Unless otherwise noted, the ESV; capitalized will be used throughout.

I have been studying the Word of God since 1972, spending no less than an hour a day listening to the excellent teaching ministry of pastor-teacher R. B. Thieme, Jr. At some point, a few decades ago, I began studying on my own; and today, I study and write about the Bible 3–6 hours each day (this has been the case for the past two decades).

R. B. Thieme, Jr. never exegeted the entire book of Luke (although he did cover some passages in Luke); and his son, R. B. Thieme III has covered more of Luke in his Life of Christ series; but neither man covered the book of Luke as a singular entity. Nor did either man cover the entirety of this book in exegesis.

One of the things about the Bible which I find to be remarkable is the amount of narrative that there is. There are massive portions of Scripture where we follow one person or a few people around. Furthermore, it is rare for there to be any accompanying moral commentary. That is, we don’t read, Moses did A, B and C; and God was pleased with A and B; but when Moses did C, God was angry. Now and again, we will read some editorializing; but, for the most part, we simply read, Moses did A, B and C. We have to be careful when making moral judgments over what past saints have done. This does not mean that we cannot evaluate their actions; we simply have to be careful about that.

Nation Israel has a history, and it is often a mistake to begin our studies in the New Testament. God has laid a rich foundation for all that we study in the New Testament. In fact, God takes us all the way back to the beginning of mankind in the book of Genesis. Knowing what takes place in the Old Testament often gives us a depth of understanding when it comes to the New. If there had been no Old Testament, the New Testament would make little or no sense.

There is a very rich history of mankind concerning which we only have the most basic history. From man’s creation to his sin, to the corruption of almost all mankind, we have the barest recorded narrative—just the first 6 chapters of Genesis. After the judgment of God on the world known as the flood or the great deluge, we have another lengthy period of human history which is covered in only chapters 9–11 in Genesis. The period of time contain in Gen. 1–11 is often called The Gentile Dispensation (or words to that effect).

Around 2000 b.c., God spoke to a man named Abram, and told him to leave the place where he grew up and to move to Canaan in the far west. He was living in what is today modern Iraq and he moved eventually to the land partially occupied by modern Israel today. The Mediterranean Sea located as the western border of this special land. God told Abram that he would have a son and that there would come from this son a large group of people who are specially connected to God. In fact, there were several promises made by God to Abram concerning his progeny, and in our study of the book of Genesis, it is clear that God fulfilled those promises.

Abram was renamed Abraham; he had a son Isaac, and Isaac had a son Jacob. Two sets of great people came from these men. Whomever is descended from Abraham or Isaac, but not from Jacob, is an Arab. And anyone who is descended from Jacob is considered to be one of God’s people, set apart from the rest of the human race. These became a peculiar people to God, first known as the Hebrew people; and much later, known as the Jewish people. In the book of Genesis, we studied how carefully this people was isolated from all other groups. They could bring in women from other races and groups; but men, generally speaking, did not become a part of this people (there are notable exceptions to this). In any case, in the early days of the sons of Jacob, there was no intermarriage with any other family or group (with the exception of bringing women into the family).

Circumstances took all of Jacob’s descendants (and their wives and children) to Egypt, where they lived for 400 years. Also, during this time, they became slaves to Egypt. The book of Exodus is primarily about Moses, a Levite (Levi was Jacob’s third son), leading the people of God out of Egypt, as per God’s direction.

God will lead His people out of Egypt and into the desert-wilderness, where they will remain for 40 years. At the very beginning, God will give them the Ten Commandments and His national laws. However, the people will be resistant to entering the land given them by God and taking it. So God keeps them in the desert until that recalcitrant generation dies off. Then the next generation will enter into the land under the guidance of Joshua, and take it. The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers describe Moses and the people of Israel—their leaving Egypt and spending 40 years in the desert—along with direct words from God as to their national laws.

In Deuteronomy, Moses speaks to the people of Israel—to the new, younger generation—and distills and explains their history to them These are the people who were 20 years or younger when they left Egypt. “You have experienced this;” Moses will explain to them, and then he explains the significance of these experiences. Whereas, significant portions of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are the direct words of God to Moses; nearly all of Deuteronomy are the direct words of Moses; and yet, his words are considered every bit as authoritative as those words spoken directly by God (early on, in the book of Luke, Jesus will quote authoritatively from Moses’ words in Deuteronomy).

In the book of Joshua, the people of Israel will take the land given them by God. In the second half of the book of Joshua, that land will be distributed to the various tribes.

After taking the land, Israel continues for several hundred years in this land and under the guidance of various judges. However, Israel will long for a king; so a monarchy is established under King Saul; whose reign is then followed by King David and finally King Solomon.

King Saul began as a great warrior and a decent king, but his leadership falls apart due to his rejection of God’s authority (in Samuel), jealousy (of David) and mental illness. David, from a different tribe, took the reigns of the kingdom after Saul and all of his sons died in battle. David is called a man after God’s Own heart, although he was clearly not a perfect man.

David’s son Solomon was one of the richest men in history (relatively speaking, as wealth is a relative measurement). Solomon ruled at a time when Israel enjoyed its greatest blessing. However, even though Solomon was known for his wisdom, his materialism and lust for women overcame him, and the nation Israel became two national entities after Solomon passed. In the north was the Northern Kingdom, also called Samaria, Ephraim or Israel. In the south was the Southern Kingdom, also called Judah or Judæa. The great kingdom of Israel—all of the land ruled over by David and Solomon—would never again to be reunited until the promise of the end-time Kingdom, under the reign of David’s Greater Son.

The two kingdoms to emerge from nation Israel were often at odds. The northern kingdom was in opposition to God so much that, in 721 b.c. they were overrun by the Assyrians, and many of them were moved to other lands in the east (when a people were conquered, it was common to lead the survivors away into another land and for them to function as slaves). This situation became known as the Assyrian captivity or the Assyrian exile. This was a result of their negative volition towards God and His Word. This removal of the Hebrew people from their land is called the 5^th Cycle of Discipline by some; the 5^th Stage of National Discipline by others.

Although the 10 tribes who lived there in the northern kingdom are often called the ten lost tribes, most of them continued still as separate tribes even into the New Testament. The tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and Asher are all named in the New Testament. That is, people in the New Testament knew that they belonged to this or that tribe. The line of Jesus (which we will study in Luke) reveals detailed birth records which appear to be superior to our own today. So, despite the diaspora, most Jews retained knowledge of their genealogy.

As an aside, even though Jews from the various tribes ended up in England (and all over the world), there is nothing legitimate in the concept of British-Israelism, which is the belief that, in some way, the people of Britain are "genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel.

Great Britain, at one time, was the greatest nation in the world, and they ruled over perhaps a fifth of the entire inhabited world (it is quite amazing to see a map of the British Empire and to view tiny Great Britain on that map). Many recognized that this was clearly blessing from God (which it was); but then some then came up with this false theory that, therefore, the people of Britain have inherited the blessings of Israel because they are Israel. Certainly, people descended from Israel had found respite in Great Britain; and there was, no doubt, some intermingling of the peoples. But, we know much of England’s history, and we know where their peoples came from, and it is not Israel (by which I don’t mean nation Israel but the people of Israel).

Speaking of which, let’s go back to ancient Israel again:

The Southern Kingdom was also filled with spiritual degeneration (called reversionism by some) and they were also overrun in 586 b.c., by Babylonia. Babylon removed the Jews from the land (this is from the southern kingdom) after defeating them. Removing a conquered people from their homeland was a common practice of that era.

Not long after, the Persian king, Cyrus the Great, defeated the Babylonian empire, and he inherited the Jewish people, with whom he developed a good relationship. Therefore, Cyrus soon decided to return the people of God to the land of promise, which occurred in 516 b.c. That was God giving the Jews another chance. However, Israel has not been an autonomous nation since then until most recently in 1947.

The last independent monarchs of Judah were Jeconiah (who ruled less than a year due to his degeneracy—an important topic that we will later take up in the book of Luke); and Zedekiah. Zedekiah was the final ruler of Judah, ruling about 11 years until 586 b.c., when Babylon conquered the southern kingdom.

The Jews remained in the southern kingdom from 516 b.c. until a.d. 70. The Old Testament was completed around 400 b.c. There continued to be writings by various Jewish men, but what is accepted as authoritative begins with Genesis go as far as the final chapters of Chronicles (the final book in the Hebrew Bible).

The period of time between the testaments, between 400 b.c. (the end of the writing of the Old Testament) and a.d. 25 (the public ministry of John the Herald), is known as the intertestamental period. For about 400 years, there was no word from God; until various people were spoken to around 6–4 b.c. (the time of the births of John and Jesus). Since God did not speak to anyone, no Scripture was recorded—as Scripture is basically the history of man and God. Stuff was going on and God was on His throne; but there was no direct communication taking place between God and the people of Israel. They had a complete canon of Scripture—up to that point in time (which we call the Old Testament). All of these books looked forward to the coming of a Messiah/King/Prophet to come.

Between the last verse of the Old Testament and the first few verses of the book of Luke, there are 400 silent years. There is no Scripture written during that time. There are books written by believers (I assume that they are believers) known as the apocrypha, but those books have been rejected for theological and historical inaccuracies (the Catholic religion accepts them as divinely inspired). This does not mean that these books are not helpful to fill in historical gaps, but they must be taken with a grain of salt, just like any other historical record which is not divinely inspired.

James Allen provides a more thorough examination of this history of the Jewish people here (it is in outline form).

At the time of the New Testament, Israel is ruled over by Rome as a part of the Roman empire.

One fundamental purpose of the Old Testament was to set up the concept of a Messiah, Who would come and deliver the Hebrew people. He is known by many names in the Old Testament: the Seed of the Woman, the Messiah, the King of kings, David’s Greater Son, the Suffering Servant.

Jesus is revealed in the Old Testament in two principle ways: (1) By direct prophecy (examples: Gen. 49:10 2Sam. 7:16 Psalm 2:6–9 110:1–7 Isa. 7:14 9:6–7). The Jewish people themselves and their theologians understood these passages to speak of their Messiah. (2) Though typology.

Regarding prophecy, many of the passages about the Messiah are spoken by God directly to the writer of Scripture (Gen. 3:15 Isa. 7:14 9:6). I don’t believe that most of these passages were fully understood when written; but there did seem to develop an understanding that certain specific passages were about the Messiah. The religious class appeared to be obsessed with the Law; but less discerning when it came to the Jewish Messiah.

Typology is where a person, an institution, or an event is understood after the first advent, to represent or point to Jesus Christ (or to His work on the cross). A type may mean one thing when originally written; but come to mean something different with the passage of time. Abraham, Moses and David are all types of Christ. Long after the fact, we are able to see what is recorded about their lives; and we are able to connect these things to a plethora of parallels that even the human authors of Old Testament Scripture did not recognize. Generally speaking, when a typological event occurs (or an institution is presented), the writer who records this event (institution or person) has no idea that he is writing about the Messiah (or about some aspect of the Messiah).

The priesthood is an institution established by God with a set of specific purposes in the Old Testament. However, in retrospect, it is clear that the priesthood—and specifically the office of the High Priest—is representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. God knew this; but when Moses wrote down all of what God had to say about the priesthood, he never thought to himself, “Aha, God is talking about the Messiah here.” The various high priests never thought, in the midst of a service, “Wow, I am a representation of the Messiah to come.”

Typology is mentioned in the New Testament, but, like many other doctrines of the faith, was not fully developed in the 1^st century. Quite frankly, today, we know much more about typology than Paul, Peter or the writer of the book of Hebrews.

Typological passages Psalm 22 and Isa. 53 both speak of actual historical events of great suffering—the precise details of those events (who, what, where) are lost to us. However, those two passages provide us with great insight as to what Jesus did for us on the cross. Psalm 22 tells us about His actual physical suffering; and Isa. 53 speaks of the theological nature of what Jesus did for us on the cross.

One example that we will study below is God ordering Abraham to offer up his beloved son as a sacrifice to God. At the time, this is presented simply as an act of great obedience and trust on the part of Abraham. God told Abraham to do something, and Abraham just went ahead and did it (almost). However, in retrospect, this act is clearly all about God the Father offering up His Beloved Son for our sins.

Current Judaism has the problem that, at the heart of their Scriptures is the promise of a Savior-Messiah. They have, for the most part, set that part of their Scriptures aside, along with their complex system of rituals, all of which reveal this Savior-Messiah. Their problem today is, their Messiah came to them, and they rejected Him, hanging Him on the cross as a trouble-maker, despite being unable to find anything wrong that He did.

What I would like to do in this lesson, is briefly go through a few Old Testament passages and explain some of the places where Jesus is revealed. My emphasis will be upon the Old Testament Scriptures, without spending much time in the New Testament. The point being, the Old Testament is a solid foundation for the New. The list that follows is representative, not exhaustive.

The Seed of the Woman:

The first time that the Savior is revealed is back in Gen. 3:15, which is known as the proto-evangel. The serpent has tempted the woman, and she has disobeyed God and eaten from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When Adam returned home, he looked at the woman, the partially eaten fruit, and he chose to eat the fruit that she handed to him. The woman had been deceived, but Adam ate the fruit, knowing full well that he was disobeying the one explicit negative command of God.

Both Adam and the woman also suddenly realized that they were naked and covered themselves up with fig leaves. When God came to the garden to speak to them, they hid themselves, guilty for their transgression. Through interrogation, God found out that the woman ate the fruit because she had been deceived by the serpent; and Adam ate the fruit that his wife gave him to eat. The woman acted, in part, out of ignorance having been deceived; but Adam knew that he was disobeying God.

God pronounced judgement upon the man, the woman and the serpent, but one verse in particular stands out.

The Revealed God is speaking to the serpent, announcing its judgment:

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring [lit., between your seed and her seed]; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." (ESV; capitalized; which is the translation which I will use throughout this lesson, unless otherwise noted).

Throughout human history, it is the man who provides the seed. This is his contribution to any child who is born; yet, God speaks of the woman’s seed here (Who is Jesus Christ). What will Jesus do? He would bruise the head of the serpent. That is a deathblow to serpent, also known as Satan. Jesus would completely crush the serpent. The serpent would bruise the heel of Jesus (that is, the Seed of the Woman). This means, the serpent would harm Jesus—enough to knock Him off His feet, so to speak; but this would not be a permanent deathblow.

We understand today that the sins of all mankind would be poured out upon Jesus and He would take upon Himself our judgment. His death on the cross is the bruise to His heel. The Seed of the Woman would be off His feet, but only for a limited time.

After judgment was pronounced, then God did something very interesting for Adam and the woman:

Gen. 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

This does not mean that God looked at the clothing that Adam and the woman had quickly devised and said, “Look, those are some very sad threads. Let Me show you how clothing should be done.” This was not about fashion; it was about temporarily providing a covering for the man and woman (the verb to make atonement for means to cover over). Adam and the woman needed to be given a temporary covering. They needed to be atoned for. This gave them respite from the judgment of God, which they deserved.

God did something that Adam and the woman had never seen done before—God killed an animal and then made leather clothing from the skins of the animal. The sacrificed animal represents Jesus and the leather clothing that God made temporarily covered Adam and the woman, protecting them from judgment.

This sacrifice of animals—the innocent on behalf of the guilty—is a theme which runs throughout the Old Testament. It started as far back as Gen. 3; right after Adam and the woman had sinned.

The Genealogy Gospel:

Animal Sacrifices by Noah:

When Noah exited the ark with his family after the great flood, he offered up animal sacrifices from the clean animals (he took extras of those into the ark).

Gen. 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Noah offered up animals in sacrifice to God. These were burnt on an altar with fire. The fire speaks of judgment and the sacrifice of animals represents the sacrifice of the just for the unjust.

Gen. 8:21a And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man...”

God was pleased with the aroma of the animal sacrifice, which means that God is temporarily placated by the animal sacrifice, which are representative of the cross. He is pleased with the animal sacrifice. The animal sacrifice provides a temporary stay of execution.

When God gave the Hebrew people the Law, included in the Law was a set of animal sacrifices which the people were to participate in. By the time a person was old, he had seen hundreds upon hundreds of animals offered up for his sins. However, since these sacrifices continue for all his life, he would know that they were not actually effectual for the taking away of sin.

Abraham Offers Up His Son Isaac as a Type of Jesus Offering Himself for Our Sins:

In Gen. 22, God did something quite remarkable—He told Abraham to take the son whom he loved and to offer him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that God would designate. Not before or since has God required that anyone offer up any human sacrifice, and yet here, that is exactly what He was doing.

This was a 3-day trip to get to the mountain; and on the trip, Abraham was cognizant of who was to be offered up; but his son, Isaac, was not. They traveled with two servants and many believe that they went to the mountain that would later be associated with Jerusalem and the cross (called Mount Moriah).

Then we read words which are unlike anything else in the Bible:

Gen.22:9–10 Then they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.

But Abraham is stopped by God. Then Abraham sees that there is a ram stuck in a thicket and that ram is offered up instead of Isaac.

For Abraham and Hebrew readers of the Old Testament, this has always been understood to be an act of great obedience and trust on the part of Abraham. However, after Jesus had been offered on the cross as God’s only begotten Son Whom God greatly loved, it is clear that Isaac was a type of Christ being offered up. The ram illustrates the substitutionary element of this event.

Joseph as a Type of Christ:

The Passover and the Death of the Firstborn:

In the book of Exodus, Moses had gone before Pharaoh (the king of Egypt) requesting that the people of God, the Hebrew people (those descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) be allowed to go out from Egypt in order to worship their God. Pharaoh was obstinate about this and refused to let them go. Each time Moses asked and Pharaoh refused, God sent another plague to Egypt. The final plague was the death of the firstborn. Moses gave this warning:

Exodus 11:4–6 So Moses said, "Thus says the LORD: 'About midnight I will go out in the midst of Egypt, and every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the handmill, and all the firstborn of the cattle. There shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there has never been, nor ever will be again.”

There would be one way only to keep the firstborn from being killed in any particular house. Each household was to offer up a lamb sacrifice.

Exodus 12:5–6 [God is speaking, giving Moses the directions] “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight. Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it.”

The lamb to be offered represents Jesus Christ dying for our sins. It must be a lamb without blemish (as Jesus was without sin). When the time was right, “and then the entire assembly of the congregation of Israel is to slaughter it [lit., Him] at twilight.” (ISV). The literal translation of the Hebrew is even more striking: And you [all] will slaughter him—all of the assembly of a congregation of Israel—between the evenings. The literal rendering of this verse is

quite remarkable, as, when Jesus died on the cross, the entire congregation of Israel seemed to rise up to slaughter Him.

Blood from that lamb would be painted on the side posts of the door and at the top of the doorframe (the blood from the top would have dripped down). The blood on the doorframe would match the blood of the Lord coming from His head, hands, and feet during the crucifixion.

The Passover Door (a graphic); from Blue Stocking Red Neck; accessed December 7, 2018.

Every household which applied the blood of the lamb to the door saved their household. The households which ignored this requirement saw their firstborn die that night. There were no restrictions here; anyone—Israeli or Egyptian—could have done this in order to preserve their family. And all of those who didn’t, lost their firstborn.

Waters from the Rock at Horeb:

In Exodus 17, there is a fascinating record of the people complaining to Moses of their thirst, accusing him of taking them out to the desert to kill them. Moses, upset, goes to the Lord with this problem.

Exodus 17:4 So Moses cried to the LORD, "What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me."

Moses was reasonably afraid for his own life.

Exodus 17:5 And the LORD said to Moses, "Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go.

God tells him to go before the people, taking some elders with him and the staff which he used to strike the Nile (it was with this staff that Moses turned the waters to blood, a sign of judgment upon Egypt).

Exodus 17:6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink." And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.

The word behold is a form of the word, to see; and God is telling Moses that he will see God on the rock at Horeb. Moses is to strike the rock with his staff—and God is on that rock, so Moses is very nearly striking God.

Living waters, the water of life, will come forth from that rock and give the people the water which will preserve them.

The Rock is Christ; striking the rock is the judgment of God upon Jesus; and out from Him will flow living waters, the water of life. If we drink of Him, we will never thirst again.

John 4:7–8 A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give Me a drink." (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.)

John 4:9 The Samaritan woman said to Him, "How is it that You, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)

John 4:10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and Who it is that is saying to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."

John 4:13–14 Jesus said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

The Ark of God:

One of the most holy and revered objects designed by God is the Ark (also known as the Ark of God or the Ark of the Covenant—described in Exodus 25 37). The Ark represents Jesus Christ. It is made out of acacia wood, overlain with gold. The wood represents the humanity of Jesus and the gold His Deity.

No one could touch the Ark; actual contact with the Ark would result in immediate death. Mortal man cannot come into direct contact with the holiness of God. God is too holy and man is sinful.

In or beside the Ark were 3 objects: the Law of Moses; Aaron’s rod that budded; and the pot of manna. The Law of Moses represents our condemnation; as we are unable to keep the law. Aaron’s rod that budded represents resurrection; as all believers will rise again. The pot of manna is God’s provision for each and every believer in life (also known as, logistical grace).

On the great day of atonement, the High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies (a room within the Tabernacle and later within the Temple). No one was allowed in this room and all that was found in this room is the Ark of God and some items built specifically for the Ark. Once a year, the High Priest would enter into this room with blood from a sacrifice, and some of that blood would be sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, which sat upon the Ark (there are also two carved angels overlooking the Mercy Seat). The blood on the Mercy Seat represents Jesus dying for our sins on the cross; and the two angels represent the Angelic Conflict; the fallen and elect angel who watch mankind during our time in history. A description of the Ark can be found in Exodus 25:10–28 and Heb. 9:1–5. The activities of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement are found in Lev. 16:15–17.

“A Prophet Like Unto Me”:

Moses, when speaking to the people of Israel, before they were to come into the land, said this:

Deuteronomy 18:15 [Moses is speaking] "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to Him you shall listen—...”

This prophet, who was to be raised up from among the people, would be Jesus. He would be a prophet like Moses, inasmuch as He would have that great authority that Moses had.

The Kinsman Redeemer:

In the book of Ruth, Ruth is a Moabite woman married to an Israelite man who dies before they have children. She chooses to ally herself with the Hebrew people and goes to live in Israel with her mother-in-law.

There is a tradition in the ancient world that, a near relative can marry Ruth and raise up a child to perpetuate the name of her late husband. Such a man is known as a kinsman-redeemer. The kinsman means that he is a near relative and redeemer means that he, by raising up a child, redeems the name of the past husband.

Ruth married her kinsman-redeemer, a very successful man named Boaz; and from them came Obed, who fathered Jesse who fathered David (who would be king over Israel).

The parallel is, Jesus is our Kinsman, inasmuch as He is a man as we are. And He has redeemed us from sin (that is, He has paid for our sins).

These are but a handful of illustrations, types and prophecies concerning the Lord Jesus Christ found in the first 8 books of the Old Testament. There are many, many others throughout Scripture. I simply wanted to include enough to show that, Jesus is revealed in the Old Testament in many, many ways. All of this foreshadowing is certainly foundational to the revelation of the New Testament. At the heart of the Jewish faith has been the Law of Moses (which tells us that we have sinned), the special relationship between God and the people of Jacob, and the Messiah-Savior.

Modern-day Israel is a great and wonderful nation. But, modern-day Judaism lacks most of its founding principles. That is because the Old Testament is not the foundation for Judaism but for Christianity (that is a very profound statement, by the way; about which book could easily be written).

Before we move any further along in this study, allow me to personally encourage you to focus upon the process and the study of each verse and each lesson, rather than being overly concerned about completing the book of Luke. It is a great feeling to go all the way through a book in the Bible and to understand most of it. But, that can be a long journey, depending upon the book itself. Luke is quite a long biography of the Lord.

When I was younger, my family took a trip from California to Ohio by train. That trip, which took around 3 days, was an adventure in itself. We saw beautiful landscapes, met interesting people, and had a fascinating ride. This trip was every bit as important as arriving in Ohio and doing what families do once we got there.

The same will be true of this study of Lukian biography of Jesus. Enjoy the journey; do not focus on the completion of this study, as I have not even the slightest idea how many lessons will be involved. My intention is to thoroughly study this particular book, yet being mindful not to get bogged down. Also, there will be a few instances where we examine at specific biographical incidents in more detail than what Luke does (I can only think of 2 or 3 incidents where I would like to do this). There are also sections of Luke which lend themselves to extremely important doctrines for the believer.

The LXX (the Septuagint) and the preservation of Scripture:

There is a very important event which takes place during this Intertestamental period: the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The world, at that time, was speaking more and more Greek (because of the conquests of Alexander the Great). The Jews were finding themselves spread throughout Alexander’s kingdom; and increasingly, more of them spoke Greek and fewer of them spoke Hebrew. At some point, it became clear that the Jewish people needed their Scriptures written in the Greek language rather than in Hebrew, which was becoming somewhat of a dead language.

Translating the authoritative books required that they actually determine the inspired (or authoritative) texts of the Old Testament. No one was going to translate just any Hebrew writing and throw it into the canon of Scripture; but we actually do not know what steps were taken to determine the proper texts, what texts were used, or if anyone really understood what it meant for the text to be inspired. Was this list of books already known and agreed upon?

Deuteronomy is a very significant book regarding the topic of inspiration as almost everything in this book was written by the man Moses and not quoted from God. Yet, this book has, from the very beginning, taken to be authoritative—every bit as authoritative as portions of Exodus which read, Thus saith the Lord. It is quite remarkable for Deuteronomy to be seen like that, but it seemed to be a natural acceptance. Interestingly enough, the acceptance of Deuteronomy as authoritative, to the best of my knowledge, was never really discussed theologically—not in the Hebrew writings, anyway. I am not aware of any rabbis who found the acceptance of Deuteronomy as being authoritative to be a remarkable thing. By the time they got around to writing commentaries and opinions, the authoritative nature of Deuteronomy was a given.

During this time period between the testaments, the canon of Scripture for the Old Testament was settled. We do not have any idea how exactly this happened. People just accepted certain books as being authoritative. I am unaware of anyone writing any deep dissertation at that point in time about what it meant for writings to be inspired by God nor do we have lists of the authoritative books developed by this or that group. Just, somehow, certain books were accepted as being authoritative; and these are the books which were read in the synagogues. It is these books that would be translated into other languages, as the Jews were dispersed throughout the world at this time. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint or the LXX, was common and in use during the time of our Lord (it was often quoted from directly by the disciples), and most guess the translation to be made around 200 b.c.

Back to the LXX:

When it comes to the canonicity of the New Testament, we understand the issues which were brought up and what made a book a part of the canon; but we do not have a similar set of criterion for the Old (that we are aware of). The scribes continued to preserve the Hebrew manuscripts and this Greek translation provided another witness to which books were understood to be canonical.

The Hebrew manuscripts and the manuscripts of this new Greek translation were both preserved, but by different groups of people. The Jewish scribes continued to preserve the Hebrew Old Testament; and the Christians preserved the Greek translation of the Old Testament. There were also other ancient translations which were made, and all of them act as sort of a cross-check. Both Testaments were translated into Latin, Syriac (also know as Aramæan) and Arabic. Each translation was preserved by a different groups of men in a variety of nations subject to a variety of cultures.

By preserved, I mean that copies of the manuscripts were made on regular intervals, with various checks in place to insure the accuracy of the text. In most cases, when new manuscripts had been completed, the old ones were thrown away—often burned or completely destroyed. But, bear in mind, there is all this possible cross-checking which took place, attempting to insure that the copies are accurate. Old manuscripts could not be easily handled or read after a time, so they were not just discarded, but destroyed.

Today, I can place a Latin manuscript next to an Aramaic manuscript next to a Hebrew manuscript (and we have internet access to most of these), and easily compare them for differences in order to determine the most accurate text. What is remarkable is, the text is very consistent. If I was required to use Saint Jerome’s Latin manuscripts as my starting text, I would be teaching the exact same thing as if I chose the Greek texts instead. There is no Roman Jesus, Arabic Jesus or Greek Jesus. It is not that case that each tradition is infested with the customs and culture of that particular language and people.

As an aside, so that there is not confusion, let me point out that, the text of the original Hebrew manuscripts is the text which is God-breathed. On the one hand, we have copies of copies of copies of those original manuscripts; but these ancient manuscripts in other languages, preserved by other peoples, serve as a check on our current Hebrew manuscripts. My point is, is I could use the Latin OT as my fundamental text, and the teaching which came from that would be virtually identical to teaching from the original Hebrew text.

What we would expect is, one group would begin to modify the text, to suit their cherished beliefs and traditions, but that did not happen. There are differences in all of these manuscripts, but they are not, for the most part, substantive differences. There are in existence many English Bibles which are translated from different origins: some come from the original Hebrew and Greek transcripts; some were translated from the Aramaic; and some were translated from the Latin manuscripts (if you use e-sword, you can have English texts which were translated from any one of those specific languages).

Now, if you were given some random English translation of the Old Testament, without you knowing its origin, you would be unable to say, “I know that this came from the Greek translation, because of all the Greek references and Greek ideas which have clearly crept into the text.” You simply would not be able to distinguish one from the other, unless you were particularly scholarly in this specific area. The reason is, there are no Greek images, references or ideas in the Greek translation; just as there are no specific Roman ideas, images or references to be found in the Latin manuscripts. They are not perfectly in synch with one another; but their differences are insignificant. There are some very serious problems with the Catholic church today; but none of these can be blamed on Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin (the common language of his day) around a.d. 400. He did an excellent translation from the Hebrew into the Latin.

My point here is, we know that the text of the original Hebrew has been preserved, because at least 4 or 5 groups preserved parallel texts in different languages. For instance, first the scribes and later the Masoretes preserved the Hebrew texts. The early church preserved the Greek manuscripts. The Catholic church—which became quite corrupt as it consolidated religious and political power—still preserved accurate Latin texts. Now, we can take these texts and examine them side-by-side, and see that there is very little difference between them. No matter which group we are speaking of, they clearly had a reverence for the text before them and therefore did not attempt to corrupt it with their contemporary cultural influences.

There are some very specific linguistic differences and let me explain one particular difference, by way of illustration. In the Hebrew, when speaking of a man’s face, a plural verb is used, because Hebrew people understood the face to be a collection of physical features. We in the English use the singular noun face. So, there are times when a noun is plural in one language yet singular in another—the correct number simply suits the language being used. So, when I am reading an English translation and come across the phrase the face of Moses, and then I check the Hebrew and find that it literally reads, the faces of Moses, I don’t suddenly conclude that Moses originally had two or more heads. I understand that the English and the Hebrew are different in that respect.

Similarly, definite articles are used in different ways. So, whereas the God is commonly found in the Greek; we rarely say the God in the English. God is just God. He is not more fully God in English by throwing the definite article the in front of it. So, most of the differences between the ancient manuscripts preserved in those ancient languages are matters of how the language was used. There is no meaningful difference between the God in the Greek; and God as we use it in the English. Interestingly enough, it is just the opposite with the word for Lord. In the English, we always use the definite article before the word Lord (unless He is being directly addressed); but the Greek almost never uses the definite article before Lord. There are probably more of these sorts of linguistic differences between ancient manuscripts than any other category of difference. One language uses words in one way; another language uses those same words, but slightly differently. So, these kinds of differences are found when comparing Hebrew to Latin to Greek manuscripts/translations.

You may be surprised, but the oldest complete and nearly complete Hebrew manuscripts that we have of the Old Testament goes back to a.d. 1008, the Leningrad Codex (there are earlier Hebrew manuscripts, but they are not complete—for instance, the Cairo Codex—a.d. 895—has the prophets). Ancient, hand-copied Old Testament manuscripts of any significant size are quite rare, and that is because old manuscripts would be copied and then destroyed. This is because when a set of manuscripts became old and difficult to read, they would be copied; and the old manuscript would be purposely destroyed. But these witnesses by other groups of preservationists preserving these same manuscripts, but in a different language, act as a check on what we have.

When it comes to ancient manuscripts, there is a very significant witness. We have partial set of manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls which was a very ancient library. These scrolls date back to 100 b.c. (or earlier) and include Greek translations of the Old Testament (no manuscript is complete, due to the flimsy nature of the 2000 year old manuscripts). These were discovered around 1947 and various manuscripts continued to be unearthed for the next several years. As a result, we have manuscripts 1100 years older than our oldest manuscripts. Yet, the differences are trivial. As time passes, things are spelled differently. As time passes, grammar changes (even in a rarely used language). So these changes would be reflected when comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the manuscripts which are from the 12^th century; but substantive differences are rare. Furthermore, substantive differences which actually may change or modify a doctrine are virtually non-existent.

I have translated about the first third of the Old Testament word-by-word and I have come across one serious substantive error. If memory serves, Saul asks for the Ark to be brought to him; but it should have been the ephod that he asked for (he wanted to know some information that he could trust). These two words in the Hebrew are not much different. So, some scribe erred and accidentally wrote ark when he should have written ephod. That is the biggest, most significant problem that I observed in the first third of the entire Old Testament. This is one of the very few times when context and logic force me to say, “The word here should be ephod, not ark.” For the average person, this does not stand out as a substantive difference; but if you know what these things are, then it is. However, this substantive difference does not cause me to panic and think, “I need to go back and rework the doctrine of the Ephod; this changes everything!” Even with that error, there are no changes to be made in discussions of the Ark or the Ephod.

One of the reasons that we can be so certain of the text and what it means is, a huge amount of the Bible is narrative. I have never sat down to consider the percentages, but, as a guess, perhaps half the Bible is narrative (or something which approach narrative). In a narrative, you can often rephrase this or that sentence, and still end up with the same story. Minor mistakes by scribes over the years do not invalidate the text or give us a whole new set of doctrines. It is hard the screw up a narrative.

The preservation of New Testament manuscripts is quite another story. There are manuscript scraps which date back to the 2^nd and 3^rd century a.d. And, whereas discussion of OT manuscripts can be limited to fewer than 10 significant manuscripts, there are perhaps 26,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT. In the New Testament, there are perhaps a half dozen places where the text is questionable (the end of Mark I recall as being the most significant textual problem). However, for the most part, there are very few words in the NT which are in doubt.

The point I am making is, despite there being some errors in the text, these errors do not affect the overall doctrines that we extract from the Bible. These errors do not disturb a careful systematic theology which is the result of a careful examination of the Scriptures.

There is a great deal written about the inspiration of the Biblical text today; and there are perhaps a half dozen or more theories as to what it means for the Biblical text to be inspired. Geisler and Nix present 8 different theories of what it means for Scripture to be inspired in their A General Introduction to the Bible (a must-have book for any serious Christian, despite the vanilla-sounding title).

Today, we have developed a doctrine which explains how the Bible is to be understood and interpreted; and we know all about the false theories of inspiration which have been used by others. For instance, there is one very subjective approach where the Bible becomes the Word of God. That is, someone reads it, and suddenly, he recognizes that portions of what he is reading go deep into his soul; and he knows that the Bible has become the Word of God for him.

There is another theory where the Bible contains the Word of God. That is, the Bible was written and preserved by imperfect men, so we know that there is a lot of dross in the Bible; but, if you look carefully, you can find the stuff which is really the word of God (many people use this approach suggest that the miracles are just nonsense added in by the superstitious). Both of those theories are false approaches to understanding the Bible.

The correct way to understand the word of God can be explained by the verbal, plenary approach. That is, every single word, phrase and sentence is the word of God and, simultaneously, the words of man. These words are inspired by God, but not in such a way that the writer of Scripture is a secretary taking dictation. That author’s feelings, thinking, experiences, vocabulary and grammar all contribute to both the content and the writing style of each book. So, this is why the books of John and Luke are so different in style and subject matter, even though each is a biography of Jesus. Nevertheless, each book is still inspired by God; each book is still fully the Word of God, and, as such, perfectly accurate—doctrinally and historically.

I mentioned that we do not know how the Old Testament books were chosen or decided upon; but there seems to be almost no disagreement here (the exception is the intertestamental books known as the apocrypha—which books are accepted by the Catholic church as divinely inspired and by no one else—insofar as I know).

The New Testament books have, on the other hand, simple and specific criteria by which they were determined to be in the canon: (1) they had to be written in the 1^st century. Those making a determination of canonicity (and there were many people who did this) would not accept some book which is know to have been written in the 2^nd or 3^rd century. They know that is phony. (2) Each acceptable book must be written by a known apostle or a man closely associated with an Apostle (like Mark or Luke). There is one major exception to this and that is the book of Hebrews, the author of which no one knows (but many people have a theory). It is a book that is so obviously doctrinal and important to the early church that it had to be accepted, even though no one knows who wrote it.

Geisler and Nix NT Canonicity Chart (a graphic); from Introduction to the Bible, ©1968, p. 193. I redid the chart, splitting it into two parts, because it was hard to read.

This is a fantastic chart which tells us that, right from the 1^st century, people were trying to determine which books of that era were authoritative. Which books (which all circulated separately throughout the ancient world) could be trusted as accurate portrayals of the Lord or could be read in order to understand correct doctrine? There are 17 individuals who we know about, dating from a.d. 70–400 who made reference to various books and letters in their own writings. Given that this is who we know about today, no doubt there were 10x or even 100x as many writers who referenced specific books in the first 4 centuries of the new era.

You will note that, as time went on, more and more people did not simply refer back to these books and letters, but they began to treat them as authoritative (that is what the O’s mean).

At the same time, some individuals and some groups began to define what the New Testament canon was (now, bear in mind that this all takes place before anyone fully appreciated what canonicity in the realm of theology really means). You can see that Muratorian (circa 170), Barociccio (circa 206—not listed above) and Apostolic (circa 300) listed almost the same canon that we have today. Jerome, Augustine, and Athanasius (350–400) had the exact same canon as we have today (I see that I made an error in my chart and listed Augustine twice).

But besides these individuals, there were translations and councils which also put together lists of the canon.

Geisler and Nix Translation and Council Chart (a graphic): from Introduction to the Bible, ©1968, p. 193. This is the second half of the chart. As you see, Geiser and Nix divided these into 4 sets of witnesses: individual writers, specific canons, translation, and councils.

Early translations into other languages needed to figure out which books needed to be translated into another language. Also, various councils would meet with representatives and scholars attending from various churches, and they would come together to discuss and set forth what they believed the canon of the NT to be. As you see, there are at least 3 ancient councils who came up with the exact same list of books that we use today.

There are so many people today who think our canon of Scripture was developed by the Catholic church who just put out a list and that was final. As you can see, these books were discussed for 4 centuries. Furthermore, we do not have a translation into Aramaic with one set of books, and a translation into Latin with a slightly different set of books. It took time, it took a great deal of discussion and, no doubt, debate; but a canon was decided upon.

What is very important to note is, none of those listed above appear to have advocated for the Gospel of Saint Thomas or the Apocalypse of Peter or any of the other weird, non-canonical books (there were dozens). There is nowhere a list of books who got really close to being included in the NT canon, but just missed out. There is another list of books from that general era known as the Pseudopigrapha; also known as, the books rejected by everyone. Eusebius called these books “totally absurd and impious.”

You will notice by the charts that there was very little difficulty in determining which books did not belong in the canon, no way, no how. The problems were with books that we accept as a part of the canon: Revelation, because it was weird; Hebrews because it could not be attributed to an author; and some of the epistles because they were too short. The Pauline epistles were pretty much universally accepted; the general epistles required more discussion.

In the end, we have the canon that we have, and there are no serious theologians throughout the years who argue that some spurious book was left out but it should not have been; or that we need to take another look at Philemon.

The best way to understand this is, the canon was established by God. He allowed us to recognize it.

The Biographies of Jesus:

The gospels (which term means good news)—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—are 4 different biographies of Jesus the Messiah. Make no mistake about it—these are biographies, where each man observes and/or investigates; and then writes, taking into account his own sensibilities, contacts and experiences. Matthew was not favored by the general Jewish population because he was a tax collector. He would have been regarded as a national traitor by some; but he was a very devout and learned man—and apparently, quite successful at his work.

Matthew knows the Old Testament and he knows the prophecies of the coming Messiah; so he, more than any of the other biographers (and more than most pharisees), brings Old Testament Scripture into the picture. Jesus is the Prophet like Moses, the Suffering Servant, David’s Greater Son, the Messiah—and this is confirmed in His life when compared to the Scriptures about the Messiah. Matthew does this throughout his gospel. Furthermore, Matthew’s ears are honed to hear Old Testament teaching, which is most of what Jesus did. So when Jesus taught something which lined up with the Old Testament, Matthew was likely to recognize it and write down (or remember) both what Jesus taught along with the pertinent Scripture down (from memory). Therefore, Matthew often quoted pertinent Old Testament Scriptures.

Mark was a younger man, closely associated with Peter. He would have been a kid during the Lord’s earthly ministry. Mark may be understood as representing the next generation of believers. He is from the generation who never actually saw Jesus. He does not present the gospel as an eyewitness, but very much from Peter’s viewpoint, Peter being a man of action. Less talking and more doing. Mark may have acted as Peter’s secretary, which would have made the gospel of Mark actually the gospel of Peter. However much Mark was influenced by the testimony of others in writing of his gospel is unknown.

Dr. Peter Pett describes Mark’s gospel in this way: In the Gospel the historical material is brought together with the intention of presenting Jesus Christ in the fullness of His glory. It is not a life story, written out of academic interest, nor, except in general outline, a chronological history, but the reverent recording of truth about Jesus and His teaching that was carefully remembered and passed on by those who knew Him (who were skilled at memorising) because of Who He was, put together in order to present the truth about Him. The purpose was in order to demonstrate that He was what they had come to know Him to be. But there is no extravagance in the descriptions (this lack of extravagance is a distinctive feature of the four Gospels), they are sensible, deliberate, and even understated.

Luke was a gentile, and he focuses primarily upon the humanity of Jesus Christ. The title for Jesus as such is the Son of Man (a title, interestingly enough, found 28 times in Matthew and 25 times in Luke; this title is found half as often in Mark and in John).

Because Luke is focused upon the Lord’s humanity, he is the biographer who focuses in on Mary, and upon the early years in Jesus’ life. (As an aside, Mary is not the mother of God; but she is the mother of the humanity of Jesus Christ).

Because Luke concerns himself with the Lord’s humanity, he therefore focuses on the line of Mary, which goes back all the way to Adam—the key being that Jesus is fully and completely a man. The promise of this Savior goes back to Gen. 3, where He is called the seed of the woman, a very important title, which we will study in the book of Luke.

I have heard it said that, people of that era were more concerned that the humanity of Jesus might get lost in His history, because He did things that no man has ever done before (or since). Therefore, his extraordinary qualities—even His Deity—stand out. But Jesus is fully and completely a man; and this is something that Luke emphasizes throughout.

Whereas, Matthew focuses, in part, upon Jesus’ Jewishness (and, therefore, he takes the paternal line of Jesus back to Abraham), Luke is not confined by the Jewish religion in any way, since he is a gentile to whom God’s grace came. However, Luke clearly respects the Scriptures and he quotes from them from time to time as well. The New Testament believer should never forget that God established a foundation for His faith in the Old Testament. We do not discard the Old Testament for any reason.

Luke was not an eyewitness to any of the incidents in his gospel, but he was an historian and he had contact with perhaps a dozen or more eyewitnesses or people whom he trusted. So he compiled his gospel based upon what others told him (and, I believe, upon the gospels of Matthew and Mark). Luke may have even had access to other biographical material lost to us but written by other Apostles or disciples (we don’t know this; I am simply expressing that this as a possibility). No doubt there were writings in that era lost to time and decay, where others chronicled their encounters with Jesus.

Luke, more than any other writer, emphasizes women who interacted with the Lord. My guess is, he interviewed quite a number of women for writing his gospel; some of their experiences are recorded; and many of their observations are recorded by Luke.

Matthew, Mark and Luke all wrote their gospels around a.d. 50–60. John waited until a.d. 90 or later and wrote his. I believe that he read the other gospels and thought, “What is missing from these gospels? How can I add to this conversation?” Also, people develop a perspective of their life experiences, which might be quite different when a person is 90 as opposed to being 60.

Two things stand out in particular in John’s gospel: a clear delineation of the gospel (“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”); and a clear identification of Jesus with God. In John, Jesus is God the Creator, the God to be worshiped; the Person who, if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father. The gospel message and the Divine Nature of Jesus are nowhere else more perspicuous than in the book of John. I believe that John has a more holistic view of the Lord; a view which is the result of seeing Who the Lord is from more of an historic-theological perspective.

Even though Jesus’ Divine Nature is certainly found in Luke, it is not nearly as prominently featured as it is in John. There is a reason for this. Luke very closely follows the earthly ministry of Jesus. For the most part, Jesus did not go from town to town proclaiming, “I am the Son of God!” Throughout most of His public ministry of 3 or 4 years, Jesus allowed others to recognize and publically witness as to His identity; but Jesus did not do this very often Himself (there is a reason for this). Luke takes that into consideration in recording his biography of Jesus; John presents Jesus as the Son of God, the Creator of mankind and the universe.

Dr. Peter Pett makes this observation: [John’s] Gospel is full of incidental things which confirm that he was an eyewitness to the events that took place. He remembers almost incidentally the time at which events took place, the places at which they occurred, and significant details relating to the events which demonstrate his vivid memory of them. He also portrays himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' who 'sat' (lay on a kind of mattress) next to Jesus at the last supper (John 21:20). And so important were his words seen to be that early church leaders wrote a superscription to confirm his authority (John 21:24).

All of this information is very important because, 2000 years later, skeptics claim that Jesus is simply a legend. However, we have 4 men who record his biography, all of them writing in the same century in which He lived. Whether described by a man who observed Jesus directly, or by a man who never saw Jesus, but heard all about Him—the gospels are very similar. They describe the same man, but from a different perspective. No gospel appears to exaggerate more than the other; neither no gospel to be based upon a legend. There does not appear to be any indication of the formation of a legend or of a mythological person.

It often takes hundreds of years for legends to be formed; and it is nearly impossible to build a legend upon existing contemporary biographies. We know the era during which these biographies were written because theological writers from the 2^nd century are already quoting from these biographies. By the 2^nd century, there were already discussions about which writings were considered to be authoritative, and the gospels were the first to be considered (as well as the first writings to be universally accepted).

For me, when deciding which gospel to begin with, it was a toss up between Luke and John. John would have been an easier choice based upon the Greek, but more difficult when it came to chronology.

How many people in history, prior to the invention of the printing press, have 4 biographies written by their contemporaries? I would suggest that there is no one in human history prior to a.d. 1500 who has 4 contemporaries who have written biographies of him. For one thing, few people are that interesting; secondly, few people would allow anyone to be so close as to be bold enough to write a biography. But, even more incredible is, the bulk of these 4 biographies primarily focus on a 3 or 4 year period of time in the life of Jesus. There is a smattering of early information found in Matthew and Luke (and John does go back to the beginning of history); but these biographies primarily concentrate on the public ministry of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of which, Jesus is the most unlikely religious figure in human history. He traveled mostly on foot; He did not travel very far (mostly He taught in Galilee region and in Jerusalem—traveling perhaps 60 or 70 miles); and He never wrote anything down. We do not have the gospel of Jesus or the epistles or psalms of Jesus (actually, the entire Bible is that).

Furthermore, His public ministry was a scant 3 or 4 years long. We should not even know Who He is; there is nothing in the basic facts of His life and ministry which suggest that Jesus should be remembered at all. Yet, Jesus is the most well-known Man in human history. We divide our history into what happened before Him and what takes place in human history after Him. Not only are there 4 biographies of Him written by 4 contemporaries; but, there have been more books written about Him subsequently than about any other man in human history.

Even those who reject Jesus, cannot help but use His Name in order to swear.

Unlike other religious figures (like Confucius, Buddha or Mohammed), Jesus is essential to Christianity. Confucius, Buddha and Mohammed are not necessary to their respective religions. Had those religions been begun by Larry, Moe and Curly, they would have been the same religion. All religions are a set of beliefs and precepts; and if someone is able to sell those beliefs and practices to a large enough population, then it becomes a significant religion. But whether Curly tells you to pray 5x a day towards Mecca or Mohammed says to do that, it makes no difference. You still have to engage in the same act in order to please God.

Jesus is different. Even though there are a set of precepts which are applicable to the believer in the Church Age, what is fundamental to our thinking is, first, we have to place our faith in Jesus Christ. Not in His teachings, not in His parables, not in any set of rituals that He taught, but in the Person of Jesus Christ. I am saved because Jesus Christ died for my sins. I am sinful before God and have no access to God because of my sinfulness—my sin nature, my personal acts of sin, and the imputation of Adam’s sin to me. It is only through Jesus the Person that I have a relationship with God.

Jesus took my sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for those sins. Because of Jesus, I now have access to God. He is integral to the faith of Christianity. Without Jesus specifically, there is no forgiveness of sin; there is no Christian life; there is no relationship with God. It is the Lord’s death on the cross and His taking upon Himself the penalty for my sins that saves me. If I do not stand upon the Person of Jesus, then no matter what I do in my life, I have no relationship with God—no matter how much I try to obey the Bible or the teachings of Jesus. My access to God is based wholly upon Jesus dying for my sins; my access to God is based wholly upon God accepting my faith in Christ as fundamental and sufficient.

You will notice that I said nothing about any specific church, denomination, sect or group. When it comes to salvation, the local church that you attend is immaterial, as long as they present Jesus Christ as the only Mediator between man and God.

A person might attend church regularly; he might take communion; he might serve on the board of deacons. But—and nearly every denomination will teach this—if he has not placed his faith in Jesus, he is not saved, no matter how Christian he acts. Every person in the world who meets Charley Brown might say, “Now, that Charley is a real Christian—he lives it in his daily life.” But, if Charley has not placed his faith in Christ Jesus, then he is not saved and he will spend eternity in hell—no matter how many people would testify in his behalf.

Furthermore, once you have exercised faith in Jesus Christ, you are saved forever. You cannot lose your salvation, because it is based upon Jesus and what He did for us upon the cross, not upon anything that we do. Some believers even take the attitude, “Well, thank you, God; I will see you in eternity.” And, with that, they go off and they do whatever they want to do. However, even with that attitude, we cannot lose our salvation because our relationship with God is completely based upon the finished work of Christ, not upon anything that we can think, say or do after the fact. Our faith in Jesus Christ is a one-time act; and it places us with God in eternity, no matter what we do after that moment.

The where of Jesus is important. We are going to read about Him traveling from place to place. Therefore, this map will help us to orient to His movements.

Israel During the Time of Jesus (a map); from Conforming to Jesus.com; accessed December 1, 2018.

Jesus visited many synagogues in the Galilee area, indicating that the people there were mostly Jewish. South in Judæa, this would have also been occupied by Jews.

These 4 biographies each view Jesus from a slightly different angle. For this study, we will focus on Luke’s understanding of the Lord. For some incidents, we will refer to other gospels; but, for the most part, I will try to confine our study to Luke’s work.

One thing I ought to point out—the disciples did not necessarily know it all (nor did the prophets of old). Paul was probably the most doctrinally oriented of all the Apostles, and yet, you can know more than Paul knows. My point being, even though Luke records His gospel in accordance with the leading of God the Holy Spirit, Luke does not know everything. He hangs with Paul and he knows a lot of stuff; but he does not know it all. It is possible for you to know and understand more than Luke; and even more than Paul.

How can I make such a statement? Easy, and I will back it up. All of the gospels and most of the epistles had been written by the time that John was exiled to Patmos. He had access to much of this material, and he read the other biographies and he knew what they did not have is, a clear delineation of the gospel and the fact that Jesus is God come to live among mankind. What could be more fundamental to our faith than those two facts; and yet, after studying 3 gospels, those two important founding principles do not jump out at us as they do in the gospel of John. My point being, these truths are fundamental to the faith, and yet, they are not found in the 3 existing gospels.

There are many important doctrines which have been fully developed not necessarily in any passage in the Word of God, but by comparing many passages of the Word of God together. The concept of typology certainly goes back at least to the letter to the Hebrews; but this has been developed in far more detail after the completion of the canon of Scripture. What the inspiration of Scriptures actually means—that comes after the canon was completed. Now, all of these doctrines are based upon the existing Scriptures, but there is nothing to indicate that they were fully developed during the ministry of Paul or Peter or John.

There will be two technical theological terms used in this lesson: dispensationalism and covenant theology. Dispensation is originally the translation of the word oikonomia (οἰκονομία) [pronounced oy-koh-nohm-EE-uh], which means: 1) the management of a household or of household affairs; 1a) specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other’s property; 1b) the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship; 1c) administration, dispensation. Strong’s #3622. The word dispensation is brought over into theology in this way: a dispensation is a period of time in which God oversees His people by functioning through a specific entity—it is how God manages and oversees His household, if you will. We have taken the word dispensation and have applied it to periods of time—epochs—during which God deals with His people in a specific way. If we wanted to strictly stay with the original use of dispensation, then we would speak of the Age or the Epoch of the Jews rather than the Jewish dispensation. However, in common usage today, dispensation can refer to the epoch itself or to how God oversees and interacts with His people (during a specific period of time).

Personally, I was introduced to dispensational theology at a very young spiritual age while purchasing small booklets in a Pentecostal-type bookstore during my first year as a Christian. Even though I rejected the whole second blessing movement; I to this day remember getting this very small and inexpensive booklet which explained the dispensations of God, and it made complete and perfect sense to me.

Covenant theology—which is in opposition to dispensationalism—actually include two very different points of view: (1) the first view is where the differences between Israel and the church are so blurred that, they believe that the first church started in Abraham’s tent. Because of the radical differences between Israel and the church, this is a very difficult position to justify. (2) The second view sees Israel as a specific national entity; but believes that God transferred His promises from an unfaithful nation Israel to those who have believed in Jesus, regardless of their national identity. The more that you push on this second view, following their thinking out to logical conclusions, the closer you move towards dispensationalism.

The umbrella term applied to these two theological positions is covenant theology; but there is no real consistency among groups today who see themselves as churches of the covenant (so to speak). At one end of the spectrum, there are those who believe the first church began in Abraham’s tent and somehow, that is the same thing as the local churches that we have today; and at the other end of the spectrum, we have those who believe that God began with an actual nation Israel, but that they rejected Jesus so strongly, that God took all of His promises for Israel and gave them to people who believed in His Son.

Dispensationalism views nation Israel as a national entity with an important relationship with God up to the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ. However, the church was established after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Israel and the church are logically two very different entities. God worked through Israel for a time (about 2000 years) and now God is working through the church, which, so far, has been a period of about 2000 years.

This point in human history that we live in is known as the Church Age. Church in the Greek is the word ekklêsia (ἐκκλησία) [pronounced ehk-klay-SEE-ah] which means an assembly, a gathering, church. Strong’s #1577. It is used in several different ways: (1) for any public gathering of people; (2) for what is often called the church universal, which refers to all believers (sometimes, we are speaking of all believers on the earth at any given time; and sometimes, all believers who have lived during the Church Age); (3) for the local church, such as, the First Grace Church of Podunk Falls (generally speaking, some members will be believers and some will not be believers; ideally speaking, all who attend are or will become believers). The designation Church Age is all about the universal church—the body of believers—and their responsibilities in this epoch.

One of the reasons that God introduced the concept of Jews and Gentiles is so that He could get across the idea that there are two kinds of people in this world: Jews and Gentiles; saved and unsaved; those who have a relationship with God and those who do not. This does not mean that all Jews were saved; but, that was true when they left Egypt. Interestingly enough, the Exodus generation constantly rebelled against God, despite being saved. But, the larger point is, God differentiates. The Jews, generally speaking, have a relationship with God; and the gentiles, generally speaking, did not. There were certain exceptions to this; and it will become clear in the book of Luke that many Jews did not believe in Jesus. They did not believe Him to be the Jewish Messiah or the promised Jewish King.

God began the Hebrew race with Abraham and his wife Sarah, who went for a very long time without having children. God promised Abraham a child, but, up to this point, they had had none. Sarah finally insisted that Abraham have relations with her personal servant girl, Hagar, and Hagar gave birth to Ishmael. That was not God’s directive will; that was all on Sarah. Ishmael was not the son God had promised to Abraham.

Regardless, 13 years later, Sarah gave birth to a son, Isaac. God only accepted the son Isaac, but not Ishmael, because Isaac believed in Jehovah Elohim. Actually, it was more complicated than that, but we will stay with the simplified version to begin with.

Isaac later had twin sons, Esau and Jacob; and God called Jacob a Hebrew and Esau was a Gentile (God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”). This is because Jacob believed in Jehovah Elohim and developed a relationship with God; but Esau did not (Esau probably believed in God, but he too willingly set his birthright aside). In their lifetimes, Jacob eventually followed the guidance of God; but Esau did not. I say eventually, because Jacob fought against God most of his life (illustrated by his wrestling match with God); but he appeared to finally accept God’s will when living in Egypt.

For about 2000 years, God worked through the Jews; and primarily through the nation Israel. This we call the Age of Israel. However, after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, things changed. The Jews, as a whole, outright rejected their Savior-Messiah. Therefore, God set the Hebrew people aside—temporarily—and began a new program known as the church. The Church began at the Day of Pentecost, sometime around 30–34 a.d., when God poured out His Spirit upon all believers who were assembled in one place with one accord on that day (Acts 2:1–4). Some of the converts of the early church were Jewish and some were gentile. There was no difference between them, because they had all believed in the Risen Christ and they had all been give the Holy Spirit.

However, in between the temporary halt of the Age of Israel and the beginning of the Church Age, we have what has been coined by R. B. Thieme, III (and perhaps others) as the Age of the Hypostatic Union (a term which we will later define). If it is easier to understand this as the Epoch of Jesus, that is just as good of a designation.

During at least the public portion of Jesus’ ministry, God became flesh and lived among us (John 1:1–3, 14). During that time, Jesus Christ first offered the Kingdom of God to the Jews of Judah. However, as a nation, they rejected their King and therefore, they rejected the Kingdom that He offered to them.

Near the end of His ministry, Jesus began to proclaim the Kingdom of God to the Samaritans (half-Jews) and then also to those who were Gentiles. Jesus came to His people, but His people rejected Him; and He would then make Himself available to those who were not His people (compare Hosea 2:23 Romans 9:25). At the very beginning of the book of John, the author John warns us about this: He came to His Own, and His Own people did not receive Him. (John 1:11; ESV; capitalized)

The reason that dispensations are important to the study of the book of Luke is, to understand what Jesus was teaching. He was teaching the Law of God; He lived in the Epoch of Israel and was teaching them the Old Testament as they should have learned it. However, Jesus will also teach some Church Age doctrines; and, therefore, it is important to understand that both dynamics are occurring during the Age of the Hypostatic Union.

Many people do not understand that most of what Jesus teaches in the gospels, during His 3–4 year ministry is primarily the Law of God. He taught the Old Testament. He taught the Law and the Prophets. There is this nonsense generalization that the God of the Old Testament was a God of vengeance; but Jesus reveals a God of Love. Both of those characteristics can be found in the Old and New Testaments; and, interestingly enough, some would argue that both of those character traits of God are anthropopathisms.

When quoting Scripture to make a point, Jesus quoted from the Old Testament—the only Scripture which existed at that time. We should understand the vast majority of the gospels are all about the Jewish Age—and the great failure of the religious class to preserve and accurately teach the Old Testament teachings.

Consequently, Jesus had to prepare His disciples for a change in programs (or a change in household management, if you will). So, Jesus taught His disciples a little about the Church Age (most prominently in the Garden of Gethsemene and during the Last Supper). John presents this teaching in detail; but the other gospels do not. This information was brand new; it did not come out of the Old Testament. These are some of the doctrines that we adhere to today.

Luke, the man, was originally a physician. While associated with Paul, he was an evangelist and probably could be called an apostle (small a). There are the original 11 Apostles, whom we will meet in the Book of Luke; there is Paul, called by Jesus on the Damascus Road; and then there are a half dozen or more people who are called apostles (in the epistles), who had, presumably, several communication gifts and extended authority over more than one local church. These men evangelized (which means to tell groups of people Who and What Jesus Christ is), and they also taught the Word of God, including Church Age doctrines. Some of them founded and stayed with one church, but most traveled around and had authority over more than one local church.

Before the Day of Pentecost, when Jesus gave the Spirit to those who believed in Him, there was no such thing as a local church. After the Day of Pentecost, churches began to be established by the Apostles all over the Roman empire and beyond.

This gift of apostleship died out (it allows for a person to have authority over more than one local church). All of the sign gifts died out. What replaces these gifts is the complete Word of God, which we know as the Old and New Testaments. There are still gifts given by God the Holy Spirit in the post-canon Church Age, but they do not include healing, tongues, interpretation of tongues, miracles or apostleship. These gifts were instrumental in establishing the authority of the men who had them; and through them, local churches were established. However, once these local churches had been established and once the authority of these men had also been established, there became less and less reason for the sign gifts. Once the New Testament had been fully written (prior to a.d. 100) and circulated, there was no longer a need for these early gifts. In fact, most of those gifts died out long before the New Testament had been completed, because the authority of the men with those gifts had been established. The second time that Paul went to a church, he did not have to reestablish his authority there. When Paul’s reputation preceded him or when other established Apostles, like Peter, vouched for his teaching abilities (which Peter did), then Paul did not have to establish his authority.

And regarding the most important gift of the early Church Age—Apostleship—John was the last living Apostle.

For about 2000 years, God worked through the national entity Israel. He sent them prophets and priests; He interacted with Israel; and the Old Testament Scriptures were written by Hebrew people (Job and the first 10 or so chapters of Genesis may be exceptions to this). After Jesus, God works through the church—the body of believers who have believed in Him. There are a set of protocols established for nation Israel; there are a separate set of protocols established for the local church.

The church and nation Israel are two very different entities with great differences between them. There are some things which they have in common; and many places where they diverge. However, make no mistake about this fact: the church is not a reworking of Israel, it is not a new and somewhat improved incarnation of Israel, it is not a replacement for Israel. The covenants which God made to Israel have not been taken away from the Hebrew people and given to or applied to the church, either as they stand in Scriptures or in some modified, spiritualized way. The church is not a permanent replacement for or new version of Israel. The promises that God made to Israel are not somehow spiritualized and then applied to this new entity, the church. In today’s computer-driven parlance, the Church is not Israel 2.0. Those are a variety of incorrect notions, most of which are known today as covenant theology.

You may have noticed that I kept using the word spiritualized, regarding the reworking of the original promises (covenants). This is somewhat of a nonsensical term, because Israel was not reworked in some spiritual way and out comes the church. And how exactly do you take the very specific promises of Israel and give them to those who have believed in Jesus? Does this mean that God has given you an apartment in downtown Jerusalem that you only need claim?

Even worse is the theology which somehow puts on blinders and sees the church as being basically the same thing as Israel. The blinders keep such a person from seeing the stark differences between the two.

Covenant theology claims that (1) God made a variety of covenants (contracts, agreements, promises) with Israel (most of which are one-sided agreements); (2) Israel did a really lousy job holding up her end of these contracts; and so (3) God sets Israel aside for good and develops a similar relationship with believers after the time of Christ, who then take the place of Israel, and are, in a sense, spiritualized Israel. Many of this theological position go so far as to claim that the church actually began in Abraham’s tent, and that what we have today is just some normal outgrowth of that tent-church. As R. B. Thieme, Jr. so succinctly put it, balderdash!

Hopefully, you can see that these are very different beliefs, but they fall under the classification of covenant theology. The problem with taking this position is, just how much credence do you give to ancient nation Israel? The more than you distinguish between ancient Israel and the modern church, the closer you come to dispensationalism (which is the correct way to view the history of man through God’s eyes).

To be continued....

Recall that Covenant Theology teaches that (1) Israel was set aside because of her failure to believe in Jesus and all promises to Israel were spiritualized and transferred to Christians; or (2) Israel always was the same thing as the church; it began in Abraham’s tent (that was the first meeting of the church).

In reality, the church and Israel are two separate and distinct entities. To construct the people and later, the nation, of Israel, God began with a people who were descended genetically from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (named Israel by God). God preserved this people and He isolated them, so that there was no intermixture with other peoples. The books of Genesis and Exodus are very careful about presenting the protection and preservation of this genetic identity.

This people were cultivated, you might say, by God, in the land of Canaan in Genesis 12–45. God then brought all of them in Gen. 46 to Egypt, where they remained isolated from the Egyptians, in whose nation they lived. They lived in Egypt for 400 years and then God removed them, taking them back to the land of Canaan.

At this point in time, after Israel had been 400 years in Egypt, the inhabitants of Canaan had reached a point of terrible degeneracy. At this point in time, the people of Israel were large enough to defeat the peoples of Canaan and to end their perverted religious practices (which included child sacrifice). God brought them into Canaan and gave that land to them. However, they had to take this land militarily, which is the story of the book of Joshua. It ought to be clear that none of this has anything at all to do with the modern church. Israel was called upon on many occasions to use her military might. This is not part of what is required of the church. We don’t have a church military force. We don’t meet with other churches and go on military maneuvers or to combat retreats (this does not mean that some believers of the same church cannot share this sort of enthusiasm with each other—I am simply saying that this is not a church-wide experience).

God’s relationship with Israel was defined by a series of covenants (or contracts or agreements), given successively to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and later to Moses and the people as a whole. Finally, God gave a covenant specifically to King David.

When God sent the promised King/Messiah to Israel, they rejected Him. Had Israel, as a whole, accepted Jesus as their King/Messiah/Savior, then that nation would have gone right into the Millennium and God’s ultimate promises would have been fulfilled to them. Most of the covenants of God were one-sided, meaning, God made promises of what He would do for Israel—it would have been very hard for Israel to break their half of the covenant, because the covenant never really depended upon them. However, the people of Israel rejected their Messiah Whom God sent—they crucified Him (actually, set Him up to be crucified by the Romans). Obviously, because God cannot fulfill His covenants with people who have rejected their Savior and Messiah; He had to set this people aside temporarily. The people of Israel will return to their God.

There will be a literal nation Israel in the future ruled over by Jesus Christ. After the church is raptured, the Age of Israel will be concluded. There are 7 more years remaining on Israel’s clock. When Jesus rules over nation Israel, that will be a new dispensation known as the Millennium.

On a temporary (or interim) basis, God has raised up the church, the body of believers who believe in Him. The church is the entity through which God works on earth today. We are not confined to a particular nation; we do not continue to write Scripture; and who we are descended from is never an issue. We do not observe any of the rituals which the people of Israel engaged in. We do not keep the Sabbath.

The fact that God is working through a different entity in no way supports or encourages antisemitism. We do not refer to the sons of Jacob as Christ-killers; we would be foolish to think that they no longer have any part in the plan of God. It would be wrong to see ourselves as superior or better than them, in any way. A child of Jacob can, today, believe in Jesus Christ, and many do. That person is eternally saved and he becomes a part of the church (the body of believers). When we encounter recalcitrant Jews—those who continue to reject Jesus Christ—then we bear them no animus and we pray for them. God wants all people to come to the knowledge of repentance (= a change of mind), regardless of their racial or ethnic background (this promise extends to Arabs and Muslims, the drug addicted, and gays and even transgenders; there is no one for whom Christ did not die—no matter how repugnant they might be to us; no matter how much they have screwed up their own lives).

Essentially, everyone is on a level-playing field now, but it would be evil on our part to treat nation Israel or people descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as wrong, bad, or inferior. God wants to see every person saved, which includes every Jew. God’s promises concerning Israel have not been retracted. Those who bless Israel will still be blessed by God. Those who disparage the sons of Jacob will they themselves be cursed. That promise of God still stands and it means what it says it means.

Jesus lived during the time of the Mosaic Law; He lived in the Age of Israel. However, there are some unique aspects to the time during which He lived. Probably the two things which stand out are (1) Jesus test-drove the Christian way of life for us; that is, He lived by the guidance and power of God the Holy Spirit (which required Jesus to know the Old Testament); and (2) Jesus’ disciples could have, at any time, asked for the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

What makes the time of Jesus separate from the Age of Israel and the Church Age is, God was on earth as a Person. Jesus was the only authority at that time. The Bible was the Old Testament, but Jesus was able to properly interpret them, apart from the wrong-headed religious views of His day.

During the life of Jesus, the priests of Israel had totally corrupted their authority; the church did not exist; and the future Apostles were, at this time, under the training and teaching of Jesus. This period of time is sometimes called the Age (or dispensation) of the Hypostatic Union.

The term hypostatic union refers to the two natures of Christ (divine and human) being united in One Person. This was not to original meaning or use of the word hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) [pronounced hoop-OSS-tas-is]. Hupostasis was Greek term later taken and used to represent the two natures of Christ in the 4^th or 5^th centuries. Originally, hupostasis meant (concretely) essence, (or abstractly) assurance. Strong’s #5287. At some point in the future, we will cover this doctrine; but it can be found here. One of the first times this term is used in this technical sense is by Athanasius (298–373 a.d.), a bishop of Alexandria (Egypt), in the fourth century.

It is key to understand that, in the Church Age, the Holy Spirit alone is not very helpful. The Holy Spirit requires some of the believer: Bible doctrine in their soul. Think of the Holy Spirit as the gas for your car. If you don’t have a car, the gas is not going to get you anywhere. The better vehicle that you have, the more bang that you will get for your buck, so to speak, regarding the gas. Think of our vehicle as being the Bible doctrine in our souls. A person with no Bible doctrine is like a man with a 5 gallon pail of gas who expects to go somewhere. You can’t go anywhere without a car.

The person who wrote the most of the New Testament is not Paul, who wrote 13 epistles; nor it is John, who wrote the Gospel of John, the Revelation and 3 epistles; but it is Luke, the only Gentile to write any portion of the Bible—with the possible exceptions of whoever wrote the first 10 chapters of Genesis and possibly the book of Job, books which were written before God distinguished between Jews and Gentile (or so, we think about Job).

This will be the final introductory lesson before we actually begin the book of Luke. However, we should take just a little time to discuss the Person Whom we will study, Jesus of Nazareth. Based upon biographical facts of His life that we know about, we should not even know Who this Man is.

He was born to a working class family. His father was a carpenter. Although sometimes their poorness is overemphasized, in my opinion, they were certainly not a rich couple; nor were they a family of note. When they went to pay their taxes, which required them to leave their home in Nazareth, and go to a centralized area, they ended up in Bethlehem, where the wife gave birth to Jesus. It would make sense that they owned some property and/or made some amount of money; which would explain why they had to pay taxes. Obviously, there were no exemptions granted for a pregnant wife.

When Jesus was born, they traveled to Egypt, believing their Son to be in danger of being killed by Herod. Later, this small family returned to Judæa when they believed it to be safe. Jesus grew up in Nazareth, apparently trained as a carpenter by His father.

Jesus apparently had a great interest in the Old Testament Scriptures (simply known as the Scriptures); and, at some point, Jesus began teaching. His public ministry only lasted for 3 or 4 years. He never wrote anything down, He did not write an autobiography. He did not write down a set of His teachings to distribute to those who might be interested. He simply went from synagogue to synagogue to teach; and many times, He was not well-received. On occasion, His life was threatened, even though no one appeared to be able to present a credible theological argument against what Jesus was teaching.

Most of His teaching was about the Scriptures; and most of the time, anything that He taught could be found elsewhere in the Word of God. Very often, He found Himself in opposition to the scribes, pharisees and lawyers of that day, primarily because their teachings were based upon traditions and extra-Scriptural regulations and not upon the accepted Scriptures. Based upon the biographical material that we have, the so-called experts in the Mosaic Law had trouble opposing Him if arguing from the Scriptures alone.

Jesus was not a man of distinction by birth; He was rejected by the religious scholars of His day—in fact, they saw to it that He was executed. Although He apparently taught for lengthy periods of time, all of his teaching took place over a period of 3 or 4 years; and He traveled perhaps a 100 miles or so. In fact, most of His public ministry occurred within a 30 mile radius of His hometown or of His birthplace.

Given these few details, it is a wonder that we have any idea Who this Man was. Remarkably, 4 men wrote about Him. 2 men who knew Him intimately (they were among His followers) and 2 men who apparently did not know Jesus personally, but became followers of Him after His death and subsequent resurrection and ascension.

It is because of these 4 men and His other followers that we know Who Jesus is. Although there are 4 gospel writers, there are also 6 different men who wrote the epistles (letters) (I am assuming that the writer of Hebrews is different from the other 5 men). This gives us at least 8 and possibly 9 different men who testified to the Person and teachings of Jesus. At the same time, we have no one from this same era disputing their biographies or letters (Josephus, a Jewish historian in this era, would have been the most likely person to cast aspersions on the Person of Jesus, but he does not).

The opposition to Him was so fierce that they killed Jesus; but none of these scholars, insofar as we know, produced any writings to contradict Jesus’ biographies, His teachings, His miracles; or the teachings of His followers (which teachings were clearly not exactly the same as the Lord’s).

Despite His Own limited ministry, Jesus is the most well-known Person in human history. He is known by name in virtually every country on earth. Man’s history is divided, roughly, by His birth (what occurs before is before Christ; and what occurs after is in the year of our Lord). Even when people reject Him, many of them cannot seem to help themselves when it comes to using His name in a trite and exclamatory way—often on a daily basis.

What we will study is one of the biographies of Jesus. Although we will bring in other information from His other biographies, we will primarily concentrate on what Luke said about the Lord.

Luke focuses more upon the humanity of Jesus than any of the other gospels, but without setting aside His Kingship or Deity. The biological mother of Jesus and Jesus’ childhood are given a great deal of attention by Luke as compared the Lord’s other biographers. Various ceremonies applied to Jesus the infant are also found here, but nowhere else. Also, the line Jesus, through Mary, is documented all the way back to Adam (actually, all the way back to God). Luke 3:23–38