Both Matthew and Mark begin their record of Jesus’ ministry immediately after his forty day bout with Satan and also after John was put in prison (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14). Luke, however, records several weeks of Jesus’ ministry before coming to events that occurred after John’s imprisonment (Luke 7:1-10; cf. John 3:22-23; 4:1, 46-53). Several Sabbaths are mentioned between Luke 4:14 (after Jesus’ temptations but before John’s imprisonment) and Luke 7:1 (the beginning of events occurring after John’s imprisonment in Luke’s Gospel). What can be said of these things?
I believe a case can be made that the events covered by Luke before healing the centurion’s servant in Luke 7:1-10 (i.e. Luke 4:14 to Luke 6:49) occur not only before John’s imprisonment, but highlight Jesus’ 40 day period mentioned in all three Synoptics (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). In other words Matthew 4:1-11 & Luke 4:1-13 are the skeleton upon which the flesh of Luke 4:14 to 6:49 can be placed! How was Jesus really tempted? Luke tells us immediately following his outline. Where did the temptations take place? The Scriptures tells us in the wilderness, but does this mean the desert regions of Judea? I hardly think so. Notice that the fourth Gospel says John confessed who Jesus was, but he didn’t know him until he was given a sign from heaven (John 1:29-34). On the day following this, John told two of his disciples Jesus was the Messiah, and they left John to follow Jesus (John 1:35-39). Immediately, three others are called to follow Jesus (John 1:40-51). On the next day, the third day after John’s meeting with Jesus (John 2:1), Jesus and his disciples attended a wedding in Galilee. The text doesn’t allow 40 days in the wilderness prior to Jesus coming into Galilee after his baptism.
Consider the fact that people who don’t know God (i.e. people considered to be in spiritual Babylon) are considered a wilderness (Ezekiel 20:34-35), and this is contrasted with the wilderness into which Israel was taken when they left Egypt (Ezekiel 20:36). In this wilderness God intends to plead with his people a second time (Ezekiel 20:36; Micah 6:2; cf. Luke 4:1-13). Thus, the wilderness into which the Lord was led by the Spirit (Luke 4:1) doesn’t indicate a region within Palestine but the spiritual condition of his people—a dry and thirsty people (cf. Ezekiel 19:13; 20:35).
With this wilderness as his court, Jesus would plead with his people (Ezekiel 20:36; Jeremiah 2:8-9) and the sense should be taken in legal terms. Both Matthew and Luke follow the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) and have Jesus contending with the Devil (slanderer), but Mark has him contending with Satan or adversary (the accuser), following the Hebrew text. Satan or accuser is more fitting for the context of Jesus pleading (legally) over his people’s spiritual condition. Moreover, although Jesus pleads with his people, his people (or at least some of them) accuse or plead against (i.e. playing the part of Satan) him:
“Appoint an evil one over him (over Jesus), an accuser (Satan) to stand at his right hand, That he may be judged and found guilty, that his plea may be in vain.” (Psalm 109:6-7; parenthesis mine)[1]
When Jesus warned that the bread of the Lord would go to the gentiles rather than his people, if the Jews didn’t repent (Luke 4:3-4; 25-27), they tried to destroy him by casting him head first off a cliff (Luke 4:29). When Jesus healed a man who had a withered right hand on the Sabbath day (Luke 6:6-10), the scribes and Pharisees, who had set a trap for him (Luke 6:6), were filled with madness and gathered themselves with the Herodians in an effort to destroy him (Luke 6:11; Mark 3:6; cf. Luke 4:5-8 and Psalm 2:1-2). Again, when Jesus cast out the evil spirits from the people and healed all their diseases (Luke 6:18-19; cf. Matthew 12:22-24; Mark 3:7-11, 20-22; cf. Luke 4:9-12), the scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of using the power of evil to destroy evil, and demanded a sign (Matthew 12:38-39)—which had to be a sign of their own choosing, because Jesus was already showing many signs and wonders, but he was accused of doing it all through the power of the evil one. Therefore, they sought a sign—one of their own choosing (“change these stones into bread” or “cast yourself down from this pinnacle”), tempting him (Luke 4:12).
Thus, it seems clear that not only did Jesus plead with a wilderness of (spiritually thirsty) people (Ezekiel 20:35; Luke 4:1), but the rulers of the people—the hills and mountains of Luke 3:5—also tried Jesus (if you are the Son of God… cf. Psalm 109:6-7; Luke 4:3) and demanded him to do whatever they said—give us bread (whatever we want, and when we want it), worship us (let us command you), cast yourself down…, i.e. force God to do what he promised but according to our will, naming it and claiming it.
______________________________
[1] NAB – revised edition
Smoodock's Blog 
14 responses to “Led Into the Wilderness”
Greetings Clifford. I’m not a real stickler when it comes to staying on track all of the time. Side tracks occur.
Neither do I believe John, the Apostle, is the author of the fourth Gospel. I believe the disciple whom Jesus loved is Barnabas of Acts, and Joseph of Arimathea of the Gospels. He is also Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary. Barnabas was a name given him by the Apostles, while Lazarus, I believe, is an encrypted name given him, because the authorities sought his life, on account of Jesus raising him from the dead. The study goes into much more detail, but, for the record, he’s my choice. :-)
Lord bless.
Okay, now I’m stunned. I’ve never heard anyone apart from myself who thought Joseph of Arimathea was Barnabas.
He was the groom at the wedding in Cana, I think.
I don’t want to go further publicly, but I don’t follow you with Lazarus. If he were in the grave at the time, how would he describe his sisters’ behavior outside the tomb? The author states that he was a witness to the things he wrote. I believe Joseph was present and was family but by marriage (mysterious hint without further explanation until I can get the book written).
Barnabas literally means son of prophecy. So how it interpreted to mean Son of Consolation (the title of my novel)? I think because of the prophecy which is being cited… “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people.” The man who gave Jesus his own grave, who provided the shroud, who later sold the empty grave and adjoining garden to provide the money to the church… so many other comforts that he provided…
I think I need to write more novel hahaha..
Another hint.. everyone at Jesus’ grave was family.
Greetings Clifford, I might say the same of you. I had no idea you would agree to that (Joseph = Barnabas). However, I never heard of him being the groom at the wedding in Cana. I have Joseph being the other disciple of John with Andrew in John 1.
Concerning Lazarus being the author / witness of the fourth Gospel, the author couldn’t have “witnessed” everything he wrote. For example, much of John 1 concerning Jesus being the Word of God etc. is good theology, but he couldn’t have witnessed it. Moreover, it is assumed that Mary was alone at the gravesite before she went to get Peter and the author of the fourth Gospel. He couldn’t have witnessed what Mary saw, nor Jesus appearing to her, the first human witness of Jesus’ resurrection. There would be little doubt about what occurred, while he was in the grave; there were so many witnesses to what occurred. It was probably told again and again, as many people wanted to see Lazarus after his resurrection.
An additional point would be: why would folks so readily assume the author of the fourth Gospel might never die (John 21)? Since Lazarus was already resurrected, it wasn’t known, if a resurrected person could die. The Jews’ understanding of life in the resurrection wasn’t as complete as ours is in the New Testament.
Indeed, Joseph was family. If you care to take the time, you may read my study HERE.
Lord bless you, Clifford, and let me know when your book is published.
Hi Eddie,
Is the fact that there is no reply link after your comments intentional? I’ll just reply here.
You mentioned that you had written about Joseph’s family ties at the certain link, but the hyperlink apparently failed. I would be interested in seeing it.
I enjoy reading your blogs because everything is thoughtful and underpinned by scripture, even though our interpretations may vary somewhat at time to time.
The reason I am writing a novel is to present my theories about Joseph in a scenario, trying to show the whole picture so that this character might be fully appreciated for who he was/is. I can’t be dogmatic, but when the whole scenario is presented, just the weight of it may convince many to understand that the most quoted words of the most quoted book of the most quoted collection of books in the history of mankind was written by someone named Joseph, not John… of course, that’s really not important in the grand scheme of things, but other information that I seem to have dug up along the way has had a way of really informing my study of the Bible, but not in some arcane manner, but rather to reveal the joy of Bible study. I think the novel will be an edifying thing to the church at large.
By presenting it in novel form, at least the scenario can be shown full blown before the inevitable critiques come.
Anyway, this blog isn’t about my book. However, I could go into more detail in personal correspondence, if you like.
Jesus is Lord!
Also, concerning the disciple whom Jesus loved.. the gospels list 4 people specifically whom Jesus loved.
The first three, of course, are Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (John 11).
But there was a fourth man, who is noticably absent from the fourth gospel. He is seen in Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18. Luke calls him a ruler. If I recall correctly, the same word is used for Nicodemus in John 3. It can be interpreted to refer to a rabbi.
The accounts also state that this possible rabbi was extremely wealthy. I take it that both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were members of the Sanhedrin. So I’m saying this rich young ruler may be Joseph himself. Your point is well taken that Joseph was not present with Mary when she saw the Lord. However, he was the first person that she ran to tell. And he was the first man to reach the tomb, out-running Peter….
So much more to say…
Another aside…
Do you think it would be within the character of the early church and apostles to enter into a conspiracy of silence, so to speak, being in agreement to not speak openly of Mary, mother of Jesus, and her whereabouts, for the sake of her safety? I can envision Joseph insisting upon it. And going further, might Joseph also have insisted upon going incognito himself, also for protection of Mary (and other reasons), since he was charged with her safekeeping by Jesus himself? He might have gone by a nickname after divesting himself of riches… Perhaps Barnabas? And is it inconceivable that the other gospel writers might have agreed to this silence and withheld these connections, and Joseph himself wrote of himself in the third person?
I’m wondering if you think that a conspiracy like this would be in keeping with Christian and apostolic ethics. I think so.