Open our eyes, O God:
that we may behold wondrous things out of your law.
Open our ears, O God:
that we may hear what you will speak
to those who turn to you in their hearts.
Open our minds, O God:
that we may understand what it means
to revere you and to learn of your ways.
Open our hearts, O God:
that we may grasp the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
hidden in Christ.
Open our mouths, O God:
that we may proclaim the mystery of the gospel
and speak of it boldly.
A question came up last week about the difference between the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Here is what the ESV Study Bible says: “Whereas Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage from Abraham to emphasize Jesus’ Jewish heritage, Luke traces it back to Adam to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of the hopes of all people (cf. Acts 17:26). In addition to some minor differences and gaps, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ significantly in the period from David to Jesus, even naming different fathers for Joseph (Jacob in Matt. 1:16; Heli in Luke 3:23). Both Matthew and Luke are evidently depending on detailed historical records, and various suggestions have been proposed to explain the differences: (1) An old suggestion is that Matthew traces Joseph’s ancestry while Luke traces Mary’s ancestry. But very few commentators defend this solution today, because 1:27 refers to Joseph, not Mary, and taking 3:23 as a reference to Mary’s ancestry requires the unlikely step of inserting Mary into the text where she is not mentioned but Joseph is mentioned. (2) The most commonly accepted suggestion is that Matthew traces the line of royal succession (moving from David to Solomon; Matt. 1:6) while Luke traces Joseph’s actual physical descent (moving from David to Nathan, a little-known son mentioned in 2 Sam. 5:14; Luke 3:31), and both lines converge at Joseph. Then there are various explanations for the two different people named as Joseph’s father (Jacob in Matthew; Heli in Luke). In most proposed solutions, they are thought to be different people and a second marriage is assumed (sometimes a levirate marriage; see note on Matt. 22:24), so that Joseph was the legal son of one but the physical son of the other, and thus there are two lines of ancestry for the two men. (3) Some commentators have suggested that Heli was Mary’s father, but that there were no male heirs in the family, so Heli adopted Joseph as his “son” when Mary and Joseph were married. Although the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ in their organizing principles, both of these genealogies emphasize that Jesus was the “son of David” (Luke 3:31; cf. Matt. 1:6). Luke further emphasizes the virgin birth (cf. 1:34–35) with the phrase “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph” (3:23).”
Jesus’ temptation in Matthew comes right after his baptism, and it seems to be a direct challenge to God’s claim, “This is my Son.” Here in Luke the temptation follows the genealogy. Could Luke be emphasizing that Jesus is the new Adam? I think so.
In today’s reading the idea of “Messianic Secret” comes up several times. Evil spirits recognize Jesus, and he silences them. To understand Jesus, we need to accept all of him. He isn’t simply the great miracle working Son of the Most High. He is also the suffering servant who will give his life. Jesus isn’t trying to win over big crowds. In fact, when the crowds get too big, Jesus withdraws. He resists all opportunities to become a great earthly leader. The focus at the beginning of his ministry is to demonstrate the Kingdom of God, and then later he will demonstrate suffering and redemption. Timing is a big part of Jesus’ ministry. 7:16 is a good example of partial understanding. God has come to help his people, but Jesus is much more than a great prophet. Peter’s recognition of Jesus as the Christ of God in 9:20 is the turning point in Luke as it is in Matthew and Mark. Now Jesus begins to explain the suffering part. He is on the road to the cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment