Luke 4:1-13 Passing the first test

Luke 4:1-13 Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the Devil. (Parallel passage in Matthew 4:1-11 is essentially the same). The Devil tempts Him three times, and each time Jesus responds with a quote from Deuteronomy. (Luke 4:4 Jesus quotes Deut 8:3, Luke 4:8 Jesus quotes Deut 6:13, and Luke 4:12 Jesus quotes Deut 6:16) In the third temptation the Devil twists a verse from the Law (Luke 1:11-Satan quotes Psalm 91:12) to tempt Jesus, to which Jesus responds with a quote from Deuteronomy (Luke 1:12-Deut 6:16) that places everything in context.

         I have heard it suggested that these three temptations map to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. There is some substantiation for this interpretation. After fasting forty days, turning stones into bread so He could eat would satisfy a natural fleshly appetite. And there is nothing wrong with this appetite, except that the Holy Spirit had led Jesus into the wilderness so it would have been a failure to do what the Holy Spirit said. And so it is with all of our bodily appetites. Food was created for the stomach and the stomach for food. (I Cor 6:13) Later, in John 4:32,34 Jesus will explain to His disciples that doing the will of the Father is food that they do not understand. Fasting enables us to experience this truth of transcendence. There is nothing wrong with physical food that nourishes the body, but when we obey the leading of the Holy Spirit, we receive spiritual nutrition.

         We should not pass by the lusts of the flesh that modern man is tempted by. Although fasting from food is a rare discipline in our day, we are also inundated with sexual stimuli to a degree unimaginable to the people of Jesus' day. The media of communications are, at the physical and transport layers, amoral as to content. But they enable, at the service layer, and especially at the application layer, the dupes or willing co-conspirators of the devil to not simply tempt, but overwhelm the senses of, any post-puberty male with images and suggested activities that sate the fleshly appetites. There is a legitimate satisfaction of sexual appetites in marriage. In fact, in several places, the passion of marital love is used as a Biblical metaphor for the relationship between God and His people. But context is everything, and the spiritual transcends the physical.

         When the devil offered Jesus dominion over all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for Jesus worshiping him, we have the divine equivalent of the lust of the eyes. Jesus desired to rule the world but ... Jesus desires to set everything right. Worshiping the devil would be exactly wrong. Adam had handed the world over to Satan in the garden of Eden, and metaphorically, each one of us has done the same thing. But Jesus did not. And we would be blessed if we do not continue to repeat the same surrender over and over again. Jesus would eventually defeat Satan on Calvary, and will one day rule over all the kingdoms of the world, and He will set everything right. But it will be according to the plan and direction of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the Father's will.

         The boastful pride of life would have been exemplified if Jesus had forced the Father's hand. Because Satan had correctly interpreted Psalm 91:11-12 as applying to Jesus, although it applies to any who trusts in God's protection and takes shelter under His wings. But if Jesus had thrown Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple, in order for the plan of salvation to be accomplished, God would have had to intervene supernaturally. The Son would have forced the Father's hand. But Jesus again quoted the law of Moses, to put this in perspective. And when we are tempted to show off spiritually, to show our special relationship with the Father, we must always remember that we should not test God.

         There is a difference in context that should be considered. When Moses spoke the words of Deut 6:16, he was referring to the Israelites' complaints at Massah (Exodus 17:2-7). In that event, the Israelites accused Moses, and implicitly YHWH, of bringing them out in he desert to kill them through lack of water and starvation. It was this insult to God's character that evidently Moses referred to as putting God to the test. But Jesus used this verse in a circumstance about forcing God's hand. What is the overarching principle? Whenever we believe we can put our judgment above God's, to judge His actions or to try to get Him to act in a way that He has not chosen, we are testing Him.

         Contrast Jesus' temptation in the wilderness by Satan to Adam's temptation by Satan in the garden. Both were tempted by Satan but Adam fell into the trap at the very first temptation, the one about food. Jesus gave example of how to handle temptation, successfully rejecting Satan's offers by quoting scripture. Adam, on the other hand, saw that the food was good to eat and partook of it. He chose his judgment above God's, with tragic consequences. He never even  struggled with the other two temptations because he had already fallen.

         What is it about food? Is there a link between the modern world's rejection of God and the gospel, and the obesity epidemic that sweeps it? In looking at material causes, some point to processed foods or the high sugar content of many foods. And certainly there are other material causes. But behind all that, there is the efficient cause of the lifestyle that chooses convenience and immediate sensory gratification - food that tastes good. And behind that is the final cause that the modern world has lost contact with God and His view of life, so that the most important thing is earthly or physical needs.  When Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6), he hid himself from God. So it appears that when Adam decided to disregard God's instructions, he had already fallen. Food was merely the instrument by which this happened. When Jesus refused to turn stones into bread, He had not fallen, but remained faithful to the truth that He knew from God's revelation to Moses. Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. When we have our priorities in order, that is passing this first test.

Luke 3:23-38 The lineage of faith

Luke 3:23-38 The genealogy of Jesus was discussed earlier (Luke 1:26-38). Here we find what must be Mary's genealogy. The evidence for this is as follows. It is completely different from that given in Matthew 1:1-16, which includes Jeconiah at the time of the deportation to Babylon. (Matthew 1:11-12). Matthew 1:16 says that Jacob begat Joseph - the greek word 'gennao' meaning specifically begotten, born of, conceived. Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son - greek word 'huios' of Eli. This word meaning son is also used metaphorically of moral characteristics. Since Mary's parents were never mentioned, we have no idea what this relationship means, in fact, we are only inferring that Eli was Mary's father.

          Why did the Evangelists give us two completely different genealogies? Perhaps we should get the certainty that Jesus was qualified to fulfill the promise that the seed of David would establish his throne forever. (2 Samuel 7:16) To the Jews, this would have been important because the then-reigning kings - Herod's line - were not Jews and not descended from David. This was probably why Herod was so insecure that when he heard that one was born King of the Jews, he engaged in wholesale slaughter to try to eliminate the legitimate King. (Matthew 2:7-8 & 16). However, neither of these genealogies was present at that time. Why were they recorded for us 50-70 years later?

         Could this be a continuation of the Old Testament legacy of recording lineage, that we find in many places, the most notable being I Chronicles 1-8? Matthew showed Jesus' descent from Abraham, important to Jews. Luke showed Jesus' descent from Adam. A simple observation - the line of descent from Abraham given in Matthew 1 passes through Jeconiah, which brought a curse on that line - the Jewish kingly line. The line of descent from Adam passes through Abraham but not through Jeconiah, avoiding the curse. The physical line of Judaism had failed, in Jeconiah. The line of faith that brings us to Mary is the line that brings us the Savior Messiah. Hebrews 11 gives numerous examples to show that it is not physical lineage, but faith, that constitutes being children of God, the theology being presented in Galatians 3.

Luke 3:19-20 summarizes John's interaction with Herod, which resulted in his imprisonment and ultimately his death. (Matthew 14:1-12 describes that event in more detail). Most of the time, it appears that worldly rulers ignore criticism of them by religious people. History records, it seems, that religious groups that gain power are merciless in oppressing other religious people that disagree with them. But for some reason, worldly political rulers find it more expedient to let religious people criticize them without repercussion, perhaps as a vent to avert political revolt. And it appears that Herod acted against John because of his wife's insistence. Whether Herodias and Jezebel (I Kings 16 - 2 Kings 9) were cut from the same cloth I cannot judge. The gospel narratives make it clear that John's naming as sin Herod's marriage to Herodias was the cause of his imprisonment and death.

Luke 3:21-22 The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is summarized with two specific events: the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, and the voice of the Father from heaven pronouncing His approval of His beloved Son. The Trinity is present at the baptism of Jesus. Matthew 3:13-15 includes the detail that John said he needed to be baptized by Jesus, not the other way around. And Jesus explaining that it was necessary to fulfill all righteousness. Jesus did not need to be baptized for repentance. Jesus did not need to be baptized as Christians are today, according to Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, into His death. He would die on the cross. When Christians today are baptized, we identify ourselves with His death, in order that we can spiritually be joined with Him by faith. So Jesus' baptism seems to serve primarily as an example for us - we should not shirk from baptism. Indeed, if we do not identify ourselves with Christ in His death, how can we claim the resurrection from the deadness of separation from God? It is only through partaking of the power of Christ's resurrection that we gain eternal life. Sacraments are a mystery to me in this respect. How can a symbolic act such as baptism impart a spiritual reality such as identification with Christ in His death? (Romans 6:3-4)

          The Holy Spirit is various symbolized as a dove or as fire. We find both in this passage. Yet they seem to be such different, and clashing, symbols. Fire destroys, cleanses, but a dove coos and seems harmless and gentle. Perhaps this combination of symbols is what we need to understand the very nature of God Himself. He is a purifier, by strong measures when necessary, but He is also gentle and approaches us that way.

Luke 3:23-38 The genealogy of Jesus was discussed earlier (Luke 1:26-38). Here we find what must be Mary's genealogy. The evidence for this is as follows. It is completely different from that given in Matthew 1:1-16, which includes Jeconiah at the time of the deportation to Babylon. (Matthew 1:11-12). Matthew 1:16 says that Jacob begat Joseph - the greek word 'gennao' meaning specifically begotten, born of, conceived. Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son - greek word 'huios' of Eli. This word meaning son is also used metaphorically of moral characteristics. Since Mary's parents were never mentioned, we have no idea what this relationship means, in fact, we are only inferring that Eli was Mary's father.

          Why did the Evangelists give us two completely different genealogies? Perhaps we should get the certainty that Jesus was qualified to fulfill the promise that the seed of David would establish his throne forever. (2 Samuel 7:16) To the Jews, this would have been important because the then-reigning kings - Herod's line - were not Jews and not descended from David. This was probably why Herod was so insecure that when he heard that one was born King of the Jews, he engaged in wholesale slaughter to try to eliminate the legitimate King. (Matthew 2:7-8 & 16). However, neither of these genealogies was present at that time. Why were they recorded for us 50-70 years later?

         Could this be a continuation of the Old Testament legacy of recording lineage, that we find in many places, the most notable being I Chronicles 1-8? Matthew showed Jesus' descent from Abraham, important to Jews. Luke showed Jesus' descent from Adam. A simple observation - the line of descent from Abraham given in Matthew 1 passes through Jeconiah, which brought a curse on that line - the Jewish kingly line. The line of descent from Adam passes through Abraham but not through Jeconiah, avoiding the curse. The physical line of Judaism had failed, in Jeconiah. The line of faith that brings us to Mary is the line that brings us the Savior Messiah. Hebrews 11 gives numerous examples to show that it is not physical lineage, but faith, that constitutes being children of God, the theology being presented in Galatians 3.

Luke 3:1  One again secular history crosses paths with faith. In this case, at least at this moment, there is no direct impact on Biblical events due to the Roman Empire, or the government of Pontius Pilate, so this is a marker. Tiberius Caesar had succeeded Caesar Augustus. The Pax Romana was stable.

Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests, but the word of The Lord came to John the son of Zacharias, who had previously been a priest, but John now lived in the wilderness.

Luke 3:3-6 The message that John brought to the people from The Lord was based on a quote from Isaiah 40:3-5. A voice crying in the wilderness - Luke says that John was that voice. Calling for people to repent, to make their paths straight. The metaphor of the rearrangement of the physical features of the wilderness is straightforward - making the crooked straight and so forth. And the promise - that all flesh will see God's glory. John recapitulated the ministry of the Old Testament prophets who called Israel to repentance. Their calls had often been rejected, resulting in defeat and captivity for Israel. Since Israel was no longer a sovereign nation, John's call was on a personal level. No doubt there was an eschatological expectation on the part of some of the listeners when John talked about all flesh seeing the glory of God. Expectations that God would intervene in history to grant Israel victory over her enemies and perhaps political sovereignty.

Luke 3:7-14  John's message is further elaborated. 1) Repent, because the true children of Abraham are not defined by physical descent; 2) Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and used for firewood. 3) The well-off should share with the needy; 4) Tax collectors should not cheat subjects of the Roman Empire; 5) Soldiers should not oppress subjects. This all sounds very legalistic, and I have to admit that the next few verses suggest that John believed that when the Messiah came (soon!) he would cleanse His threshing floor with fire, i.e. judge the (metaphorical) chaff.

Luke 3:15-18 John the Baptist stands as a bridge between the Old and New Covenants. He announces and in fact introduces the Messiah, but prior to this, he preaches a message of repentance and judgment. And he says that Messiah will cleans His threshing floor with the winnowing fork in His hand. John also foretells that the Messiah would baptize people with the Holy Spirit and fire. How much did John understand about the person and work of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps from personal experience, He understood that the Holy Spirit leads the believer, but this passage suggests that he did not understand grace or how the Messiah would die to save His people  from sin. Luke concludes his description of John's message is to describe it as the gospel, which seems odd. God's  judgment does not sound much like good news.

Luke 2:41-51 Mary and Joseph made the trip to Jerusalem annually to observe Passover, after the command of Exodus 23:14-17. This trip consisted of a caravan - perhaps most of the people of Nazareth traveled together to Jerusalem, perhaps just their extended family. It must have been a big enough group of people that they did not worry about not seeing Jesus until a day had passed, assuming he was with relatives or friends. In our day, it is hard to imagine having enough trust that we would not worry about a twelve year old, spending time with a large group of people, and not worrying about him until a day had passed.

          The wordplay about fatherhood shows some humorous irony. Mary says, 'Your father and I have been looking for you' and Jesus responds 'Didn't you know that I would be in My Father's house?' A subtle reminder that Joseph wasn't really Jesus' father. But He returned and continued in subjection to them.

          What did Jesus talk to the teachers about? He astounded them with understanding, apparently both asking and answering questions. This understanding seems likely to have been the spirit and intent of the Scriptures, not just the rote memorization of the literal words or facts, but the meaning. How much of our instruction to children in matters of faith is intended to get them to hear the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of the meaning of the Scriptures? In this aspect, Jesus' divinity gave Him a natural ability to do this, but again raises the question - is this the norm for humans who are uncorrupted by sin?

Luke 2:52 hearkens back to Luke 2:40. Is the favor with God and man that Jesus exhibited after He was twelve different than the grace of God that was on Him before He was twelve? Increasing in wisdom, increasing in stature - that would define growth in body and soul. Increasing in grace or favor with God - spiritual growth. Increasing in grace or favor with man - social development. Jesus was not born fully developed. He developed, yet was untainted by the world, the flesh, or the devil. If we could figure out how to allow our children to develop in all these dimensions, untainted by the world, the flesh, or the devil, what would they become?

Luke 2:25-38 Simeon and Anna are offer us a peak into the daily life of the devout in the temple. Simeon is not identified as a priest or a Levite, but he came into the temple with the Holy Spirit upon him and uttered another wonderful blessing - which seems to be almost his own eulogy. In verses 31-32, Simeon points to Jesus as the savior of the gentiles. Then Simeon goes on with a bizarre blessing: “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed—and a sword will pierce even your own soul—to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:34-35) This is true prophecy - not a reference to the Old Testament. And it would be fulfilled. Who would rise and fall? The gospel is replete with the narrative of those who encountered Christ and how that interaction affected their lives. No doubt Mary's soul was pierced when she saw her Son die on the cross. When Jesus talked to people, the thoughts and intents of their hearts came out ... whether it was a true devotion to God on the part of seemingly unreligious people, or the devotion to worldly stuff on the part of outwardly devout people.  In the end, they came to Pentecost and believed in Him, or they didn't. Probably Simeon did not understand the full implications of these words but He was nonetheless operating under the power of the Holy Spirit.

            There doesn't seem to be any Old Testament provision for women to serve in the Temple, but there was Anna. Her role in this is not to give a prophetic word, but she spoke of Jesus to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. The Jews had been waiting for redemption for centuries. She told them the redeemer had arrived. Again, this does not appear to be gossip, but to be rejoicing over the work of God being visible and present.

            I have to wonder, what did all of these people think for the thirty years that Jesus grew up in apparent obscurity? They had heard from Anna that Messiah had been born. And then nothing, so far as we know, for thirty years. Did they decide it was a false alarm? Did they die in disappointment? Did they tell their children to watch for Him?

Luke 2:39-40 Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth and raised Jesus. Luke does not mention the diversion to Egypt, (Matthew 2:14-21), only the final destination of Nazareth. As Jesus grew, we are told He became strong, grew in wisdom, and that the grace of God was on Him. Could any parent wish, and pray, for this for their child? With the hope and expectation that it would happen? Was Jesus uniquely gifted in this respect because He was God in flesh, or was he simply showing the full potential of humanity uncorrupted by sin?

Luke 2:15-20 The narrative implies that the shepherds went the same night. They found the baby lying in a manger, just as had been told them by the angels. We have no idea how long Joseph and Mary stayed in the barn, but one suspects they would not have stayed any longer than necessary. The shepherds must have told many people as the record is that all who heard wondered at the things the shepherds told them - again not gossip. Mary treasured in her heart what the shepherds told her. She had seen the angel nine months earlier - perhaps she welcomed this confirmation that God was really in this, despite the circumstances.

Luke 2:21-24 The requirements for circumcision of male children after birth, and for ritual purification for a woman after childbirth are spelled out in Lev 12:1-8. This passage tells us that Mary and Joseph observed the law of Moses in this respect. What do these two rituals signify spiritually?

            I have read that public health implications of male circumcision are favorable but it is most widely practiced in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Paul indicates that the true circumcision is that which is inward, of the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 2:29) and this person receives praise from God. He goes on to explain that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them (Romans 4:11). And Paul goes on to say that  and in Him we were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. (Col. 2:11). Since Jesus was righteous and the body of flesh that He had was not polluted by sin, I infer he was circumcised for the same reason that He was baptized (see Matt 3:15).

            What is the significance of the ritual purification of a woman after childbirth? Moses indicates that a woman was unclean for seven days after the birth of a male child, and then remained in the blood of her purification for 33 days (Lev12:2&4). After the time has elapsed and she makes the required offering, then she is clean (Lev 12:8). There are probably health reasons for a woman who is recovering from childbirth to abstain from normal marital relations immediately after childbirth. But why would she be considered unclean, and what is the significance of the blood sacrifice?

            Ritual uncleanness due to blood seems to carry many connotations. One aspect is simply the significance of blood - 'Life is in the blood' - that is, life is identified with the blood. (Lev 17:10-16) In this context, it relates to clean and unclean foods. There are many essential elements to biological life, but for animal life, blood is essential at the cellular level. There is no way to transport the basics that cells need to operate, such as fuel and oxygen, and dispose of waste products at the cellular level, except for the mechanism of blood. On a macroscopic level, the outflow of blood through a wound brings with it the healing power of the body.  But blood is also the carrier of diseases - if the blood of a sick person (or animal) is ingested by another person or even enters through an open wound, it can easily convey any of a large number of very serious diseases.

            There is a a paraphrase or summary (by Luke) of Ex 13:11-16 referring to the statement that the firstborn male is called holy to The Lord. The passage in Exodus refers to the first Passover, from which Moses gave command that the firstborn male of all animals was to be sacrificed, but the firstborn male son was to be redeemed. The death angel passed over the sons of Israel because they painted the blood of the lamb on their doorposts and frame, but this pointed to the true lamb, the perfect lamb. Not to beat a dead horse, but the point of the blood on the door posts is that that it traced out the shape of a cross, assuming that the blood on the top of the doorframe dripped downward. The redemption of the firstborn male in the case of Christ seems to have been reinterpreted by Luke as 'Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord'. Because Christ did not need to be redeemed - He was the Redeemer. 

Luke 2:8-14 Angels visited the shepherds. In this part of the Christmas story we find no mention of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps in the role the shepherds played, the Holy Spirit was not needed, or perhaps they were not sensitive to His leading. In any event, the angels' worship is not recorded in nearly as much detail as that of Mary, Elizabeth, and Zacharias. A baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger is a sign... of what? A child born into poverty? A lamb might feed from a manager, some have suggested that the cloths speak of the embalmment process of the dead. A picture of the perfect lamb sacrificed from the foundation of the world?

            What would the multitude of angels singing sound like? We can only guess. But this brief peek into heavenly worship presages some of the scenes recorded in the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, perhaps recapitulating the scene in Isaiah 6:1-3, although angels are not necessarily seraphim. We see the angels specifically identified in the worship of Rev 5:12. In Luke the angels promise, or bestow, peace on men with whom God is pleased, or at least connect this peace with the glory of God. In the Revelation, the angels worship the Lamb, worthy because He was slain. The peace that the angels promised the shepherds has proved elusive since that time, even among those who name the name of Christ. We have peace with God (Romans 5:1), but the history of religious wars and great church fights shows that we do not have peace with each other. This ought to be a humbling and shameful admission.

            Why shepherds? Maybe it is as simple as their availability - they were willing and able to respond to go. Perhaps ...this was the birth of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. A manger could hold food for any number of animals. But shepherds tend sheep. This particular Lamb would be inspected later, before He was offered, as to being without blemish and therefore an acceptable sacrifice (Exodus 12:3, 1 Peter 1:19). But at the outset we must not miss that He was The Lamb, that all other ritual sacrifices of lambs throughout Israel's history presaged.

Luke 2:1-7 records the intersection of the work of God with secular governments and history. It was no problem for God to arrange for the promise of Micah 5:2 to be fulfilled. Joseph and Mary did not live in Bethlehem but in Nazareth, so the entire Roman Empire had to be taxed, with consequent visits to ancestral homes, to get Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem at the right time for Jesus to be born there. As noted earlier, Joseph could have had a claim to the throne of David, except that the curse on Jeconiah precluded him ever actually ruling.

            Of course the Roman Empire needed money. During the reign of Augustus from 27 BC to 14 AD, the Roman Empire expanded significantly, but also initiated the Pax Romana. How were all of these things accomplished? Through the force of arms. But armies cost money. Hence the decree that all the world (at least, the world that was under the control of Rome at that time) was to be taxed.

            No room in the Inn! How did the Romans expect people to travel to their ancestral homes? In that day, probably it would have been expected that they would stay with relatives or camp in tents. At least ordinary people. Those few who were in the late stages of pregnancy were just out of luck. But the innkeeper must have had some inkling of the Mosaic concept of hospitality and compassion for the poor.

            Perhaps it seems odd that Joseph would be traveling with his fiancee, but they had no doubt by that time already endured all of the abuse and shame that 'proper society' would inflict on an unwed couple with a child on the way. And she was doubtless already legally his wife permanently since, in the spirit of Deuteronomy 22:29, he would not be allowed to ever divorce her.

            Who was the midwife? Most likely the Holy Spirit should be accounted as the midwife. Joseph probably had to perform the physical actions associated with assisting in childbirth, or perhaps he engaged a local midwife in Bethlehem.

Luke 1:67-79 Then Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke out an amazing prophecy. The timing of this is rather vague, since it is recorded after the discussion of the talk of the hill country. Perhaps it was immediate, perhaps it was later. The content of Zacharias' prophecy is the appointment of John as the prophet who will give people knowledge of the salvation of God; not that he would be the savior himself, but that he would guide the people of Israel into the path of salvation, and thereby deliver Israel from all her enemies. As with many of the prophecies the Holy Spirit inspires, the speaker may not fully understand the ramifications of their words. The Jews of Zacharias' day regarded Rome, the Roman Empire, as the enemy. A few years later there would be a revolt, the zealots would flee to the wilderness fortress of Masada, perhaps hoping for a repeat of the triumphs of the Maccabean era. The zealots' revolt would end in disaster. But the Holy Spirit revealed through Zacharias that the real enemy was, is, and always will be sin. And that true deliverance is deliverance from the power of sin. Not that God is passing over the penalty of sin - that would also be dealt with, at the cross, through the death of Christ. But it is only the power of the Holy Spirit, only available to us through the work of Christ, that  enables us to live above sin.

Luke 1:80 John waited until the appointed time. How hard is it to wait? If God tells us something, we want to get right out and make it happen. But God waits to act until the fruit is ripe. In the meantime, John became strong in spirit, so that he would be ready when the time was fulfilled for him to begin his ministry. It would be hard.

            Why is the desert a conducive place for spiritual growth? It cannot be a function of the climate itself, or else Las Vegas would not epitomize wanton carnality. The quietness of the desert, the lack of the distractions of family and work and society, open the door for us to hear God's voice more clearly, if we are listening. How can we capture that quietness in our own prayer time at home? From my own experience, it takes great discipline to structure our time and our environment sufficiently to get true quiet. And then the further effort to still the inner voices that call us to worry about the cares of life. 

Luke 1:56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth three months, until it was time for Elizabeth to deliver. No doubt this partly helped with the problem of public ridicule for her unwed pregnancy, and she was also able to assist Elizabeth with household duties during her third trimester. Since Elizabeth was advanced in years, it is unlikely that her mother would have been able to offer much assistance, if she was even still alive. Can you imagine the conversations between the first two Holy Spirit-filled women in human history? We have only a snapshot of the first interchange between them. What would those Holy Spirit-infused conversations been like?

Luke 1:57-58 tells us that by the time it came for Elizabeth to give birth, word had gotten around to everyone who knew her and all her relatives that The Lord had supernaturally graced her with a child well beyond the normal child-bearing years. This was not gossip; they were rejoicing with her. Would that our talk about others was never tale-bearing, but always rejoicing in the goodness of The Lord in other's lives.

Luke 1:59-66 Elizabeth's son was born, and Zacharias' tongue was loosed after he gave direction as to the child's name. His first words were also worship of God, although curiously the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this passage. Those who knew of it feared, and there was much speculation about what the child would turn out to be. Indeed, given the supernatural circumstances of John's conception and birth, it would be appropriate to wonder what God was going to do - what was His purpose? But in my mind, every conception has a miraculous element. Biologists may tell us the facts concerning ova and spermata and offer theories as to how things came to be this way. But the coming together of two appropriate and complementary cells, giving rise to the creation of a new individual that starts with a few cells but grows under the guidance of DNA into a fully human adult, with a soul and a spirit, is a miracle in my book. And with each birth, ought we not to have the same anticipation that God is doing something and wondering what God will do through this new life that has just come into the world?

Luke 1:39-45 Mary visits Elizabeth, and the first thing that happens is that the baby leaps for joy in Elizabeth's womb (did you ever wonder what that must have felt like?) and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and immediately began speaking. Elizabeth's blessing of Mary does not appear to have been a rote recitation of a formulaic praise, but a spontaneous response to the circumstances. Would that I were able to give voice to the Holy Spirit's reaction to circumstances, to speak God''s words that are fit to the moment.

            Luke 1:46-55 Mary's Magnificat, as with Elizabeth's words, appears to be a spontaneous outburst, the Holy Spirit inspiring her to worship of God in words that are fit to the occasion. Although Mary goes far beyond the immediate circumstances. Progressing from worship of God for His blessings to her, she ventures into His care for the poor who are humble, and judgment of rulers and the wealthy who are proud in heart, finally calling into remembrance God's fulfillment of His promises to the patriarchs concerning their descendants, Israel. It is perhaps unreasonable to expect Mary to have understood that Jesus would ultimately be The Lord and savior of all mankind, not just the ruler of Israel. After all, the angel had just promised her that He would rule on the throne of David, and she was rejoicing that the promised deliverer of Israel would finally come. As we consider the second coming of The Lord to rule and reign upon the earth, how are we to consider His blessing of those we think are outside the covenant? We read in the Apocalypse of His judgments upon the wicked, but what about His dealing with those who have neither chosen Him nor chosen evil? Does our eschatology rejoice that He will finally bring to Himself all those who are somehow outside who will come to Him if they truly understand that He offers not rules and judgment, but a spring of eternal living water flowing from ones' innermost being?

Luke 1:26-38 This part of the Christmas story is so well-known to us that it ought to bear little further commentary. Mary's fitness for the role because of her lineage and Godly life-style; her likely young age; her wonder at how God could cause a virgin to become pregnant; her willingness to accept the shame and public humiliation that would certainly come with unwed pregnancy in order to follow God's will; &c, She was not even rebuked as Sarah was - perhaps because this was truly impossible in natural terms - for a virgin to bear a child.

            Why was it necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin? Matthew 1:12 records the lineage passing through Jeconiah at the time of the deportation to Babylon, which invokes the curse God spoke through Jeremiah (22:29-30). This curse precluded Joseph from ever reigning over Israel, and would have also prevented Jesus from ruling for Israel, if He had been of the offspring of Joseph and thus Jeconiah. But God side-stepped this curse since Jesus was born of a virgin.

            This has always raised in my mind a question about the uncharted descendants of any given person in antiquity. The Scriptures record the lineage of the lines that matter. But suppose that Jeconiah had two children who survived to adulthood, and that there were twelve such generations from Jeconiah to Joseph. That would have resulted in 4,096 offspring of Jeconiah in Joseph's generation. If each generation had had three children surviving to adulthood, that could have resulted in over 530,000 descendants. Of course, in the context of that day, many children died before ever living long enough to have any children. The total population of Israel was probably fairly constant, and there would have been some intermarriage of distant cousins, to some extent reducing the total dispersion to a smaller number. Nevertheless, we must take it on faith that Mary's lineage, going back twelve generations, did not include Jeconiah, or else the promise of Jesus' reign over Israel (Luke 1:32-33) would have been precluded. Mary would have had 2048 great to the tenth grandfathers in Jeconiah's generation. None of them could have been Jeconiah.

            Luke 1:35 again emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit as the active agent in God's activity among humans. The Holy Spirit would come upon Mary and (evidently) thru Him, the power of God would overshadow her, as the angelic answer to Mary's very natural question, 'How can this be?' How can any miraculous work of God occur? God is perhaps not limited - the Father Himself could act directly, or Jesus the Son could speak the words. But in dealing with human frailty, it is the grace of God that the Holy Spirit - fully God but also divinely gentle, like a dove - acts in the tenderest of human interactions - conception.

            Mary's response (Luke 1:38) - behold the 'doulos' of The Lord - points back to the Mosaic provision for a love-slave (Exodus 21:2-6). If the master gives his slave a wife and she bears a child, at the end of seven years the slave goes free but the wife & children belong to the master. But he can choose to remain with that master forever out of love for master and wife and children. At Mary's tender age (not really sure how young, but probably a teenager,or maybe early twenties), she nonetheless had seen enough of The Lord to choose that life. Permanent servitude to The Lord. How many of us as teenagers had seen enough of God - walking with Him, serving Him, seeing His intrinsic nature and character - that we were willing to make a permanent commitment? Different events are used to mark the transition to adult faith. Some have confirmation, which includes a young person's commitment to the basic doctrines of the church. Some baptize young people (or people of any age) when they make a decision to become a Christian. Aside from the decision to enter the ministry full-time, what means is there for a teenager to say publicly that they have decided to become a love-slave of Jesus? More importantly, what experiences with The Lord would a teenager have to have in order to make such a commitment? How can we as parents (or grandparents) facilitate such experiences?

Luke 1:1-4 To modern readers, investigating everything carefully - checking the facts, talking to the participants and eyewitnesses - seems the norm for anyone purporting to write a non-fictional account of events. It would be incongruous to apply modern standards to the time of the Roman Empire. Such attention to accuracy should inspire us to the realization that Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was not just writing for his own time, but for future readers he could not possibly imagine. Luke must have gotten a lot of the material through conversations with Mary, since Joseph, Elizabeth, Zacharias were probably all long-gone, and we have no record that Luke himself ever met Jesus, since his only autobiographical hints are found later in Acts.

Luke 1:5-7 In Zacharias and Elisabeth we find a parallel to Abram and Sarai. (cf Gen 11:30 & 17:17.) A barren couple, honoring God with their way of life, past the years of childbearing, are promised, and eventually receive a son.

Luke 1:8-25 In the promise by God of a son to be born miraculously, both couples wrestled with God's promise. Sarah laughed and was rebuked (Gen 18:12-15) although Hebrews 11:11 tells us that she considered God able (so why did she laugh), but Zacharias was struck mute for more than nine months (Luke 1:20&64). Perhaps the angel judged that he should have learned from the story of Abraham (which he must have known). Paul tells us that Abraham did not waiver in faith (Romans 4:19-20)

            These passages must raise for us the self-examination of how often we doubt God's promises, and how graciously He deals with our doubts. It has been suggested that Zacharias' divinely appointed muteness prevented him from voicing further doubts. When we struggle with God, do we doubt God's power, or do we wonder if He would really do that for us? Do we see God's supernatural intervention as humorous, setting aside the natural order of things so that He can have his way? Are we sensitive enough to discern the additional signs He gives us, or does He have to clobber us on the head to get our attention?

These are my own thoughts on the books of Luke and Acts. This essay is not scholarly or rigorous. Rather, I have attempted to allow the Holy Spirit to show me the application of these Scriptures to our lives, understanding what Jesus meant, in the context of both the immediate circumstances, and in the greater context of the Bible. As such, I have tried to compare passages to parallel sections in the New Testament, to derive some insight from similarities or differences in context. And I have tried to identify Old Testament passages that seem relevant, primarily because Jesus lived in a culture dominated by multiple historical antecedents, but the principle religious context was the Old Testament. I cannot claim that I have studied either the impact of Roman culture on Judea in Jesus' day, nor have I any great insight into the effect of the Greek culture that was imported in the days of Alexander the Great. The apocryphal books record many things that happened, primarily in the era when Antiochus Epiphanies ruled Judea, and I certain am not an expert on those. But Jesus drew primarily on the Old Testament - the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. God's revelation to Israel, which formed the basis for Jesus' revelation of God to the whole world.