Introduction

Welcome
Prayer
Song
Silence

The Message from Luke

Luke 3.17-38
June 9th, 2019
Meat

The Role of John the Baptist

Okay, we left off with verse 16 in chapter 3 where John answered, saying to them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. But John, in explaining the Mighty one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, adds more in his description of the one he was coming to prepare the way for – and it is important as he says:

17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
And then Luke adds:

18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.
19 But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done,
20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

The Significance of the Harvest

Let’s cover these passages before Luke hits us with his genealogical account. So after saying that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire John adds (at verse 17) “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” I want to reiterate that this was what the Messiah ALSO came to do, as prophesied by Micah in chapter 4.

Last week Ray mentioned that a commentator that he read suggested that this imagery is tied to the parable Jesus Himself shared about the wheat and the tares. I think it is a good association and here’s why. When we turn to the accounting of that parable in Matthew 13:30 this is what Jesus says to them then:

24 The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, No; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

This last verse is concurrent with what John here says the promised Messiah was coming to do. Remember, this was His bride, His church, and it was to be without spot when he came to take it at his coming.

The Coming Wrath

Until that time, the duty of the people was not to weed – the roots and plants were all too young and intertwined. This would occur, according to Jesus “until the harvest” where he himself says, “and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers (who, by the way are the angels of heaven who accompany him upon his return), Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (which to me, is His Kingdom).

Thus far John has asked Who has warned them of the wrath to come. (the Greek word translated, “to come” is mello, and it means is approaching and not something that would happen thousands of years later.

He has said: The axe is laid at the root of the tree. When someone (in this case God) is going to hack a tree down by axe, he doesn’t lay the axe next to the tree until he is good and ready to take the thing down.

And speaking of the Messiah to come, He has said “Whose fan is in

The Warnings of John and Herod's Reaction

His hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.”

So again, John has come with real warnings of the end approaching. He has intimated that the people must repent quickly for the time is at hand.

John's Exhortations

18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.

And a detailed account of these things is not really available to us.

Verses 19-20

19 But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, 20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.

This is a long way of saying that Herod Antipas, who stole his brother's wife from him and was living with her as man and wife, was called out by John by him saying the union was unlawful, but Luke also adds, “and all the evils which Herod had done,” so it doesn’t seem like John only mentioned his unlawful marriage but called him out on everything he was guilty of.

Now, I want to pause here for a minute because as you already know, John was no lightweight, and I am convinced that Herod knew that there was something about him that was not of this world, something that was powerful, something worth listening to. I can say this because from Mark's account (6:20) we read:

For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

Because of this passage, I think Herod was close to conviction – I really do – and I think this because John was no ordinary man. But again – and this is not the first time in the annals of biblical history – Herod was led by his more basal desires, and when his unlawful wife (who hated John) and whose name was Herodias, got the opportunity she saw to it that his imprisonment morphed into a decapitation (which we will read about later). Luke here tells us that to all of Herod's former crimes we could add this as John was innocent, righteous and should not have been imprisoned.

One last thing about the imprisonment of John. Josephus, the Jewish historian, reported on the imprisonment of John in His Antiquities of the Jews book 18 chapter 5.2, and that in and of itself is a really unique support for the historicity of Jesus. Nevertheless, Josephus says that Herod put John in jail because he had gotten too popular, and that his followers would do anything he said – this was troubling so Josephus said, put him in the clink.

Just a side issue – but an important one.

The Baptism of Jesus

Verse 21

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

Of course, we can read about this baptism in greater detail in both Matthew and Mark but one thing they omit that Luke adds is the fact that Jesus was praying before, or during or after the rite was performed.

I think this is a fascinating

22 And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

So, what do we notice in this important passage? I notice something that automatically makes me question my resistance to the Holy Spirit being a person or a separate person in the three-person God of Creedal Trinitarianism.

The Holy Spirit's Descent

It’s the line:

22 And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him.

Is this saying that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape (like that of a dove) OR that the Holy Spirit descended like a dove in a bodily shape of a person? And is the bodily shape like our bodies or a body or what body? And who witnessed this? Was it everyone who was there or was it just John? Let’s start with who witnessed this. John certainly did because of that John himself says in John 1:32-33:

“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me (who was God) to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is

The Descent of the Holy Spirit at Jesus' Baptism

he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Did others see the spirit descend land and rest upon Jesus. We cannot say. So we will leave it at John certainly having seen it.

What was it? This is where it gets dicey for me and it might be a passages that proves the Holy Spirit is a person, a separate and distinct, co-equal, co-eternal person of the Holy Trinity.

And we can certainly read this passage this way, can’t we? Some do, but even the most ardent Trinitarians do not as most suggest that John saw the Holy Spirit, in the bodily form or shape of a descending dove, landing and resting upon Jesus at his baptism.

We see this emphasized in the emblems and icons of doves in certain churches and denominations, don’t we? I have never seen a ghost descending in any art or iconography and I think the reason is historically significant in and through the Bible. First starters, we recall going all the way back to genesis that at the creation the Spirit brooded upon the waters and started creation.

Symbolism and Meaning

To me the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove (which is long a symbol of peace) is to symbolically say: This is the new dispensation – instead of fire coming down on a rocky mountain we have the gentle spirit resting on the Rock, the Prince of Peace. Because of this event a group called the Cerinthian Gnostics taught that this was the beginning of Jesus and His true incarnation from above. (The Cerenthian’s followed a guy named cerenthus who thought that God was not the creator of the material world. This view, of course, is debatable as I believe that Jesus was born of the Spirit and this was the true incarnation. Nevertheless, we must ask: Why would the Spirit fall or rest upon Him here at his baptism if He was of the Spirit?

For me, this event was similar to the anointing a king would receive prior to taking the throne, and what a priest would receive as an ablution. I also find this anointing, which is occurring prior to Him entering His ministry as King and Priest serving to separate Him and His ministry – and his approach to it – from John’s, which was pure Old Testament. The dove, therefore is emblematic of an entire generation ending, and a new one – one similar to the Creation, coming into play – a Kingdom which truly, from the heart of its citizens, is kind, and longsuffering, and gentle and good. Imagine the scene – Yeshua is taken into the hands of John the desert dweller. He lowers him into the waters and lifting him out the din of humanity fades, leaving only the gentle rush of the Holy Spirit descending down from heaven like a graceful dove, landing and resting upon the Lord. John witnessed this – as prophesied – and identifies this was as the Promised, anointed one who had come to save the world.

It seems reasonable to suggest that whatever form the Holy Spirit appears in represents the purpose of its visit. In the case of Pentecost it appeared as tongues of fire – and therefore the manifestation there by the Spirit was? Tongues!

Here the Spirit is in the form of the dove and the meaning and message is clear – peace, love, gentleness, purity – the fruit of the Spirit – first upon the one Anointed Savior, Priest, and King – and then to the hearts of all who are His by faith.

Genealogies in Matthew and Luke

At this point we enter into Luke’s genealogy report. Remember, Matthew’s genealogy of Yeshua was written primarily to the Jews and so it starts at Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Luke’s account was more to show the genealogy of Yeshua as the second Adam, the Son of Man, and, inserted here after the Lord’s baptism, and stands as a preface to his facing His wilderness temptation where he has victory over what stumbled the first man, Adam.

Now, we cannot make these two accounts fit. They do not. But that does not make them incorrect.

We know that Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus back to Abraham. But Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus back to Adam. But there is some good reason to believe that they are, infact, tracing different genealogical lines.

One example is that Matthew says Joseph's father is Jacob (Matthew 1:16), but Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (which we just read).

Understanding the Genealogies of Jesus

This analysis traces the genealogical line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6) but Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan. This obviously is going to create a list of different characters, right? In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the two genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). The Jews are meticulous record keepers, especially with regard to genealogies back in that day, and it is highly improbable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage by accident. Also, it is entirely possible that some of the same names used are actually referring to different people – which is entirely possible in that day and age as evidenced by the number of James and Judas’s in the Gospels alone.

This might answer why Matthew names Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. Another explanation, which was offered by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage” which we know means that if a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heli’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. In this way, we must concur that Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Perspectives on Genealogical Tracing

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. This was the whole point. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth.

The Genealogical Sequence According to Luke

And so Luke begins with:
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of

The Concept of Sons of God

Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Of course, I can’t go on without commenting on that last line, now can I? So, let me sort of try and get to the core of it by asking you, and it's not fair because you have already been primed – but how many sons has God had? The answer? We don’t know. But we can say he has had more than one.

Biblical References to Sons of God

If you turn to Genesis six you will read the following:

Genesis 6:1-2 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Of course, we don’t know exactly what this title means, but if we are going to take the Bible and read and trust what it says, we have to admit from this passage that there have been more than one son of God – there have been sons.

Turning to Job, of course we also read:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

And reading this we appear to be able to say that at least in biblical times angels were sometimes referred to as Sons of God. What it means we don’t know but we know that this is what the Bible says, right?

Sons and Daughters of God

Then we also read that the Nation of Israel are referred to both as God’s Sons and his daughters.

Isaiah 43:6 God says:

I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth.

And Isaiah 45:11 we read:

“Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.”

So from this we can say that God called the Nation both his sons and daughters.

Distinction of Jesus as Son of God

Now we come to the Gospel of Luke and what does Luke say? He calls Adam, “the son of God!” And if we really wanna get technical and out there we also know that it is God’s intention to have human beings who love him become his sons and daughters. So when we ask the question, How many sons and daughters has God had (past tense) we can say many.

When we start at the creation account what we are seeing is essentially, as Graeme Goldsworthy wrote in a book on Sons of God “God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule.”

God’s first son – Adam – proved to be a disappointment. To be frank so did the Sons and daughters that made up the Children of Israel. None of the Old Testament Son’s stepped up to the plate and showed respect to their father and creator, or true love for him and His ways and demands. It seems to me that this is the reason that Luke, in his genealogy, approaches it differently than Matthew and takes the line of Jesus, the Son of Man and whom Paul calls the Second Adam, all the way back to the first Adam, or son of God.

In opposition to Jesus as just being another son, we find a couple of important differences – and Luke has already made some of them apparent. For example, nowhere does God call any of the other sons, only begotten. Nor does he ever say of them, “in whom I am well pleased.” And yet right here in Luke’s Gospel this chapter God says of Jesus, the Son of

God's Sons and Dominion

“Thou art my BELOVED SON, in you I am well pleased.” We can almost imagine that what Luke is doing is picturing God illustrating a long line of sons on a white board beginning with the angels in heaven, then Adam, then the Nation of Israel and then he illustrates or introduces Jesus at His baptism as a means of comparison and to line out all sons who had come before him. By Luke taking us all the way back to the first Adam, and to call him a Son of God after beginning with Jesus, son of Joseph, he is supporting what Paul does with Adam by illustrating his failures, and showing, by contrast, that it is this Jesus, this promised and anointed one, that brings life where the first Adam (according to Romans 5:12–21 and 1st Corinthians 15:20–22, 42–49) brought deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God.. As did the Sons of the law. In other words, Adam, as a type (or shadow) who foreshadows Christ, serves as the antitype (or the solid real fulfillment).

The Connection Between Adam and Christ

Interestingly, both Adam and Christ are connected as both can be seen as federal heads of their respective races – one fallen and one redeemed. And in this we discover a story as Luke tells us that Adam was the first son of God (flesh who operated by such) and the second, of the Spirit, who operated by such. The importance of being a son of God, since we are made in his image, is closely tied to exercising dominion. Adam was given that right when God put him in the Garden He created for him and to dress and keep it. Adam named the animals. Adam could eat of every tree of the garden. This was dominion that a son had over something that God created. The right to possess dominion can only come from the one who has dominion over all things and God naturally gave this to those he created in His image.

Dominion and Human Make-Up

Therefore, Human beings, intrinsic to their very make-up, is not only the right but the expectation to exercise dominion over other things and creations of God. This doesn’t mean with force and ugliness and brute power but righteously – as God does. In the garden story, humanity is created, male and female as the highpoint of all of God’s creation (Gen. 1:26–31) made in his image created, as the Psalmist says: A little lower than the angels. Not only is Adam chronologically the first of those named as the son of God in Luke’s genealogy; the dignity of his place in creation is indicated by his dominion over it. Therefore, when Adam fell, the whole physical creation fell with him illustrating the need for another son, albeit a better one – one who would rise, take true dominion, and rightly reign over all things by and through righteousness of the Spirit.

To summarize, the Sons (and daughters) of Adam are a dime a hundred-thousand. They are children of the fallen flesh and respond to God in the same manner as their father. But the Sons and Daughters of Christ, by faith in God’s ONLY begotten Son in whom he was well pleased, are rare. But they represent all who seek God in Spirit and in truth, who rightly exercise dominion over their realm and having proven fruitful, will be given dominion over much more to come. Let’s stop there, do Questions and Comments, and pray – next week – chapter 4.