Discuss Luke 1 Page 6

Kenneth,

In Matthew 11:14, when Jesus was speaking about John the Baptist, Jesus said that John the Baptist was Elijah who was to come. Jesus is referring to Malachi 4:5 that tells us that Elijah will come before Messiah comes, and Elijah will be the forerunner to the Messiah.

However, we have a problem here because in John Chapter 1, when the leadership sent people out to ask John, "Are you the Messiah?" John said, "No!" "Are you the prophet?" which by the way is also a term for the Messiah. Again, John said no. "Are you Elijah?" He said no again.



So he is John the Baptist, but he is not Elijah. But Jesus said this is Elijah who was to come. So either John didn't know who he was, or he was confused or something? Even in Matthew Chapter 17 in the Transfiguration, when they came down off the hill, the disciples understood what Jesus said about John the Baptist, that John the Baptist was Elijah. But John said he isn't.

So was he Elijah or not? The answer to that is found in Luke 1:17, when the angel came to announce to Zacharias that his wife Elizabeth was going to give birth, which would be John the Baptist. And he said that he (John) will come in the spirit and power of the Elijah, the "spirit and power" of Elijah. John the Baptist is going to have the same ministry as Elijah. He is not going to be Elijah personally, but he has the same ministry as Elijah.

Therefore, that settles our dilemma about John. He says no, I'm not Elijah, I'm John. However, the Spirit's anointing upon him was that he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. The same spirit that had anointed Elijah was the same spirit that anointed John.

Hope this helps!

Luke 1:39-45

Elizabeth is Mary's cousin. She is now elderly and she and her husband, Zechariah, have never been able to have children. Now Elizabeth is pregnant as God has worked a miracle so they can conceive. Their child will grow up to be John the Baptist , the person whose role in life is to prepare people for Jesus.

FROM: Bibleask.org

"And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren" ( Luke 1:36).

How were Mary and Elizabeth related?

The word "cousin" in Greek is "suggenis" which means "kinswoman" or "relative." The word "suggenis" simply implies that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, with no indication as to degree of relationship.

The word "cousin" was first used here in Wycliffe's translation. This was during a time when the word did not have the specific meaning it does now. There is no exact term in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to denote what we describe today as a "cousin."

The law made provision for the intermarriage of the tribes ( Numbers 36:6), and members of the tribes of Levi and Judah often intermarried. Elizabeth was of the tribe of Levi. "and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth" ( Luke 1:5).

Mary was of the tribe of Judah. "To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary" ( Luke 1:27). If Mary was of Judah, it seems that Mary's father would also be of Judah. Therefore, it is possible that Mary's connection with Elizabeth was either through her mother or through Elizabeth's mother.

A question

Some may ask: how Elisabeth, who was one of the daughters of Aaron ( Luke 1:5) and consequently of the tribe of Levi, could be cousin to Mary, who was of the house of David, and consequently of the tribe of Judah ( Luke 1:3) because of the law ( Numbers 36:6,7)?

The answer is that the word cousin can be taken in two senses: one in a large sense as Paul called all the Jews his kinsmen ( Romans 9:3). And the other in a strict sense, for the daughters of the tribe of Levi can actually marry into any other tribes, having no inheritance to carry away, to violate the law ( Numbers 36:1-13).

Luke 1, Luke 2, Luke 1:36,

Hi Chris

In Luke 1 Mary is told she would conceive in her womb.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

That indicated to me that the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ was similar to all births.

The difference was that it happened because the Holy Spirit planted the seed of God into Mary.

The seed of God impregnated the seed of the women producing the Lord Jesus Christ.

His birth was the same as all babies born of women. How each and everyone of us are born.

Jesus is before Abraham ( John 8:58) but is that physically or in Gods mind?

Consider Genesis 3:15 the seed of the women.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the seed of the women. This is a future event. It hasn't happened yet.

This is long before Abraham is even mentioned. Before Abraham was, I am.

The character of Jesus is mention in the time of Adam and Eve. Right at the beginning of the world.

Jesus is before all others in scripture but he wasn't physically formed until his conception and his birth by Mary.

He was in Gods mind right from the creation of the earth in the time of Adam and Eve.

God will and does say things exist even of they don't at this moment.

When God says things will happen then be sure they will.

It does not mean they are physically there now. Rest assured they will happen but in Gods good time.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Isa 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

I'm out of space.

Thanks

Jesse thank you and yes it does indeed help

Roy

Roy,

I should have also mentioned that the Gospel of John was written to the church around 95 A.D. So approximately 30 years after the other three gospels were written, the Gospel of John was written. John wrote his gospel to present Jesus as the Son of God, (His deity).

And John ends his gospel with the promise of Jesus' return. And that opens it up for John's sequel, as he wrote the book of Revelation, and talked about the return of Christ.

Hope all this helps!

Roy,

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels. John is not part of the synoptic section. The word synoptic comes from the Greek word SUNOPSIS which means to view together. So Matthew, Mark, and Luke are to be viewed together.



Matthew's gospel was written to the Jews and was written to present Jesus as the coming Savior/Messiah. Mark wrote his gospel to the Roman mind because to the Roman people, everything had to match up with the law. Mark wrote to present Jesus as the suffering servant.

Luke was written to the Gentiles. It was written to present Jesus as the Son of Man. The book of Acts was also written by Luke, and both books used to travel together. In fact, the book of Acts was originally called Luke Part 2. It was later on changed to the book of Acts.

Paul wrote the doctrine or teaching section of the New Testament, Romans through Philemon.

And then from Hebrews all the way through the book of Revelation, that is all known as the Jewish Literature section of the bible.

Mathew, Mark and John write synopsis of the bible focused on the teaching of Jesus Christ, the rest of the writers in the New Testament appear to be addressing letters or giving council to specific areas of the Christian community. Am I correct?

Roy

Just to take this further, Jim. I'm assuming that you're referring to Luke 3:38: "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." To remain true to the original language, the phrase "the son" (wherever it appears in the reading), is not shown in Greek. Rather, it would read, "...of Enos, which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God"; as it would similarly read for the others in that passage.

From research, one can learn that in these verses (vv24-38), the Greek word 'tou' (with the genitive) means 'belonging to'; though in Luke 3:22,23, the word 'Son' is definitely used. Why the translators chose to add "the son of" is known only to them, though I suspect that in almost all cases there was a clear line of humanity (of 'begetting') which they carried through to the beginning, that of Adam. And the fact that "the son" is shown in italics, indicates that they understood that it wasn't in the original language.

With that aside, the 1 Corinthians chapter 15 reference by the apostle, was to show that though both Adam & Christ were alike in their 'coming' from God, their origins were totally different. Adam was created from the dust of the earth - Christ created into humanity by the Spirit of God ( Luke 1:35). The first was a product of the earth - the second a product from Heaven. True, Jesus was humanly formed & birthed & that was so, for His Coming was to be understood from the Davidic line, fulfilling the prophecies that went before Him & of course, to lay down His Life as a Sacrifice for all.

Then to assert that "Adam is also God", would be false, as there was nothing about Adam's creation to indicate that another god was produced & then fell. But for Jesus, His Coming was from God's Presence & Being - entitling Him to be called the Son of God & also worshipped.

Thank you brother Tom - well written.

A correction to the Scriptures given in my second line. They should read, Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1. My apologies.

Hi Jeanie Laborde: The Bible declared Simeon "A Godly man," waiting for the consolation of Israel (Jesus Christ). Simeon, was a just man - bar none. He was filled with the "Holy Ghost," like Elizabeth & Zacharias were the parent of John the Baptist. Simeon, was encouraged by the Holy Spirit, to go to the Temple that day, took Jesus in his arms and recognized the Lord in him.

Anna, a prophetess, lived in the temple, and she also began to talk of the Child "to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem". This was exactly the same prophecy spoken by Zacharias, the father of John the Baptists". Simeon, could have been considered a priest. But the Bible declared him a Godly and a just man.

He allowed the Holy Spirit to work in his life. Evidently, the spirit of God was on him and reveal a special purpose for his life. The Spirit moved him so that he was in the right place at the right time.

Hi Chris,

Reading through you comment it appears that you are right concerning Simeon, not being a priest but rather a "Godly man,' waiting to see the consolation of Israel. (Jesus Christ). If you however, read the account of Zacharias prophecy, he prophesied that Jesus will come to save them from their enemies; so as to live the rest of their lives for the glory of God. That his son John, will be the forerunner of the Messiah. It's all in Zacharias prophesy when he regained his speech in the book of Luke Chapter 1. What Zacharias, related to was evidently what Simeon alluded to during his prophesy when he saw Christ, as a child. You are on point. Thanks for your comments.

I'm in agreement with the other respondents to you, that it was Luke, the author of the Gospel, that wrote the Book of Acts. We learn this from both Luke 1:1 and Acts 1:3,4.

In Acts, Luke is referring back to the Gospel, where he wrote the letter (Gospel) to Theophilus giving him instruction: "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed" ( Luke 1:4). It seems that Theophilus was not only well known to Luke, but that he was also quite high up in the Roman hierarchy (we see the word "excellent" also used by Claudius Lysias, the chief captain, when addressing Governor Felix, in Acts 23:25,26). This usage indicates a person of high position & the interaction Luke has with Theophilus shows, not only a close acquaintance between the two, but possibly that Theophilus had more than just a passing interest in the Promise & Coming of the Messiah. God had His witnesses at the right places, & by a few folk, many heard the Gospel & must have been challenged greatly in their hearts.

Hi Chris,

I understand and can see your point. It makes you also wonder if he could have been and Elder. Thank you for your thoughts.

Have a bless weekend my friend.

Hello friend Laura, you are probably thinking of Simeon who was not a priest but was given the blessing of holding the Beloved Jesus Christ in his arms and he blessed the Father God for being given the sight of the Son of God, the Messiah. Please read Luke 2.25-35

Thank you for those references & thoughts Jeanie. I understand the requirement in the Exodus account & when I read the Luke account ( Luke 2:25-35), I seem to see a different picture. I realize that you see Simeon as a priest of the Temple, presenting to God the child Jesus. Why I balk at this is because we're first told that Simeon was a devout man in Jerusalem. Then, by the Spirit, he was led to the Temple to see this Promised One. And here is the difficulty: Joseph & Mary brought the Child to the Temple, to follow the custom of the Law (i.e. consecration). But was Simeon the priest or was there another priest, already serving at the Temple to carry out this duty? When we read the rest of Simeon's action & words, it appears to me that they weren't one of consecration, but of praise to God for allowing him this blessing of seeing the Child. And when Jesus' parents marvelled at Simeon's prophecy, Simeon blessed them (i.e. the parents) & continued with a prophecy.

I just share the above so that you can see why I have doubts about Simeon's priestly position. He could well have been (as you say), but in my reading, the narrative causes me to doubt that & I just see him as a godly man looking for the Messiah, hoping to have a glimpse of him before he passes on.

Hi Brother Chris.

Hope things are well.

If you look at Exodus 13:2 and 11-16

This is call First Born Consecrated.

In Luke they went into a temple and Simon took the Child to presented him to God. So Simon must have been a priest. Only a priest can do offerings and presentions to God.

If you need more please let me know.

Happy to help. God bless my friend.

James 1:5, 1John 2:27,

Mark 5:25-34,

Just recently GOD revealed somethings even deeper about that moment. I'm glad you're discussing so I can share it. In Leviticus 12, Leviticus 15:19-33, Leviticus 21:3, I think it's amazing Jesus called her "daughter" making her faith the (close kinship) also: Luke 8:43-48, Matthew 9:20-22, Galatians 3:26,

Also understanding that her touching him could have had the uncleanness, if He were not the High Priest that makes atonement. Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 4:14,15,

Hebrews 5:5-10, Hebrews 6:20, Hebrews 7:11, even though; Luke 1, shows His family was of that bloodline, Luke 1:5-37,

Also notable Jesus garment was without seams as the Priestly garment: John 19:23,24, Exodus 28:32, Exodus 29:23, 1Samuel 2:18,19,

Luke 2:25-35 however it didn't say he was a priest

Luke 1, Jesus relatives were Priests, Luke 1:5 both Elizabeth & Zacharias, note Luke 1:16-17, Luke 1:36-37, Luke 1:76,

Luke 2:25-35. Though we're not told whether he was a priest in the temple - probably not.

Hello, Laura

You will find the account of Simeon in Luke 2:25-35

What book of the bible talks about a priest of the temple that was told that he would see the Christ Child Jesus before he died?

Please Lord Jesus Christ bring Brittany's family together through the Holy Spirit guidance. Satan continually works aggressively to break down the family knowing it is foundation to unity and recognizing God's sovereignty. Please strengthen Brittany with Your Grace that Your Divine Light will shine through in mending this family brokenness I ask in Jesus Christ name

Please considering reflecting on Luke 1:37.

Please Lord God allow Your healing hand be on Fern's sinus infection. Please Holy Spirit continually fill Fern with Your Spiritual Fruits that Fern will be a testimony for the Glory of God I pray in Jesus Christ name

Please consider reflecting on Luke 1:37.

Hello Sara. Are you enquiring about the date of writing of the Gospel of Matthew? No correct date or year can be given as no such records have been kept. However, somewhere in the 60s AD is generally the years given for the writing of that Gospel by Matthew; some even give it an earlier date. And the Gospels would have been available to the Church & Church Fellowships farther away, some time later, but within the 1st & 2nd centuries. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1,2.

Amendment to charts and art of 3rd Heaven-on Google:

3/4 of them are Muslim charts; or occult charts, etc

Avoid them.

Rely on what the Bible teaches.

Third Heaven

Space & planets

Earth and oceans

Hell beneath all above; is not a heaven; a place of darkness and evil.

All deceased unsaved people are in their graves.

All saved peoples, remains, are in the grave, but the soul and spirit are in Heaven with Jesus.

In Luke 1:46-47, Mary praises God with her soul and spirit. Which I believe that they ascend to heaven at death. The soul is personality and uniqueness. I do not believe we'll be soulless beings in heaven.

(1) His miraculous birth was prophesied 800 years before His coming: "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel" ( Isaiah 7:14, KJV).

(2) The prophecy was fulfilled to the letter. "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus" ( Luke 1:30, 31, KJV).

(3) Jesus demonstrated human characteristics: He became tired ( John 4:6). He thirsted ( John 19:28), He ate food ( Luke 24:40-43), He showed feelings ( Mark 6:34), He wept ( John 11:35), He knew temptation ( Hebrews 4:15), and He died ( John 19:30).

Jesus Christ Accomplished the Works of His Father:

(1) He died on the Cross. This is the fundamental theme of the Gospel.

The fact of His death-One-fourth of the Gospels are dedicated to His Passion and Resurrection. (a) For this purpose He came into the world ( John 12:27). (b) His death was prophesied hundreds of years before He came ( Isaiah 53:3-8).

The meaning of His death. (a) It was a ransom for sin ( Matthew 20:28; Romans 3:24; 1 Peter 1:18). (b) It was to pay the penalty for sin ( Romans 3:24; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Man is the object of God's wrath because of rebellion and sin, but God took the initiative in satisfying His wrath by sending His own Son to Calvary. (c) It is a reconciliation. The enmity between us and God has ended ( Romans 5:10), and we are restored to God ( 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19). (d) It is a substitution: He died in our place ( 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21). (e) In summary, the matter of sin has been completely dealt with ( 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 10:12).

(2) He was resurrected from the dead: This is unique and fundamental to Christianity.

The reality of the Resurrection ( John 20:1-10; 1 Corinthians 15:4).

The credibility of the Resurrection: (a) Jesus predicted it: Matthew 13:39-41; Luke 24:1-7. (b) The tomb was empty: John 20:11-13. (c) Many witnesses saw Him alive: the women ( Luke 23:55, 56); Mary Magdalene

Hello Anointed vessel.

I believe that it is God alone who casts out demons. For believers, it is in Jesus' name that demons are cast out not by our efforts or personal faith. In Luke 1:1-2 Jesus gave his disciples power and authority to cast out demons and cure diseases when He sent out the 12 to preach the kingdom.

When Jesus sent out the 70 disciples in Luke 10 they returned to Jesus and rejoiced, saying. "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name". (verse 17). I suggest reading this chapter. In verse 19-20 Jesus gives the disciple the authority to trample the enemy, but goes on to say "Nevertheless do not rejoice in tis, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven."

It is certainly a praiseworthy event when someone is released from demonic control or healed from a disease because the person delivered has been set free and now enjoys relief and blessing from God. But Jesus says that it is more important and blessed to be heaven bound than to have this authority to cast out demons or heal the sick. The proclamation of the gospel and the reception of the gospel are higher things, but certainly relieving a person of demonic possession, influence, and oppression or healing someone who is ill are worthy things to do in Jesus' name. They bring glory to Him and also provide an avenue for the gospel to reach these people and for them to respond positively to it for their salvation.