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

On a personal note, when choosing a gospel to exegete, I made a decision to pursue the book of Luke rather than the book of John (I exegeted the first chapter of both of them to help make that decision). What drew me to John was his unique perspective and the fact that he was isolated for a time on the Isle of Patmos, which is what gave him the space and breathing room to write (which may not have been John’s natural inclination). I also knew that John’s Greek was much easier than Luke’s.

However, I eventually chose Luke because his gospel leads naturally to the book of Acts; he provides a great deal of historical background; his Greek is more complex, but then, more interesting; and there is a tremendous emphasis placed upon the teaching of Jesus more than on the acts of Jesus.

Given my age, I don’t know if I will have the opportunity to fully explore a second gospel.

The second half of Luke 3 begins the genetic line of Jesus, working backwards from Jesus all the way to Adam (the genealogy in Matthew begins with Abraham and moves forward to Jesus).

Dividing up the genealogy which follows is somewhat difficult (that is, how many names should be placed in each verse or in each passage?). What Dr. Peter Pett does is interesting. He divides up the genealogy into many sets of seven names. I eventually opted for dividing up the names into groups of 14 in my own chapter-by-chapter study (HTML) (PDF) (WPD). Unlike Pett, I chose to not include Jesus in the first list of 14, but began with Joseph’s name instead. In any case, Jesus is a part of this genealogy and Joseph is not (I will explain that as we go further in this study).

In this weekly e-mailed study, I will stick with the ESV text, which divides everything up verse by verse (which is what we would expect; although chapter and verse divisions were not a part of the original text).

Luke actually presents Mary’s genealogical line; so even though Joseph will be named as if he in this line. However, this is actually the line of Mary that Luke records. Although Mary’s name does not appear anywhere in this line, it is still her line. I will explain how we are able to read this into the text (it is tricky but you will understand it).

This genealogy is fascinating, because the number of names between Jesus and Nathan (the first person that I know in this line, except for Jesus and Joseph) is about the same length as a combination of the two lines which come after (David to Abraham and then Terah to Adam). I have studied these second two lines historically—I have spent much of my Christian life doing that. And yet, the names in this genealogical line that I will never study in any depth—that list is just as long. This half chapter is the only place where we find the names of the men beginning with Heli (Mary’s father; Jesus’ grandfather) and going back to Nathan.

It is also fascinating the detail and the records which were kept on these men who were, insofar as we know, nothing special. Is there a David among them or an Abraham? Or a Noah? We don’t really know. My initial instinct with this first list of names is to say, no. But I must quickly add, I really don’t know. There was no Scripture recorded during that period of time.

Luke 3:23a Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years of age,...

This marks the beginning of our Lord’s public ministry, when He is about 30 years old. It is a reasonable assumption that Jesus being baptized by John began the Lord’s public ministry. However, before we begin to study His earthly ministry (which is the bulk of the book of Luke), we will look at His genealogical past.

At first, it appears as though this genealogical line is thrown illogically into the second half of Luke 3, almost as an afterthought; but this placement is very logical. A bird’s eye view helps us to understand this:

Luke 3:23a Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years of age,... (NKJV)

Several times, I have suggested that this takes place around a.d. 25. This is because the Lord was born 4–6 b.c. The calendar which we have accepted originally wanted to place the birth of our Lord at 1 b.c. (or at a.d. 1), but there was a miscalculation. So, many years after this calender had been accepted and placed into general use, it was determined that it missed its intended mark by a few years.

Luke 3:23a Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years of age,... (NKJV)

There are actually a couple of things happening in this verse which most readers would be unaware of. First, v. 23 begins with the kai conjunction (which properly ties it to the previous verse and previous section). This tells us that Luke, the human author, consciously added the Lord’s genealogy here. Luke as the author and editor found this to be the right place to consider the Lord’s genealogy.

The subject of this verse is the 3^rd person masculine singular nominative of autos (αὐτός) [pronounced ow-TOSS], which means, he. Strong’s #846. Although this is often interpreted as being a reflexive pronoun, it is not necessarily one; and there is a reflexive pronoun in the Greek, but which is not used here. I know that it seems weird that I say that, but I mention this, because many translators treat this as a reflexive pronoun. The reflexive pronoun is heautou (ἑαυτο) [pronounced heh-ow-TO], which is clearly not what we have here. Translations are split about half and half, between those who see this as a reflexive pronoun and those who do not.

V. 23 using autos as a reflexive pronoun:

Len Gane Paraphrase                  And Jesus, himself, starting [his ministry] was about thirty years old...

A. Campbell's Living Oracles        Now Jesus was himself about thirty years in subjection,...

God’s Truth (Tyndale)                  And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age when he began,...

Israeli Authorized Version             And Y'shuw`a himself began to be about thirty years of age,...

V. 23 using autos as a simple pronoun:

Bible in Basic English                   And Jesus at this time was about thirty years old,...

Bible in Worldwide English           Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work.

American English Bible                 Well, Jesus came into his power when he was about thirty years old,...

Christian Community (1988)         When Jesus made his appearance, he had reached the age of thirty years.

The main verb is the imperfect active indicative of to be. What we have here are two nominatives (autos and Jesus), connected by the verb to be. Literally, this reads, He is Jesus; or [The] Same is Jesus...

What we have here in the Greek is different from the NKJV (and many other translations). The most literal translation, so far, is: The Same [one] is Jesus,... That is, Luke is tying Jesus, the man just baptized by John, to the Jesus of the genealogy which is to follow. He is One and the same Person.

The word began is the present middle participle of archomai (ἄρχομαι) [pronounced AR-khom-ahee], which means, beginning; being the first [to do something], the one commencing (in order of time). Strong’s #756.

The words his ministry are not found in the Greek, but reasonably implied.

Other translations read:

Analytical Literal Translation         And Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began [His public ministry],...

Complete Apostles’ Bible             Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age,...

Updated Bible Version 2.1            And Jesus was about thirty years of age.

Voice in the Wilderness                And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age,...

World English Bible                      Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old,...

Even though, most of these are considered very literal translations, they did not translate these first words as literally as they could have. The most common way to translate two nominatives, X and Y, where there is the verb to be, is, X is Y.

A more literal rendering would be: And the Same is Jesus, having begun [His ministry], [being] about 30 years [of age],... The bracketed words are added to smooth out the translation; they are not found in the original Greek text.

The intent of the Greek is to tie Jesus in the previous verse to the Jesus of this new section. This same Jesus is the One in the previous passage—the Man just baptized by John the Herald and the man at the beginning of this genealogy are the same man. This verse specifically looks back to what has come before. Luke is writing, now, this same [man] is Jesus [Whom I have been writing about]; He began [His ministry] when He was about 30 years [of age]. But, to be clear, the words His ministry or His teaching do not occur in the text of this verse.

How do we get those words, His ministry? This comes out from the present middle participle of archomai (ἄρχομαι) [pronounced AR-khom-ahee], which means, beginning; being the first [to do something], the one commencing (in order of time). Strong’s #756. This same Jesus is beginning something; so many translations have inserted, at this point, His ministry, His teaching. Interestingly enough, this was not inserted by the KJV (which has a powerful influence on Bible translations, even to this day). The other interpretation is, Jesus...is beginning [at] about 30 years of age. Even though what He is beginning is open to interpretation, given what comes first (His baptism) and what comes after (His teaching, which makes up the bulk of the book of Luke), we may reasonably insert the words His teaching, His ministry.

Luke 3:23a   And He [even] He was Jesus, beginning, about years thirty,... (Kukis slavishly literal translation) or...

Luke 3:23a   And the Same [One] is Jesus, beginning, about thirty years [old]... (Kukis moderately literal translation)

What is Jesus beginning at this point? His public ministry. What we will study from this point forward (that is, after we complete His genealogy) is His public ministry, which is the time frame of the Lord’s life that we are most familiar with.

We know that Jesus, for nearly all of His life, has studied the Scriptures (these would have been the Old Testament Scriptures, as there was no New Testament at this time), and is prepared to launch His ministry. Jesus, in His humanity, did not automatically know everything that He needed to know. Spiritual knowledge was developed in his soul over this period of 30 years. In other words, Jesus learned Bible doctrine as a child and as a young adult. We are told this in Luke 2:40 And the Child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor [= grace] of God was upon Him. Also Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. This must refer to Jesus’ humanity.

God’s knowledge never increases. God does not learn something new every day. Let’s say that we do something out of the ordinary; do you think that God then looks down and remarks, “Well, I’ll be doggoned; I did not see that coming!”? God knows every single decision that we will make. He knew this in eternity past.

Jesus is God, but in His humanity, Jesus did not access the perfect, complete knowledge which God possessed. This is the doctrine of kenosis, where Jesus, in His humanity, voluntarily restricted the assets which He had as God. It would be quite a theological discussion to determine whether Jesus ever accessed His divine attributes. I would lean towards our Lord never accessing His Divine nature throughout His entire life to His death during the crucifixion—however, this is not a theological position which I have fully developed. Obviously, at specific times when He is glorified, the physical representation of this could have been done by God the Father and not by Himself as God the Son.

For the Doctrine of Kenosis, see lesson #069 or Luke 2.

So far, in the genealogy, we have covered a third of a verse.

Luke 3:23a   And the Same [One] is Jesus, beginning, about thirty years [old]... (Kukis moderately literal translation)

Let’s move to v. 23b:

Luke 3:23b ...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph,...

Unlike v. 23a, 23b is translated quite literally.

Joseph means let him add.

Jesus is not said here to be the Son of Joseph, but He is supposed to be the Son of Joseph, meaning that others simply assumed that relationship between Joseph and Jesus. Given that Luke carefully documents that Jesus is not the actual Son of Joseph in the previous chapters, this is exactly in line with that.

At this point in time, and throughout most of the Lord’s public ministry, people who knew Jesus, met Him or knew of Him did not fully appreciate the virgin birth; and would have simply assumed that Joseph is the father. People did not come up to Jesus, at various intervals of His ministry, and say, “So, You are not really the Son of Joseph?” This doctrine is fundamental to Christology; but not necessarily one which was explained or discussed during the Lord’s public ministry. Jesus did not, in the middle of a teaching session, look at those in His periphery, and remark, “By the way, do you know that I was born of a virgin!”

Luke, who probably never met Jesus in person, understood very well the importance of the virgin birth. Matthew, who tied Jesus very carefully to the Old Testament, also understood the importance of the virgin birth.

It is likely that very few people truly appreciated the virgin birth of the Lord until after His death, burial and resurrection. Remember, understanding in the Christian life is a process; it does not happen all at once. You yourself did not believe in Jesus, and then, 2 seconds later, understood everything that you should know about Jesus. It is a process. I was saved in 1972 and am writing this in 2020; yet I am still learning.

Luke 3:23b ...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph,...

There are two verbs in this phrase. The first is the present participle of Strong’s #1510: ôn/ousa/on (ὤν/οσα/ὅν) [pronounced own/OO-sah/on], which means, being, be, is, are; come; have. Strong’s #5607 (some specific verb forms have their own Strong’s # at times).

The second verb is actually the main verb, even though it appears to be incidental to this phrase. It is the 3^rd person singular, imperfect passive indicative of nomizô (νομίζω) [pronounced nom-IHD-zoh]. It means, to suppose, to think; to do by law (usage); to deem, to regard. Strong’s #3543.

Here is how many translators dealt with v. 23a-b:

Complete Jewish Bible                 Yeshua was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. It was supposed that he was a son of Yosef...

Israeli Authorized Version             And Y'shuw`a himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was regarded legally) the son of Yosef,...

An Understandable Version          And Jesus was about thirty years old when He began to teach. (It was assumed that) He was the son of Joseph,...

The Expanded Bible                     The Family History of Jesus

When Jesus began his ministry, he was about thirty years old. People thought that Jesus was Joseph’s son... [^C they were unaware of the virginal conception].

Far Above All Translation             Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old, beginning his ministry, being, as was reckoned by law, the son-in-law of Joseph,...

This is the only place in this genealogy where we have the words, the son of (in the Greek, this is actually one word). No matter how your English translation reads, the words the son of occurs nowhere else in this line or in any subsequent verse.

Interestingly enough, the only place where we find the actual word son in the Lukian genealogy, is the only place where there is not an actual father-son relationship being stated.

Back to the genealogy:

Luke 3:23c ...the son of Heli,... [I continue to use the ESV; capitalized in this study, so the words son of will continue to be used, even though the word son is not actually found here.]

Even though the names in this line are not declined (many proper nouns are not declined), there is a definite article before each name, indicating the declension of the proper noun. These proper nouns are in the ablative (because each of them is preceded by a definite article in the ablative case), meaning of ___.

Whereas Joseph is supposed to be Jesus’ father, that language is not used of any of the names which follow. Since this line does not match the line of Jesus in Matthew, we know that we must, therefore, be viewing the line of Mary. Jesus is the actual son of Mary and Jesus is a descendant (or son) of Heli. Again, the definite article is in the ablative case, so we understand this to read, Jesus...of Heli. Since Jesus is not said to be the actual son of Joseph, but there are no such qualifier placed upon Heli, Jesus would be his son (or, more accurately, descendant). It is reasonable to suppose that Mary’s father is named Heli, since Jesus is said to be his son (or, descendant).

The genealogical line of any person is actually two lines: the line of one’s father and the line of one’s mother. Since we have a whole different set of names in Matthew, which is clearly Joseph’s line, by process of elimination (and by the wording), this is Mary’s line.

It would be reasonable to suppose that Jesus (not Joseph) is of Heli. Or, as is inserted by the ESV (and many other translations), the son of Heli.

There are not many translations which get this, and so, most of them sound as if Joseph is the son of Heli; but he is not. The translations which follow actually translate this part of v. 23 incorrectly.

Christian Community (1988)         When Jesus made his appearance, he had reached the age of thirty years. He was known as the son of Joseph, whose father and forefathers were: Heli,...

Free Bible Version                        Jesus was around thirty when he began his public ministry. People presumed he was the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli,...

God’s Truth (Tyndale)                  And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age when he began, being as men supposed the son of Joseph: which Joseph was the son of Heli:...

The Heritage Bible                        And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years, being, as was supposed,²³ the son of Joseph, who was of Heli,...

²³ 3:23 as was supposed, nomizo, to do or be by the law. We have translated this word supposed, that which you would suppose since by law that is what is normally done; here its meaning is by law, because by law Jesus was the son of Joseph; but we have used supposed in order to be consistent with its use in all of its other 14 places where it clearly is suppose.

Complete Jewish Bible                 Yeshua was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. It was supposed that he was a son of Yosef who was of Eli,... [Take note of the more accurate transliterations of the names Jesus and Joseph in the CJB.]

The Expanded Bible                     The Family History of Jesus

When Jesus began his ministry, he was about thirty years old. People thought that Jesus was Joseph’s son [^C they were unaware of the virginal conception].

Joseph was the son of Heli [^C “son” in Hebrew can mean “descendant,” so there may be gaps in the genealogy].

If I have named the Bible which you use most often, you may be confused by this passage, simply because the translation you use is misleading at this point. These versions, which are generally good translations; are offered as examples which fail at this point.

There are a number of translations which could be understood to go either way. That is, maybe it is Jesus Who is of Heli and maybe is it Joseph who is of Heli.

20^th Century New Testament       When beginning his work, Jesus was about thirty years old. He was regarded as the son of Joseph, whose ancestors were--Eli, Mattith, Levi, Melchiah, Janna, Joseph,... [I have included v. 24 for context; obviously, this could be taken in two different ways]

Len Gane Paraphrase                  And Jesus, himself, starting [his ministry] was about thirty years old and was (as was commonly thought) the son of Joseph, who was [the son] of Heli,...

There are only a handful of translations which try to give us the actual sense of what is being said in this line. It is Jesus, and not Joseph, Who is the son of Heli. The translation below either make this point clear, or they are ambiguous enough so that it could go either way.

Wilbur Pickering’s New T.            Mary’s genealogy ¹⁶
(Beginning His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (so it was supposed) a son of Joseph, Jesus Himself¹⁷ was of Eli,¹⁸... [Pickering’s footnotes at this point are quite extensive, and, therefore, not included here; however, they may be found in Luke 3 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).]

Far Above All Translation             Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old, beginning his ministry, being, as was reckoned by law, the son-in-law of Joseph, who was the son-in-law of Heli,...

Modern Literal Version                 And he was approximately thirty years old, when beginning to teach, (as it was supposed, the son of Joseph). Although Jesus, himself was a descendant from Heli,...

Both Pickering and the MLV give us perhaps the best translation/interpretation of this passage.

At the point of Heli, we begin to follow the line of Mary. Examining the genealogy of the mother is a very rare thing in ancient history. In fact, it is so unusual, this the line takes some work to figure out that it is Mary’s that we are reading.

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,... [I continue to use the ESV; capitalized throughout; the ESV is ambiguous at this point.]

We are not quite finished with this verse.

We left off last time with v. 23, and the subject matter was, whose line is this? Let’s take the ESV and add a few additional words to it:

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, [Jesus is] the [actual] son [or, descendant] of Heli,... [the ESV, capitalized; with some supplementary text designed to clarify the relationships]

Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph; however, He is the biological son grandson of Heli, who would have been Mary’s father.

Heli’s name is only found here in this verse.

There are two genealogical lines for the Lord: here and in Matt. 1; and these lines are different. So, how do we determine which is Joseph’s and which is Mary’s? Joseph would be Jesus’ legal father, but not His biological father. Mary would be Jesus’ biological mother. Therefore, those in one line are directly related to the humanity of Jesus; and those in the other line are Jesus’ legal, but not biological, ancestors.

Let’s approach this in another way. The way that this is written is Jesus was assumed to be the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. There are two ways in which this can be interpreted. Either Jesus is the son (descendant) of Heli or Joseph is. This can be understood either way in the Greek. Although usually, the closest noun would be taken, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Generally speaking, if Jesus is the son of Joseph, then He is automatically the son (descendant) of Joseph’s father. But the line differs from a normal genealogical line from the very beginning....Jesus is the supposed son of Joseph. So Jesus is not the son of Joseph nor is He the grandson of Joseph’s father.

When we come to the name Heli, there is no phrase as was supposed. We have a binary choice here: Jesus is of Heli or Joseph is of Heli. One of those things must be true; and the other false. Since there is no Heli in the line of Joseph (given in Matt. 1), then Jesus must be the son or descendant of Heli. Therefore, Heli would be Mary’s father (possibly grandfather, but I would suggest father).

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, [Jesus is] the [actual] son [or, descendant] of Heli,... [the ESV, capitalized; with some supplementary text]

Heli means, elevation, ascending; climbing up.

With that, we have complete one entire verse of the Lukian genealogy.

We have been studying Luke 3:23, making many references to the line of Christ in the book of Matthew. The genealogical line in Matthew is unequivocally the line of Joseph (that is, we do not have the words as was supposed anywhere in the Matthew record). We will take a break from the Lukian genealogy and take an abbreviated look at Matthew’s record.

We begin in Matt. 1:1–2:

Matt. 1:1 The Book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the Son of David, the son of Abraham:... (Green’s Literal Translation)

Matthew gives the highlights of the Lord’s genealogy: Jesus, David, Abraham. These men are legally the Lord’s ancestors through Joseph. They are also genetically the Lord’s ancestors through Mary (as we will see, the line from Abraham to David is identical and intact for both Joseph and Mary. Matthew does not completely distinguish between two lines here, but we will. The line given in Matthew is Joseph’s line. There will not be another way of interpreting it.

Matthew is a book of fulfilled prophecy. He continually quotes the Old Testament and relates it to the events that he records in his biography of Jesus. He focuses upon both Abraham and David in v. 1 because a number of promises were made to each man, by God; and many of these prophecies are fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ.

With v. 2, Matthew begins to tells us exactly how Jesus is legally a descendant of Abraham and David. However, in the book of Luke, we will see that Jesus is the actual descendent of Abraham and David.

Matt. 1:2 Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers. (Green’s Literal Translation)

Everyone who is a descendant of Jacob is a true racial Jew (by genealogy). All of the sons of Jacob are specifically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and as such, they are God’s chosen people. All people descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are God’s chosen people. Every person descended from the 12 sons of Jacob is considered a Jew by genetics. At this point, at the end of v. 2, we are in the line of Judah, Jacob’s 4^th son.

Do not panic; we are not going to cover the entire genealogical line in Matthew and then do the same in Luke. There is a very important consideration for us to consider in Matthew’s genealogical record.

We proceed through a list of names, and then we come to...

Matt. 1:16 ...and Jacob [ben Matthan] fathered Joseph, the husband to be of Mary, out of whom Jesus was born, the One called Christ. (Green’s literal translation)

Notice that Jacob ben Matthan fathers Joseph—it is hard to understand this in any way other than Jacob (son of Matthan) being Joseph’s actual father (or grandfather). But notice how Jesus is placed in this line: Joseph is identified as the son of Jacob and the husband to be of Mary. It is from Mary that Jesus is born (not from Joseph and Mary). Jesus is clearly born of Mary, but Joseph is simply listed as the future husband of Mary (they had not yet consummated their marriage). There is no direct genealogical connection stated between Joseph and Jesus.

The Two Genealogies and the Coniah Curse:

There is a very important difference in these two genealogies. From Abraham to David, the genealogies recorded by Matthew and Luke are the same; however Joseph’s genealogy (in Matthew) picks up with Solomon and follows the royal line to Joseph; but Mary’s genealogy (in Luke) picks up with Nathan (presumably Solomon’s younger brother) and follows his line to Jesus.

As we view these two genealogies, bear in mind that Luke begins with Jesus and works backwards to Adam (and to God); Matthew begins with Abraham and works forward to Joseph, Jesus’ step-father.

Luke 3:31b –32a ...the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse,...

Matt. 1:6 ...and Jesse fathered David the king. And David the king fathered Solomon out of her who had been the wife of Uriah,... (Green’s literal translation)

This is where the two lines diverge. The book of Luke presents the line of Heli to Nathan (Heli being the Lord’s genetic grandfather) and the book of Matthew presents the line as going forward from Solomon to Joseph (called the future husband of Mary in Matt. 1:16 and called the supposed father of Jesus in Luke 3:23). Joseph is never tied genetically to Jesus; Joseph is the legal father of Jesus; and throughout his life, he was presumed to be the father of Jesus (even though he wasn’t).

There are two different lines leading to Jesus—the line of Abraham to Jesus, through Solomon, found in Matt. 1:1–16. This is the legal line of Jesus, going from Abraham to Joseph, who is Jesus’ adopted father, but not genetic father. The line in Luke 3 is the actual line of the humanity of Jesus, which goes through Nathan, the son of David, proceeding eventually to Jesus Himself. Both of these lines are identical between Abraham and David; but Joseph and Mary are descended from different sons of David. They are 25^th cousins, give or take.

In the line of David, we come down to Josiah, one of Israel’s last good kings; whose son was Jehoiakim; whose son was the father of Jechoniah (1Chron. 3:16 Matt. 1:11). Jechoniah was cursed by God.

In the book of Matthew, Joseph’s genealogy goes through Jehoiachin (also called Jeconiah or Coniah). This line reads:

Matt. 1:10–12 ...and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,... (ESV)

Jeconiah was evil, as was his generation, so that God caused them all to be deported to Babylon as a national punishment (also known as the 5^th stage of national disciple or the 5^th cycle of discipline). For Israel to be forced out of the land, things had to get pretty bad. Very often, when a nation reaches such a stage when maximum discipline is applied by God, both the leaders and the people are in maximum reversionism (or maximum negative volition towards the plan of God). Whereas, I believe that Coniah was (or eventually became) a believer in the Revealed God, we do not know about the people of Israel. No doubt many were; but it appears that believers in Israel did not grow spiritually during Coniah’s reign. `

The Coniah curse is found in Jer. 22:24, which will present in a fuller context:

Jer. 22:24–27 "As I live, declares the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off and give you into the hand of those who seek your life, into the hand of those of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans. I will hurl you and the mother who bore you into another country, where you were not born, and there you shall die. But to the land to which they will long to return, there they shall not return." (ESV; capitalized)

God says, if Coniah were a signet ring on His hand, that He would tear that ring off. Does this sound like the line of the Messiah?

Jer. 22:28–30 Is this man Coniah a despised, broken pot, a vessel no one cares for? Why are he and his children hurled and cast into a land that they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the LORD: "Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah." (ESV, emphasis mine)

Because of the evil done by Coniah, if he were a signet ring on God’s hand, God would tear him off. There is no future for the line of Coniah. God calls for this man to be childless, and that no man will succeed him in his days. None of his children will follow him in sitting on David’s exalted throne. Nevertheless, Coniah’s line continues, as testified to in both the Old and New Testaments. Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel and Shealtiel fathers Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel, as some of you might know, would be the leader to return to Jerusalem, to build up the walls of the city once again.

The phrasing found here is interesting. This does not read, Let this man be childless; it says instead, Write this man down as childless... The Hebrew word for write is kâthab (כָּתַב) [pronounced kaw-THAHB^V]. In the Qal imperative, it means, write, write down, record [chronicle, document], direct or decree in writing, proscribe; describe. Strong's #3789 BDB #507. Jeconiah is childless by decree or childless by record; but he is not in fact childless, as he does sire children. So, how do I explain the difference? A king may have bastard sons—sons who are genetically his through an affair (or even by a long-standing relationship), but children who are not heirs to his throne (as they are not sons of the wife of the king). As far as many are concerned, these are not his children; and they are not recorded anywhere as being the king’s children. They will never be royalty. This is the way in which Coniah is childless; he is decreed in writing to be childless. He is childless in the way that is most important to a king—particularly as a king on the throne of Judah. His line would no longer yield a royal son and his line would not lead to David’s Greater Son. Jeconiah’s son (s) would never sit on the throne of Judah (which is the remaining southern kingdom).

If Jesus were descended from Coniah, then He could not sit upon the throne of David, as per this curse. Jeconiah had a son (or sons) but they would not sit upon the throne of Israel (actually, Judah).

Jehoiachin’s reign is described in both 2Kings 24:8–16 and more briefly in...

2Chron. 36:9–10 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD. In the spring of the year King Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon, with the precious vessels of the house of the LORD, and made his brother Zedekiah king over Judah and Jerusalem.

Nebuchadnezzar did not besiege Judah for a few months, but waged a campaign that apparently went on for many years. After 3 years, the removal of the people of Israel was begun (Daniel 1:1–5); and after 8 years, nearly all were removed (2Kings 24:8–12). With that, the royal family and nearly all the people of Israel were removed from the land (only the poorest remained behind—2Kings 24:14).

Whatever Coniah did was so bad, that the people were removed from the land for 70 years (obviously, the people had turned cold towards God as well, as God is not going to remove an entire people simply because their leader is evil). Coniah was the appropriate leader for the people of Jacob. Coniah was the leader that the people of Israel deserved at that time.

Application: I write this in October of 2020, with a presidential election on the near horizon. Always remember that, a people get the leader they deserve. It does not matter how much politicking that you do, or how many articles you splash on your fb page, the leader which God has determined, the leader who is appropriate, that is the leader that we will get. This may help to explain why we have had so few great presidents in this nation.

Application: The United States is a client nation to God, just as Israel was. Because of this, there is great blessing, but also great scrutiny and, sometimes, great punishment. There are dozens of memes out there portraying 2020 as an horrendous year. However,

if our nation is on the downhill slide, 2020 will seem like a picnic to subsequent years. We need to turn around spiritually as a nation, if we expect to continue in the great blessing that we have enjoyed.

Don’t Ever Go To 2020 (a meme); from Know Your Meme; accessed October 23, 2020.

Back to our topic, which is the Coniah curse.

Surprisingly enough, after 37 years in prison, the next Babylonia leader Evil-merodach, set Coniah free and dined with him, giving Coniah an allowance to live off of. The graciousness of Evil-merodach was no doubt representative of the graciousness of God; which suggests that Coniah had a change of heart towards the God of his people. Yet the Coniah curse still stands.

Again, the curse is: Jer. 22:24, 30 "As I live, declares the LORD, though Coniah were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off Thus says the LORD: "Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah."

Although Coniah was not literally childless, the complete independence of nation Israel along with its kingly throne had come to an end. Coniah’s genealogical line continued down to Joseph, but, because Joseph was not the real father of Jesus, Coniah’s line did not lead to the Eternal King. It was cut off, so to speak, with Joseph. There were no more royal sons in the line of Coniah; in that way, he is written off as childless.

But there is another line of David, through his son Nathan, which leads us to Mary (that is the line that we are studying here in Luke 3), and this becomes the true royal line, culminating in the Greater Son of David.

We now return to the line of Mary, the line that Coniah is not a part of. There is no Coniah curse in Mary’s line.

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, [Jesus is] the [actual] son [or, descendant] of Heli,... [the ESV, capitalized; with some supplemental text]

Luke 3:24a ...the son of Matthat,...

There are two Matthat’s in this line (vv. 24 & 29) and two men with the name Mattathias as well (vv. 25 & 26). It is possible that Matthat is a shortened version of Mattahthias. There are also two Levi’s in this line (vv. 24 & 29). And there are two Joseph’s (vv. 24 & 30). These are all very common names taken from famous Jewish figures.

Matthat is both the son of Levi, in the genealogy of Christ and the grandfather of the Mary (assuming no gaps in the genealogy), and the great grandfather of Jesus.

His name means gift of God, very apropos to the Messiah genealogy.

Luke 3:24b ...the son of Levi,...

His name means joined.

This Levi is the son of Melchi.

Levi is the great, great grandfather of our Lord.

Levi’s name is taken from the third son of the patriarch Jacob by his wife Leah, the founder of the people of Israel who bear his name. Jacob was born Jacob; he was given the name Israel by God.

Luke 3:24c ...the son of Melchi,...

Melchi means my king; apropos to the Messiah.

Melchi is the son of Janna right here in the genealogy of Jesus; and there will be another Melchi, the son of Addi in the genealogy of Jesus.

Luke 3:24 ...the son of Jannai,...

Jannai means flourishing.

Luke 3:24 ...the son of Joseph,...

Joseph means let him add.

Luke 3:24 ...the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,...

Famous well-known names abound in this line: Levi, Joseph, Amos, Nahum, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Simeon, and Judah. These ancient names were revered by the Hebrew people because of the men who originally had them.

Illustration: Similarly, freed Black slaves often took upon themselves the names of presidents (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson); because these names to them represented freedom from slavery to them. Many understood that their freedom and humanity was guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and in the Bill of Rights, despite being born slaves in America. Therefore former slaves took on these names to themselves, proud of this heritage.

Including the name of Heli going back to Jannai, what this line of names means is: ascending, a gift of God, joined [to] my king, a flourishing [gift from Y^ehowah]. I included the next name in this translation of names.

Luke 3:25a ...the son of Mattathias,...

His name means gift of Y^ehowah.

Luke 3:25b ...the son of Amos,...

His name means burden.

Luke 3:25c ...the son of Nahum,...

His name means consolation.

Luke 3:25d ...the son of Esli,...

His name means reserved of Y^ehowah.

Luke 3:25e ...the son of Naggai,...

His name means illuminating.

Luke 3:25 ...the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,...

It is likely that vv. 23–25 or 26 cover the inter-testament period. The verses which follow, down to v. 31 would be the period of the kings from David to Coniah. There are no royal sons descended from Nathan following his line as far as Mary. David is the last man of royalty in this particular line. David had many, many sons; but only one of them (Solomon, who is not in Mary’s line) would be the next king. However, David’s Greater Son, will occupy the throne. He (Jesus) is in David’s line, but through Nathan (and not Solomon). This is the line which would lead to Mary.

The men named between David and Mary are only mentioned here in Scripture; and therefore, are unknown to us, apart from the meanings of their names.

So far, if we replace the names of these men with the meanings of the names, that would give us: let him add [the] ascending gift of God joined [to] my king, flourishing; a gift of Y^ehowah [both] a burden [and] a consolation, reserved of Y^ehowah illuminating. (I have included Joseph, husband of Mary in this list of name meanings. All the way from Joseph going backward to Haggai give us this marvelous sentence, which clearly points to the Messiah.

At this point, we are at the end of the Old Testament canon era. The Old Testament was completed around 400 b.c. The names found here would go back to around 400 b.c., which is the approximate close of the OT canon of Scripture.

Luke 3:26a ...the son of Maath,...

His name means small.

Luke 3:26b ...the son of Mattathias,...

Another man in this line with this name, meaning gift of Y^ehowah.

Luke 3:26c ...the son of Semein,...

His name means, my report.

Luke 3:26d ...the son of Josech,...

This name appears to be another form of Joseph and means, let him add.

It is not clear that we should understand this as another form of Joseph, although many translations do. Strong does not assign a separate # to this name, although it is not spelled exactly the same as Joseph. Strong’s #2501.

Joseph was a very common name among the Jews, which is what we should expect, given the extraordinary character of the Joseph ben Jacob from the final chapters of Genesis.

Luke 3:26e ...the son of Joda,...

This was a different take to a very common name among the Jews. The spelling here is ιωδα; so it is not clear to me whether this is another form of Judah or if this is a different name. The transliteration would be Joda. Strong does not offer a different Strong’s # for this name (#2455).

If this is simply another form of Judah, then it means, he shall be praised.

This should not be shocked to find a different spelling for the same name. In the English, we have Aaron and Erin, Allen and Alan, Jacob and Jakob, etc. It was apparently James Strong’s strong opinion that this is how we should understand those two names.

Luke 3:26 ...the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,...

These are probably men from the end of the Old Testament era (around 400 b.c., the time when the Old Testament Scriptures were being completed).

Stringing the names of v. 26 together, we have: small, the gift of Yehowah [is] my report; let him add [the Lord and] he shall be praised.

Luke 3:27a ...the son of Joanan,...

His name means, grace or gift of God.

Luke 3:27b ...the son of Rhesa,...

His name means, head.

Luke 3:27c ...the son of Zerubbabel,...

His name means, born at Babel (Babylon), seed of Babel. This would be a common name given to the first generation of children born in Babylon. There was a leader who brought back many Jews into the land whose name was Zerubbabel. However, these men are very likely different men. This name is so specific and fraught with meaning that many sons born in Babylon were likely given this name.

The Zerubbabel in the line of Joseph is also a son of Shealtiel. However, the rest of the line does not match up. Trying to make these people into the same person would be just about impossible. Furthermore, it would violate the Coniah curse.

Luke 3:27d ...the son of Shealtiel,...

His name means, I have asked of God.

If these are the same men as named in the line of Joseph, we are left with the problem of Shealtiel’s father, who here is Neri; but in the Matthew text the father is Coniah. This gives us two distinct solutions: (1) Neri is a step-father, or the mother of Shealtiel (I am having a difficult time coming up with a first option that makes sense); or (2) Zerubbabel and Shealtiel are not the men named in the Matthew text (which is the cleanest and easiest solution). It is just a happy coincidence that we have a father and a son with the same names in both lines.

It would certainly be difficult go backwards and make sense out of these men being the same as those named in Matthew. It is not difficult to go the other way, as a man can have but one father, but he can have many sons. One son of Zerubbabel can be named in Matthew and a different son named in Luke.

The biggest problem with these men being the same is, the Coniah curse would not mean anything, as Coniah is the grandfather of Zerubbabel in Matt. 1:12. How could you change your grandfather for the line given in Luke? That is, if Zerubbabel is the same man in both lines, then he is under the Coniah curse in both lines (which would make no sense).

On the other hand, if a proud Jewish people are whisked off to another land, and they begin to have children born to them in a foreign land, then Zerubbabel would seem to be a very common name (again, it means, a seed of Babel; born in Babylon).

Luke 3:27e ...the son of Neri,...

His name means, Jehovah is my lamp.

Luke 3:27 ...the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,...

In this portion of the line, we have a parallel to the line found in Matthew (Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel). However, for reasons already cited, it is unlikely that these are the same men as found in Matt. 1:12. It is just an odd parallel; or an odd coincidence.

This verse is more difficult to pull together a coherent meaning: the grace (or gift) of God, a head, born in Babel (Babylon); I have asked of God; Jehovah is my lamp. Maybe Zerubbabel is the ideal dividing point here.

Beginning with someone in v. 27, we are in the land of Canaan and it is around 400 b.c. The men in this list which follows are all in the land of promise. However, we know nothing about them, going back as far as Nathan.

Luke 3:28a ...the son of Melchi,...

His name means, my king. I believe this is the second man in this line with this name.

Luke 3:28b ...the son of Addi,...

His name means, ornament (an odd name for a dude).

Luke 3:28c ...the son of Cosam,...

His name means, divining.

Luke 3:28d ...the son of Elmadam,...

His name means, measure.

Luke 3:28e ...the son of Er,...

His name means, watchful.

Luke 3:28 ...the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,...

The Hebrew people maintained excellent genealogical records, even of men who were virtually unknown, historically speaking.

Going back to the name after Zerubbabel, we have: I have asked of God; Jehovah is my lamp [also] my king [and] ornament; a divining measure [and] watchful. That makes a little more sense.

Luke 3:29a ...the son of Joshua,...

His name means, Jehovah is salvation. This could be transliterated Jesus (Joshua is the Old Testament version of Jesus).

Luke 3:29b ...the son of Eliezer,...

His name means God is his help.

Luke 3:29c ...the son of Jorim,...

His name means whom Jehovah has exalted.

Luke 3:29d ...the son of Matthat,...

His name means gift of God.

Luke 3:29e ...the son of Levi,...

His name means joined.

I believe that this is a second time that this name occurs in this list.

Luke 3:29 ...the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,...

This is another list of names of people. Stringing them together, we get: Jehovah is salvation; God is his help, whom Jehovah has exalted [as] a gift of God joined [to us].

So far, we have covered the generations living around 500 b.c. up to the time of Jesus. The line which we are studying is Mary’s genealogy, going backward from her father.

The people who we will study in vv. 30–33 span many significant epochs in the time of Israel. This might be best seen in a chart, which I will put together at the completion of v. 34.

Luke 3:30a ...the son of Simeon,...

His name means harkening.

Luke 3:30b ...the son of Judah,...

This is transliterated from the Hebrew (Strong’s #3063); and 10 men have this name in Scripture; as well as one plot of ground. This is a very popular name (1) because this is the name of one of the original tribes of Israel and (2) the tribe of Judah became the most identifiable tribe after the destruction of the northern kingdom. (3) Judah became the royal tribe (that is, all of the kings, after Saul died, were from the tribe of Judah (beginning with David). (4) The region where Judah lived was called Judah. (5) The line of Judah would be expected to have many men in it named Judah (in both Matthew and Luke, these are lines of Judah ben Jacob that we are studying).

Here, in the Greek, we have Judas, rather than Judah. The Greek language has no provision for ending a word with an h; there is no letter h in the Greek; however, there is the sound of an h, not as a separate letter, but as a rough breathing at the beginning of a word. In the Greek, the word art with a soft breathing is pronounced art; and the same word with a rough breathing is pronounced hart. This breathing is indicated in the Greek with a small apostrophe type symbol at the beginning of the word (affixed to the first letter): ʾ ʿ.

Judah means he shall be praised.

Luke 3:30c ...the son of Joseph,...

Joseph is also a very popular name, given the great reputation and background of the son of Jacob named Joseph. This man is, of course, not the same person as we have in the book of Genesis.

His name means, let him add.

Luke 3:30d ...the son of Jonam,...

His name means, Jehovah is a gracious giver.

The name found here is actually Jonan.

Luke 3:30e ...the son of Eliakim,...

At least two men have this name: 1) the eldest son of Abiud or Judah, bother of Joseph, and father of Azor Matt. (1:12–13); 2) son of Melea, and father of Jonan (Luke 3:30).

Eliakim means raising up by God.

Luke 3:30 ...the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,...

These names strung together mean, Listen, he shall be praised; let him add Jehovah, a gracious giver, raised up by God. This certainly does appear to have a coherent meaning to us.

Luke 3:31a ...the son of Melea,...

Melea (or, Meleas) means my dear friend; an object of care.

Luke 3:31b ...the son of Menna,...

The name as found above means soothsayer: enchanted.

In the Westcott-Hort text, this reads Menna. In the Scrivener Textus Receptus this name is Mainan (Μαΐνάν) [pronounced mahoe-NAN]. Interestingly enough, they are both given the same Strong’s #. Strong’s #3104.

Luke 3:31c ...the son of Mattatha,...

Mattithjah means givingness.

Luke 3:31d ...the son of Nathan,...

Nathan means gift, giver. King David had 5 sons total by Bathsheba, one of them being Solomon (he was the second child; the first child died). The prophet Nathan braced David over his affair with Bathsheba and the killing of her husband. David recognized the wrongness of his actions and confessed this sin to God.

Nathan by his unflinching assessment of David’s sin endeared himself to David. David recognized that he was not the highest authority in the land, but that God was; and Nathan was God’s prophet.

As a result of this respect, David named one of his sons by Bathsheba Nathan. This shows wonderful grace orientation on the part of David. Many kings, when reproached by a prophet, try to destroy the prophet. David recognized how wrong he was in his actions and he respected the role of the prophet.

Nathan here is quite significant. Both Joseph and Mary are descended from King David (the next name on the list). Mary is Jesus’ actual mother, by birth, by blood; but Joseph is not the Lord’s genetic father. This has great theological significance in what is known as the Coniah curse. We have already studied the Coniah curse, but we will review it and consider one thing in this study that we did not consider before.

The Coniah curse is a reference to Jechoniah, also known as Coniah, is stated in the book of Jeremiah. Jer. 22:24–30 "As I live," says the LORD, "though you, Coniah son of Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, were a signet ring on My right hand, I would tear you from it. In fact, I will hand you over to those you dread, who want to take your life, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the Chaldeans. I will hurl you and the mother who gave birth to you into another land, where neither of you were born, and there you will both die. They will never return to the land they long to return to." Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered pot, a jar no one wants? Why are he and his descendants hurled out and cast into a land they have not known? Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: Record this man as childless, a man who will not be successful in his lifetime. None of his descendants will succeed in sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah. (HCSB; emphasis mine) Jeconiah was a king in the line of David and Solomon. That line leads to Joseph, who is the legal but not biological father of Jesus (Matt. 1:11–17). Mary is the actual mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26–33); and her line comes through Nathan rather than through Solomon (Luke 3:23–31). So there is no cursed Coniah in Mary’s line.

There is more to the Coniah curse, than the idea that Messiah cannot come from the line of Coniah (Jeconiah). Think of this curse as being the sin nature, which is the genetic curse passed down through the man. Every child with a father has a sin nature, that sin nature is passed down by his father, who got it from his father. That is our Coniah curse. Every person born from a human father carries this curse—the sin nature—within him.

This goes back to the original sin. When Eve sinned, she had been deceived; but when Adam sinned against God, he did so knowingly. Adam knew that he was disobeying God and that this would change his relationship with God powerfully (Adam chose his woman over God). So, there were different punishments meted out for each gender, which punishments have followed mankind down through the centuries. Eve would be the child bearer; but with that responsibility came the promise. God, in speaking to the serpent, who had deceived Eve, said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her Offspring; He [= the woman’s Offspring] shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." (Gen. 3:15, ESV; capitalized) Throughout the Bible, the offspring (literally, seed) is always spoken of as coming from the man; but here, in this one instance, God speaks of the woman’s seed. Her Seed is the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus will deliver the death blow to the serpent (He will bruise your head); but the serpent would bruise the heel of her Seed (that would be the cross).

So, somehow, the woman will produce the Seed Who will defeat and destroy Satan, despite being bruised by Satan. This is a forward reference to the virgin birth of our Lord, Who is the Seed of the Woman. The sin nature is removed from the equation because that is passed along to all the children by the father (because Adam sinned knowingly against God; he is, in that way, responsible). The woman has a sin nature (as we all know and can testify to), but she does not transmit her sin nature genetically. The sin nature is passed along from only the father to his offspring (male or female).

There is a weird doctrine in Catholicism about Mary being sinless. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is a real person with a sin nature which she got from her father Heli. She was very clearly a mature believer, based upon what she says in Luke 1; but she is still like all of us: a fallen creature. Nevertheless, because there is no human father involved in the conception of Jesus, there is no sin nature which is passed along to Him. The woman does not pass along her sin nature to her sons or to her daughters. The sin nature only is passed down by a human father.

The problem with the idea that Mary is sinless is three-fold: (1) Mary had a father (Heli). Because she has a father, she has a sin nature. (2) Adam’s original sin in imputed to her. Adam’s original sin is imputed to every person, its natural target being the sin nature (which every person, save One, has). (3) Finally, Mary committed personal sins (as all people do). We may not know what those sins were, but that is sometimes the case with some believers named in Scripture (like John the Herald, for instance).

The idea that Mary was sinless, came from someone recognizing that Jesus is sinless, but that He has a human mother. Well, how can Jesus be sinless if He has a mother? Therefore, she must be sinless. Obviously, the big flaw in that argument, besides #1 & #2 above is, how was Mary sinless? If Jesus needed a sinless mother in order to be sinless (based upon that faulty theology), then how did Mary get born without sin? Wouldn’t she have required a sinless mother (and an immaculate conception) as well, who would then require a sinless mother before her? Accepting the premise, still leads us to an untenable position.

Furthermore, all Mary adoration ignores the concept of a sin nature. We all have a sin nature which is a part of our being from birth. We do not become sinners the first time we sin; we are sinners from birth. Denying that concept denies a huge amount of Scripture.

And while I am on this topic, I should also lay to rest the notion that Mary is the mother of God. She is not! That is absurd. She is the mother of the humanity of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the Father (so to speak) of the Lord’s Deity. The same argument applies. If Mary is somehow in someway sort of deified; and that made her the mother of God, then how did she become deified? Was she somehow born from perfect parents as well? These false doctrines do not stand up to scrutiny. They are both illogical and unbiblical. Furthermore, we are right in the midst of studying the line of Mary, and the people we know in this line are not sinless.

There is nothing in the New Testament which ever suggests that Mary is somehow a 4^th member of the Trinity; or pretty close to that, or way up there; or that we all should pray to her. Nothing like that is suggested anywhere in the New Testament. The doctrines of the Church Age are found primarily in the epistles. How many times is there any doctrinal information related to Mary in the epistles? Never! Paul, Peter and John do not write about Mary being divine, or sinless, or a intermediary? They do not tell us any such thing, because those concepts are false! Mary plays absolutely no part in the believer’s life today. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to have some sort of relationship with Mary. And she is nowhere called the mother of God.

The concept that Mary is divine or, at the very least, way better than us, who somehow plays an active part in our lives today? This is faulty doctrine which is based upon faulty doctrine (that she has some sort of divinity within her, in order to given birth to Jesus and impart to Him His Deity).

Let me try to approach this from an analogy. Let’s say that I marry an Asian woman, and we have a child, and that child has jet black hair and “Asian eyes.” Would it make sense for me to say, “She gets that from me. See those almond eyes? That is from my side of the family!” That would be nonsensical. People would think I was an idiot to suggest such a thing. It is equally idiotic to somehow think that Jesus’ Deity came from Mary.

I have gone pretty far afield here. We were last speaking about Nathan (which led us to Coniah and what he represents as a type; which led us then to the weird and false doctrines of Mary worship). I have recently spoken to someone about this absurd doctrine, so it happens to be on my mind.

Let’s go to Nathan’s father, who is David.

Luke 3:31e ...the son of David,...

His name means, beloved.

Now, no matter what your Bible says, the words the son are not found here. Literally, this reads, ...Nathan of David...

This is a reference to King David. David is not called a king in this line, because he is just a man, like any other man. The only true king in this line is Jesus who is David’s Greater Son (Mark 12:35–37 Psalm 110:1). Because this line emphasizes the humanity of Jesus (it is Mary’s line that leads to Jesus), we reference David without a title. On the other hand, the full kingly line is found in Matthew. Matt. 1:6 ...and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,...

Luke 3:31 ...the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,...

The names of this line strung together mean, my dear friend, an enchanted giving of a gift, the Beloved.

I have checked and recheck the numbers of this grouping—and it appears that we have 14 generations which begin with Abraham and end with David, two very significant figures in the Hebrew people.

There were 4 sons born to King David, by Bathsheba, who grew to adulthood. In the Old Testament, we only know Solomon’s name. From Luke 3:31, we know that Solomon’s younger brother was named Nathan, no doubt named after Nathan the prophet, who braced David for his sinful behavior with Bathsheba (David took the wife of one of his soldiers, while that soldier was out on the field, a sin that David paid dearly for). Interestingly enough, when all the dust settled—and David received a lot of discipline for what he did—he was still with Bathsheba, and they had 4 sons, and two of those sons have a genealogy which leads to Jesus.

Interestingly enough, we know nothing about Nathan, apart from being born a son of David by Bathsheba. We know nothing about Nathan’s descendants, with the exception of Mary (and we know about some of her sons by Joseph).

Luke 3:32a ...the son of Jesse,...

His name means, extent.

Jesse is the father of David the king.

Jesse, as the father of David, is found in the Old Testament. He had 7 sons, and the prophet Samuel came to him and told him that one of his sons would become king. Jesse then began to bring out the first 6 sons, one after another; very proud of these boys. However, Samuel rejected every one of his sons. It never occurred to Jesse that his youngest son, David, who was out with the sheep at that time, would become king. He did not recognize that there was any potential for greatness in David.

Jesse’s attitude was not just a matter of overlooking David; he really saw no potential in David. So, when David went to bring sandwiches to his older brothers, and this loudmouth Philistine Goliath was bellowing at Saul’s troops, David’s older brothers were also dismissive of him. When David expressed an interest in what Goliath was saying—taking it to be a great national insult—his older brothers also disregarded what David had to say him (which is something that they probably learned from their father, Jesse).

Luke 3:32b ...the son of Obed,...

We know little about Obed’s life.

He is the grandfather of king David.

His name means, serving.

Luke 3:32c ...the son of Boaz,...

His name means, in him is strength.

The book of Ruth is all about the romance between Boaz and Ruth. Ruth is a gentile woman who decided to align herself with the Hebrew people. She had married a Hebrew man, who died, and Ruth was left with her mother-in-law. Rather than cast her mother-in-law aside, the younger woman, Ruth remained with her. They both went to Israel; despite being very poor and having no resources in Israel. For a time, they survived in this way: Ruth would harvest the produce remaining in the corners of Boaz’s field. The Torah required farmers to not harvest everything in their land, but to leave a portion unharvested for the poor of the land (the poor would be allowed to come to the fields and harvest this produce for themselves). This is how Ruth and Naomi survived. However, after seeing Ruth, Boaz took her as his wife in the book of Ruth.

Boaz was a kinsman of Ruth (meaning, they were related through Ruth’s deceased husband). Boaz become her second husband. As a result of all this, Boaz is the great grandfather of King David. And Ruth, a gentile, is in the line of Jesus as well.

Luke 3:32d ...the son of Sala,...

His name means, sprout.

There was a Salah (Shelah, Shelach) who occurs much earlier in this line. He is the son of Arphaxad, and father of Eber. This is obviously not the same person.

Luke 3:32e ...the son of Nahshon,...

His name means, diviner.

He was an Old Testament guy who was a chief of Judah whose sister was the wife of Aaron. So he takes us back to the Exodus generation.

Luke 3:32 ...the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,...

These name meanings string together to make: extent serving in him is strength, a sprout, a diviner.

Luke 3:33a ...the son of Amminadab,...

His name means, one of the prince’s people.

In Westcott-Hort, the first name in this verse is αδμιν (see below). There is no αμιναδαβ. It is possible for these to be the same name. In another manuscript, it is ́Αδείν. They are both listed as Strong’s #284 in the interlinear texts to which I refer.

Luke 3:33b ...the son of Admin,...

The primary text I use for this translation is the English Standard Version (ESV). It lists both Aminadab and Admin. Interestingly enough, I only found both names together in the Greek NT with variants. I have 4 Greek texts in my E-sword; two have Aminadab only; one has Admin only; and the Greek text with variants has them both.

There is just too much evidence that this name does not belong here. Therefore, I did not even put him in my own set of translations (HTML) (PDF) (WPD), not even in brackets.

In the Old Testament, the text of Ruth 4:19b–22 reads: Perez fathered Hezron, Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David.

The Hebrew text: Perez ‒> Hezron ‒> Ram ‒> Aminadab ‒> Nathshon ‒> Salmon ‒> Boaz ‒> Obed ‒> Jesse.

The Greek text: Pharez ‒> Esrom ‒> Aram ‒> Amminadab ‒> Admin? ‒> Naasson ‒> Salah ‒> Booz ‒>Obed ‒>Iessai.

I had to re-order the text from Luke, since its genealogy goes in the opposite direction of the Hebrew text. You can see how all of these names pair up, with the exception of Admin. Therefore, we cannot match this up the Hebrew text with the variant text. The line from Abraham to King David is very well-established by the Old Testament.

Remember when I gave reasons why the Hebrew does not transliterate directly into the Greek? These names are examples of that.

Luke 3:33c ...the son of Arni [probably, Aram],...

Aram name means, high.

The Westcott Hort text has αρνι (Arni). The Scrivener Textus Receptus has Aram (̓Αράμ) [pronounced ar-AM]. This is transliterated Aram, Ram.

Luke 3:33d ...the son of Hezron,...

His name means, enclosed.

Luke 3:33e ...the son of Perez,...

His name means, a breach.

Luke 3:33f ...the son of Judah,...

Judah’s name means, he shall be praised.

We are following Mary’s genetic line. The men in v. 33 would have been living in Egypt.

Luke 3:33 ...the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,... [I continue to use the ESV (capitalized) as my primary Biblical text; but not many translations have both Aminadab and Admin.]

We have studied Judah in the book of Genesis. Possibly the high point of his early life is, he talked his brothers out of killing Joseph (their second youngest brother) and convinced them to sell Joseph into slavery instead. We have just talked about his sordid story with Tamar, making their marriage to be one of the weirdest marriages in the Word of God.

We are following a particular line (Mary’s) through a particular set of men (Abraham –> Isaac –> Jacob –> Judah –> Perez). Jacob, of course, had 12 sons, which made up the 12 tribes of Israel (actually, there were 13 tribes, as Joseph received the double portion, and his two sons became two tribes instead of just one).

Given the fact that we have Jacob and his 12 sons; and that we have a fascinating narrative in Genesis about many of them, it may be apropos to suggest the following theory:

Luke 3:33 ...the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,... [I continue to use the ESV (capitalized) as my primary Biblical text; but not many translations have both Aminadab and Admin.]

Judah entered into Egypt with his son, Perez (who was a twin); and the other 3 or 4 men named in this verse were likely slaves in Egypt (we do not know exactly when the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrew people). It is likely that Hezron or Arni would have been in the first generation that was enslaved by the Egyptians.

There are only two sets of twins named in the Old Testament: Jacob and Esau; Perez and his brother. They are separated by a single generation.

Judah is one of the heads of the 12 (13) tribes of Israel. Judah, his son Perez, and his father Jacob were all born in the land of Canaan. The other men in this verse were born in Egypt.

If we follow Judah’s line down to David, and then to Solomon and Rehoboam (this is the line of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus), we get this:

The Line of Judah through David, Solomon and Rehoboam (a chart); from Bible-codes.org; accessed November 1, 2018.

Notice what it says: One who praises the Lord breaks open a way [into] an area surrounded by a wall of great height. O my people [to] whom belong the Prince, a prophet clothed with strength, who serves [God] is here! One well-loved, peaceful, and Who sets the people free. Pretty amazing, is it not?

Unlike the line in Matthew, which begins with Abraham and then proceeds to Jesus, the line of Mary starts with Jesus and goes all the way back to Adam.

Luke 3:34a ...the son of Jacob,...

Jacob is a twin. He was a Hebrew by race, but his twin brother, Esau, was not. Jacob, for much of his life, was a poor excuse for a believer; and as a result of his actions, he ended up having to leave the Land of Promise (something which Abraham kept Isaac from doing—see v. 34b-c). However, when he returned some 20 years later, and he had two wives, two mistresses, 11 sons, and at least 1 daughter. Despite his behavior (which was mixed), God blessed him and brought him back into the land. Furthermore, all of the Hebrew people—apart from those who chose to adopt into the Jewish family—are from the loins of Jacob. All of Jacob’s sons were in the line of promise; none of Esau’s were. Jacob did not have any descendants who were not racially Hebrew.

Jacob was given the name Israel by God; and the nation of Hebrews is identified with Jacob’s God-given name. These people are identified by that name even to this day.

The name Jacob is used when speaking of his weaknesses or when emphasizing the grace of God. It is clear that Jacob did not deserve the great honor and blessing bestowed upon him by God. However, it is also likely that he turned things around in the final decades of his life, having received great honor from the Egyptian people when he died. The people of God moved to Egypt with Jacob as their patriarch; and the Egyptians developed a strong fondness for Jacob. There had to be a set of reasons why this happened, as Jacob was not inherently a loveable person.

It is Jacob who gives many of us hope. When we study men like Abraham or Moses or David, we marvel at their faithfulness to God. None of these men were perfect—not by a long shot—but do I want to set my life next to theirs and compare? No way! But compare my life to that of the scheming, double-dealing, self-centered Jacob? Now, there is a man I can relate to. I might not like him very much, but I must admit that I am much more like Jacob than I am like Abraham.

I know that God in Whom I have believed; and I also know the sorry person that I am as well. Jacob, like his father Isaac and his grandfather Abraham, was saved because he believed in the Revealed God. I am saved because I have believed in Jesus Christ. I certainly have no claim to salvation based upon my own life or upon personal merit (no one does).

The people lived in Egypt for 400 years, before God brought them out, as per the book of Exodus. They went into Egypt as a free people, invited by Joseph and led by Jacob. However, at some point, the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians. Eventually, God brought the people of God out of Egypt, freeing them from their slavery.

Luke 3:34b ...the son of Isaac,...

Isaac was the second of two sons born to Abraham. The first was Ishmael, who was the son of a mistress—a mistress chosen by Abraham’s wife. Abraham’s mistress was an Egyptian slave girl, and her son, Ishmael, (by Abraham) was not the promised seed. Isaac, was born 13 years later, to a much older Abraham and Sarah. He was the son of God’s promise.

One of the most amazing types found in Scripture is when God asks Abraham to offer up his son, his only son, the son whom he loves, as a sacrifice to God. See the parallel? Abraham was willing to offer up his son and God recognized this. At the last moment, a ram was revealed, to die as a substitute, instead of Isaac. It is an amazing set of parallels, clear to us today. However, these parallels were not originally understood as such until sometime after the crucifixion. At the crucifixion, God the Father offered up His Son, the Son Whom He loved, on the cross as a substitute for us. Once some time passed and perspective on these two historical incidents took place, then Christians could see the relationship between the two events. Abraham offering his son was a type; this act illustrated God offering up His only Son, the Son Whom He loved. The substitution Abraham was able to offer up was also a type; the ram illustrated the substitution that Jesus is for us.

Although typology is mentioned in the New Testament, with some examples given, a great deal of work has been done on this subject, long after the completion of the New Testament, with some amazing parallels being drawn between Old Testament events and people matched to events surrounding the life, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Typology extends even outside of the realm of Christology. One of the types which we recently studied was Coniah, who represents the sin nature.

Luke 3:34c ...the son of Abraham,...

God called Abraham to come to a new land, the land of Canaan, to a land that God would give to him and to his seed. A significant portion of the book of Genesis is about the life of Abraham. His story begins in Gen. 12 and continues to Gen. 25.

I went online to find a genealogical chart, and see that the makers of this chart made the very same points that I have been making—about when all the patriarchs died.

Using the numbers given in the book of Genesis, virtually every patriarch who lived before Abraham would die out during Abraham’s life. I believe this to be very significant and tied directly to God’s changing plan for mankind. Abraham lived in Mesopotamia. I believe that he carried in his head the entire book of Genesis up to his life; and that he brought this book with him to Canaan. Most of Abraham’s ancestors died out during this time that Abraham was in Canaan.

The Longevity of Man (a chart); from Omniology.com; accessed October 9, 2020. This chart is originally from an online book by Walter Brown, Jr., entitled In the Beginning. It is found online (just click on the book) and may be ordered as well.

One thing not mentioned on this page was, how the length of life for the people listed in Gen. 11 began to decreased logarithmically. For most people who read these words, that means nothing. But, all life, as it grows, is related to the exponential function. All life when it dies or decays is related to the logarithmic function (which is the inverse function of an exponential function). A great deal of work was done on the concept of the exponential function in the 18^th century (focusing on the value e —Euler’s number). Logarithms appear to have been discovered in the 17^th century, when tables for logs began to be developed. Interestingly enough, we have what amounts to a logarithmic decay function revealed by the decrease of ages of these men, 3000–4000 years before people had any idea what logarithms were. If you look at that graph with the blue background, that is a logarithmic curve. How would someone have known how to fake that?

When Abraham arrives in Canaan, there will be no family with him, apart from his nephew Lot (and their respective wives). A significant portion of Genesis is about Abraham (actually, Abram) and his nephew Lot.

This information which is in Abraham’s head (this is conjecture again), will become the Scriptures. He will tell all of this to his son Isaac, who will tell it to his son Jacob. When we study Genesis, we are reading an English translation from the exact words of Abraham which he spoke to his son (and grandsons).

I believe that this began the tradition of this information be spoken aloud from memory among a family during their worship of Y^ehowah. Abraham, the patriarch, would have said everything from the creation of man to his own life. Then Isaac would stand up and tell about his life; and, finally, Jacob would stand up and tell about his life. This is conjecture on my part, and that I cannot point to some verses in Genesis which confirm my theory, but it would very handily explain the preservation of the book of Genesis throughout the lives of Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (and Joseph). It would also explain why God chose Abraham at the time that He did.

Who, other than Abraham and his family, would have preserved these traditions? Furthermore, does it not seem the most logical for this family to have preserved their own family history (which is actually the bulk of the book of Genesis)?

Also—and I want to emphasize this—the commonly accepted notion that Moses wrote the book of Genesis is also a theory. It may be the most popular theory, but, it is still just a theory. In my opinion it is a theory with less Scriptural support than mine.

Now, in case the book of Genesis seems like too much memorization, let me say that if you or I chose to, we could memorize the entire book of Genesis, front to back; and we could recite it. The minds of the patriarchs, I believe, were much better than ours. Therefore, I think that, after a few hearings, they actually knew and could repeat, the information found in Genesis. If pressed, most of us could memorize the book of Genesis in a week possibly; and clearly, within the period of a year. I believe that Abraham, for much of his life, heard The Early History of God and Man recited, and knew it by the time he left Mesopotamia. He may not have appreciated it at the time, but this was the most important possession which he brought with him.

Knowledge is a common yet strange possession. Abraham may not have thought to include these words in the book of Genesis: and I traveled to Canaan, yet still in possession of the knowledge of my ancestors. I traveled from California to Texas, with a knowledge of Euler’s number and logarithmic functions. This is the first time I have shared that fact with anyone.

I believe that, from Abraham and forward, whoever was the oldest patriarch in the Hebrew line (Abraham ► Isaac ► Jacob ► Jacob’s 12 sons), during religious ceremonies, would stand up and recite the book of Genesis up to his life, and then others present might stand up and add to this information (as I have previously suggested).

I believe that this tradition has been preserved, to some extent, in the synagogues today.

We are still in the genealogical line of Mary.

Luke 3:34c ...the son of Abraham,...

Luke 3:34c ...the son of Abraham,...

Abraham is the first Hebrew (OT term); or, Jew (NT term).

The name Abraham means father of a multitude. He had 2 sons, one of whom was a Hebrew and the other remained a gentile.

Luke 3:34d ...the son of Terah,...

Terah was Abraham’s father. Abraham was to separate from his family and move west to Canaan. He got about halfway there and stopped. It appears that his family—his father in particular—held him back from completing his assigned task (God told Abraham to separate from his family and to go west).

Terah’s name means, station.

Luke 3:34e ...the son of Nahor,...

There are two Nahor’s in Abraham’s family. This Nahor is his paternal grandfather. The other one is his brother, if memory serves. He was snoring (asleep) when God brought salvation to Abraham.

His name means, snorting, snoring. It is not out of the question that some of these names were assigned to them later in life—a nickname or a play on their given name.

Luke 3:34 ...the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,...

Here we have the people of promise: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; along with Abraham’s father and grandfather.

Terah and Nahor are both gentiles. Abraham is Hebrew, which is a new race of man. Prior to this, there were 3 basic races: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Luke 3:35a ...the son of Serug,...

Serug is the son of Nahor. Serug name means, intertwined.

Luke 3:35b ...the son of Reu,...

His name means, associate you: feed you.

Luke 3:35c ...the son of Peleg,...

His name means, division.

Many believe that his name here signifies the division of the languages, causing the people to spread out from one another (that is, to become divided). Because the languages were divided (Gen. 11), the people then separated themselves from one another.

Luke 3:35d ...the son of Eber,...

We actually do not know for certain where the designation Hebrew is from, although many theologians tie it to Eber. Hebrew is actually this word in the Hebrew: ʿIb^erîy (עִבְרִי) [pronounced ģi^be-VREE]. It is first used of Abraham in Gen. 14:13; but, apart from that usage, it is found multiple times in the narrative about Joseph in Egypt, where this word is specifically applied to Joseph by Egyptians (Gen. 39:14, 17 41:12). For all of Genesis and in the first 15 chapters of Exodus, this word is specifically applied to the Hebrew people in Egypt (and nearly always by Egyptians). That this designation is applied to Joseph strongly suggests that this word ultimately has an Egyptian origin (or the Egyptians appropriated a word and applied that to some groups of foreign peoples).

Some believe that Eber is from where we get the general name Hebrew. In the Hebrew, Eber is ʿÊber (עֵבֶר) [pronounced ĢAY^B-ver]. His name means, the region beyond. This, or a very similar name was how the Egyptians referred to some of settlers from the northeast (which region included Canaan). Since there were so few Hebrew people at the time that this name is applied to them (only 70 or 75 who were descended from Jacob and their respective wives), it would be odd for the Egyptians to have a word to apply just to them. The name was originally applied to Joseph when he was the only person descended from Jacob who lived in Egypt.

Clearly, the Egyptians would not have had a specific name for a group of people this small; particularly not one which would have applied, for many years, to a single individual. However, they came from the region beyond, so the name Hebrew eventually stuck to Jacob and his descendants. Such a name was consistent with the name of their common ancestor, Eber.

For that reason, the actual origins of the name Hebrew are unclear, given that the designation may have gone way back to the early descendants of Eber; or it may be a name applied by the Egyptians to the Hebrew people. At some point, this became a word applied specifically to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and to their descendants. No doubt that particular designation took place while they were living in Egypt.

As an aside, the term Jew is a later designation. I have mostly used the word Hebrew when working in the Old Testament and Jew or Jewish when working in the New.

Luke 3:35e ...the son of Shelah,...

Shelah is the Great X5 grandfather of Abraham and grandson or great grandson of Shem. His name means, sprout.

Luke 3:35 ...the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,...

String these names together and we get: Intertwined an association [with] you, divided [so that in the] region beyond [they will] sprout. This seems to be describing the intertwined family of Abraham, which moves, but is divided; yet Abraham moves to a region beyond where his family sprouted. Most of Abraham’s relatives will remain behind (which is at God’s insistence).

There are several instances recorded in Scripture where one might be led to understand that God is anti-family, and that believers ought to, after being saved, move away from their families. This is not the case; and, at no time, should you allow a cult-like organization to separate you from your family and friends. It is true that the people in church are people with whom you will spend eternity; but that does not mean that you dump all of your previous relationships and only develop new ones from the church. That is cultic behavior and if you get that sort of direction from the church you go to, then you should separate from that church—immediately.

On the other hand, there are times in Scripture and there are times in real life where separation from family is going to occur. That is true of many people who begin to grow up and go off to college or off to work or who get married. This as a normal process as fine; this as something socially applied by your church in order to control your behavior is something entirely different.

Application: My point is, sometimes God may lead you away from your family. However, if there are noted people at the church that you attend who are trying to separate you from your family and friends, then you are in the wrong church. In fact, you are not in a church; you are in a cult.

Illustration: I moved from where I was raised to the Houston area. I moved chiefly for work, and I considered Houston, simply because Berachah Church was there. It was the exact right move for me to make. However, at no time did anyone in Berachah Church said that I needed to be separate from my family and old friends; nor has there ever been any teaching from the pulpit which stated or implied that separation from family and friends was what every member of the church should do.

Some of the family of Abraham moved with him as far as Haran in Mesopotamia (chiefly, his father). From there, Abraham (actually, Abram at that time), his wife, Lot and his wife moved to Canaan.

Unrelated to the land of Canaan is this next man:

Luke 3:36a ...the son of Cainan,...

This name is quite significant, as we do not find it in the Old Testament. This suggests that there were records of such a one, but that his name dropped out of the Hebrew text at some point. Someone with this name occurs later in this line as well.

I can only recall two instances where there is any problem with this particular line, and this is one of them. Interestingly enough, this does not do any damage to the Hebrew time line based upon the ages of the men which are given. It may add an extra 20–40 years into the line, which is rather insignificant.

His name means, their smith.

Luke 3:36b ...the son of Arphaxad,...

His name means, stronghold of Chaldees.

Luke 3:36c ...the son of Shem,...

His name means, name.

Shem, like his brothers and father, lived on both sides of the flood. Shem helped his father build the ark and gather the animals to take on the ark.

Shem is a son of Noah. Many of the men in this genealogy—Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, and Serug—were alive during the time of Abraham; and they died out during his lifetime.

Luke 3:36a-c ...the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,..,

Shem ⇒ Eber ⇒Terah (a genealogical chart); from Bible Names Code; accessed May 24, 2019.

Notice that with this chart, the order is reversed from what we read in Luke. I have not yet experimented with the Greek meanings and keeping the names in the same order as we read in the Greek.

Notice what it says: The fame of Babylon’s fortress and sorrow [wil] extend like a plant beyond the place of division. A friend branches out, enraged with fury! This seems to be less significant to me. But this seems to give a brief history of what took place during these 8 generations.

Luke 3:36d ...the son of Noah,...

His name means, rest.

Noah was the tenth in descent from Adam. Noah is the second father of the human family (Adam being the first). Every person alive today is descended from Noah (and, quite obviously, from Adam).

Noah and his sons were the only witnesses to the antediluvian (before the flood) civilization. The events which preceded the flood were quite spectacular.

All of the men named next are from the antediluvian civilization. They lived and died during that era.

Luke 3:36e ...the son of Lamech,...

These sets of definitions are somewhat confusing, as those listed from the Greek can differ from the Hebrew. It seems that the Hebrew meanings would be the important ones, being that these are mostly Hebrew names.

His name means, powerful; why thus with you?; to bring low.

Luke 3:36d-e ...the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,...

Noah lives on both sides of the flood; his father, Lamech, died prior to the great flood.

Luke 3:37a ...the son of Methuselah,...

He was the son of Enoch, grandfather of Noah. Methuselah lived longer than anyone else—969 years.

His name means, man of the dart; when he dies, there shall be an emission.

Luke 3:37b ...the son of Enoch,...

God took this Enoch into heaven without him physically dying.

His name means, dedicated.

Luke 3:37c ...the son of Jared,...

Westcott Hort has Iaret. Bear in mind that, despite the surfeit of English Bible names which begin with j, there is no j in the Greek or Hebrew.

His name means, descent.

Luke 3:37d ...the son of Mahalaleel,...

His name means, praise of God.

Luke 3:37e ...the son of Cainan,...

Westcott-Hort has Kainam (καιναμ) instead.

His name means, their smith.

Luke 3:37 ...the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,...

Bear in mind that all of these people are related to you and I. Even though I am probably descended from Japheth, these are my ancestors (and yours).

We will put these names together further on down.

Luke 3:38a ...the son of Enos,...

His name means, mortal man.

Luke 3:38b ...the son of Seth,...

Seth was the third son of Adam and the father of Enos. We do not have any idea exactly how many sons and daughters that Adam and Eve had.

His name means, compensation.

Luke 3:38c ...the son of Adam,...

Jesus is often called the Son of Man in the book of Luke. Perhaps this is why. This line goes all the way back to Adam, whose name means man. Son of Man = the Son of Adam.

Adam name means, the red earth. Adam’s body was made out of the chemical elements of the earth (as ours are).

Luke 3:38 ...the son of God.

Adam here is called a son of God. He was created directly by God without sin. He was created in God’s image. This is one of the fundamental places where the Bible differs from what has come to be accepted science today. We are not evolved creatures; we did not begin as half-ape, half-man, evolved from some sort of animal primate.

Adam, who would be perhaps alive 5000 or so years ago, would be indistinguishable from us, apart from looking a lot better and having a much greater mind. You may or may not be surprised to know that, when the population of man is traced out mathematically (using exponential growth curves), man’s population today is far more consistent with a 5000 year old Adam than it is with man being evolved about 1 million years ago. The latter opinion of science is inconsistent with the mathematics of human growth.

This does not mean that the earth itself is only 5000 years old. The Bible implies that the creation of the earth could have occurred far, far earlier. It may be millions of years old or even billions of years old. Neither would conflict with the Biblical record. But man being on this earth a million years ago? No, that did not happen. Mathematically, that would be impossible (unless, of course, all mankind except for one couple died off about 5000 years ago).

I believe in what is known as the Gap theory—that God created the earth and the universe and that, it became a disorganized mess, and eventually it was frozen. It was apparently a playground of sorts for the fallen angels. Exactly what the relationship was between God, the elect angels, the fallen angels and the earth is unknown (apart from God being the Creator of the heavens and the earth). What we study in the first chapter of Genesis (after v. 2), is not the creation of the earth, but the restoration of the earth.

Luke 3:38 ...the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

God ⇒ Adam ⇒ Seth ⇒ Noah (a genealogical chart); from Bible Names Code; accessed May 24, 2019.

This list of names is often known as the Genealogy Gospel. Beginning with Adam, we have: Man is appointed, a mortal man of sorrow is born. The Glory of God will come down, teaching that His death will bring those in despair comfort and rest! That is the gospel message and it is quite amazing, is it not?

Although some of these—particularly the gospel genealogy—are quite amazing, we should be careful not to find too much hidden meaning in this or that thing related to the Bible. What we need to know is generally stated outright, without having to be clever about it. However, that genealogy is pretty damned clever.

Let’s go back and take an abbreviated look at all of Luke 3. Sometimes, our study goes into so much detail, that it is helpful to stand back and to see a more concise version of what we have studied. The ESV; capitalized will be used below):

Luke 3:1–2 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

Israel at the Time of Jesus (a map); from Conforming to Jesus; accessed July 10, 2020.

As an aside, when I use a graphic from another webpage, I am not necessarily endorsing that webpage. On the other hand, if I feature a doctrine written mostly by someone else, then I am indicating that I have a reasonable amount of trust in that person’s ministry.

Luke, more than any other biographer of Jesus, sets the secular historical stage. These are the political leaders—the men with power, if you will. They are the movers and shakers, according to the popular thinking of that day. But they really were not. Meanwhile, out in the desert-wilderness, is John, son of Zechariah, and the Word of God comes to him. People so often focus upon the wrong things. A small percentage of people today know about these significant rulers from this ancient era, and mostly knowledge of them comes from the Bible. But, far more important than any of these political leaders is John, the son of Zechariah, who is out in the desert-wilderness. This is the man that we know as John the baptizer or John the Herald (he is not John, the gospel writer).

In modern-day churches, there are sometimes a whole lot of things going on; but what should be fundamental to every church is the Word of God. Obviously, the good news of Jesus Christ must be known and believed by most of the congregants—but even that most fundamental doctrine is taken right out of the Word of God. The Word of God should always be front and center of any Christian church.

Application: At the time that I write this (January 1, 2021), the American election of 2020 still remains hotly contested, with nearly all of the media, most of Hollywood, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, along with most politicians (from both parties) all allied up on one side. For example, YouTube regularly removes videos which cite voter fraud; Facebook shadowbans posts from the few websites and media outlets which continue to speak of voter fraud (interestingly enough, a huge number of Americans have begun to get their news from Facebook). Nothing seems more important to many of us than this past election. The stakes for America seem monumental, as many believe that this past election was riddled with fraud. There are many who believe that this will be the end of a democratic United States; particularly if either candidate takes the oath of office. This does not mean that there will be no elections; it simply means that they will be meaningless. So, for many, the political reality of this day and time seems tremendous.

Application: What we learn from these first few verses of Luke 3 is, the politics, the politicians and the future political structure of the United States—they are not as important as we think they are. What is far, far more important is the Word of God; and the accurate teaching of the Word of God. In the era we are studying—the time when Jesus was an adult—the government was far more oppressive; and the political leaders were far more dangerous. Groups of people who fell into disfavor with the government might find themselves persecuted and killed in large numbers. Yet, what is important at this stage of the history of man? A very odd man who speaks to random groups of people out in the inhabited regions around the Jordan River; who proclaims himself as the herald to the King—and that King being the Living Word of God.

Application: We may see dramatic changes to the United States; and no matter what happens over this next month, there will be very large groups of people who will believe that this election was stolen. But what is far, far more important than that, is the teaching of the Word of God in our local churches. It is the Word of God by which we all, as believers, grow spiritually. What is happening at your local church? Are you being taught the Word of God? Is that the thrust of the church that you attend? That is far more important than the political strife occurring today (and I am fully aware of the political circumstances and what could happen to the United States as a result of the events of this coming month).

Application: Always more important than the historic events taking place is the teaching of the Word of God; and the spiritual growth of the individual believer from taking in the Word of God.

As we will study in this and future chapters of Luke, we will find out that the people of Israel—God’s people—are accepting a religious system far removed from the Scriptures which have been delivered to them. In fact, when some of these Scriptures come to life, as it were—and are fulfilled, the reaction of the people is very contrary to the Word of God.

The very Son of God will come unto His Own (to the Jewish people), but they will, as a whole, reject Him (there is a significant portion who will believe on Him as well). What ought to be the center of great celebration—Jerusalem—to receive her King, is not. And what will come upon Jerusalem in particular is great disaster for rejecting the Son of God, Who is the Living Word of God. About 40 years from the time that we are studying, Jerusalem will be crushed by the Romans, for their recalcitrance. However, the fundamental reason that so many hundreds of thousands of people would die is, they refuse to believe God’s truth. They continue to follow a corrupt religious system. Therefore, serious national discipline is their future.

Simultaneously, during that same period of 40 years, throughout the recently conquered Roman world, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Apostles will spread like wildfire. But where this good news should have taken root, in the ancient city of Jerusalem, it has not. The Jewish people did not universally believe in Jesus, despite how closely He linved up with their Scriptures, as the promise of their Messiah-King. Jesus presented Himself to His people; and yet, they rejected Him. As a result, the Jewish people of that era will suffer the dire consequences of their negative volition.

Application: Do you realize that, in some nations today, they have known nothing but war for dozens of years? There are children who grow up, and for a considerable amount of their lives, know nothing but war. Why is this happening, for instance, to the people of Syria or in other middle eastern nations? The people of these nations live in almost a daily Islamic revolution. These are Muslim countries, who have not only rejected the teachings of Jesus Christ, but they persecute the few who are in their country and believe in Him. These Muslims often seek the death or conversion of people who want nothing more than to quietly learn about Jesus. And so they suffer despotic leaders and constant strife. These are the consequence of their negative volition.

Application: The fundamental reason why this tiny island known as England was able to conquer perhaps a fifth of the entire world is, they brought both law and order and the gospel of Jesus Christ to the places where they went. People all over the continent of Africa worship Jesus Christ because of British Empire. On the other hand, the United States has been in the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 2 decades, with little to show for the money and blood that we have spent there. Have we brought the gospel of Jesus Christ to them? Did we at least bring them freedom of religion? We did not! As a result, these nations are not much better off than they were when we first entered into them with our armies. After spending trillions of dollars in these two nations, we did not bring them the most important thing—the message of Jesus Christ and the redemption that He offers. This is why tiny Great Britain was successful throughout the world; and we cannot tamp down what appears to be a constant struggle between various factions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite having the greatest military in human history. The key solution which we have abandoned as a nation is the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the teaching of the Word of God. That should have been a part of our mission in these foreign lands, but it was not. And so, we have nothing to show for the time we have spent there.

What I am trying to do is to show you the parallels between the world which we are studying, circa a.d. 30, and the world that we live in today. The key is always Jesus Christ and the Word of God. Leave these things out of the picture, and we, as the most powerful nation on this planet, can do nothing right.

Let us return to our narrative:

Luke 3:3 And he [John] went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

The Jordan River runs north-south in the middle of nation Israel (which was broken up into 5 regions at this time). The Jordan River goes as far up as the Galilee region—where the bulk of the Lord’s public ministry would take place—and it feeds into the Dead Sea, which is a natural border for Judæa.

The Repentance spoken of here has nothing to do with feeling sorry for sin or feeling badly that you are a sinner. You may have feelings about that, and you may not. Repentance means a change of mind; it is not a subjective emotional reaction—that is, it is not an intense feeling of regret for being a sinner. This change of mind, which John is speaking of, is directed towards the religious philosophy of that day, where one earns favor with God based upon personal merit. We cannot earn God’s favor. We come to God as sinners, as unworthy of Him, seeking His forgiveness. The religion of the Jews had become a man-centered, works-based religion; and John is proclaiming that they must change their mind about that.

Luke 3:4–6 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'"

We already studied how the gospels treat this quotation from Isaiah. Luke throws it in as somewhat of a descriptor of John’s ministry; the book of John has John the Herald quoting this verse himself and applying it to himself.

John the Herald is the voice calling out from the desert-wilderness. He is acting as a herald for the Lord Jesus Christ. He goes before the Lord just as a herald would go before a king, announcing the king’s presence.

Luke 3:7–8 He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

Luke, at first, does not differentiate between the various groups of people who show up to hear him, many of whom choose to be baptized. This specific quotation from John sounds particularly harsh. We find elsewhere that there were religious types showing up to check John out, perhaps with an interest in shutting him down. The Jewish people were a particularly God-centered (or, religion-centered) people. Their dedication to their system of religion was fundamental to their life and beliefs. But they had been leaning more and more towards legalism and dead works than they were towards God’s mercy.

There were several groups within Judæa who had religious power, and this was quite important in a nation where YHWH worship was central to the lives of most people. Having a man unaffiliated with any of them, who has this ministry out in the desert-wilderness, is certainly a curiosity. John also appears to pose a potential threat to them, as he is not teaching the tenets of the current Jewish traditions.

Despite their difference in demeanor, both John and Jesus spoke very harshly to the religious types of that era. These words of John in particular castigate the religious types of his day (and their followers).

Luke 3:9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

John’s warning is that the people of Israel are not productive; they are not really doing God’s work. This statement is rather dramatic. “If you are not producing the fruit that God expects from you, you will be cut down and thrown into judgment!” he warns.

Luke 3:10 And the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?"

There were many who showed up to hear John who were not getting what they needed from their synagogue and Temple. They knew something was wrong, even if they were unable to put their finger on it exactly.

It is difficult when you are born into something, and you know that there is something amiss, but you do not really have anything to compare it with.

John began to provide them with an alternate way of seeing things.

Luke 3:11 And he answered them, "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise."

Israel was about to go through a very transformative time. Some people would be financially ruined and far worse. John is not telling them, “What you need is a socialist government.” (We discussed this at length in our study.) He is telling them that they will need to voluntarily share their own blessings with others (socialism is anything but voluntarily sharing). There would come a time when those hearing John would need to share their own basic necessities with others.

Luke 3:12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?"

Several groups of people come to John and pose questions to him. Both sets of people specifically mentioned here were apparently rejected by the religious types in that day, but both sets of people sought acceptance by God.

It was legitimate for a Jew to be a tax collector in that era. There is nothing in the Word of God which would forbid a Jewish person from performing that function. However, the Jewish religious class has rejected them; and many fellow Jews have rejected them. So they ask John, what should we do?

Luke 3:13 And he said to them, "Collect no more than you are authorized to do."

John tells them, simply, do not overtax. Their jobs are legitimate; the taxes are legitimate; what is not allowed is for them to tax the people more than what their taxes are. Some tax collectors became quite rich by overcharging people on their taxes, and keeping the difference in their own pockets.

Luke 3:14a Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?"

I believe that this a detachment of Jews who are soldiers in Judæa; possibly under the authority of the governor of Judæa. They are also despised by the religious classes and by some of their fellow Jews. They also ask John, “What should we do?”

Luke 3:14b And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."

As soldiers, they are told not to abuse their authority or their power; and to be content with their wages (so that they would not use their position to extort money from others).

Luke 3:15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ,...

Quite a number of people, during that time, believed that this was the era of the Messiah. I would suggest two reasons for this (1) There is actually a complex timetable laid out in the book of Daniel, which appears to take them to around a.d. 30. (2) There was the birth of the Messiah, which was a pretty big event about 30 years ago. Many of the people who saw the baby Jesus are, at this point in history, dead. But they would have enthusiastically spoken about what they saw.

Now, even though Jesus had been, as an infant, identified by several groups of people (who we studied in the first couple chapters of Luke), they apparently lost track of Him (or they passed away over the past few decades). But they would have spoken to their own families about seeing the baby Jesus. Therefore, the people were in expectation [of the Messiah].

Clearly, based upon the history that we are studying, the people did lose track of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. You may remember that shortly after Jesus’ birth, the family relocated, for a few years, in Egypt. When they returned to their own city, they appear to have kept a low profile (there is only a single story about Jesus between the age of 1 and 30).

Here, according to Luke, the people are thinking about this in their right lobes (= hearts). That means, they were closely observing John, listening to the words that he spoke, and then comparing that to the prophecies of the Messiah that they knew.

At this point, the people in the crowd are wondering if John is the Messiah. At other times, they will ask John this question directly.

John seemed to sense what they were thinking. He may have been asked this question directly before.

Luke 3:16 ...John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but He who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of Whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Jesus is the One Who John is speaking about. John knows that he is the messenger for the Messiah; John knows that he is not the Messiah. John has no illusions about his own place in the plan of God.

John says that he is unworthy even to untie the sandals of Jesus. This means that John is grace oriented. He understands that he is a sinner in the eyes of God, and, as such—despite his commission as herald to the King—is no greater than anyone else. We are all sinners before God.

John tells those who have come to him what Messiah will do. For those who believed in the Lord, Jesus would give them the Holy Spirit; and for those who would reject Him, Jesus would bring judgment down on them (represented by fire).

Luke 3:17 His winnowing fork is in His hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into His barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire."

Throughout the Bible, there is always this separation of two sets of people. Some will be the wheat and some will be the chaff, which is the waste. The wheat is preserved by God and the chaff is placed under judgment (chaff is often burned up).

Luke 3:18 So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people.

Many people asked John many questions; and he had a great deal to say; but not all of it is recorded in the gospels.

John also proclaimed the good news, which is the news of the coming Messiah.

We do not know the length of John’s ministry. I suspect that it took place over a period of perhaps 6 months (or less). If Jesus is the Messiah and His public ministry is 3 or 4 years in length; then John, His herald, should be in front of the public for a much shorter period of time (I would not be surprised to find that his desert ministry was only 1–3 months long).

John’s purpose was limited. He had things to teach those who did not believe that they were getting an accurate assessment of the Scripture through their Temple worship. People understood—or at least suspected—that there was something wrong with the religious class. Some groups of people were simply rejected by the religious class, so they had nowhere else to go. They came to John for guidance. But John’s primary purpose was to inform the people of the coming of their Promised Messiah.

Illustration: The protestant movement, known as the Reformation, rebelled, in part, against the religious class, which was a powerful and entrenched class in the Catholic Church. The established Catholic church, at that time, taught a great many falsehoods (which they do even today).

Vv. 19–20 take place near the end of John’s public ministry:

Luke 3:19–20 But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by him for Herodias, his brother's wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison.

That Herod the tetrarch was reproved by John is fascinating to me. Did John suddenly riff on Herod before a crowd of people? Or did John have some sort of face to face with Herod? The latter seems likely to me. The religious crowd clearly went out to see John; did Herod do that as well?

We saw in this chapter how various men stood up before John and asked, “What should I do?” I believe that Herod came out to see what all the fuss was about, heard people stand up and pose that question, so he did the same. “I am Herod, I rule over Galilee and Perea. What should I do?” He may have even spoke these words in jest, but he was not prepared to hear an actual answer from John. Most people cowed before such a cruel ruler; but John did not. John publically reproved Herod for these things that he did. No doubt, he took this public rebuke very personally. Although this is not recorded in Scripture, I believe that this is the circumstance behind how Herod came to be reproved by John.

That John was put into prison is found in the 3 other biographies (Matt. 4:12 Mark 1:14 John 3:24), but without letting us know what transpired right before that. I have given you what I believe happened above.

Vv. 19–20 are an aside. These verses take a quick look into the future. We return to the present (the present of the narrative) with v. 21. With v. 21, we are back with John the herald, baptizing people; and Jesus has come before John and John baptized Him.

Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened,...

John is baptizing a number of people; but then, Jesus appears before him. John baptizes Jesus (Whom he recognizes from afar), and the heavens open up. I believe that the statement, the heavens were opened is defined by the next verse:

Luke 3:22 ...and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son; with You I am well pleased." (NKJV, capitalized)

The people there see something like a dove descend upon Jesus—this was the Holy Spirit manifested in a form which could be seen. There was a voice from the sky. I can recall God speaking the Ten Commandments in the hearing of all the people; and then there is this particular statement, heard by the people watching Jesus being baptized. I cannot recall any other time when God spoke to a group of people.

At this point in Luke 3, we examine the genealogy of Jesus, starting with Jesus and going all the way back to Adam, through His true mother, Mary. All people have a genealogy on the father’s side and on the mother’s side. Jesus had on a true human genealogy on His mother’s side. Jesus is fully man by birth; but this genealogy goes back only through Mary, as He is virgin-born (the other genealogy in the book of Matthew is the genealogy of his legal father, Joseph).

One might, in the middle of this narrative, ask, now, just exactly Who is this Jesus again? Whose Son is He? Luke answers such a question by presenting the genealogy of the Lord.

The House of David (a genealogical chart); from RedeemingGod.com; accessed November 21, 2018. This presents both lines leading to Jesus (the legal line and the bloodline).

Luke presents Jesus (primarily) as the Son of Man; that is, Luke emphasizes Jesus’ humanity. Therefore, Luke emphasizes Jesus’ human birth and human origins. Jesus is fully and completely human; the doctrine of Kenosis tells us that He voluntarily sets aside His Deity in order to accomplish His work on earth. I believe that it is entirely possible that Jesus did not rely on His divine attributes to do anything during His life on earth (including the Transfiguration). However, I am not yet ready to defend that position.

The Two Genealogies of Jesus (a chart); from Medium.com; accessed May 7, 2020. I do object to the image of Jesus presented in this chart, as He did not have long hair.

Two links to outstanding studies on the Doctrine of Kenosis: Charles Clough; Robert McLaughlin.

We might understand that the humanity of Jesus Christ set aside His Deific nature or chose not to access it.

Luke 4 picks up right where chapter 3 left off, where Jesus has made His first public appearance, before the disciples of John the baptizer. This public appearance, during which the Lord was baptized by John, began the Lord’s public ministry. He would remain in front of the people of God for the next 3 or 4 years.

It should not be lost on us the brevity of the Lord’s actual public ministry; or the limited region wherein He taught. Just as we should not have any historical knowledge of many people named in the Scriptures (such as Abraham, a shepherd-traveler); it is surprising that we know, 2000 years later, about the very short ministry of a teaching prophet which took place in a very small region halfway around the world.

In Luke 3, we got a pretty extensive view of the ministry of John the baptizer. At the end of that narrative, John then baptizes Jesus, and the heavens open, and the Holy Spirit descends upon Him like a dove, and God the Father, from heaven, said, “You are My Beloved Son in Whom I am most pleased.” (Luke 3:21b–22).

Interestingly enough, we do not know how many people were there. 10? 15? Perhaps even 50 or 100—but John baptizes Jesus, and John’s ministry is thus eclipsed. As John himself said, “I must decrease and He will increase.” John’s very unusual ministry out in the desert-wilderness would no longer be the focal point of dynamic spiritual happenings. What John had been promising his followers out in the desert-wilderness, had come to pass. The Messiah, Jesus, had come.

With that, Jesus began His public ministry. Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years of age... (Luke 3:23a; ESV; capitalized)

No doubt you have heard the expression, cannot see the forest for the trees. That is, there are so many trees all around you that you have no real appreciation or overview of the entire forest. It might be an acre; and might be 100 sq. miles; there may be mountains, it may all be flat; there may be several rivers running through it. But there are just so many trees all around you that you cannot see anything but the trees in your immediate vicinity.

This expression describes much of Luke 4. There are many complex doctrines to be found here; and there will be times that, I explain what is going on in so much detail that you lose track of the narrative and/or the context. Therefore, periodically, I will stop and regroup, and remind you of the narrative itself.

Two doctrines occur to me immediately: the doctrine of intercalation (a doctrine many Christians know nothing about) and demonology. Many great and not so great books have been written about the latter doctrine.

Jesus will proclaim His Messiahship in this chapter; but He will also prevent demons from speaking of this. There will be other times when people want to talk about Him, and He will indicate that He would rather that they didn’t. What is going on here? A false modesty? Since Jesus is only on earth for a very short time, does He not want every human being to know about Him? Does Jesus not believe that, all publicity is good publicity? If we have something that we want others to know about, we might say to those in our periphery, and spread the word; tell your friends, neighbors and family. But Jesus did not do that. At no time is Jesus recorded saying, “I want you to tell 5 friends and I want each of them to tell 5 friends.”

My point is, there is a lot to explain and unpack in this chapter. For those of you who have to feel as if you are moving forward in any biography of Jesus; you will feel at times in Luke 4 as if your boots are in deep mud. But, for me as it should be for you, we consider the journey as every bit important as the destination itself.

In this chapter, Jesus will face the temptations of Satan; and then He will formally begin His Galilean ministry. I have pointed this out before—the Galilean region, historically, was not known for its positive volition towards God and His plan. This is up in the northern region; and, even though there are many Jews living in this area, it is not even seen as being Israel (the region to the south, called Judæa, is more properly considered the successor to ancient Israel). However, Jesus spends the majority of his public ministry right here in the north. It is to this region that Jesus will primarily minister. He will not spend a lot of time in Judæa; He will not spend a lot of time at the Temple (He will go there on several occasions, but the majority of Jesus’s ministry will occur in Galilee).

About midway through this chapter, Jesus will go to a synagogue in Nazareth and He will make the most powerful public statement that a man has ever made, clearly claiming to be the Messiah, upon Whom is the Spirit of the Lord. The response of the people is far different than we might expect—they will attempt to kill Him for blasphemy.

Throughout the remainder of the chapter, Jesus will heal and proclaim the Kingdom of God.

Right after being introduced to John’s disciples as the Messiah of God—which is confirmed by Luke’s genealogy—Jesus then is led into the desert-wilderness by God the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly enough, in the middle of Luke 3, the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus; and here, at the beginning of Luke 4, the Spirit leads Jesus into the desert-wilderness. What makes this interesting to me is, even though the first two chapters of Luke mention the Holy Spirit; Jesus is not associated with the Holy Spirit until He is baptized by John.

This certainly suggests the question, was Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit prior to John’s baptism? Let’s consider this logically. Jesus has grown spiritually throughout His life. We know that because of Luke 2:40, 52. Was the Spirit a part of His life in some way prior to John’s baptism. It seems logical that He must be, since He grew spiritually (by studying the Word of God). So, what occurred before the disciples of John in chapter 3 was actually for their benefit. They were able to see a physical manifestation of the power of God being given to Jesus, the man.

There is a different sort of relationship between the Spirit of God and man in the Old Testament economy. I believe that it is referred to as enduement. I do not know that I could adequately distinguish between the filling and the enduement of the Holy Spirit. However, it seems fairly clear that Jesus sending the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) is far superior (perhaps what is far superior is the fact that all believers receive the Spirit?).

In any case, Jesus is filled with the Holy Spirit at the beginning of Luke 4. I believe that we are told that for our benefit, as the audience for Luke’s biography of Jesus. I do not think that Jesus being led by the Spirit is something new that had never happened before.

Luke 4:1a And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan...

Jesus had been in the Jordan Valley being baptized by John. This is what we studied in the previous chapter.

Whereas, John has a full-blown ministry in the desert-wilderness—which ministry continues on at this point—Jesus begins His public ministry. However, His public ministry does not begin as we might think it would. There is a crowd, gathered there to see John, but Jesus does not take it over. Jesus did not look out over John’s disciples and say, “You have been following John; now you will follow Me.” The herald announces the King and the King is before His people; but, at a point where we might expect an inspiring inauguration speech—nothing is recorded by any of the disciples. In fact, for a short time, Jesus will disappear from the public’s radar for 40 days.

Luke 4:1b ...and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness...

Jesus is said to be filled with the Spirit; and here, He is led by the Spirit. This is all true, but the information is given to us for our benefit.

I mentioned the doctrine of kenosis at the end of Luke 3. What we read here helps us to better understand how the Lord’s ministry operated. Jesus did not, by means of His omniscience, decide, “Next on My agenda is going off to the desert-wilderness to be tested.” Instead, He is being led there by God the Holy Spirit. As God, Jesus would have had direct access to the plan of God. He would know, this is #1 event, #2 event, etc. And he would go wherever based upon God’s plan. However, as a man, Jesus has this understanding only through the doctrine in His human spirit combined with the guidance of God the Holy Spirit. Just like you and I.

Jesus was very much like us, inasmuch as, He did not know what was going to happen over the next day, week or month. Now and again, this is going to explain His words or behavior. Because Jesus voluntarily functioned within the confines of His humanity, setting aside His access to His Own Deity, exactly what the future held for Him on any given day was not known to Him. Where He was to go next was not known to Him, except when guided by God the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is here in the desert-wilderness being led by God the Holy Spirit. One of the remarkable things regarding Jesus—and I rarely see any of these being emphasized—He spent a considerable amount of time alone. He took time out to get away from the crowds. I can totally relate to that.

At this point in time, there were no crowds, apart from those who were gathered to see John. Jesus was a part of that crowd; but He was then baptized by John. Interestingly enough, Jesus does not say to John, “What you did was great; now I will take it from here.” and then He turns to teach the crowds. Jesus did not do that at all. Insofar as we know, He exchanged a few words with John and did nothing else. Interestingly enough, Jesus did not stand before the crowd and begin to speak (insofar as we know). John baptized Him, told the people Who He was; but I do not believe that Jesus even addressed the people there. He does not appear to have even lifted His hand in a friendly gesture, as if to say, “Hey, how’s it going?” With no real commentary in between, we go from Jesus’ baptism out to the middle of the desert-wilderness to being led by the Spirit, even further into the uninhabited regions of Judæa.

He was being guided at this time, by God the Holy Spirit.

One of the many doctrines developed by R. B. Thieme, Jr. is, Jesus Christ test-drove the spiritual life for the believer in the Church Age. The spiritual life which you and I live was first lived by Jesus (not by Abraham, not by Moses, not by David). At the second birth, we are given the same resources that the Lord had. Even though He was minus a sin nature, we function without sin during the periods of time that we are filled with the Holy Spirit. This time may be 5 seconds, 5 minutes, and even, for some people at some times, 5 hours (at least until the time you have to enter into rush traffic).

One possible option is that Jesus had the enduement of the Spirit from birth to around age 30—thus having exactly the same spiritual assets as the Old Testament saints; but, at the beginning of His public ministry, he is filled with the Holy Spirit, having the same spiritual assets of the Church Age believers. Was there a difference between Jesus prior to His public ministry and Jesus during His public ministry? I don’t know that there was exactly; and, at this point, I don’t believe that I could quantify this difference in any way. We can differentiate between believers in the Church Age and believers in the Age of Israel; but I don’t know that I can do that with Jesus.

Luke 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness...

Jesus is relying upon the Spirit of God to guide Him. We do not know the mechanics for this, exactly; apart from Jesus Christ being in fellowship and being steeped in the Word of God. However, as we moved further through this chapter, there will be come things which occur that help us to understand some of the ways that the Lord was guided in His humanity.

Jesus Christ grew spiritually in His humanity (And the Child grew, and became strong in spirit, being filled with wisdom. And the grace of God was upon Him. —Luke 2:40; LitV)

We do not know if Jesus knows that He is going out in the desert-wilderness in order to be tested by the devil; but that is what is about to happen. It is my opinion that He does not know what is about to happen.

Jesus, in His Deity, was omniscient; however, in His humanity, His knowledge was limited. The doctrine of Kenosis tells us that Jesus set aside the use of His divine assets, and He used only that which Church Age believers will be given. Again, He test-drove the spiritual life for us believers in the Church Age. In my opinion, He understood where the Spirit was guiding Him; but He did not know what would happen next.

We have just begun to study Luke 4. We have completed the first verse:

Luke 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness...

We do not know exactly where Jesus returned to. Given that particular word (returned) and given what He will do in the second half of this chapter, it appears that Jesus returned to His home (or hometown) in the Galilean region.

We have just begun to study Luke 4. We have completed the first verse:

Luke 4:1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness...

We do not know exactly where Jesus returned to. Given that particular word (returned) and given what He will do in the second half of this chapter, it appears that Jesus returned to His home (or hometown) in the Galilean region.

Luke 4:2a ...for forty days, being tempted by the devil.

This will be the topic of the first 13 verses of this chapter; Jesus will be tested by Satan while in this state of hunger. This would represent Jesus at His weakest, humanly speaking.

What appears to be the case to me is, Jesus is tempted/tested for 40 days by Satan—we do not know how or with what; and we read about the final temptations on the 40^th day. The text does not state this specifically, but idea of just 3 temptations over a period of 40 days seems rather light.

Satan is a genius; so we may trust that, having been given to go-ahead, was able to tempt the Lord for a long period of time. If you are familiar with the book of Job, and Satan appearing before God and asking to be able to take a number of liberties with Job—let me suggest that, as Jesus grew older, Satan continually petitioned to become a stumbling black in the life of the Lord. Just as God allowed some access to Job by Satan; God will grant some access to Jesus by Satan.

Interestingly enough, this appears to be the only direct interaction between Jesus and Satan. God appears to have given Satan some specific parameters to remain within, with the warning (apparently), “I will allow you to test My Son; but You may not physically harm Him; and you will have no direct contact after this time.” (This is speculation on my part.)

There will be 3 temptations recorded here and in Matthew (a parallel passage); and based upon the language, these were not the only tests; they were just the final 3 on the final day.

Luke 4:1–2a And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil.

This first verse + 2a gives us the setup for the first 13 verses of this chapter.

What is Jesus doing in the desert-wilderness for much of this time? He is thinking about the Word of God. He has, by this time, memorized the entire Bible. However, His mind must continue to digest and consider what He knows, and compare Scripture with Scripture. Jesus was not born knowing all of the Scriptures. He functioned in this life in a fully human way, from start to finish (fully human, but without a sin nature).

Not only must the Scriptures be learned, but they must be placed side-by-side as Jesus continues learning and growing spiritually in His humanity. When someone learns the Scriptures, there is a point at which their spiritual understanding suddenly blossoms. So many things in Scripture interlock and make so much sense.

R. B. Thieme, Jr. taught the Scriptures continually for about 15 or 20 years, and then, suddenly, everything began to fall into place. Starting in the mid-1960's, R. B. Thieme, Jr. began to have one of the most productive ministries in world history. Everything began to fit into place. So, for 10 or 15 years, Bob would teach a half a chapter or even a chapter each night. Then he would go back to that same book and chapter, and teach it again. And, at some point, the amount of spiritual information that he began to teach ballooned—almost magically. It was all there all of the time, but he began to put so much of it together and understand really what was being said.

This is going to be hard for some of you to believe and understand, but Jesus grew spiritually in His humanity. He learned the Word of God from a very early age. He continued to study it; and, at some point, it all came together as a marvelous whole.

Luke 4:2b And He ate nothing during those days.

In the Greek, this reads, and He did not eat nothing... In the English, a double negative is a positive; but in the Greek, a double negative means, that the negative is emphasized much more than a single negative.

Jesus, in His humanity, has gone for 40 days without eating. For you or I, this would be impossible. However, for Jesus, this is not impossible because His body is without sin. Recall that Adam lived for over 900 years. This is because his body, even though he had sinned, was closer to the perfect state of a physical body. As mankind continued in life, his length of life decreased, because of sin’s effects on our genetics. Jesus, because He lacked a sin nature, had perfect genetics.

Personally, I am a very healthy guy. God has greatly blessed me with wonderfully good health. But there will come a time when my body begins to fail due to aging. This may occur a few days from now; or a few years from now. Obviously, at age 70, I have noticed some changes and have found there to be some restrictions as to what I am able and not able to do (I used to be able to easily run 3 miles without stopping; now it seems to be a greater effort to run those same 3 miles—and sometimes, I find myself running and walking them). But in terms of serious aging problems, I have been blessed not to suffer those things yet. But it will happen. There is no doubt about that.

Personally, I have fasted before, in my secular life; and, if memory serves, I went for 3 or 4 days without eating. I am not sure what the physical limitations actually are, but my guess is, after about a week or so, fasting could lead to death.

Jesus, even though He has a human body just like ours, His body is not corrupted by sin. His body could not only live for a long time (indefinitely, actually); but he is able to withstand, in His human body, great physical punishment without succumbing. So, His body is able to endure 40 days of fasting. No one else, apart from Adam (and others from the antediluvian era) perhaps, could do something like this. However, there is no doubt that the Lord, in His humanity, was very hungry.

Most people do not understand what fasting is. They see it as a sacrifice for God; or as a discipline of the mind over the body. However, the true understanding of fasting is, you set aside legitimate things in life (in this case, eating) in order to pursue or accomplish spiritual goals (such as, take in the Word of God).

We are so focused on the Deity of our Lord and upon His perfection that we do not fully appreciate that, in His humanity, he grew both physically, mentally and spiritually. He was about to launch His public ministry, and Jesus was preparing Himself through knowledge of the Word of God and fellowship with His Father.

Luke 4:2c And when they were ended, He was hungry.

This verse is literally translated, and completing them, He was hungry. Completing them means that Jesus had come to the end of these 40 days of prayer and fasting. Jesus is about to begin His public ministry and He is preparing Himself for it.

Many believers do not understand the concept of fasting and they often see the act of fasting as the focus of that spiritual experience. We do not necessarily set aside a day or a few days and decide, now, I am going to fast. Fasting is not an end in itself. Fasting is not you testing yourself and your control over your body. Fasting is where you set time aside for spiritual matters so that you do not have time to eat. You are setting aside a normal non-sinful activity in order to engage in spiritual growth or to do something related to the plan of God.

No doubt, you have worked on a project (for work or school) and you either skipped lunch or put off your lunch for an hour or two. That would be fasting—not a spiritual fast, but it is still a fast. People for their work, have forgone meals and sleep in order to complete whatever task is set before them. They have to complete a project before they are done for the day, and everyone continues to work on it until it is complete—sometimes forgoing their dinner (or putting it off for a few hours). That is a form of fasting.

The point that I am making is, fasting is not an end to itself. Fasting is not all about skipping a meal or three; but fasting is all about what is being done during that time instead of eating (or sleeping or whatever).

R. B. Thieme, Jr. used to have as many as 9 classes a week at church, and some people attended all of them or most of them. I can guarantee you that, during any one of those classes, 50 or 100 or more people had missed a meal to be there. Some did not have time to eat before class, and were starving—but they understood that spiritual food was more important; and so they showed up to class hungry, in order to take in spiritual food. Then, after class, they went home to enjoy some physical food. That is spiritual fasting. You set aside normal human activities, which are not sinful or forbidden, and use that time in order to achieve a spiritual goal (such as, taking in doctrine for an hour or more in Bible class). Something might be very important to you and you pray for it. For me, although I pray, I don’t tend to go on for very long. Typically, I might pray for a few minutes and name some specific things, and I am done. On occasion, I will speak to God for a longer period of time. But a 15 or 20 minute prayer? However, there are people who have very specific concerns and they will speak to God about these concerns, putting off a meal because they believe their concerns to be more important.

I write this in 2021 and we have witnessed the first change of presidency in the United States where it is clear that the voting was rigged; and that the person who did not actually win the election is now serving as president. I can guarantee you that many people (including myself), took this to God in prayer. Christians should be able to recognize that life in the United States has been unlike life anywhere else in the world; and that God has greatly blessed us in this. However, what has taken place is also a clear sign of discipline (along with the COVID disease). I would not be surprised if hundreds, if not thousands of people, prayed fervently to God over this, missing or putting off a meal to let their petitions be known to Him.

Personally, I don’t miss many meals. I will not win any awards as a great faster; but, in the mornings, I am hungry, but I will spend 30 minutes or an hour studying and writing first, and then I take my morning meal. That is fasting. Eating is legitimate and not sinful; but I am setting it aside—momentarily—and devoting myself to exegeting a passage and then explaining that passage. That is fasting, albeit limited to a very short period of time.

Luke 4:2c And when they were ended, He was hungry.

Jesus felt hunger, even as we all do. His body was telling him that it needed nutrients. This is clearly the humanity of Jesus which is functioning.

Luke 4:2 ...for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, He was hungry.

Jesus goes out in the desert-wilderness and He is fasting and being tempted by the devil. Was He tempted by Satan for the entirety of those 40 days? It is not clear; I would guess that the Lord had interactions with Satan perhaps several times each day. But what else occurred during that 40 days? My only logical guess would be that Jesus was considering the Scriptures. Perhaps He was reading them from memory. Perhaps He was praying to God the Father. Obviously, in the desert-wilderness, if you are not eating (and, therefore, not looking for food), there are a very limited number of things that you might do. Jesus apparently concentrated on the Word of God during this time.

The text sounds as if Jesus is out in the desert-wilderness and the devil is tempting/testing Him while He is there, apparently fasting.

Or is Jesus there, fasting, but the testing does not occur until after 40 days?

One of the things which I learned under the ministry of R. B. Thieme, Jr. is, the action of the aorist participle precedes (or is coterminous with) the action of the main verb. There are actually 2 aorist participles in v. 2 and two main verbs. The problem I have seen with most translation is, they continue v. 1 into v. 2, which confuses the issue. In order to show this in English, a translator would have the first aorist participle followed later by the main verb, and the sentence would be ended. The second sentence would be the second aorist participle and it would be followed by the main verb. I looked over about 60 translations and, do you know how many actually followed that pattern? None. Two of them came close: the Contemporary English Version (which is know more for it paraphrasing and thought-for-thought translation) and the Douay-Rheims Bible (the Latin translation from the Greek; which Latin is then translated into English).

So, if our interest here was establishing a timeline, we would adhere to this pattern of two separate sentences in v. 2. The other approach would be to have a compound sentence, where these two sub-sentences are separated by a semi-colon:

He was tested [for] 40 days by the devil, but had not eaten anything [lit., nothing] in those days; and, completing them, He was hungry. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

More accurately, this would read: Having been tested [for] 40 days by the devil, He had not eaten nothing in those days; and they being completed, He was hungry. I have bolded the participles and underlined the main verbs. The action of the aorist participle (the bold text) occurs prior to (or coterminous with) the main verb (in both phrases, I have underlined the main verbs).

The first participle has Jesus being tested for 40 days. After that or coterminous with that, Jesus is not eating nothing. So, while being tested by the devil, Jesus is not eating. Whether these temptations continue constantly, several a day; or whether Satan shows up every few days with a new temptation, we do not know. Logically, God has limited Satan (but to what degree, we do not know).

But the testing took place over 40 days; and Jesus fasted during the testing. I would suggest to you that Jesus filled up whatever time was open to Him with prayer and the study of the Scriptures (Jesus did not need to have a physical Bible with Him; He would have heard and remembered the words of God; so let me suggest that was thinking Scripture this entire time).

The second participle refers to the 40 days, which are completed. After these days are completed or during the time that they are coming to their completion, Jesus is hungry. Does Jesus think about this? Although this is purely conjecture, I would suggest that the temptations combined with the prayer and consideration of Scripture are so intense that, for the most part, He does not. As the 40 days come to a close, Jesus begins to realize that He is hungry. Let me suggest that this is more of a pressing concern to Him at this point.

In any case, we should understand what fasting is all about. Fasting is where you set aside normal and non-sinful activity in your life, in order to do something else—specifically to engage in spiritual activity. Although we are not told what else Jesus was doing, let me suggest that He was spending this time studying (or meditating upon) the Scriptures. And when I said meditating upon, what I mean is, He is thinking about passages which He has memorized and He considers what they mean.

Did Jesus, in His humanity, read the Scriptures, and immediately understand them? Or, did He add Scripture upon Scripture, precept upon precept, advancing spiritual and He learned more?

In order to follow the plan of God, Jesus was able to turn off or set aside His Deity. By choice, he kept His Deity and humanity separate. In some way, that had to happen. We have Him speaking sometimes from His humanity (I thirst; the Father is greater than Me); and sometimes He speaks from His Deity (Before Abraham lived, I existed eternally). It should be clear that, these sets of statements clearly proceed from His humanity or His Deity, specifically.

Jesus setting aside the attributes of Deity is known as kenosis. An illustration that occurs to me is, you are playing football with your young daughters, and you are carrying the ball, and you are running, but they grab you and pull you down. Quite obviously, if your daughters are under 10 years old, then you have the ability to smash right through them, and take that football wherever you want to, leaving those little girls lying on the field. But you don’t do that; you would never do that. You withhold whatever skills, power and strength that you have, and you let them enjoy taking you down. This is how a normal father behaves. He sets aside his prowess as a football player and adjusts himself to the situation at hand (which is giving in to two pint-sized daughters who want to tackle him).

Jesus is about to begin His public ministry. Let me suggest that He is, so to speak, preparing for the exam. He is clearly well-taught up to the point; and now, He spends time in concentrated study, out in the wilderness.

Another reason to take the position that Jesus is studying the Word of God that is, every time that Jesus is tempted by Satan, He has the same response. He quotes the Word of God. That suggests to me that study of the Word of God occurred prior to these temptations. Jesus does not need to have a written Bible with Him, or a book or two of commentary with Him. Although Jesus is fully a man, let me suggest that He is perfect and without sin. Therefore, He could hear a verse, once or twice, and it would be committed to His memory.

Let’s consider the three temptations of this passage. Did all of the temptations occur at once? Did Satan tempt the Lord throughout the 40 days? Are these 3 instances of many? We simply do not know the answer to these questions. Even though the parallel passage in Matthew has the exact same 3 temptations, that is not proof positive that there were only 3 temptations. Luke may be referencing the book of Matthew right here. That book has 3 specific temptations, so Luke records the same 3.

If we consider the literal translation of this passage, it appears that Jesus was tempted throughout those 40 days. We have gone over the exact translation of v. 2, which seems to indicate that Satan continued tempting and testing the Lord for those full 40 days. Therefore, we will read about three temptations; but there were, very likely, far more than just those three.

Luke 4:1–2 Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan Valley, being led by the Spirit in the desert-wilderness. He was tested for 40 days by the devil, but had not eaten anything in those days. As a result, he was quite hungry. Kukis paraphrase

There is another topic which is generally left undiscussed and, that is, how did Matthew or Luke know about this? This testing probably took place before all angelic creation; but there do not appear to be any people there besides the Lord. Therefore, we may only speculate. Jesus would have had to have revealed this and I suspect that He revealed these temptations either to His disciples or directly to Matthew. Another alternative is, Matthew was given this information directly from God the Holy Spirit (which is not my position on this matter). Luke, very likely, read this in Matthew’s account and recorded it here. It is quite a phenomenal thing that, the first thing that Jesus does after being baptized by John is to fast and face temptation. It does not appear that He did any teaching between these two incidents.

Before discussing this narrative any further, let me deal with a more trivial matter. Let’s say that Luke is writing his gospel, and he refers back to Matthew and to this parallel passage. Why doesn’t Luke say, “Matthew has already written about this, so I won’t”? You may not realize this, but that is an excellent question. If Luke reads the book of Matthew, why does he repeat this series of events in his own gospel?

The writers of the biographies of Jesus did not think, these biographies will be gathered up and placed into one big book, and that book will be distributed all over the world! These writers did not think this because they had no idea that was going to happen to their writings. I don’t believe that most of them thought of their writings as being inspired or as the Scriptures (as we do). Luke was sending this information to a friend (and, I am sure he expected it to be shared with other believers). However, Luke did not necessarily think, “Well, these people have already read Matthew, so I don’t need to repeat it.” Luke did not expect for a believer to read both his and the other gospels. The person Luke was writing this to may even have been completely outside the circle of the Jewish disciples. Remember, Luke is a gentile; and Theophilus (to whom this is written), is certainly a Greek name.

Whatever the reason, Luke sees this event as being quite noteworthy; and so he includes it in his gospel. That is likely because the recipient of his gospel is not the same group as the recipient of Matthew or Mark’s gospels.

Along these same lines, recall that John writes a gospel (biography of Jesus) long after the other three have been published and sent throughout the world. We don’t know how widely that they were distributed, but my logical guess is, John was aware of the other 3 gospels before he wrote his (and he probably read them). Furthermore, by this time, it is clear to John that these writings which will make up the New Testament are widely distributed. Matthew, Mark and Luke would not have known this.

John’s gospel, however, is a different story. It is my opinion that John felt that were some topics and incidents which needed to be explored logically. John knows what writings exist out there, and I believe he just sees a place for the things which he remembers. Therefore, when he writes his gospel, it is the least derivative of the others. His gospel narrative is the most complementary to the others. That is, if you are going to study two gospels, make one of them the book of John.

Luke 4:1–2 Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan Valley, being led by the Spirit in the desert-wilderness. He was tested for 40 days by the devil, but had not eaten anything in those days. As a result, he was quite hungry. Kukis paraphrase

I want to suggest something else which took place in the desert-wilderness at this time, during these 40 days. Fasting is not about not eating. Fasting is all about what you do instead of eating. Fasting is taking time from doing legitimate things and devoting that time to spiritual activity. What spiritual activity was Jesus involved in at this time? Did Satan tempt Him nonstop? Or, was Jesus doing something else? Let me suggest that Jesus had the Scriptures with Him in the desert-wilderness. Now, He may not have had the scrolls physically in His possession, but He is a man very much like Adam, born without a sin nature.

Let me suggest that Jesus was capable of things that we would find to be impossible for us. What we read about here is, He fasted for 40 days. We know that man cannot survive without food. I don’t know the time frame, whether it is a week or two, but no other man could physically endure going 40 days without food.

I believe that Jesus not only prayed, during this time, but he spent this time going over the Scriptures in His mind. I believe that Jesus was capable not only of reading and understanding the Word of God; but also that He was capable of remembering all of it. I need to emphasize that this is conjecture on my part; but I believe that the mentality of created man was far greater than we could imagine today. Even after man had fallen, even after the flood, let me suggest that many people learned and could recite the book of Genesis—even the genealogies.

Today, there are people who remember every day of their lives. There are people who are unable to forget much of their lives. People put up with me and I put up with other people because our memories fade. When I recall my childhood, I recall primarily pleasant memories. However, I know in my youth, there were times when I was very unhappy. I know that intellectually, but not emotionally. My emotions from that period of time have been smoothed over.

Now, there were interactions that I had with other people which were quite bad. But, because my memories have faded over the years, all of that is in the past and mostly forgotten; and I hold no one responsible for anything that was done to me (and I hope that they feel the same way about me). As normal human beings, our life is like that. Our past fades and we are able to forgive people that we thought, at the time, we could never do. But, there are people who cannot do that. If you have ever had someone who has done you wrong, it is hard to forgive them right then and there; and it is even hard to forgive them a day later or a week later, because the memory is so fresh in your mind. A year or two or five, and that memory fades enough for you to let bygones by bygones.

Surely you have known of estranged families. It is not unusual for two sisters to have a falling out, or a father and son; and this may continue for a period of several years. However, there will come a point when, whatever set this off, fades from memory; and so family members are able to reunite (despite being at odds with one another for years).

However, do you know that there are people who cannot do this? Their memories of 5 years ago are as fresh today as they were the day that it happened. It is a bizarre mental condition (I saw a special on 60 Minutes on this). So, you can give these people a date—December 27^th, 1992—and they can remember what happened on that specific day, what they did, what the weather was like and how they felt about it. They also know who they interacted with that day, and if it was an emotional interaction, they remember the situation and emotions as if it were yesterday. And this is with them their entire lives. For me, at this time in my life, upon walking into a room, the first thing that occurs to me is, “Why did I just walk into this room?” But the people with hyper-memory—their memories are much more cogent.

I say this because I believe that man has mental capabilities that would almost seem like super powers to us—one of those capabilities being a perfect memory. Let me suggest to you that Jesus had a perfect memory and that, by this time in His life, He knew the Scriptures thoroughly. In his mind, He could mentally google anything in the Scriptures, and instantly come up with the pertinent Scriptures and what they mean. Therefore, considering all of the Old Testament is what I believe that Jesus was doing in the desert-wilderness for those 40 days. In between times, He was praying and being tempted. This is speculation on my part, but I believe it to be fundamentally accurate.

In American society today, we have actually an update to the person who has a tough time forgiving an old friend or a family member for something that happened a year ago or 5 or 10 years ago. That sort of thing is common among family and friends (unfortunately). But the update is this: people think about what other ancestors did to their ancestors, and they cannot forgive that; and they are angry about that. This occurs in two specific areas today: slavery and appropriating land from the American Indians. There are some Blacks in the United States who are actually mad at present-day white people for something that took place nearly 200 years ago. Some of them are just angry; angry a lot of the time over that. Something which is less prevalent, but it does exist, is there are some Indians who are angry are white people today because their land was taken from them. As the Spanic Boys said, “It’s a strange world that we live in.”

There is one more thing to be discussed, and that is the doctrine of Kenosis. This is where Jesus voluntarily restricts His Divine Nature. Although there were times when Jesus was in touch with Himself as God (at least, theoretically); most of the time, it appears that He was not. How do we explain this? How does God stop being God, even for a second? Or, how is it possible, if Jesus is God, for Him to set that Essence aside for a period of time (I believe this could have been for His entire earthly life)?

The best I can do here is to propose an analogy. Your body does a massive number of things that you are unaware of, but these things are programmed by your brain. You breathe, your heart beats, your blood flows, your food is digested; and these things all take place without you actually thinking about it. At no time in the day do you say, “Okay, for the next minute, my heart will beat 50 times and for the next minute, it will beat 70 times.” We can’t do that. At most, we can exercise vigorously and increase our heart rate. But, even though our brains in closely involved with the beating of our hearts, this is not something that we consciously determine and will. You may be able to hold your breath until you pass out, but, your brain will take over and restore your normal breathing function after you are passed out.

So, let me suggest that the Godly qualities of Jesus—His Divine Nature—are sort of placed on auto-pilot. He may access these things from time to time, as per the Father’s plan; but His Divine Functions are carried out but somehow separate from His conscious mind. Much as our physical functions occur throughout the day, every day, without our having to contribute any conscious thought to them (and there are a huge number of things which our brain seems to direct throughout the day which bypasses our volition). Throughout most of Jesus’ life, He functions with the same mind and the same bodies that we have; subject to similar limitations. His lacking sin allows Him to be able to do some things which we cannot (having a complete memory; being able to go long periods of time without food); but we should also bear in mind that, these things are not necessarily better, in the strict sense.

If you or I had a perfect memory, then there would be people that we could never forgive (possibly every person we have known). The wrong which they did to us would always be fresh in our minds. We could not let go of it. I know someone who had an event take place in his past, and he could not let go of it; and eventually, he took his life as a result (combined with, in my opinion, taking psychotropic drugs at the same time).

My point being, having a perfect memory is not necessarily an asset. If our memories were perfect, we might not forgive anyone at anytime for what they have done to us. We might not ever get over love that is lost. I have lost a few girlfriends; but in retrospect, the emotion and the friendship are things which I remember without actually having the emotion affect me. There is a point at which, the highly charged emotional aspect of a lost relationship is filtered out of my conscious mind. I cannot even bring a re-experience of those emotions, if enough time has transpired.

Jesus, on the other hand, could not do this. When He heard something, He could not un-hear it; nor was He capable of forgetting it. Throughout His entire life, people said mean and hateful things to Jesus—and these are people for whom Christ would die—and unlike problems we have had in interactions with other, Jesus could not simply set these things aside and forget them. I believe that these things stayed with Jesus all of His earthly life (and probably still).

Jesus has a perfect memory, not because He is God, but because He is uncorrupted humanity.

Again, I am speculating here; but I believe that these are reasonable and logical conclusions which we can make about our Lord in His humanity.

At v. 3, we look at the first temptation:

Luke 4:3a The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God,...

Satan is right there with Jesus, aware of His hunger, and he challenges Him. “If you truly are the Son of God...” is the first half of the devil’s challenge.

This is a 1^st class condition, which means that the speaker is either is recognizing the truth of his own statement or is simply assuming the truth in order to make a point. I believe this to be the 1^st class condition of a logical argument. A translation could convey this with the words given, truly or really. Those words are implied. Some translators did not use the word if, but the word since. Wilbur Pickering translated this verse: So the devil said to Him, “Since you are Son of God, tell this stone to become bread!” Satan understood Jesus to be the Son of God as a reality, and he began with that as his assumption.

Luke 4:3b ...command this stone to become bread."

The devil provides a simple solution: “You are hungry and You are the Son of God; so just command this stone to become a loaf of bread. Obviously, You are able to do that.” And Jesus is. How do I know that He is capable of doing that? The first miracle that Jesus does in the book of John is turn water into wine. He is actually turning one element into another element (I know that is not the proper usage of the word element).

Now, all of this is true. Jesus is the Son of God and He is able to command that stone to become bread so that He might eat it. Surely, there is no sin in that! That is Satan’s argument.

Luke 4:3 The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread."

Quite obviously Jesus is the Son of God and He is capable of turning the stones before Him into bread, that He might eat.

This temptation is interesting to me because Jesus has probably not performed any miracles yet to this point in His life. He is able to do this, but Satan has never seen Him do anything that is amazing, as far as miracles are concerned. But Satan knows enough that He understands Who Messiah is and how powerful Messiah is.

Is it possible that Satan is just curious; and he would like to see just what the Messiah can do? I would think that Satan’s purpose is more nefarious than that. After all, if Jesus uses His Deity to do something He feels is necessary, He has stepped outside of the plan of God; and He has just proven that the plan of God combined with the power of the Spirit and the Word of God is not sufficient.

Luke 4:4a And Jesus answered him,...

Jesus speaks directly to Satan. There is no doubt that there are millions of angels watching this interaction take place.

Luke 4:4b ..."It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.' "

Luke 4:4b (a graphic); from Pinterest; accessed March 26, 2021.

As men, our lives are not dependent upon the food that we eat (or the clothes that we wear). All men have a spiritual side—for some, it is completely dormant—and our lives are incomplete without the spiritual side. For the unbeliever, that requires him to believe in Jesus Christ. For the believer, that requires him to listen to and obey the Word of God.

The full quotation comes from Moses, speaking to the people prior to their entering the land. And he is reminding them all of what they have learned along the way. He is also making application of some of their experiences to the reality of the spiritual experience. Deut. 8:3 “And He [God] humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” (ESV; capitalized) He refers to God the Father Who made provision for His people out in the desert-wilderness. They had no food; they had no way to grow good; and God provided them with manna each and every day, regardless of how many times that they reject Him; and regardless of their sorry mental attitudes. God is still faithful. Almost every person in Gen X died in the desert from the sin unto death; but God fed them each and every day up to that point. That is grace!

It was not the bread that fed the people of Israel in the desert, but God and God’s logistical support.

Even though the final words but by every word of God are in question (the Westcott Hort text does not have these words); similar words come from Deuteronomy (but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD); so, it is not out of the question to accept those final words in Deuteronomy to complete the thought here. Also, we find these additional words in Matt. 4:4: But He answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ” (ESV; capitalized; my color code)

Luke 4:4 Jesus answered him directly, saying, “It stands written that man cannot live by bread alone.”

Taking into consideration the parallel passage in Matthew; and the quoted text in Deuteronomy 8:3, we know that, even more important than the food that He eats, is the Word of God. I have suggested that what Jesus was studying in the desert-wilderness is the Word of God. He does not need the manuscripts; he can have these words memorized; He is able to know the text perfectly by memory. Jesus is in the desert-wilderness not living on physical food but living on the Word of God.

If Jesus’ response to the devil is the Word of God; if that is how Jesus directly confronted temptation, should we not consider becoming immersed in the Word of God as well?

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.' "

Luke 4:1–4 (FNV) (a graphic); from the Lutheran Indian Ministries; accessed March 26, 2021.

Jesus will answer all 3 temptations with Scripture.

Let’s look at another translation of the passage which Jesus refers back to.

Deut. 8:3 [Moses is speaking to the congregation of Israel; and he is reviewing their interactions with God.] “And He [God] has humbled you, and caused you to hunger, and caused you to eat the manna, which you had not known, and your fathers had not known, in order to cause you to know that man shall not live by bread alone, but man shall live by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of Jehovah.” (Green’s literal translation)

God gave Israel manna, when they lived out in the desert-wilderness; as a demonstration of His love and faithfulness.

Jesus knows that He can depend upon God the Father and His plan to provide Him with food. This is a specific example from the Word of God which indicates that this is true.

We have previously studied the first temptation of Christ, where Satan suggested that He turn stones to bread, in order to satisfy His great hunger. Jesus responded to Satan by quoting Scriptures (“Man does not live on bread alone,” he said, “But man [is sustained] by the Word of God.”—quoting Deut. 8:3).

Luke 4:5a And the devil took Him up...

We have a variety of manuscripts upon which we base our New Testament text. I begin my studies with the Westcott Hort text, which simply reads, and he brought Him. However, I also examine other texts. The 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus reads, instead: The devil brought Him to a high mountain...

Sometimes, when copies of the manuscripts were made, there might be some portions which were unreadable; or the copyist simply left a portion of the text out (by mistake). It is likely that all this text was in the original (as it is more common for text to drop out than for text to be added in).

The text in the parallel passage in Matthew certainly speaks of a mountain (or something akin to a mountain?). Matt. 4:8 Again, the devil takes Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and shows Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (VW).

Interestingly enough, having mentioned the Matthew narrative, this temptation is the second one recorded by Luke; the third one in the book of Matthew. I do not have an explanation for this, apart from, perhaps, Luke choosing to put these in chronological order (and that is a guess on my part).

Luke 4:5b ...and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,...

A moment of time is three words in the Greek. The first is the preposition en (ἐν) [pronounced en], which means, in, by means of, with; among when used with a dative/locative/instrumental case (I believe that this would be the locative case). This is followed by the feminine singular noun stigmê (στιγμή) [pronounced sithg-MAY], which means, an instant, a moment of time, a point in time. Strong’s #4743. Although this word only occurs here in the New Testament, it is paired in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (enhanced) with a Hebrew noun which means the same thing. This is affixed to the genitive/ablative of the masculine singular noun chronos (χρόνος) [pronounced CHROHN-oss], which means, time; time as a succession of events. Strong’s #5550. The literal translation is, in a moment of time. Although that is the most common translation, it is also translated, in a flash, in an instant.

We do not know exactly how this was done.

Some have made the assertion that this is proof that the writers of Scripture thought that the earth was flat. That is silly. We do not know how this happened in a moment of time; and we do not know how all of the kingdoms could be seen. Most of us have been in a plane, and the pilot might direct our attention to this or that thing. If flying over Denver, CO, the pilot does not direct our attention to the large estate of the richest man in the region, he says, instead, “We are now flying over the Rocky Mountains.” Even from a plane, we cannot see the rich and/or powerful; we can only see a very large geological wonder. My point being, what exactly was Jesus able to see and from where?

In any case, in some way, the Lord was made aware of all the kingdoms of the earth; and this may not have been something which He previously knew in His humanity. We do not know what Jesus saw exactly. The Lord, in His omniscience, could see all the kingdoms of there world, but, as we have discussed, He does not operate in the sphere of His Deity. Given that the Lord was not encumbered with a sin nature, what was He able to see?

It is interesting that the text speaks of this as taking place in a moment of time or in an instant. I would have thought, instead, that, Satan might want to linger on these various kingdoms.

We may reasonably suppose that Satan is able to quickly travel throughout the world; perhaps he can go from New York City to Tokyo in a few seconds. He Satan has his minions scattered throughout the earth, exerting whatever influence they are allowed to exert. How this can help us understand how the Lord to see these kingdoms in an instant, I do not know.

Today, in this era, we have camera crews, and we can see things happening throughout the world all simultaneously on 5 or 10 or 20 screens at the same time. Or, a video clip can be put together where, in a second, one can be exposed to 24 different pictures. I am not saying that there is any sort of technology like that; but there may be ways that angels could make such things happen. We are rarely privy to what takes place on the angelic realm. A limited amount of information has been revealed to us (such as, the first 2 chapters of the book of Job).

Here, what we are told, leaves us with far more questions than answers.

Luke 4:5 And the devil took Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,...

We do not know exactly how this was accomplished. How exactly does the devil take a hold of Jesus? Is he given permission to have normal physical contact with Jesus?

Secondly, how does he show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time? Obviously, if they are both standing over the earth, can they really see all the kingdoms of the world? Are they able to see many established kingdoms with their palaces? Or is there some other way that Satan is able to do this?

Or, am I thinking of the palaces and estates, whereas Satan was showing Jesus the amazing extent of the world? The mountains, oceans, rivers, deserts, greenery.

Perhaps you have seen Google maps, where we take a very specific place on earth (a street, a home, etc.), and we move to a vantage point far away, in just a few seconds. Perhaps Satan brings Jesus to a place where He is sort of zooming out, but taking in what a great, vast expire the world is. If I were to make a guess, I believe that this is the sort of thing that we are talking about.

Given the Lord’s genius (not His omnipotence, but His human genius), He is able to process all of this in a very short period of time. Man would have a very small picture of the world—and there is nothing to suggest that Jesus in His humanity had a perception which went beyond where He had lived. If He is somehow pulled way up over the earth, where He can take in all of Asia and Europe—simply as a massive piece of real estate—perhaps that is how it was conveyed to Him to extent of Satan’s domain.

Obviously, others have their opinions:

Dr. Dan Hill suggests this: Now you cannot see the whole earth from one mountain so this is a vision. We can thus see that Satan can induce visions in people as he does so here is the humanity of Christ.

H. Leo Boles: Jesus was given a vision of the inhabited world, "all the kingdoms of the world"; he not only saw Palestine, but also the heathen world, over which Satan exercised spiritual dominion; from the lofty elevation the kingdoms or tetrarchies of Palestine and adjacent regions could be seen, and the more distant empires of the world might be suggested by the tempter. There was something supernatural in this act which enabled Jesus to see these in a "moment of time"; the suddenness of the view added much to the power of the temptation.

Now and again, we simply have to accept the Scriptures at face value, without having any idea as to the exact process or methodology. Satan took Jesus to a very high mountain (why and how?) and he showed Him the kingdoms of the world in an instant (how?). Now and again, we will follow a passage as far as we possibly can, but there are times when that still leaves us with many unanswered questions.

Luke 4:6a ...and said to Him,...

After showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, then Satan speaks to Him, making Him an offer.