John 1, Matthew 1,
Luke 1
John
Although John never mentions that he is the author
of this Gospel, this fact was accepted by the Early Church. Even as we read the Gospel of John certain
facts are given that clearly testify to the authenticity of the book. For example, in Chapter one the author
mentions the time of day that he and Andrew left for the place Jesus was
staying (John 1:39). Or consider John
20:3 where the other disciple outran Peter, or John 21:10 where we are given
the exact number of fish caught. Only
someone actually present would point out such details.
Early Church Fathers insisted that John was written
later in his life, although several scholars today say that it may have been
written as early as 45-66 AD. The
traditional-held belief is that John wrote his Gospel account between 85 and 95
AD. Evidence for an older date can be
seen in John 21:18-19. John points out
that Jesus indicated how Peter would die.
It just seems to make sense that by the time John wrote his Gospel
account, Peter had already died and he was able to make the connection.
One thing you will notice as you read through John
is that he mentions seven different signs that testify Jesus is the
Messiah. Also you’ll notice that John’s
Gospel does not read like the other three.
John attempts to teach us more about who Jesus is rather than to tell us
what He did and what He said. And
considering the rise of Gnosticism during the end of the First Century, it
makes sense that John would attempt to refute those ideas. This is why John begins his Gospel long
before the physical birth of Jesus. He
begins way back in the beginning.
John 1
John 1:1-18 Did
you notice how often John mentions The
Word in this section. The Greek word
he used here is Logos, and to the
Greeks, Logos meant “The rational principle
that governs and develops the universe”.
Within the Greek culture, there was this philosophy of Logos.
Centuries earlier a philosopher from Ephesus named Heraclitus defined Logos as “That which moves and regulates
things”. The Greek thinkers felt that Logos was the thought of God stamped
upon the universe. The Logos kept things in order. Logos
had existed from the beginning (see comments about Heraclitus at www.philosophy.gr/presocratics/heraclitus.htm. Knowing this makes John’s introduction of
Jesus nothing short of brilliant. He
says that the Logos has been around since the beginning of time (verse
1); that it was involved in the creation (verse 3); that the Logos is
life and light to all people (verse 4).
He tells them that there was a man who gave testimony to these things
(verse 6); that this Logos would open the minds of everyone (verse 9);
that some would not believe (verse 11).
This Logos would be their intermediary between the earth and God
(verse 12). Then John tells them that
this Logos became flesh and that he witnessed all of this (verse 14). It’s not until the end of verse 17 that John
finally gives the Logos a name; Jesus
Christ. A brilliant introduction to open
the minds of a Greek reader. He informs
them that their philosophers were right.
There really was someone who held it all together, and His name is
Jesus.
There is another reason John
began his Gospel account this way. By
the second half of the First Century, a group of thinkers began to blend the
world’s wisdom with the reality of Christ.
And by doing this they diminished the Deity of Christ. According to their reasoning, there was a
time when Jesus was not; that He was the first thing created by God. So John, the one who witnessed all of these
things, firmly establishes that Jesus was with the Father even before time
began. John says that Jesus was eternal;
there never was a time when He was not.
He throws the Gnostic argument out the window. Jehovah Witnesses have a hard time with this
section. As a matter of fact in order to
support their theology that Jesus was created by God they actually had to
change verse one. They’ve manipulated
verse one to say “The Word was a God”.
John 1:21 John’s first sign. Skipping the narrative about Jesus’ birth,
John jumps into the story with the testimony of John the Baptist. Of significance here is the first reference
to Elijah. It’s interesting that these
Levites and Priests came to investigate what John the Baptist was doing. They apparently were looking for the sign of
the Messiah’s coming based on Malachi 4:5.
And they also wondered if he was the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy
18:15. I find it significant that they
went looking for signs, but would not believe when they were shown the
signs. Jesus said and did everything the
Old Testament prophets said He would do, but because He looked and walked and
talked like an ordinary human, they would not believe.
John 1:23 John the Baptist described himself as the
voice (phone), while Jesus is called
the Word (Logos).
John 1:24 The Pharisees asked an interesting question
here, but doesn’t it seem odd that they would criticize him for baptizing
people who repent of their sins? If the
people he had been baptizing were Roman soldiers or Samaritans, no one would
have questioned him. But John was
baptizing Jews and Galileans; people who were already part of God’s
covenant. Why would a good Jew need to
repent? The prescribed method for the
forgiveness of a sin was to offer a sacrifice.
But John was suggesting a whole different way to be restored to God; an
outward symbol of an inward cleansing.
This is why the Pharisees questioned his right. He was introducing a new way to forgiveness.
John 1:32 John’s second sign. John the Baptist either addressed those
gathered, or perhaps he was speaking directly to the deputation from Jerusalem. But he points to Jesus and, in effect, says,
“I tell you that this man standing over there is the One who will take away the
sin of the world. I didn’t know who it
would be, but God told me that it would be the One on whom the Spirit descends
and dwells”. This is significant because
John would have known Jesus. They were
related. John was about 6 months older
than Jesus (see Luke 1:26), yet he says that Jesus existed long before him
(John 1:30). For John to make this break
from seeing Jesus as merely a man to seeing Him as the promised Messiah, what
he witnessed must have been very convincing.
So the second sign is the testimony of John the Baptist
John 1:35 The first day is probably when the group of
Pharisees from Jerusalem arrived. Day two
was when Jesus came back to the camp, perhaps returning from His 40 days in the
wilderness (see Luke 4:1-2). On day
three John the Baptist points out the Lamb of God to two of his (John’s)
disciples; Andrew and John (the Apostle).
John 1:40-51 Look how quickly Andrew was convinced. He spent maybe half a day with Jesus, unless
they stayed up all night talking. Andrew
wastes no time finding his brother Simon and telling him that the Messiah has
come. After Jesus, Andrew, Simon Peter,
and John arrive in Bethsaida (a distance of about 100 miles), Jesus calls
Phillip. Phillip runs and tells
Nathaniel. So in a short amount of time
there are at least 5 people following Jesus, plus others who believed He was
the Messiah (such as John the Baptist).
If this happened after the 40 days in the wilderness, then Jesus
testifies to Satan that He did not need his (Satan’s) help in completing His
ministry. Satan tempted Jesus to take a
short cut; claiming that he (Satan) would give the world to Jesus (Luke 4:5-7). But here we see Jesus taking the world in
spite of Satan.
John 1:48-51 The language here could possibly mean that
Nathaniel was meditating in a quiet place, not merely sitting beneath a Fig
Tree. Perhaps Nathaniel was meditating
on Jacob’s life, specifically the event mentioned in Genesis 28:12. I say this because of Jesus’ response to
Nathaniel in verse 51. It is quite
similar to Jacob’s vision. Here, Jesus
says that He is the ladder; that He is the One to mediate between heaven and
earth. If it is true that this is what
Nathaniel was thinking, then what Jesus said to him would have been much more
significant. Jesus knew what was going
on inside Nathaniel’s mind.
Matthew
The early Church consistently attributed the first
gospel to Matthew, the Tax-Collector called to follow Jesus. And considering his background in finances,
he kind of tells on himself by the many references to money. He references three different types of coins
not found in the other three Gospel accounts (The “two-drachma tax”, Matthew
17:24; a “four-drachma coin”, Matthew 17:27, and “talents”, Matthew 18:24). In Matthew’s Gospel he refers to himself as
“Matthew, the Tax-collector”, but Mark and Luke simply call him Matthew.
It’s difficult to determine exactly when Matthew
wrote his Gospel, but there are two points that frame a boundary for us. It seems some period of time elapsed between the
resurrection and Matthew’s account. In
Matthew 27:7-8 and in Matthew 28:15 he mentions things that are still happening
“to this very day”. The other point is
that Matthew wrote his Gospel before the Temple was destroyed. He writes as if the city and the Temple were
still intact (compare Matthew 4:5 and Matthew 27:53). So a date of about 50 AD, give or take a few
years, seems reasonable.
It’s clear from Matthew’s writing that his audience
was mostly Jewish because Matthew uses may terms familiar to the Jewish
culture. Some actually believe Matthew
was written in Aramaic, although only Greek copies have been found. If it was written in Aramaic, typically only
a Jew would have been able to read the manuscript.
Matthew 1
Matthew 1:1-16
To teach the unbelieving Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, Matthew
begins with a heritage that takes Him all the way back to Abraham. If Jesus was the Messiah, then He should be
part of the rightful line of David.
Matthew traces the line through Joseph who was Jesus’s legal
father. In contrast to Luke’s heritage,
Matthew mentions a Shealtiel who was the son of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah). In Luke the Shealtiel is the son of
Neri. Also, four women are mentioned in
this list. Tamar and Rahab were
prostitutes, Ruth was a foreigner from Moab, and Bathsheba committed adultery. This is a clear sign that a person need not
be perfect in order for God to use them to accomplish His will. Lastly, Matthew finishes this list by
changing his wording. Instead of
mentioning who begat who as he did through the rest of this list, he finishes
by saying that Jesus was “born of Mary” (Matthew 1:16). Joseph was his legal father, not His physical
father. Not every name is listed
here. There are 14 names between each
section; between Abraham and David, between David and the Exile, and between
the Exile and Jesus.
Matthew 1:18-23
The Hebrew people had a custom of making a marriage arrangement. Each set of parents would agree that their
children would marry, and a ceremony would take place. The couple was married, according to Hebrew
custom. But the marriage was not
physically consummated for an entire year.
The bride would live with her parents and the groom with his. If, within that year, the bride was to be
found with child, her unfaithfulness would be obvious and the marriage could be
annulled. If she was found faithful at
the end of that year, the groom would come to the bride’s home in an elaborate
procession and lead the bride back to their new home. Then the marriage would be consummated. Matthew says that Joseph, not Joseph’s
father, decided to break off the marriage quietly. This is a significant statement. There are some who believe that Joseph was
much older than Mary; that he was a widower looking for a new wife. Their argument may be true because it would
be awfully difficult for a young man still living at home to quietly end the
marriage. However, Joseph still could
have been a young man. It’s possible he
convinced his parents to end the marriage without bringing Mary’s condition to
the town council. According to Jewish
Law, Mary could have been stoned to death, and it seems this was unacceptable
to Joseph. This is an indication of his
character. Whatever his age, Joseph
demonstrated deep love for this girl.
Matthew 1:24-25
It would appear that the Immaculate Conception of Jesus took place
shortly after the marriage arrangement was made. In Luke’s Gospel we read that Mary traveled
to Jerusalem and visited Elizabeth. She
stayed with her 3 months (probably until John was born). Then she returns to her home, meaning to her
parents’ home. Possibly 4 months into
the pregnancy, Mary was by now showing a bit.
And what’s interesting is that rather than waiting the full year, Joseph
takes Mary into his home right away, perhaps to spare her any public
shame. Of importance here is that Joseph
kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born, which makes you wonder why the
Catholic Church insists that Mary remained a virgin all her life. You can read more about the Catholic view of
Mary at http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin.
Luke
First of all it’s important for to keep in mind that
Luke was a Gentile believer, possibly converted while tending to the Apostle
Paul (see Acts 16:6-10). As Luke wrote
his history, the language changed in Acts 16 from “they” to “we”. The Spirit may have prevented Paul from
preaching by making him sick, and Luke the Physician is asked to heal him. Instead, Luke is converted and begins
traveling with Paul. As he writes both
his Gospel and the book of Acts, Luke speaks to a Gentile audience. He uses different words (teacher instead of
Rabbi). He aligns Jewish events with
Roman events (when so-and-so was governor).
He describes to the reader where certain places were located in the
region. To a Jew, this would not be
necessary.
Luke 1
Luke 1:1-4 Theophilus
literally means “Lover of God”, so either Luke wrote to a specific man, or
wrote to all who Love God. If he was an
individual, he must have been someone important, for Luke calls him “Most
honorable” or “Most Excellent”.
Regardless of whom Theophilus was, Luke interviewed a lot of people in
order to get the facts. Like some
investigative reporter he talks with those who were still alive, perhaps even
to Mary herself. It seems he even talked
with Jewish religious leaders trying to ascertain what really happened and what
really took place. I think he was
already a believer at this point, but wanted to learn what he had missed by
never personally meeting Jesus.
Luke 1:5 This
is one of those references that someone outside of Palestine would have needed
in order to draw the story together.
Herod, King of Judea. But if you
were from Judea, Herod needed no reference.
He ruled from 37 to 4 BC.
Luke 1:8-10
Watch how God is at work here.
This is great. According to the
divisions of priests drawn up in David’s time (see 1 Chronicles 24:7-18), this
group of priests would have been on duty two weeks out of the year, serving a
week at a time. Luke says that Zacharias
was chosen by lot (drawing the short straw, so to speak). Because of the large number of priests, this
would have been probably the only time in his life that he would have been able
to perform this task. So it was a
one-time shot. So who do you think was
guiding the casting of lots? Based on Numbers
8:24-25, a Priest served between the age or 25 to 50. So Zacharias would have been no older than
50. Hey, I don’t think that’s “Very
Old”. Common Luke, give me a break!
Luke 1:12-17
What is significant about this is that Zacharias’ son, John the Baptist,
was the son of a Levitical Priest. If
John was out baptizing people beyond the Jordan River at the age of 30, then he
was neglecting his duties and responsibilities as a Levitical Priest. He should have been back at the Temple
following the commands of God. Perhaps
this is why the delegation from Jerusalem came out to see what he was doing
(John 1:19).
Luke 1:19-20 Zacharias
was unable to speak, but it was not just a punishment for his unbelief. It was also a sign that something significant
had happened while inside the Temple (Luke 1:22). The other part of this equation is that when
Gabriel made the announcement, Zacharias must have believed to some
degree. He demonstrated faith simply by
the fact that John was conceived, if you get my point. I mean, Elizabeth did not experience
Immaculate Conception. So let’s not be
too critical of Zacharias. He was just a
little slow in the belief department, but he did eventually believe.
Luke 1:27
There are those who like to point out that the word translated as Virgin
in Isaiah 7:14 can be interpreted to simply mean “Young Maiden” (‘almâh); a young woman who is of
child-bearing age but not married. Okay,
fine. But Luke uses an entirely
different word here. He calls Mary Parthenon; not known by a man. Why is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth so
important to a Christian? The first man
and woman sinned, and their human nature was changed. They were marked as sinners by the curse of
death. So something changed in Adam and
Eve at the Fall. And that change has
been passed down from one generation to the next. The act of intercourse is not sinful, but
because every human being since Adam and Eve have been recreations, not new
creations, every child conceived inherits humanity’s sin. So the sin nature inherent in Adam and in Eve
is passed along when Chromosomes combine to form a baby. That baby inherits the curse of sin. But in order to create a human who was
flawless and a human worthy of sacrifice (see Luke 1:35), God breaks the chain
of sin by creating life once again. Only
this time He works through the womb of a peasant girl. And this child, when He grows, will face the
Tempter and win, unlike Adam and Eve who failed. So if the Child inside Mary had been
conceived by a man, then this child was not sinless and consequently not a
suitable sacrifice for our sin.
Luke 1:41
John did backflips inside his mother’s womb; a fulfillment of Gabriel’s
promise (see Luke 1:15). Okay, I
know. I saw the notes in the margin too. Another possible interpretation of Luke 15
says that John would be filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb. But like the early Bible translators, I agree
with the accepted wording of this text in light of the incident that occurs in
verse 41.
Luke 1:60
Apparently Zacharias wrote down for Elizabeth what happened that day he
was inside the Temple. He must have
indicated that the child was to be named John.
Luke 1:67-79
What Zacharias says here is immensely important. In his Psalm of praise (known as the
Benedictus), he recognizes that his son will not be the Messiah but that John
will prepare the way for the Lord. He
says that the Messiah is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel and also to
the rest of the world. Notice that the
Messiah will give light to those living in darkness and death. 
No comments:
Post a Comment