January 4th Bible Study Companion

Matthew 3, Luke 3

Matthew 3

      Matthew 3:1-4  Here John the Baptist is described a bit more in detail, as opposed to what John and Mark have to say.  Oh, and I sure hope he had honey coated locusts.  I actually thought of showing a picture here but didn’t want to spoil anyone’s appetite.  Yuck!  Maybe that would explain why John seemed a bit irritated with the delegation from Jerusalem (“Morons.  I’m surrounded by morons.  I distinctly remember ordering a mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich on flat bread”).

      Matthew 3:7-12  See how irritated John was!  Actually, he was irritated at their obvious hypocrisy.  Their hearts had not changed.  These religious leaders were merely going through the motions.  Matthew gives us the impression that they saw this as some fad, not the heart and soul of Christianity.

      Matthew 3:13-17  This is a rather difficult text to understand.  Did John know that Jesus was the Anointed One before he witnessed the Spirit descend upon Him?  It seems unlikely.  But considering that his mother knew Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that John would have been Jesus’s second cousin, there is a good chance John knew Jesus was special.  The statement John made probably had more to do with the life John had lived and the life Jesus had lived.  From what sin did Jesus need to repent?  Obviously none.  But John felt he had sinned, so his objection probably has more to do with what he knew and had seen of Jesus up until this point, and in comparison Jesus had lived an exemplary life.  But then we have to ask why Jesus felt it necessary to fulfill what God requires (or fulfill all righteousness).  The Law had no requirements about baptism, so what did Jesus mean?  Well, if Jesus was to provide righteousness for sinners it was necessary for the Messiah to identify with sinners.  Actually, the real meaning of “baptize” is “identify”.  So Jesus tells John that it is necessary to identify Himself with those seeking righteousness just as it is necessary for those seeking righteousness to identify themselves with Jesus.

      Matthew 3:16-17  The “he saw” in verse 16 could refer to John or it could refer to Jesus.  The most accurate translations of the Bible indicate that John is the one to see this event, in holding with what John the Baptist said in John the Apostle’s Gospel (John 1:32-34).

Luke 3

      Luke 3:1-2  You gotta love Luke.  He never misses an opportunity to accurately date an event.  This places the beginning of John’s ministry in the year 29 AD.

      Luke 3:7-17  Luke adds a few remarks here not mentioned in the other Gospels.  People of all backgrounds were asking what repentance looked like.  Apparently most were Jewish, but it seems that a few might have been Romans living in the land to uphold Roman Law.  But notice that Luke does not mention any specific Jewish Religious sect.  He includes the everyone in the “Brood of Vipers” group, which would be fitting for who might be reading Luke’s account.  It could be that the Jewish Religious leaders who came out to Bethany Beyond the Jordon never even asked what they must do; what repentance looked like.  Perhaps they simply didn’t care.

      Luke 3:18-20  Luke adds a side note here about the eventual outcome of John’s ministry.  As stated, John began preaching in 29 AD.  It seems he spent a year preaching and about two years in prison, although it is actually difficult to tell.  What we do know is that by the time we get to Luke 9, John is already dead.

      Luke 3:21-22 Luke testifies to the filling of the Spirit into Jesus.  One gets the impression that more than Jesus and John saw this event.  Perhaps there were others in the crowd that saw it too and were able to testify this fact to Luke as he wrote his history.

      Luke 3:23  Luke did not suppose that Jesus was 30.  It means that Jesus was around the age of 30, well prepared to enter into ministry.  And if there was any doubt that Luke had made sure he had all the facts, he traces Jesus all the way back to Adam.  He even points out that some people supposed Jesus was the son of Joseph, but Luke wanted his readers to know differently.

      Luke 3:24-38  76 names are given here, some similar to Matthew’s and some different.  Luke traced Jesus back to David through Nathan, Matthew traced Him back to David through Solomon.  Why the difference?  Some feel that Luke was tracing Jesus’ heritage back through Mary, not Joseph.  This may be true, but it still causes problems.  Perhaps legally Joseph was the son of Jacob because while he was still young his birth father Eli passed away (compare Luke 3:23 and Matthew 1:16).  But even then that doesn’t cause a problem.  Luke is still able to trace Jesus back to David, even back to God!