these flourishing in the Roman Empire during the reign of Caesar Augustus, it is easy to see that Luke is clearly writing a gospel that challenges the position and politics of the Roman leadership.

2:15-16. After the angels finished their pronouncement and had gone away…the shepherds discuss what to do. The narrative includes some minor tension at this point. Will the shepherds respond like Zacharias, in doubt and disbelief, or will they respond like Mary, in faith and joy? Luke reveals that they respond like Mary and decide to go to Bethlehem and see the newborn child. They responded with immediate obedience and went with haste. Bethlehem was not a large town, and so it probably did not take long for them to find Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. In a culture where the person of importance is mentioned first, and men were nearly always favored above women, it is significant that Luke places Mary before Joseph (Green 1997:138).

2:17. Seeing the newborn Messiah was not the end of the matter, however. After they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. They became the first witnesses to spread the good news of the Messiah. The shepherds were so excited about what they had seen and heard, they spread the news to all the surrounding regions.

2:18. The result was that those who heard what the shepherds proclaimed marveled at what they heard. Luke is fond of mentioning that people marveled at what they heard and saw (1:21, 63; 2:33; Acts 2:7; 3:12; 4:13). The term marveled (Gk. thaumadzo) indicates wonder, amazement, or astonishment. The term is used frequently by Luke to explain the reaction of the crowds to miraculous events. It occasionally implies belief (2:33; 24:12, 41), but is also used in the context of critical and doubtful surprise (cf. 4:22; 11:38). “At the most it is only a preliminary stage to faith, or, in psychological terms, the impulse which may awaken faith but which may also give rise to doubt’ (Bertram, TNDT 3:39). So it is uncertain if the multitudes who heard the account of the shepherds believed that the Messiah had been born, or if they simply discounted it as a wild story from crazy, gullible shepherds. This may be why there are no further records of other people coming to visit Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. Of course, it is just as likely that Luke chose not to write about such visits.

2:19. In contrast to the multitudes who only marveled at what they heard, Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. Certainly the shepherds had informed her about the appearance of the angels and what the angel had said. Her response is to think and meditate upon them, and consider the significance of what these events meant. She is with good company in this regard (cf. Dan 7:28; Gen 37:11). She did not take it upon herself to proclaim how blessed and honored she was, but instead, quietly considered the things that were happening to her, and let others praise her. This shows, as the Scriptures say, that as God’s people humble themselves in His sight, He will lift them up (Jas 4:10).

2:20. After the shepherds had seen Jesus, they returned to their flocks, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them. The task that had initially been given to the angels, that of proclaiming the birth of the Messiah and giving praise and glory to God as a result, was now picked up and carried on by the shepherds.