Bible Study Luke 1:1-4

[clark thompson]

Luke 1:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke 1:1-4
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Introduction
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation


These are my thoughts, please share yours.
1 We need study the gospel and share it as does look. The word is to read and studied. We need to accept the word as truth. We need to live by the Word.
2 So Luke gathers his story from those who saw Jesus for themselves. Luke gathers this information and God gives Him the truth to pen down. Even thru divine revelation we need to study the scripture and gather information, this is what Luke did.
3 Luke was inspired to write by the Spirit and he has the most detailed account of the gospels. The gospel he wrote meant for one person. Matthew and Mark were written mainly to tell the Jews while John was always angled to the Gentiles. The gospel is meant for all today and believers specifically. Theophilus was a title and most likely not a person.
4 We know the truth by reading the word, the world may have truth but it also has lies and the Word has the power to save souls.

 

[turnorburn]

The world had the truth the truth walked among us and you saw what the world thought of the truth. The world may have a truth it has its own truth unlike the truth of Gods word.. the truth the world has Is a lie...

Praise God for the bible..

tob

 

[Eugene]

Luke 1:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

These are my thoughts, please share yours.
1 We need study the gospel and share it as does look. The word is to read and studied. We need to accept the word as truth. We need to live by the Word.
2 So Luke gathers his story from those who saw Jesus for themselves. Luke gathers this information and God gives Him the truth to pen down. Even thru divine revelation we need to study the scripture and gather information, this is what Luke did.
3 Luke was inspired to write by the Spirit and he has the most detailed account of the gospels. The gospel he wrote meant for one person. Matthew and Mark were written mainly to tell the Jews while John was always angled to the Gentiles. The gospel is meant for all today and believers specifically. Theophilus was a title and most likely not a person.
4 We know the truth by reading the word, the world may have truth but it also has lies and the Word has the power to save souls.

Dear Brother Clark, you mention that Theophilus may not be a person, but being addressed to the (Friend of God) can still be a person, and with many names taking on a meaning, I see no reason that cannot be the actual name of that Gentile also. Like Saul (Meaning desired) was the Jewish name of the Apostle Paul, the Gentile name Paul meant (Small or little). To me that doesn't mean Paul wasn't the name we know Him by. Below a dear friend of mine wrote the following introduction to the study of Luke.

The Gospel of Luke
Introduction by Gene Hawkins​

"Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always laboring fervently for you
in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I bear him record,
that he hath a great zeal for you and them that are in Laodicea and them in Hierapolis. Luke, the
beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." (Colossians 4:12-14)

The fourth chapter of Colossians lists two distinct groups of people: the circumcision (Israelites)
and the uncircumcision (Gentiles). Luke's name is found among the Gentiles. The Apostle Paul
identifies Luke as a physician. He is the only Gentile writer of the Bible, and both his epistles,
Luke and Acts, were written to a Gentile, Theophilus.

From Luke 1:3, he states that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," or
"from above." He did not portray Christ after the wisdom of men. He received his revelation of
Christ from Heaven. In many cases, undoubtedly due to his close association with Paul, the
Message of Grace is woven throughout this book.

All of these facts form the perfect background for the Gospel of Luke, which presents Christ as
the peace offering. This Levitical sacrifice, which was divided almost equally between God and
the priests, is a fellowship offering. It shows Christ bringing God and man together on the basis of
a common sacrifice. It is also fitting that the Holy Spirit should choose this Gentile to portray
Christ Jesus as a Man among men, rather than One sent only to the Jew. More than the other
Gospel writers, Luke presents Jesus as THE MAN with all the frailties, temptations, pains, and
sorrows, which are common to mankind.

These two threads -- the peace offering and Christ's humanity -- are woven most beautifully
throughout this book, and which we will endeavor to expound in these lessons. By comparisons
and contrasts with the other Gospel Records, we shall see that Luke has a very unique story to
tell. -- G.H.

 

[for_his_glory]

It's not enough to read the word or speak the word, but we have to apply Gods word to every aspect of our lives. It's when others that have known us all our lives and now see the change in us by allowing God to work in us and through us that the light of Christ may shine through us as a living testimony of Gods grace and mercy. Luke was just one of many that God spoke through as He speaks through all of us as His Holy Spirit utters all truth through us.

1Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

On a curious note why do you think Theophilus was not a real person as this name means beloved of God. There are many speculations of who he was and that some even go as far as saying it wasn't a persona at all, but just a symbolic name as calling many beloved of God as they were addressed by others.

 

[About the Son of God]

From Luke 1:3, he states that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first," or
"from above." He did not portray Christ after the wisdom of men.

Luke 1:3 εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι κρατιστε θεοφιλε

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1.htm

παρηκολουθηκοτι is also translated "having been acquainted with", and although I haven't checked the word carefully in the rest of scripture, the phrase could also be translated "having been acquainted with all things from above."; so I'm not sure he's saying that his Gospel is direct revelation as your friend suggests -- so much as he is talking about his personal intimacy with the religion.

A little bit of a word study:
The word "anOThen" ανωθεν can refer to the heavenly origin of baptism (from above).
In the KJV "anOThen" is sometimes translated "again" as in "born again", but I think it's more correct to say "born from above", because there are some places where it must mean "heavenly" or "higher than me.". There's a primary meaning of a word, which should make sense in all places the word is used -- and then there are secondary meanings (nuances) which context can make a word mean.

Consider: It would be confusing to use the phrase "born from the very beginning" for baptism of every Christian; so we can easily see that "from the very beginning" is a secondary meaning of the word "anOThen" that doesn't always apply. The same is true of "again", for here in this passage -- it would then be translated "having been acquainted with all things again."

But, if we do a very large bible study -- I'm sure we'll find that we can plug "from above" into all places that the word "anothen" is used, and it will never make a passage sound ridiculous, or obviously wrong. So I think "from above" is the more robust, or basic meaning of the word.

Here in this passage, Luke 1:3, I think the bolded phrase might have three general connotations:

1) Luke was baptized a Christian, so that he was introduced into the religion, and is not speaking as a biased outsider -- but as a Christian who KNOWS what he is talking about from experience.
2) The apostles, and perhaps the epi-scopate (over-seers), were/are above Luke in rank; for Luke is a convert, not an eye-witness to Christ. Therefore, speaking to the apostles directly -- in personal interviews -- also allows him to say he became acquainted with the religion from those above him.
3) Luke may have had a born-again experience that brought him to Christ initially, and although that alone is not a guarantee that he knows everything perfectly; for even Paul says we see partially -- none the less, Luke knows the AUTHENTICITY of what God gave us in Christ, Jesus by a personal approval of God.

I agree that he doesn't follow the "wisdom of men" especially in the pejorative sense of manly wisdom; but I think it's important to notice that men can become wise in Christ; so that we shouldn't automatically think that just because the teaching might have come from another man, that it did not also come from Christ; for "He who hears you, hears me."

 

[Eugene]

About the Son of God - In the KJV "anOThen" is sometimes translated "again" as in "born again", but I think it's more correct to say "born from above", because there are some places where it must mean "heavenly" or "higher than me.". There's a primary meaning of a word, which should make sense in all places the word is used -- and then there are secondary meanings (nuances) which context can make a word mean.

Eugene – Therein lies the problem with interpretation. Different writers subject any word to their personal understanding of context; prophesy is especially problematic in that regard. Probably a poor illustration, but X + Y = Z and an understanding lacking all the elements of Y lead to all manner of improper interpretation of Z.

About the Son of God - 2) The apostles, and perhaps the epi-scopate (over-seers), were/are above Luke in rank; for Luke is a convert, not an eye-witness to Christ. Therefore, speaking to the apostles directly -- in personal interviews -- also allows him to say he became acquainted with the religion from those above him.

Eugene - Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. There is much debate as to whether Luke ever saw Jesus. I tend to attribute certain things Luke wrote to having an intimate knowledge of our Lord. In the chronology of our Lord only Luke presented Jesus as the man of Rev 4:7.

About the Son of God - 3) Luke may have had a born-again experience that brought him to Christ initially, and although that alone is not a guarantee that he knows everything perfectly; for even Paul says we see partially -- none the less, Luke knows the AUTHENTICITY of what God gave us in Christ, Jesus by a personal approval of God.

Eugene – Is it simplistic thinking of me to believe that God included the gospel of Luke to be an original portion of scripture by inspiration of God, and not just a collection or rehash of other writer’s efforts, and as such would it only be exposition in part, or wholly as God intended it?

Thanks.

 

[About the Son of God]

About the Son of God
Eugene - Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. There is much debate as to whether Luke ever saw Jesus. I tend to attribute certain things Luke wrote to having an intimate knowledge of our Lord. In the chronology of our Lord only Luke presented Jesus as the man of Rev 4:7.

Which passage in Luke are you referring to?

When I look at Luke 1:1,, there are many different translations of the sentence in different bibles; I can see that.
For example, look at the NIV: http://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/passage.aspx?q=luke 1:1-4
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

Checking it against a Greek interlinear, http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1.htm
I can see that in at least one version of the Greek, there is a new subject immediately after the word "us". The subject is "men", and not "us". So, it's really unclear to me if Luke intends to make himself part of this group of men or not, even though the KJV suggests he is.

I am also just now noticing that Luke says of these men, "men from the beginning" (Arche/archaic) -- whereas, when he definitely speaks of himself, he says "from above" (anOthen).

I'm curious, Why do you think he used different words for the group, as opposed to himself?

I agree that it is possible that Luke had intimate knowledge of Jesus. Perhaps, if not from the beginning, then later in life; but also -- i'm sure that Luke had sources of information other than the other Gospels. Not all the people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' life wrote Gospels; For example, Mary the mother of Jesus -- we don't have a Gospel account from her -- but only Luke tells us of events in her life which nobody could have known by being an eyewitness; for I don't think Luke was in Mary's bedroom when the angel Gabriel came to Greet her, let alone Matthew or Mark or John; So, how can Luke quote the exact words. ( Luke 1:28 ) if he didn't talk to her as an eyewitness ? If he got the story from someone else, they could not have been an eyewitness ??

Eugene – Is it simplistic thinking of me to believe that God included the gospel of Luke to be an original portion of scripture by inspiration of God, and not just a collection or rehash of other writer’s efforts, and as such would it only be exposition in part, or wholly as God intended it?

I'm not here to call anyone simplistic! There are many original accounts to be found in Luke that are not in the other Gospels. In my (tentative) view, It was God who guided Luke to interview people, and God who opened their mouths to answer the questions he brought; It was Luke who decided what to ask in the interviews and the Holy Spirit who stirred up his desires, making him want what God wanted to written down for our instruction.

Thanks.

You're welcome!
Your brother in Christ, Jesus, --Andrew.

 

[Eugene]

↑
Eugene - Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word. There is much debate as to whether Luke ever saw Jesus. I tend to attribute certain things Luke wrote to having an intimate knowledge of our Lord. In the chronology of our Lord only Luke presented Jesus as the man of Rev 4:7.

About the Son of God - Which passage in Luke are you referring to?

Eugene -
Just a cursory look at the differences in the lineages of the same time frames from David, Matthew presented the right of Jesus to be king through Solomon, whereas Luke showed only the human side of Jesus the Seed coming through Nathan hardly taking from other’s scrolls. How did they relate to the gospels? Matthew sees Jesus as the king; the lion of Rev 4:7, and Luke presents the man Who willing became flesh of the same verse. These four glimpses of Jesus shown in the four gospels are the very characteristics of those out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation that are conformed into the image of Christ. I hope I'm not getting out of your familiarization with these. Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[About the Son of God]

↑
I hope I'm not getting out of your familiarization with these. Blessings in Christ Jesus.

Well, it's a bible study -- if I need to look things up and ponder them, then it's a good bible study.
I'm only vaguely familiar with some of the thoughts you are bringing up.

Just a cursory look at the differences in the lineages of the same time frames from David, Matthew presented the right of Jesus to be king through Solomon, whereas Luke showed only the human side of Jesus the Seed coming through Nathan hardly taking from other’s scrolls.

OK. So you're talking about:

Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luke 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

and:

Matthew 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Matthew 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Matthew 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

So Luke says David had a son Nathan, and that's in Jesus' parent's line; whereas Matthew says Roboam is the father's line. The difference looks superficially like a contradiction ; but I know some of the children were born of concubines, and concubines have a different legal status than wives -- and I also know that covenant agreements sometimes legally transfer children after their parents deaths into their uncles households.

2Samuel 5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.
2Samuel 5:14 And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon,

So, this is why genealogies can differ depending on what one wants to trace, eg: the legal parents or the physical parents. (Not to mention that Genealogies often skip generations and call grandfathers, or great-grandfathers -- "father") I'm not an expert on exactly what happened in Luke; but I think he is trying to emphasize physical descent. eg: A Greek/gentile type of accounting.

Two things are very noticeable to me; Matthew's genealogy (Matthew 1:2-17) only goes back as far as the Covenant with Abraham, and traces forward in time; whereas Luke's (Luke 3:23-38) appears to intentionally thwart the normal ordering of legal genealogies, and rather pointedly traces the descent backward (reverse order) throughout all time.

I also see that Luke chose 76 father's -- and therefore if we include Jesus, then the genealogy of the fullness of time has Jesus as the 1st or 77th person. (alpha/omega of the list is God the father and God the son.).

I can also see that the number of people chosen in both Gospel genealogies indicates intentional grouping by multiples of 7's; eg: the number explicitly meaning "oath" in the Jewish/Hebrew language.

After thinking about it -- I can see that if I break Luke's genaology into 7 groups, it's roughly periodic outlining the major events in history; Noah, Abraham, Jesse (who was a member of Davids' kingdom as a subject)x 2 periods, and then I assume the remaining 22 people are after the Babylonian captivity; but haven't checked. 7 groups of 11 people = 77.

So, Luke includes people not a part of the Jewish/Mosaic/Abrahamic covenant.

How did they relate to the gospels? Matthew sees Jesus as the king; the lion of Rev 4:7,

I'm not quite following you...

Revelation 4:7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

I know that early christian writers said that Revelation 4:7 referred to the four gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So that, often Matthew is understood to be "lion" and Luke "Man"; but I don't see any way to correlate a particular Gospel with a particular creature that Luke would have been aware of.

Are you suggesting that Revelation 4:7 was intentionally written by John to record the order of the Gospels as historically written? (ad hoc, as Revelation was written after Luke.)

I'm unsure for another reason as well; In revelation 3:21 it says:

Revel 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

I know God's throne is carried upon the cherubim; eg: upon angels -- and on top of the Cherubim as their head are the Seraphim.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

So that the four beasts described in Revelation are Seraphim's; They carry the four poles of the heavenly arc of the covenant, and transport God throughout the world. Essentially, they are the "horses" of God's chariot.

But God's throne, itself, is mentioned in Revelation 4:3 separately, and there are two things mentioned a-person, and a rainbow/storm as sitting on it. The rainbow is a clear reference to the Shekina Glory cloud of the book of Exodus. When God came to "sit" above the arc of the covenant (carried by four priests), the glory cloud would fill the tent where the arc was set down.

Therefore Exodus is describing this same throne as seen from "below" (The pillar of fire/and cloud) whereas Revelation shows the throne as seen from "above" (eg: the glassy sea is figuratively the Sky, and also can be understood as the sea of nations.).

and Luke presents the man Who willing became flesh of the same verse. These four glimpses of Jesus shown in the four gospels are the very characteristics of those out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation that are conformed into the image of Christ.

I can see a possible allusion to the Gospel writers in the four beasts, but something is very incomplete; For -- Jesus said in the Garden of Gethsemane that the 12 Apostles would sit on twelve thrones in his kingdom.

But, notice -- Neither the Gospel writer Mark nor Luke were one of the 12 Apostles.
So it's an odd correlation....

In Paul's writings we learn that Mark was a disciple (perhaps he's a scribe) of Peter -- so that I can see the Gospel of Peter as being on one of the seraphim, but I don't know that Luke belonged to any of the twelve as a specific scribe; and I know for sure Paul is NOT one of them, either.

So -- I don't see a very strong link between Luke and Revelation 4:7.
Am I missing something?

 

[Eugene]

Dear Brother About the Son of God, due to our restricted limit of characters on one post I am submitting different posts to your reply. Concerning the genealogical differences of Matthew and Luke Gene Hawkins presents the follow interesting thought in his study of Luke.

Eugene - Just a cursory look at the differences in the lineages of the same time frames from David, Matthew presented the right of Jesus to be king through Solomon, whereas Luke showed only the human side of Jesus the Seed coming through Nathan hardly taking from other’s scrolls.

About the Son of God – I also see that Luke chose 76 father's -- and therefore if we include Jesus, then the genealogy of the fullness of time has Jesus as the 1st or 77th person. (alpha/omega of the list is God the father and God the son.).

Eugene – Very interesting and I’m sure the numbers associated with the two lineages have great meaning when figuring the ones selected.

Gene Hawkins excerpt from the study of Luke - http://www.gracegod.com/Study Books/Gospel of Luke.pdf
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" (3:23). True to form, Luke records those things in which man would be very much concerned and interested. Though we are to accept Christ by faith, men want to know, "Who is He? Where did He come from? Is He qualified?" They must know before they will accept His ministry. His age is given as 30, and is given only by Luke, who records Jesus' growth process. He is now in the prime of His life, able to accomplish His mission among men.

His genealogy here also differs from that given in Matthew's account, and rather than being a contradiction, it serves to show the Divine inspiration of the writers. Due to the fact that Matthew's record centers around Joseph, rather than Mary, and because Matthew presents Christ as King, he must trace the line through His father. We conclude that the lineage given by Matthew is that of Joseph, who is said to have been begotten by Jacob. In our present text, we read that Jesus was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The word "son" has a wide range of uses, indicating kinship, and undoubtedly refers here to Joseph being the "son-in-law" of Heli, who would be Mary's father.

In addition, we read in verse 23 of Jesus "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph," meaning that He was not in actuality the son of Joseph, but rather the Son of Mary. This would be in keeping with Luke's presentation of the lineage of the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15).

Further reading shows that both lines went back to "Zorobabel which was the son of Salathiel" (3:27). Matthew 1:12 reads, "Salathiel begat Zorobabel." This same duo is recorded in the post captivity era in Ezra 3:2, as "Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel." At this point, there is a glaring difference in the accounts. Matthew says that Jechoniah begat Salathiel. Luke declares that Salathiel was the son of Neri.

Jeremiah tells us why in chapter 22:28-30, where we read of Coniah, also known as Jehoiachin and Jechoniah (II Kings 24:6-8; Jeremiah 24:1). "Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." Coniah descended from David through Solomon, and this is the line traced in Matthew, who must record the legal or royal line of succession to the throne. However, due to the explicit words in Jeremiah, we see that the actual father of Salathiel was Neri. Speculation is that Jechoniah's line may have been related by marriage after the captivity in Babylon, but as noted, there can be no direct link through him to Solomon and David.

God is never at a loss, however. Neri also is a direct descendant of David, through Nathan (3:31). He, like Solomon, was born to David by Bathsheba, whose story also depicts the beauty, power, and grace of God, in bringing victory out of adulterous chaos. Jesus has a literal right to the throne of David, and becomes the actual fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, wherein Solomon was only a type. There is also another outstanding point of difference between these two genea- logies recorded in Matthew and Luke. Matthew's record goes back only to Abraham. Luke's account says, "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God" (3:38). Luke, in presenting the Man, shows us the complete path of humanity from the first Adam to the last Adam (I Corinthians 15:45). Luke gives every detail relating to the humanity of Jesus.

 

[About the Son of God]

Luke 1:1-4
These are my thoughts, please share yours.
1 We need study the gospel and share it as does look. The word is to read and studied. We need to accept the word as truth. We need to live by the Word.

Yes, we need to look at the gospel with open eyes; and to check our thoughts carefully against what is said.

2 So Luke gathers his story from those who saw Jesus for themselves. Luke gathers this information and God gives
Him the truth to pen down. Even thru divine revelation we need to study the scripture and gather information, this is what Luke did.

I think there is good solid evidence that Luke approached the writing of the Gospel as a historian; although that's not to say that it's impossible that God spoke to him directly upon occasion about what to write. Luke never says God did this, but it not impossible.

3 Luke was inspired to write by the Spirit and he has the most detailed account of the gospels. The gospel he wrote meant for one person. Matthew and Mark were written mainly to tell the Jews while John was always angled to the Gentiles. The gospel is meant for all today and believers specifically.

I think Theophilus is someone who the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were not sufficient; eg: Theophilus did not understand those Gospels as clearly as the Gospel of Luke. Luke writes many things in a Gentile/Greek historian perspective -- whereas the style of writing in Matthew is very very Jewish in mindset. I don't know if Luke predates Mark or not.... but I think what Luke brings to the discussion is the perspective of Jesus' life for the common man and woman not having been raised under the law of Moses. Luke emphasizes Jesus teaching for the Gentiles; and Luke certainly wrote long before John wrote -- so there was a very great need for Gentiles to hear a Gospel tailored to their understanding.

Theophilus was a title and most likely not a person.

I think it may be both. Rich rulers sometimes hired historians to study and inform them about what had actually happened at an event that they were interested in. Luke's gospel may have been commissioned to answer a set of questions to somebody of social importance -- and Luke, recognizing that not only the ruler, but his subjects would read the account in the future; chose to address the person he wrote the Gospel for by a title that applies to all who desire to seek God honestly; "God's friend" Theophilus.

4 We know the truth by reading the word, the world may have truth but it also has lies and the Word has the power to save souls.

hmmm.... I'll have to think on this last point. I'm not sure how to answer it well.

The lies of the devil are also recorded in scripture, if but as a witness to what he said. I know that the scriptures are meant to teach the truth, and indeed they do -- but people can read the scriptures and often still misinterpret them. One can read the scriptures, and still have Jesus say on the last day "I never knew you."

But Jesus the Christ, himself, actually has the power to save souls; the Word not as letters on a page, but the spirit of Truth who inspired the words does the saving; for it is the spirit which gives life.

Yua-shua, Joshua, AKA, Iesous, Jesus literally means: God-saves.
Call on the name of the Lord.

Your brother in Christ, --Andrew.

 

[Eugene]

Eugene - How did they relate to the gospels? Matthew sees Jesus as the king; the lion of Rev 4:7,

About the Son of God - I'm not quite following you...

Revelation 4:7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
I know that early christian writers said that Revelation 4:7 referred to the four gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So that, often Matthew is understood to be "lion" and Luke "Man"; but I don't see any way to correlate a particular Gospel with a particular creature that Luke would have been aware of.

Are you suggesting that Revelation 4:7 was intentionally written by John to record the order of the Gospels as historically written? (ad hoc, as Revelation was written after Luke.)

I'm unsure for another reason as well; In revelation 3:21 it says:
Revel 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

I know God's throne is carried upon the cherubim; eg: upon angels -- and on top of the Cherubim as their head are the Seraphim.

Eugene – Have you considered that the Seraphim were representative of them according to Rev 5:9 that would sit with Jesus out of the redeemed of God by His blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; a people conformed into the very image of Jesus? Take note of Rev 4:6 where those are; in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne. That sure sounds as if they are sitting with Jesus in His throne. Jesus received His own throne in Rev 4:2.

The very themes of the four gospels are titled in my bible as “Christ the King” in Matthew, “Christ the Servant” in Mark, “Christ the Man” in Luke, and “Christ in His Deity” in the gospel of John. The very nature of Christ is reflected in the four images of the four living ones or beasts of Revelation 4:7.

And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. These portray what we become as we take on the nature of Jesus in our walk with Him. The Lion is the kingly aspect of Him, the Calf is the servant offered on the brazen altar; Mar 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Then we see Luke showing Jesus as God became man and His humanity, and John describing Him as the Eagle of the heavens. Do not forget that these ar redeemed from out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. I’m probably as clear as mud on this.

I’m going to leave the following very good thoughts for future discussion after you read what I have revealed as to who I believe Rev 5:7 to be. Thanks for your input.

About the Son of God - Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

So that the four beasts described in Revelation are Seraphim's; They carry the four poles of the heavenly arc of the covenant, and transport God throughout the world. Essentially, they are the "horses" of God's chariot.

But God's throne, itself, is mentioned in Revelation 4:3 separately, and there are two things mentioned a-person, and a rainbow/storm as sitting on it. The rainbow is a clear reference to the Shekina Glory cloud of the book of Exodus. When God came to "sit" above the arc of the covenant (carried by four priests), the glory cloud would fill the tent where the arc was set down.

Therefore Exodus is describing this same throne as seen from "below" (The pillar of fire/and cloud) whereas Revelation shows the throne as seen from "above" (eg: the glassy sea is figuratively the Sky, and also can be understood as the sea of nations.).

and Luke presents the man Who willing became flesh of the same verse. These four glimpses of Jesus shown in the four gospels are the very characteristics of those out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation that are conformed into the image of Christ.

I can see a possible allusion to the Gospel writers in the four beasts, but something is very incomplete; For -- Jesus said in the Garden of Gethsemane that the 12 Apostles would sit on twelve thrones in his kingdom.

But, notice -- Neither the Gospel writer Mark nor Luke were one of the 12 Apostles.
So it's an odd correlation....

In Paul's writings we learn that Mark was a disciple (perhaps he's a scribe) of Peter -- so that I can see the Gospel of Peter as being on one of the seraphim, but I don't know that Luke belonged to any of the twelve as a specific scribe; and I know for sure Paul is NOT one of them, either.

So -- I don't see a very strong link between Luke and Revelation 4:7.
Am I missing something?

 

[About the Son of God]

Dear Brother About the Son of God, due to our restricted limit of characters on one post I am submitting different posts to your reply. Concerning the genealogical differences of Matthew and Luke Gene Hawkins presents the follow interesting thought in his study of Luke.

Due to the fact that Matthew's record centers around Joseph, rather than Mary, and because Matthew presents Christ as King, he must trace the line through His father. We conclude that the lineage given by Matthew is that of Joseph, who is said to have been begotten by Jacob. In our present text, we read that Jesus was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The word "son" has a wide range of uses, indicating kinship, and undoubtedly refers here to Joseph being the "son-in-law" of Heli, who would be Mary's father.

Hmm... That's reasonable; although, a cursory look at early Christian traditions and writings indicate that Mary's immediate father was name Joakim, and her mother was named Ann. So, if Gene Hawkins is correct, then I would surmise that Heli is either a grandfather, or else an adoptive father's name.

The name Heli (Eli) is suggestive in itself, as Heli is a priests name; eg: Note that for the same reason that Zechariah was questioned about naming John differently -- it's to be understood that names suggest lineages and relationships of the past.

Consider: In Samuel, Heli is the high priest (or possibly an underpriest, who offers incense) who happened to be on duty when Samuel was given as a dedicated gift to God. The rest of his life, then, Samuel was meant to serve at temple. Samuel, became the son of Eli in a legal sense as offerings made at temple other than the holocost, have a portion of them which belongs to the priest. Since a child can not be sacrificed, literally, that portion would include Samuel's service to Heli.

Regarding Mary:
One of the early christian writings is the "Protevangelum of James"; and although it may not be entirely accurate, it does indicate that Mary was dedicated as a child to temple service as well; Thus Mary would likely be related by adoption or covenant to a priestly family; cf: Luke 1:5, 36; Whereas the line of the throne of David, the tribe of Judah, is not related to Aaron.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Compare against:

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

I do not hold that Mary was raised inside the temple, but none the less -- Mary is of the line of David according to Gene Hawkins, through her parental line -- and I infer that the arranged marriage to Joseph supports the fact that he had some kind of first rights to her based on tribal/land considerations. But none the less, she also has some kind of mysterious family relationship to the priesthood of Aaron, eg: through two people who are strictly BOTH from the line of Aaron and not at all Judah. The word cousin, being inconclusive as to them being near or remote cousins -- eg: first cousins, or only cousins through Abraham; although a through word study reveals that the word "cousin" in Greek has a mild pejorative sense to it in nearly all places it is used. When all is well, the word "brother" or "sister" is generally preferred over the word "cousin"; hence, Elisabeth is one who bears a reproach -- perhaps on account of her barrenness up to this time.

Further reading shows that both lines went back to "Zorobabel which was the son of Salathiel" (3:27). Matthew 1:12 reads, "Salathiel begat Zorobabel." This same duo is recorded in the post captivity era in Ezra 3:2, as "Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel." At this point, there is a glaring difference in the accounts. Matthew says that Jechoniah begat Salathiel. Luke declares that Salathiel was the son of Neri.

Jeremiah tells us why in chapter 22:28-30, where we read of Coniah, also known as Jehoiachin and Jechoniah (II Kings 24:6-8; Jeremiah 24:1). "Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

That's a very astute observation.... although I don't think he did very well in explaining it apologetically.

For Gene Hawkins is lending support to an accusation that Matthew's tracing of the lineage would prove Jesus to be an illegitimate heir to the throne; as he is a son of Jechoniah. That could easily become a question of the inerrant nature of scripture.... ugh... but on the other hand, it would show why Joseph's other sons, possibly by a wife who died before Mary; would not have primacy to the throne.

Very interesting.....

 

[Eugene]

Hmm... That's reasonable; although, a cursory look at early Christian traditions and writings indicate that Mary's immediate father was name Joakim, and her mother was named Ann. So, if Gene Hawkins is correct, then I would surmise that Heli is either a grandfather, or else an adoptive father's name.

The name Heli (Eli) is suggestive in itself, as Heli is a priests name; eg: Note that for the same reason that Zechariah was questioned about naming John differently -- it's to be understood that names suggest lineages and relationships of the past.

Consider: In Samuel, Heli is the high priest (or possibly an underpriest, who offers incense) who happened to be on duty when Samuel was given as a dedicated gift to God. The rest of his life, then, Samuel was meant to serve at temple. Samuel, became the son of Eli in a legal sense as offerings made at temple other than the holocost, have a portion of them which belongs to the priest. Since a child can not be sacrificed, literally, that portion would include Samuel's service to Heli.

Regarding Mary:
One of the early christian writings is the "Protevangelum of James"; and although it may not be entirely accurate, it does indicate that Mary was dedicated as a child to temple service as well; Thus Mary would likely be related by adoption or covenant to a priestly family; cf: Luke 1:5, 36; Whereas the line of the throne of David, the tribe of Judah, is not related to Aaron.

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Compare against:

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

I do not hold that Mary was raised inside the temple, but none the less -- Mary is of the line of David according to Gene Hawkins, through her parental line -- and I infer that the arranged marriage to Joseph supports the fact that he had some kind of first rights to her based on tribal/land considerations. But none the less, she also has some kind of mysterious family relationship to the priesthood of Aaron, eg: through two people who are strictly BOTH from the line of Aaron and not at all Judah. The word cousin, being inconclusive as to them being near or remote cousins -- eg: first cousins, or only cousins through Abraham; although a through word study reveals that the word "cousin" in Greek has a mild pejorative sense to it in nearly all places it is used. When all is well, the word "brother" or "sister" is generally preferred over the word "cousin"; hence, Elisabeth is one who bears a reproach -- perhaps on account of her barrenness up to this time.




That's a very astute observation.... although I don't think he did very well in explaining it apologetically.

For Gene Hawkins is lending support to an accusation that Matthew's tracing of the lineage would prove Jesus to be an illegitimate heir to the throne; as he is a son of Jechoniah. That could easily become a question of the inerrant nature of scripture.... ugh... but on the other hand, it would show why Joseph's other sons, possibly by a wife who died before Mary; would not have primacy to the throne.

Very interesting.....

As Gene Hawkins tells us that Joseph is the Son-in-law of Heli, it is my understanding that family lineage went by the name of the man by Jewish custom, even though it was the mother being the actual lineage.

I do not know the manner in which God had Luke write or know the things he did, but it is written, and therein lies the truth. Instead of a contradiction between authors there needs be purpose if we are to understand God’s message to us. I have read the thinking of Heli being Eli, and yet there is not substantiation to that to my thinking.

We read in Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless (Solomon?), a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Solomon’s brother Nathan became the progenitor of our Lord instead; still of the lineage of David through Mary thus fulfilling the prophesy that none of Solomon's seed would sit on the throne.

 

[About the Son of God]

As Gene Hawkins tells us that Joseph is the Son-in-law of Heli, it is my understanding that family lineage went by the name of the man by Jewish custom, even though it was the mother being the actual lineage.

Jewish custom traced by the Father's name, that's correct. Although, again, the name doesn't have to be the immediate father; Jews commonly traced by a grandfather's name which skips generations, or it could be an adoptive father for legal rights. Judah and Tamar is an example of a listing where I would expect a Jew could trace through Er using Levirate law, or Judah directly (which is more scandalous); and another example is Ruth the Moabitess and Booz; such unions were legally ambiguous....

I do not know the manner in which God had Luke write or know the things he did, but it is written, and therein lies the truth. Instead of a contradiction between authors there needs be purpose if we are to understand God’s message to us.
We read in Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless (Solomon?), a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

I agree; and that's what bothers me about Hawkins presentation; He doesn't explain why it says in Chronicles "do not write", and yet he points directly to Matthew as having written it. We might not be able to resolve this here with what we know now ... but I have faith there is an explanation.

What I do see is evidence that Matthew purposely tried to bring to mind every scandal and legal issue which could disqualify not only Jesus as the Messiah, but which would say that it's impossible to have a messiah at all -- and also that it was technically impossible for David to be king who could even enter the temple (Matthew 1:5) for Ruth was a Moabitess. I mean Matthew clearly and intentionally goes out of his way to mention women, who do not even belong in Hebrew genealogy lists, and then he ONLY mentions women who would trigger legal arguments against the line being legitimate. He is purposely making a genealogy which has defects and scandals highlighted.

Luke, however, appears to be doing the opposite, and tracing as legally legitimate a genealogy as possible.

Solomon’s brother Nathan became the progenitor of our Lord instead; still of the lineage of David through Mary thus fulfilling the prophesy that none of Solomon's seed would sit on the throne.

Yes. It would seem so ; although I'm not entirely sure of how the Prophecy was worded.

I have read the thinking of Heli being Eli, and yet there is not substantiation to that to my thinking.

I'm not sure what you mean. You would need to explain your thinking a little more.

What I find when I look is that the spelling of the name is the same in some copies of the Greek manuscripts, and I see that none of the more ancient manuscripts have a breathing mark (the H sound) in Luke 3:23.
The older manuscripts agree that there is no written H in Heli. So, I see that the name ought to be Eli or Elei.

Just quoting from newer manuscripts, but without breathing marks, you can see the spelling would be the same:

1Samu 1:3 και ανεβαινεν ο ανθρωπος εξ ημερων εις ημερας εκ πολεως αυτου εξ αρμαθαιμ προσκυνειν και θυειν τω κυριω θεω σαβαωθ εις σηλω και εκει ηλι και οι δυο υιοι αυτου οφνι και φινεες ιερεις του κυριου
Luke 3:23 και αυτος ην ιησους αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι

Breathing and accent marks were not in scripture until long after it was written as they were invented at a later date. Therefore it's not uncommon for a scribe to mistakenly add a breathing mark at the start of a word; Consider: since Heli is a Greek word relating to the Sun, but Eli is not a Greek word at all -- a person might easily think it was "Heli". I'd like to note that the sound "H" very often gets moved/changed when translating between Hebrew and Greek anyhow....

Eg: It's not uncommon for a single name to have multiple spellings in Greek when the original word is not Greek ; and sometimes it's ambiguous as to whether two names or one are meant.

Take for example Simon Peter being son of "Jonah"; In Hebrew, the word "Bar" means "son of", so in Matthew 16:17 Jesus clearly calls Simon "son of Jona"

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 16:17 αποκριθεις δε ο ιησους ειπεν αυτω μακαριος ει σιμων βαρ-ιωνα οτι σαρξ και αιμα ουκ απεκαλυψεν σοι αλλ ο πατηρ μου ο εν τοις ουρανοις
Matthew 12:39 ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις γενεα πονηρα και μοιχαλις σημειον επιζητει και σημειον ου δοθησεται αυτη ει μη το σημειον ιωνα του προφητου

(No H sound anywhere at all!!! It's spelled iota Omega nu alpha = ιωνα )

Very clearly, it's not "John" but Jonah Jesus meant in Matthew 12:39 and 16:17.
We can even look at John 1:6 and verify the spelling of the name "John" to double check, and then notice that the Greek spelling of "John" has an extra "a" (alpha) before two "n"'s;
Play where's waldo: The bolded Greek word "John" listed below is differently spelled than "Jona" which I found in two Greek sentences listed above.

John 1:6 εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωανν-ης

So, everything looks nice and clean and easy to differentiate....
Until one looks at "son of Jonas" in the book of John.

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
John 21:15 οτε ουν ηριστησαν λεγει τω σιμωνι πετρω ο ιησους σιμων ιωανν-ου αγαπας με πλεον τουτων λεγει αυτω ναι κυριε συ οιδας οτι φιλω σε λεγει αυτω βοσκε τα αρνια μου

So -- clearly, by playing where's waldo -- John 21:15 spelled "Jonah" the same as "John".
For this reason, many bibles do not agree with the KJV, but translate it "John".
http://biblia.com/bible/niv2011/Jn21.15-19

All of this is over a phonetic translation (AKA transliteration) of a name, where the letter "H" is not always translatable accurately between Hebrew and Greek, and different authors tried to work around the problem in different ways.

So, although there is no definitive proof of "Heli" definitely being a traditional priests name given to Mary's father/adoptive father; none the less, I can find no information whatsoever on the existence of a Hebrew word "Heli"; and since I have no reason to suspect that Mary's father was a pagan/Greek, I'm left with a dangling question: why on earth would a Greek name be listed in a Hebrew/Aramaic genealogy if it really is "Heli" ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_(name)

 

[About the Son of God]

Do not forget that these ar redeemed from out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. I’m probably as clear as mud on this.

hmm.... you have the mud part down:
John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the [mud],
John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

I'm just wondering -- maybe you perhaps forgot the spit?

OK. looking around.... and blinking a-lot:

Revel 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Revel 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Revel 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

First off, I'll note that all of the characters who have the golden bowls of incense are clearly priests.
I know that the number 24 refers to the Levitical and specifically Aaronite high priestly divisions (under-priest/incense offerers); which Hawkins even notes, so that the 24 refer at very least to Jews and temple service.

But that number does not refer to the high priest himself.
I know King David had assigned Zadok/Zadokites to be the only high priests from his time forward. But I researched it, and the last of the Zadokites left Jerusalem somewhere around 50-100BC. So that, as Hawkins notes -- the High priesthood in power was corrupt at the time of Jesus. I checked his comments, and yes -- it's clear that the Romans/Herod/etc. were buying and selling the rights to be high priest to Aaronites who were not of the line of Zadok. Caiphas and Annas were racketeering for money.

So, I set the high priest aside as not part of the 24....

Now, in my thinking -- In heaven -- there will be Aaronites, undoubtedly, who died before Jesus' time.
For example, some ancient texts indicate that when King Herod tried to kill Jesus as an infant, that his troops were informed of the miraculous nature of Elisabeth's conception. She lived in the hill country of Judea, right next to Bethlehem -- and her child, John, was a well known and anticipated messiah figure! hence they killed Zechariah at the temple while trying to force him to reveal where John was hidden in order to carry out Herod's orders to kill any child who could have been the messiah.

Zechariah, then, died early but was notable as a person who followed the law absolutely blamelessly and would not be subject to damnation in heaven for breaking the law of Moses.

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

So, that I assume that the 24 mentioned in heaven, eg: Aaronitic priests, are composed of people like Zechariah; or who's sins were forgiven should they have them. etc. Now, consider -- I can easily show that it's an underpriest's duty to offer incense during the times that God's people pray; and the incense smoke rising is understood as a sign of those prayers being carried from earth to heaven:

Luke 1:9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
Luke 1:10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.

So, that, In Revelation 5:9 -- I see those words as representing the prayers of the people outside the heavenly temple (Something like 153 nations were known at the time) being offered up with incense as a sign, but for that very reason -- these other people's prayers are not necessarily limited to 24 people and 4 beasts found in Revelation 5:8. Rather, the 153 nations are found symbolically *inside* the golden vials and a set of 24 blameless under-priests (like Zechariah) appear to be offering them upon the altar of incense.

This brings me to my final observation:
Consider that the structure of the earthly temple was supposed to be a copy of the heavenly one, seen by Moses; but replicated with objects and animals to represent symbolically what happens in the heavenly one in reality.

Just so:
The earthly temple had four walls, with each wall having a triple gate -- for the purpose of admitting the 12 tribes of Israel. There were, then, a maximum of 12 entrances; and Inside the temple, there were porches where different groups of peoples, nations, and women, and men, could gather. But: In the center of the temple, was a place where the ark of the covenant was to reside; It was known as the Holy, and the Holy of Holies respectively. In these two places, the Aaronitic under-priests and high priests could enter; but each only could enter as far as their purification allowed.

In Revelation 4:3 we see only the father and son on the inner throne; For in reality only the high priest can enter all the way into the holy of holies; Note -- in Revelation 5:6 -- we are told the lamb is there; but notice carefully he has signs upon him of things which are "sent forth into all the earth." So I don't see those as heavenly things, but as signs of things on earth that he is manipulating from heaven. They have found entrance into the holy of holies by his intercession -- but they themselves are not in the holy of holies but rather are still on earth.

Same in Revelation 5:10 -- "and we shall reign on the earth."

I don't see anything about a heavenly Jerusalem, or a "new earth" until Revelation 21; so that I can only clearly see these previous chapters as referring to the times before the end of the world that you and I still live in now.

I still don't quite see how the figure of "Man" can refer to Luke who was not an Apostle, or a priest of any high standing.

Consider: The four beasts have 3 sets of wings each, and cry Holy, Holy, Holy; so that I can see up to 3x4 or 6x4 paths/entrances symbolically meant by these angels. I know that when I explored ancient artwork on Cherubims -- that they were literally seats that a king could sit on. So that, I can see their symbolic structure allowing for either the 12 apostles, or the 24 under-priests having access Through them.

But I still don't quite see how to clearly establish a link to someone like Luke.... ???

I'm sort of grasping at straws here, so to speak....

Your curious brother in Christ, --Andrew.

 

[Eugene]

About the Son of God - Now, in my thinking -- In heaven -- there will be Aaronites, undoubtedly, who died before Jesus' time.

Eugene – Have you considered that the book of Revelation is revealing the church and their part with Christ? Not that others aren’t spoken of, but those having a direct part in ruling especially of every nation are there by qualification as having been conformed into the very image of Christ?

About the Son of God - For example, some ancient texts indicate that when King Herod tried to kill Jesus as an infant, that his troops were informed of the miraculous nature of Elisabeth's conception. She lived in the hill country of Judea, right next to Bethlehem -- and her child, John, was a well known and anticipated messiah figure! hence they killed Zechariah at the temple while trying to force him to reveal where John was hidden in order to carry out Herod's orders to kill any child who could have been the messiah.

Eugene – Never heard of this, but then if having that knowledge why would he have been so in the dark of the Magi seeking Christ? Of course the Magi also were confused in going to the wrong city seeking Him; they evidently took their eyes off the star.

About the Son of God - Zechariah, then, died early but was notable as a person who followed the law absolutely blamelessly and would not be subject to damnation in heaven for breaking the law of Moses.
Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

So, that I assume that the 24 mentioned in heaven, eg: Aaronitic priests, are composed of people like Zechariah; or who's sins were forgiven should they have them. etc. Now, consider -- I can easily show that it's an underpriest's duty to offer incense during the times that God's people pray; and the incense smoke rising is understood as a sign of those prayers being carried from earth to heaven:

Eugene – I’m not understanding your comment “Damnation in heaven.” Besides that is something I throw in every so often concerning those of the Old Testament, and that is that Aaron and Moses both committed a sin unto death for unbelief and yet will not suffer damnation.

As to the Aaronic priesthood being a part of the Church we already have the High priest Jesus, and those having this special place with Christ are not restricted to Israel.

About the Son of God - So, that, In Revelation 5:9 -- I see those words as representing the prayers of the people outside the heavenly temple (Something like 153 nations were known at the time) being offered up with incense as a sign, but for that very reason -- these other people's prayers are not necessarily limited to 24 people and 4 beasts found in Revelation 5:8. Rather, the 153 nations are found symbolically *inside* the golden vials and a set of 24 blameless under-priests (like Zechariah) appear to be offering them upon the altar of incense.

Eugene – Are you saying that those of Revelation 5:9 are not them of Revelation 5:8?

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on (or over – they are in heaven) the earth.

About the Son of God - This brings me to my final observation:
Consider that the structure of the earthly temple was supposed to be a copy of the heavenly one, seen by Moses; but replicated with objects and animals to represent symbolically what happens in the heavenly one in reality.

Just so:
The earthly temple had four walls, with each wall having a triple gate -- for the purpose of admitting the 12 tribes of Israel. There were, then, a maximum of 12 entrances; and Inside the temple, there were porches where different groups of peoples, nations, and women, and men, could gather. But: In the center of the temple, was a place where the ark of the covenant was to reside; It was known as the Holy, and the Holy of Holies respectively. In these two places, the Aaronitic under-priests and high priests could enter; but each only could enter as far as their purification allowed.

Eugene – Again, with our high priest Jesus having made the one all-sufficient sacrifice what possible sacrifice other than praise would suffice there? And then this reign with Christ is separated by a thousand years from the actuality of mount Sion coming down out of heaven. This has got me rambling now in all directions.

About the Son of God - In Revelation 4:3 we see only the father and son on the inner throne; For in reality only the high priest can enter all the way into the holy of holies; Note -- in Revelation 5:6 -- we are told the lamb is there; but notice carefully he has signs upon him of things which are "sent forth into all the earth." So I don't see those as heavenly things, but as signs of things on earth that he is manipulating from heaven. They have found entrance into the holy of holies by his intercession -- but they themselves are not in the holy of holies but rather are still on earth. Same in Revelation 5:10 -- "and we shall reign on the earth."

Eugene – Jesus presently sitting in His Father’s throne, in Rev 4:2 we see Jesus receiving His own throne and them with Him according to Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Brother, this is Jesus being worshiped by this portion of the church.

About the Son of God - I don't see anything about a heavenly Jerusalem, or a "new earth" until Revelation 21; so that I can only clearly see these previous chapters as referring to the times before the end of the world that you and I still live in now.

Eugene – I will suggest that Rev 4:1 separates the division of time to a new viewpoint from our present time and that is “I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.” And it becomes deeper brother.

Now I’ll get back to the previous reply of yours I was working on, and may find I’ve covered some of the things there with this reply.

 

[Eugene]

Eugene - As Gene Hawkins tells us that Joseph is the Son-in-law of Heli, it is my understanding that family lineage went by the name of the man by Jewish custom, even though it was the mother being the actual lineage.

About the Son of God - Jewish custom traced by the Father's name, that's correct. Although, again, the name doesn't have to be the immediate father; Jews commonly traced by a grandfather's name which skips generations, or it could be an adoptive father for legal rights. Judah and Tamar is an example of a listing where I would expect a Jew could trace through Er using Levirate law, or Judah directly (which is more scandalous); and another example is Ruth the Moabitess and Booz; such unions were legally ambiguous....

Eugene - I do not know the manner in which God had Luke write or know the things he did, but it is written, and therein lies the truth. Instead of a contradiction between authors there needs be purpose if we are to understand God’s message to us. We read in Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless (Solomon?), a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

About the Son of God - I agree; and that's what bothers me about Hawkins presentation; He doesn't explain why it says in Chronicles "do not write", and yet he points directly to Matthew as having written it. We might not be able to resolve this here with what we know now ... but I have faith there is an explanation.

What I do see is evidence that Matthew purposely tried to bring to mind every scandal and legal issue which could disqualify not only Jesus as the Messiah, but which would say that it's impossible to have a messiah at all -- and also that it was technically impossible for David to be king who could even enter the temple (Matthew 1:5) for Ruth was a Moabitess. I mean Matthew clearly and intentionally goes out of his way to mention women, who do not even belong in Hebrew genealogy lists, and then he ONLY mentions women who would trigger legal arguments against the line being legitimate. He is purposely making a genealogy which has defects and scandals highlighted.

Luke, however, appears to be doing the opposite, and tracing as legally legitimate a genealogy as possible.

Eugene - Solomon’s brother Nathan became the progenitor of our Lord instead; still of the lineage of David through Mary thus fulfilling the prophesy that none of Solomon's seed would sit on the throne.

About the Son of God - Yes. It would seem so ; although I'm not entirely sure of how the Prophecy was worded.

Eugene - I have read the thinking of Heli being Eli, and yet there is not substantiation to that to my thinking.

About the Son of God - I'm not sure what you mean. You would need to explain your thinking a little more.

What I find when I look is that the spelling of the name is the same in some copies of the Greek manuscripts, and I see that none of the more ancient manuscripts have a breathing mark (the H sound) in Luke 3:23.
The older manuscripts agree that there is no written H in Heli. So, I see that the name ought to be Eli or Elei.

Just quoting from newer manuscripts, but without breathing marks, you can see the spelling would be the same:

1Samu 1:3 και ανεβαινεν ο ανθρωπος εξ ημερων εις ημερας εκ πολεως αυτου εξ αρμαθαιμ προσκυνειν και θυειν τω κυριω θεω σαβαωθ εις σηλω και εκει ηλι και οι δυο υιοι αυτου οφνι και φινεες ιερεις του κυριου
Luke 3:23 και αυτος ην ιησους αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι

Breathing and accent marks were not in scripture until long after it was written as they were invented at a later date. Therefore it's not uncommon for a scribe to mistakenly add a breathing mark at the start of a word; Consider: since Heli is a Greek word relating to the Sun, but Eli is not a Greek word at all -- a person might easily think it was "Heli". I'd like to note that the sound "H" very often gets moved/changed when translating between Hebrew and Greek anyhow....

So, although there is no definitive proof of "Heli" definitely being a traditional priests name given to Mary's father/adoptive father; none the less, I can find no information whatsoever on the existence of a Hebrew word "Heli"; and since I have no reason to suspect that Mary's father was a pagan/Greek, I'm left with a dangling question: why on earth would a Greek name be listed in a Hebrew/Aramaic genealogy if it really is "Heli" ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_(name)

Eugene – You have me completely outclassed in your study of words, their possible alternative spellings, and meanings, and I have read some of the arguments you present also, but even with that there is no real consensus among biblical scholars. That said, I have to believe there is no error in what Luke wrote given him by inspiration of God in whatever manner. In Luke’s exposition he simply takes Jesus’ human rights to the throne through David to Adam.

Something that has come to mind is the thought that you may believe the lineage presented by Luke 3:23 “. .the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” are the same presented by Mat 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Thanks in Christ Jesus.

 

[About the Son of God]

About the Son of God - Now, in my thinking -- In heaven -- there will be Aaronites, undoubtedly, who died before Jesus' time.

Eugene – Have you considered that the book of Revelation is revealing the church and their part with Christ? Not that others aren’t spoken of, but those having a direct part in ruling especially of every nation are there by qualification as having been conformed into the very image of Christ?

Yes. I am considering that.
Those having a direct part in ruling (which not all Christians will have to the same degree) from heaven vs. those who would have a direct role in ruling from earth it very much on my mind. What I am sure of is that this vision in Revelation is from the heavenly side. Ultimately, there are to be twelve special thrones:

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I do not see that clearly in Revelation 4 or 5.

The 24 presbytarians/elders are variously described throughout history; some say that twelve of them are the Apostles, and twelve of them are the patriarchs; Others, (Mormons), claim that twelve are the Apostles, and twelve are Americans that God specially selected to convert the Native Americans; At the time Revelation was written, the temple was still standing -- though -- and Paul himself visited it at the times of prayer. So without needing to speculate, I can say that assuredly the 24 casts of under-priests who offer incense were still doing it.

About the Son of God - For example, some ancient texts indicate that when King Herod tried to kill Jesus as an infant, that his troops were informed of the miraculous nature of Elisabeth's conception. She lived in the hill country of Judea, right next to Bethlehem -- and her child, John, was a well known and anticipated messiah figure! hence they killed Zechariah at the temple while trying to force him to reveal where John was hidden in order to carry out Herod's orders to kill any child who could have been the messiah.

Eugene – Never heard of this, but then if having that knowledge why would he have been so in the dark of the Magi seeking Christ? Of course the Magi also were confused in going to the wrong city seeking Him; they evidently took their eyes off the star.

"He", you mean Herod?

The Magi were foreigners; they would have no knowledge of local gossip. They did the appropriate thing, inquiring at the legal king's palace as to where to find the new prince (presumably the kings son). Not to mention, that by being overt -- they avoided being accused of being spies. Their action has little to do with them loosing track of the star, unless God hid it from them temporarily.

Herod's troops are a separate issue. Go down to where it talks about other Chirstian traditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_(priest)

Eugene – I’m not understanding your comment “Damnation in heaven.” Besides that is something I throw in every so often concerning those of the Old Testament, and that is that Aaron and Moses both committed a sin unto death for unbelief and yet will not suffer damnation.

Scripture testifies that Zechariah never broke the law; eg: he was "blameless".
There is nothing which says he committed a sin unto death.

Moses, on the other hand, is ambiguous; for he bore the sin of the people, but he himself was called faithful in all God's household. If you try to identify Moses' personal sin -- I doubt you will be able to do it; for scripture indicates that God was angry with Moses on account of the people; not for a breaking of the law, himself.

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

The point is that there are priests of the line of Aaron, who even before the final resurrection, can claim not to have broken the law itself. There is no reason to believe that all priests of the line of Aaron are excluded from heaven until the end of the world. eg: This doesn't apply to those 24 elders in heaven:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

As to the Aaronic priesthood being a part of the Church we already have the High priest Jesus, and those having this special place with Christ are not restricted to Israel.

What you have said is true; but it's not the point. The point is, certain places of honor are in fact reserved for individuals to whom God gave a special throne. That includes both Aaronites and Others.

Whence comes the specific numbers 12 and 24? Certainly they do not originate with the gentiles.

We're talking about temple service of offering incense; and revelation makes it clear that the symbols it draws upon are that of Israel. eg: as if all nations ultimately convert into a new Jerusalem through becoming Israel.

Revel 21:12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
Revel 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Eugene – Are you saying that those of Revelation 5:9 are not them of Revelation 5:8?

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on (or over – they are in heaven) the earth.

I'm saying that 24 people are not symbolic of 153 nations. They are not even a quorum or a majority.
The words "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" can not literally be true of 24 people or even 48, given a conservative maximum from the numbers associated with the four "beasts" (Chrubim/Seraphim.)

So, I see it as "They [the vials of incense and prayers of the saints] sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof." Whether we say that the 12 apostles, and/or 24 presbyters who happen to be on duty listened to the saints, and then repeated their prayers -- would only serve to highlight the heirarchical, or republican nature of the representation John chose to symbolically represent.

Eugene – Again, with our high priest Jesus having made the one all-sufficient sacrifice what possible sacrifice other than praise would suffice there? And then this reign with Christ is separated by a thousand years from the actuality of mount Sion coming down out of heaven. This has got me rambling now in all directions.

I'll not digress; but the opening of the book is not solely about praise -- it's a prayer for all kinds of blessings and curses to be poured out on the earth; True, those prayers include praise -- but the martyrs under the altar are definitely a sacrifice of another kind, and their prayer is "how long oh lord?"

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Revelation 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Eugene – Jesus presently sitting in His Father’s throne, in Rev 4:2 we see Jesus receiving His own throne and them with Him according to Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Brother, this is Jesus being worshiped by this portion of the church.

Eugene – I will suggest that Rev 4:1 separates the division of time to a new viewpoint from our present time and that is “I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.” And it becomes deeper brother.

Now I’ll get back to the previous reply of yours I was working on, and may find I’ve covered some of the things there with this reply.

Hmmm.... I'll have to think about that some.
"Hereafter", though, would be the same as "from now on"; present and future.

 

[Eugene]

Due to the length of this reply it is divided into two parts.

About the Son of God - Now, in my thinking -- In heaven -- there will be Aaronites, undoubtedly, who died before Jesus' time.

Eugene – Have you considered that the book of Revelation is revealing the church and their part with Christ? Not that others aren’t spoken of, but those having a direct part in ruling especially of every nation are there by qualification as having been conformed into the very image of Christ?

About the Son of God - Yes. I am considering that.
Those having a direct part in ruling (which not all Christians will have to the same degree) from heaven vs. those who would have a direct role in ruling from earth it very much on my mind. What I am sure of is that this vision in Revelation is from the heavenly side. Ultimately, there are to be twelve special thrones:

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
I do not see that clearly in Revelation 4 or 5.

Eugene – I have a question at this point, and do you believe Jesus and His church will rule from heaven or earth?

About the Son of God - The 24 presbytarians/elders are variously described throughout history; some say that twelve of them are the Apostles, and twelve of them are the patriarchs; Others, (Mormons), claim that twelve are the Apostles, and twelve are Americans that God specially selected to convert the Native Americans; At the time Revelation was written, the temple was still standing -- though -- and Paul himself visited it at the times of prayer. So without needing to speculate, I can say that assuredly the 24 casts of under-priests who offer incense were still doing it.

Eugene – I automatically discount anything Mormonism claims; they don’t even know Who Jesus is. I’m not Preterist and do not attempt to find reason for the temple to still be standing at the time Revelation was written. Now I’m going to suggest something it appears you’ve not considered and that is that all of the church in heaven that John observes are there by one means, and that is by being caught up, or raptured regardless if they’ve dide first or remain until Jesus coming for them in the air. I think you believe this, but there is an order to it shown us in 1 Thes 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Every cohort of believers will experience this, and those with Jesus when He receives His own throne have experience this. They are one cohort; the elders died in Christ and the four living ones were alive at His coming for them. They as one from all nations will reign with Jesus over the nations. I believe you are right when you said as to ruling, “All Christians will have to the same degree.”

About the Son of God - For example, some ancient texts indicate that when King Herod tried to kill Jesus as an infant, that his troops were informed of the miraculous nature of Elisabeth's conception. She lived in the hill country of Judea, right next to Bethlehem -- and her child, John, was a well known and anticipated messiah figure! hence they killed Zechariah at the temple while trying to force him to reveal where John was hidden in order to carry out Herod's orders to kill any child who could have been the messiah.

Eugene – Never heard of this, but then if having that knowledge why would he have been so in the dark of the Magi seeking Christ? Of course the Magi also were confused in going to the wrong city seeking Him; they evidently took their eyes off the star.

About the Son of God - "He", you mean Herod?

The Magi were foreigners; they would have no knowledge of local gossip. They did the appropriate thing, inquiring at the legal king's palace as to where to find the new prince (presumably the kings son). Not to mention, that by being overt -- they avoided being accused of being spies. Their action has little to do with them loosing track of the star, unless God hid it from them temporarily.

Eugene – Yes, first of all the Magi went to the wrong city so either the star they followed disappeared or they did not know the prophesy. Even then they did not find Jesus until they entered Joseph and Mary’s house close to two years later.

Mat_2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
Mat 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
Mat 2:10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. (They had evidently lost track of it.)
Mat 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother . .
Mat_2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

About the Son of God - Herod's troops are a separate issue. Go down to where it talks about other Chirstian traditions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_(priest)