Now We Listen, Now We Don’t

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.  And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”  And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:20-22 ESV)

One of the many perplexing things Jesus does is His criticism of Nazareth.  It’s also recorded in Matthew 13:54-58 and Mark 6:1-6.  In those passages, there’s not much detail about Jesus reading Isaiah, nor about His response to their response.  No one tries to throw Him off a cliff either.

Advertisement

For What Will I Sell My Worship

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,  and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.  If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”  And Jesus answered him, “It is written,
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God,
and him only shall you serve.’”
(Luke 4:5-8 ESV)

I once heard a pastor say that if the devil had taken any more than a moment of time to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world that it wouldn’t have been much of a temptation.  People say the most ridiculous things.  There is no way this was much of a temptation for Jesus; not even had this devil taken a week to display all the glory.  Think about it.  Can you really imagine Jesus going, “Oh, wow.  I know I can form entire galaxies with a word, but you know, these, these look really neat too.  This is a tough one.  All I need to do is worship you, who I created in the first place?  That is a pretty sweet deal…”  Seriously?  I’m telling you, there has to be more to this temptation than what can be found on the surface.  Because it makes the devil seem pretty stupid on the surface.  I doubt he’s that dumb.  That would be nice, but I don’t think so.

The Temptation of “Gluttony”?

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. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” (Luke 4:1-4 ESV)

A couple of descriptors Luke uses are interestingly strung together, which by themselves are not nearly as interesting.  For instance, Jesus is full of the Holy Spirit but hungry.  He was led by the Spirit, but into the wilderness where there was nothing to eat.  It’s an odd juxtaposition of literary elements.  Of course it also sets up nicely an odd event.

Problems With Origins

Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David (Luke 3:27-31 ESV)

One of the issues Bible students (including professors) have with the genealogy in the Gospel of Luke is what’s in it.  The genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew has its own problems, but Luke’s is ‘special’.  No one else has it, no one.  Anywhere.  And that includes Chronicles which is known for genealogies.  His list of names is longer, and has more people listed no where else than any other genealogy in Scripture.  Granted, getting Hebrew names into Greek is so difficult that spelling and pronunciation are usually left to the reader more than the author; the author just gets the reader close.  That being said, there are still extreme problems with Luke’s list.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE PROBLEM

I’ve not read one commentary that was able to come up with a solution, all I have read says no one knows Luke’s source.  But they have also been careful to say it is still valid.  There are serious problems for Luke’s Gospel if this list is not valid.  But most commentators fall back on a very good point.  If Luke’s list were truly problematic, this would have been brought out long before it was canonized.  So those much closer to both Luke and his sources seem fine with the list, and these people, the ones from Jewish origins especially, would have been pretty picky about genealogies, and their accuracy.  Or at least that’s the claim.  The claim makes good sense.

THE ESSENCE OF THE PROBLEM

But here’s my issue with Luke’s list past a certain point: According to 1 Chronicles 3:10-19, Zerubbabel was not a descendant of David’s son Nathan, but of Solomon.  On the other hand, Zerubbabel is said to be the son of Pedaiah not Shealtiel in that same list.  The list in 1 Chronicles traces through the kings of Judah, while Luke’s list avoids that list completely.  Since one of the theories for Luke’s list is that he traces Mary’s lineage rather than Joseph’s, I find it interesting Mary and Joseph would share an ancestor prior to David in Zerubbabel.  But I find it even more interesting that the lineage then diverges again, which doesn’t make sense to me.  At that point, the lists of ancestors should be the same and they’re not.

THE CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM

So Luke not only uses a different set of names for Jesus’ lineage from Joseph to Zerubbabel, but also from Zerubbabel to David.  1 Chronicles 3 provides a partial list beyond Zerubbabel, but then we have to rely only on Matthew.  Rather than judge Luke’s list as ‘spurious’, I think his list actually illustrates another important point, often lost.  It seems that genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures demonstrate a lot of diversity between them as well.  And this is not an issue for most scholars typically because these records were phonetic or partial or based on standards now lost in obscurity.  So, why not place Luke’s genealogy in the same basket.  Genealogies were not as rigorously accurate in Scripture as some assume.  They were based on lists perhaps for land distribution, or family registries for tax rolls, or based on what records survived the first destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.  The reality is we don’t know with precision what they are based on, so we can’t go back and ascertain their degree of precision.

CONCLUSION OF THE PROBLEM

Therefore, in the face of such ignorance, we have one important goal as we fuss about the various differences between Luke and any other genealogical list in Scripture.  We must strive to ‘get over’ any problem we have with those differences, and focus on Luke’s point.  His point remains that Jesus, like every human being ever to exist, traces their ancestry through Adam who originated with God.  Jew and Gentile alike share ancestry with Jesus.  Whatever else can be said about Luke’s list of names, that much is not in dispute. And there we should rest, and cease our striving.  I think that once again, infallibility trumps inerrancy.

So, what’s your view through the knothole?

Winning Converts?

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. 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.” (Luke 3:7-9 NASB)

One approach to ministry that has always confused me is the ‘seeker sensitive’ approach.  It seems that in our day pop psychology has everyone so concerned about self; self-image, self-esteem, self-centered, and so on.  It’s like we’re breeding for narcissism and histrionics.  It is the extreme edge of our American independence. And it’s very dangerous. And it is, in my opinion, a poor basis for ministry.

Baptism Revisited

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. And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (Luke 3:1-3 NASB)

Baptism is one of those hotly contested activities in Scripture that has divided followers of Jesus for two millennia.  So, here I am to finally put it to rest in 20 minutes and less than 1000 words… Okay, not that funny, but you may be asking why I bring it up at all?  Well, for two reasons really: 1) It’s in the Bible which I study relentlessly, and 2) I believe that its significance is such that I can’t simply skip it because ‘controversial’.  So I won’t.  And here I go…