Introduction
It seems incongruous that Luke does not place the wilderness temptation in immediate proximity to the declaration of sonship at Christ’s baptism. Instead, the two are separated in Luke by an extraordinary digression of 15 verses which apparently describe the genealogy of Christ through Joseph. By the time this digression has ended, Luke has seemingly led the reader far away from the issue of Christ’s Divine sonship, as declared in verse 22, and has apparently taken great care to collate and emphasise a physical genealogy of Christ as a son of men. Indeed, the starting point of Luke’s genealogical account presents Christ as supposedly the son of Joseph, and ends with Adam, expressly declared to be the son of God. If anything, Luke’s genealogy appears superficially to be contrasting Christ as the son of Joseph, with Adam as the son of God. Yet Luke deliberately includes the declaration of Christ’s Divine sonship before embarking on this apparent digression, so it is clear he is not abandoning the Biblical teaching that Christ was the unique son of God, Divinely begotten of the Father.
What then is the purpose of Luke’s digression?
Far from isolating the Divine sonship of Christ from the account of the temptation, Luke is in fact emphasising the vital connection between the two by means of a dramatic – almost hyperbolic – enlargement of the issue of Divine sonship. This enlargement consists of a ‘genealogy’ which is not a literal physical genealogy of Christ, but an ancestral list commencing with the commonly held false belief regarding Christ, and ending with a Biblical truth which reintroduces the very issue which is at stake in the temptation experience.
The first important point to identify is that Luke’s genealogy is not a description of Christ’s physical descent. Much confusion has resulted from attempts to read this passage as a description of Christ’s natural descent, or at least as a description of Christ’s ‘legal’ lineage. It has been argued that the genealogy is Mary’s, and that it represents a ‘Levirate’ line of descent. Writing in the 5th century, Augustine was sufficiently misguided to argue that Christ could be legitimately called the son of Joseph, on the basis that he was born to Mary, who was married to Joseph (‘On the Harmony of the Gospels’, book II, chapter i, section 2), whereas Luke never graces this view with the slightest suggestion of legitimacy.
All such arguments completely miss the point of what Luke is actually saying. Remarkably, men such as Augustine have misread Luke entirely. A careful reading of Luke’s words will demonstrate to us the foundation on which he is building, and help us to understand the true purpose of his genealogy:
Luke 3:
23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…
From the very start of this section, Luke makes it transparently clear that he is not about to justify the common idea that Christ was the son of Joseph. On the contrary, he records this as the view of common supposition, in complete contrast to the declaration of Christ’s Divine sonship which he has already presented. This verse is not, as many seem to see it, the commencement of a totally new section completely unrelated to what has gone before, but the deliberate contrast of the Divine perspective with the mortal. It should be read in the context of the preceding verse, thus:
Luke 3:
21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And while he was praying, the heavens opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” 23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…
These verses contain two statements which are directly opposed to each other, and Luke places them together in deliberate contrast:
- You are my dear son
- The son of Joseph
These statements are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be correct. One is the Divine declaration, and the other is the opinion of men, and lest there be any confusion as to which view is Luke’s, he makes it abundantly plain here:
Luke 3:
23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…
As far as Luke is concerned, the idea that Christ is the son of Joseph is the mere supposition of men. But why does he mention this here? Luke’s intention is to confirm the Divine declaration made at Christ’s baptism. Writing for a Gentile audience, his purpose is to confront the skeptical assumptions regarding Christ, and overturn them with incontrovertible evidence. He also wishes to demythologize a term which his Gentile readers may misinterpret – ‘son of God’. That this is an important issue for Luke, is seen from his description of the birth of Christ:
Luke 1:
35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.
The description given by Luke is deliberately written to inform the Gentile audience that Christ’s conception occurred in a manner radically different to that of the pagan demigods, who were products of a physical union between the gods and mortals. Whilst Divine in origin, Christ’s birth was completely different to the birth of the Greek and Roman ‘sons of the gods’.
The juxtaposition of ‘You are my dear son’ with ‘The son of Joseph’, is Luke’s introduction of the issue of sonship which will be settled by the temptation of Christ. By means of this method of introduction, Luke gives us the reason for the public declaration of the Father at Christ’s baptism – it was to confirm publicly a critical issue which was under question, a matter of public dispute.
How then does the genealogy which follows contribute to Luke’s aim? Superficially, it appears to lead the reader in the opposite direction entirely. We must first identify Luke’s purpose in providing this apparently misleading genealogy. At the outset we must dismiss the idea that it is intended to be an accurate description of Christ’s literal physical lineage. On what basis can we do this?
First, because Luke makes no claim that this is a literal genealogy of Christ (unlike Matthew’s declaration ‘This is the record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham’, Matthew 1:1, though even Matthew does not represent his genealogy as a description of Christ’s physical descent from Joseph). Secondly, because Luke introduces this ‘genealogy’ as being what people supposed regarding Christ, as opposed to the reality (Luke 3:23). Thirdly, because we know from Luke 1:27, 34-35 that it cannot be a literal physical lineage through Joseph, since Luke takes great care to inform us that Christ’s birth to Mary was not the result of the usual physical union between man and woman (verse 27 ‘to a virgin’, verse 34 ‘How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?’, verse 35 ‘“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God’). Fourthly, because the ‘genealogy’ given by Luke makes no sense as a literal physical lineage of Christ.
What point is it trying to make? Matthew’s genealogy explicitly identifies Christ as ‘the son of David, the son of Abraham’, commences with Abraham, refers to David as king, and moves down to Christ through Mary, once Joseph’s genealogy is complete. Luke’s genealogy is inverted, starting with Joseph, making no specific mention of Christ’s relation to any of the important figures in Jewish history, and moving backwards all the way to Adam, of all people.
Matthew’s genealogy (although also describing the lineage of Joseph, not Christ), is intended to emphasise two of the most renowned individuals in Jewish history (Abraham and David), so much so that he actually commences with Abraham (Matt 1:2), and makes specific reference to David’s kingship (Matt 1:6). It is theologically important for Matthew to refer to these two ancestors, and their exalted position. But Luke’s genealogy makes no such connection. It starts with a common man of no distinction (Joseph), omits to identify either David or Abraham as significant, and ends with Adam.
What importance could possibly be attached to either Joseph or Adam in Christ’s ancestry? Matthew’s genealogy starts with an individual of great importance – the father of the Jewish nation, but Luke starts with the commoner Joseph. Having commenced in mediocrity, Luke’s genealogy leads to no stunning conclusion, no exalted finale – it ends with Adam, the ‘universal father’. This is certainly not a way of making Christ look ‘special’, of distinguishing him from other men – everyone can claim Adam as their ultimate ancestor. This genealogy (if it were literally Christ’s), would represent him in exactly the opposite manner – as just another man. It is true that Luke’s genealogy then moves further back from Adam to God, but this conveys nothing significant regarding Christ (who is at this point very far removed from Adam by Luke’s genealogy, and even further removed from God). If anything, it would appear to be saying that Adam was the son of God, whereas Christ was merely the son of Adam. There is an important reason why Luke actually ends his genealogy with the reference to Adam as the son of God, but it is not to prove that Christ was ‘son of God’ by way of a protracted physical descent from Adam.
The genealogy in Luke, therefore, is intended to present what was commonly supposed regarding Christ – that he was the literal son of Joseph, with a mundane genealogy of no particular importance, that he was just another descendant of Adam, like everyone else:
Luke 3:
23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…
It is important to note that verses 23 to 38 are all one extended sentence. Everything following this verse is part of what was ‘supposed’ – not the specific details of the genealogy, but the general ideal that Christ had an earthly father and a mundane genealogy. Luke’s point is that it was ‘supposed’ that Christ had a genealogy just like other men – that he was, at the end of the day, nothing more than just another son of Adam. For this reason, precise historical accuracy in this genealogy is completely unimportant. It is a sample of the thoughts men had of Christ, the attribution to him of a mundane physical descent just like that of any other man.
There are certainly reasons behind Luke’s choice of whom to include in this genealogy of Joseph (Matthew’s genealogy is similarly selective, being likewise theologically motivated rather than historically motivated), but his reasons do not include the description of Christ as the son of Joseph, whether physical, ‘legally adopted’, or ‘Levirate’, nor is he merely interested in drawing Joseph’s family tree. For Luke has a far higher purpose in mind – he intends to prove that Christ is the son of God.
It is important to note at this point that the subtleties of Luke’s presentation in this chapter would not have gone unnoticed by his intended audience. Though undoubtedly writing for a Gentile, Luke assumes a certain Bible knowledge on the part of his reader, for Theophilus is not ignorant of the Christian faith:
Luke 1:
3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.
We cannot be certain to what extent Theophilus had been instructed, but we can be certain that he had been made aware of the gospel, and that he had some knowledge of Scripture. Throughout his gospel Luke makes frequent mention of Abraham, Moses, David, and other key Biblical figures without so much as an explanatory aside, assuming a certain prior knowledge on the part of his audience.
For this reason, we can be assured that Luke’s careful construction both of the temptation narrative and its introduction, is not lost on his reader. Theophilus would be aware of the true teaching regarding Christ’s birth (described in careful detail in Luke 1:34-35), and would be aware also of the importance of men such as David (whose kingship and throne are given particular emphasis in Luke 1:32). The genealogy in Luke 3 appears totally incongruous in the context of Luke 1, and would have lead the reader to a close examination of the text, in order to determine the purpose of this seemingly contradictory digression.
Given these facts, it is reasonable to expect Luke’s reader to be treating the text with the same scrutiny to which we are subjecting it, and likewise reasonable to consider that Theophilus would have discerned the same meaning we find here.
Conclusion
To summarise Luke’s message in verses 22-38, this is what he is saying:
At his public declaration of his mortality and need of salvation from God, Jesus was in return publicly declared by God to be His son. For popular opinion supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, with the same kind of genealogy that many people could claim, just another son of Adam (who actually was the son of God). This is a paraphrase, but true to the sense of the text, as we can see:
Luke 3:21-23, 38:
21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And while he was praying, the heavens opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” 23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, […] 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
The conclusion of this passage with a reference to Adam as the son of God returns the mind of the reader to the key issue raised in verses 22-23 – is Jesus the son of God?
If what was ‘supposed’ regarding Jesus was true, then he would be just another son of Adam, and the temptation in the wilderness would prove this. In fact, Luke’s narrative of the temptation will not only prove that Jesus is the son of God, but prove that he is the son of God in a way that Adam never was. Given Luke’s care to demythologize the term ‘son of God’ as applied to Christ, we may ask why it is that he uses the term so readily of Adam, without qualification.
The reason for this is twofold. First, Luke is probably taking for granted the fact that Theophilus is aware of the manner of Adam’s creation (and that he was not physically sired as the pagan demigods were). Secondly, Luke does in fact wish to make a point of the unique circumstances of Adam’s origin, that he was at least as much a son of God through a miracle as Jesus himself. Luke is going to demonstrate that a miraculous Divine origin is not what constitutes a true son of God. The sonship of Scripture operates on principles which are above and beyond the mechanics of merely physical origin. This is what Luke wishes his reader to understand from this entire introductory passage (Luke 3:21-38). It is in this context that he then describes the wilderness temptation. Concluding his genealogical list with ‘Adam, the son of God’, enables Luke to prove this by a number of contrasts between Adam and Christ which are made apparent by means of the wilderness temptation narrative.
Here is Adam, the first ‘son of God’, and here is Christ, another ‘son of God’. One would expect them to have much in common. Will they demonstrate the same characteristics or not? With ‘Adam, the son of God’, as the words immediately preceding the description of the wilderness temptation, a contrast between the two is naturally prompted in the mind of the reader as a result of Luke’s record:
- Adam grasped for equality with God; Christ subjected himself to the will of the Father
- Adam was led by the words of the serpent; Christ was led by the words of his Father
- Adam sought to provide for himself; Christ trusted his Father to provide for him
- Subsequent to his temptation and fall, Adam was opposed by cherubim; subsequent to his temptation and triumph, Christ was ministered to by angels
One of the most striking contrasts is that Adam was placed by God in a garden to test him, but because of disobedience was sent into a wilderness, whereas Christ was placed by God in a wilderness to test him, but because of obedience will be received into a garden. This is not described entirely by Luke here in the temptation narrative, but is initiated by him here – the contrast will be completed later in his gospel account (Luke 4:1-13, with 22:43).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One