The Sunday lectionary reading for Epiphany 1, which is the Baptism of Christ, is Luke 3.15–17 and 21–22. The reading feels odd, since it was back in Advent when we read the previous verses in Luke 3 over two Sundays, and this sets the context for our passage.
The lectionary also drops the verses about Herod Antipas’ imprisonment of John, which are important to the narrative. And the passage raises some key questions about John’s ministry, and his understanding of Jesus. Did Jesus really come to bring ‘fire’ and the judgment indicated by the winnowing fork? Was John mistaken, or does Luke pick up these themes as the gospel unfolds?
Come and join Ian and James as they explore these questions!
Full written commentary behind the discussion can be found in the following article.
Keep up the good work. Go with the New Testament reading.
Thanks.
Why was it necessary for Jesus to be baptised? (Apologies. Not at home. Not yet listened to this, which may answer the question?)
Yes, we touch on this. Luke’s language highlights Jesus’ identification with the people, as an alternative was of saying the same thing in Matthew who records the conversation with John about ‘fulfilling all righteousness.’
Thank you.
I think a reformed view is that it was necessary for Jesus, though sinless, to be baptised into humanity’s, Adam’s sin, symbolised by waters of the Jordan.
A sort of double entry accounting!
Van Dorn points out that all four gospels record Jesus’s baptism by John the Baptist in the River Jordan. And that Zechariah, John’s father, was a Levite and a priest (Luke 1:5) — therefore John was a Levitical priest (Exod 29:9; Num 25:13). John’s baptism was ‘for repentance’ and thus he asks Jesus why he needed to be baptised (Matt 3:11–15) — Jesus explains it is to “fulfil all righteousness” and with this explanation John consented. (Van Dorn, 1–3)
Van Dorn points to the necessity for baptism under Mosaic law before a priest begins his ministry and this explains Jesus’s comment to “fulfil all righteousness”. And that John understood this, and prepared Jesus to serve God as the high priest ready to start his earthly ministry (Luke 3:23). Thus, on his baptism, Jesus declares the start of that ministry, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18–19; citing Isaiah 61:1–3). (Van Dorn, 2–5, 13)
Van Dorn, Douglas. Waters of Creation: A Biblical Theological Study of Baptism. Colorado: Waters of Creation Publishing, 2007.
Geoff,
I am not sure where this reply will appear in the sequence, but this is my second part of my reply to your question why Jesus needed to be baptised.
Van Dorn argues that there are multiple connections between Jesus’s baptism and the requirements for a Levitical priest under Mosaic law. And that Jesus was both circumcised and baptised, suggesting one is not a substitute for the other — Jesus’s baptism was done in fulfilment of priestly law, not the law of circumcision. (Van Dorn, 7, 9–10)
The baptism of priests under the Mosaic law
He argues that there were various ‘baptisms’ under the Mosaic law and gives a linguistic analysis. (Van Dorn, 18–20)
The priestly anointing included ‘washing’ by water (Exod 29:1–9) — ‘wash’ in v. 4 is rachats — the same word used when Elijah told Naaman to ‘bathe’ in the Jordan — which the LXX translates as ‘baptise’ (2 Kings 5:14). Van Dorn thus argues that rachats can mean full immersion.
Van Dorn points out that all four gospels record Jesus’s baptism by John the Baptist in the River Jordan. And that Zechariah, John’s father, was a Levite and a priest (Luke 1:5) — therefore John was a Levitical priest (Exod 29:9; Num 25:13). John’s baptism was ‘for repentance’ and thus he asks Jesus why he needed to be baptised (Matt 3:11–15) — Jesus explains it is to “fulfil all righteousness” and with this explanation John consented. (Van Dorn, 1–3)
Van Dorn points to the necessity for baptism under Mosaic law before a priest begins his ministry and this explains Jesus’s comment to “fulfil all righteousness”. And that John understood this, and prepared Jesus to serve God as the high priest ready to start his earthly ministry (Luke 3:23). Thus, on his baptism, Jesus declares the start of that ministry, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18–19; citing Isaiah 61:1–3). (Van Dorn, 2–5, 13)
Van Dorn, Douglas. Waters of Creation: A Biblical Theological Study of Baptism. Colorado: Waters of Creation Publishing,
PS I have had a couple of goals at posting this without success, so apologies if it appears more than once.
Geoff,
I am not sure where this reply will appear in the sequence, but this is my second part of my reply to your question why Jesus needed to be baptised.
Van Dorn argues that there are multiple connections between Jesus’s baptism and the requirements for a Levitical priest under Mosaic law. And that Jesus was both circumcised and baptised, suggesting one is not a substitute for the other — Jesus’s baptism was done in fulfilment of priestly law, not the law of circumcision. (Van Dorn, 7, 9–10)
The baptism of priests under the Mosaic law
He argues that there were various ‘baptisms’ under the Mosaic law and gives a linguistic analysis. (Van Dorn, 18–20)
The priestly anointing included ‘washing’ by water (Exod 29:1–9) — ‘wash’ in v. 4 is rachats — the same word used when Elijah told Naaman to ‘bathe’ in the Jordan — which the LXX translates as ‘baptise’ (2 Kings 5:14). Van Dorn thus argues that rachats can mean full immersion.
Colin H,
Yhis would need to be followed through.
1. Wasn’t Jesus himself, the ultimate Levite – first born Son, in whom the Father is well pleased?
2 Is it being proposed that the water baptism of Jesus, of and in itself, ‘fulfilled all righteousness’? Or symbolical of something else, a cumulative composition with the cross-death, resurrection and ascension?
Colin H,
And wasn’t Adam a type of first -born Levite, in the ‘Temple Garden’ that was Eden.
Now, fast-foreward, that has God’s crescendo pronouncement on Jesus, ‘this is my beloved son…’
Adam, a type, points to fulfillment by and in Jesus. The Anti-type.
Geoff,
“Wasn’t Adam a type of first -born Levite, in the ‘Temple Garden’ that was Eden.”
Yes, Greg Beale is strong on the Edenic temple imagery and Adam acting like a priest but I do not think that necessarily impacts Douglas van Dorn’s point?
It was necessary for Jesus to be baptised because when he became incarnate his body was made of matter; and matter and the laws governing it, like all else, were created good but have since fallen. Not just human nature but all else is fallen – that is why all creation is groaning in travail (Romans 8) and why Paul wrote that “he BECAME SIN, he who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). So Christ’s physical body was fallen and needed to be baptised.
Related question: Would Jesus have died of old age had he not died at human hands?
Hi Anton,
That analysis would work if you believe we have an acquired sinful nature, but as you probably know, I am not into that 17 century rehash of Augustinian theology.
Your comments went to ‘Pending’ as you spelt your name in your email as ‘Colon’…!
Ian,
Thanks for pointing this out. I was working on my iPhone and my iPhone remembered the wrong spelling!
Forgive me my lack of scholarship but I have not had the benefit of acquainting myself with your views on that subject. If it’s not too much trouble, perhaps you could outline what you consider to be wrong with my suggestion?
Anton,
“Christ’s physical body was fallen and needed to be baptised.”
But even if the 17th century rehash of the Augustinian ‘inherited sinful nature’ teaching was accepted – something found nowhere in the Old Testament – the standard Reformed doctrine states that Jesus himself was born sinless.
So the argument relies on 2 Corinthians 5:21 – but John’s baptism was unto repentance and that would not apply?
That all of creation is fallen ought to be obvious from the way animals behave toward one another, whereas Isaiah (ch.11) speaks of a redeemed creation in which lions gambol with lambs and children play with snakes. The earth produces thistles because of God’s curse in Genesis 3. Then there are the verses in Romans 8, which you didn’t engage with. Please do not suppose that I am uncritically Augustinian – I am not – but if you have a ‘system’ of theology then its fruits ought to shed light on this matter in a constructive manner.
Would Jesus have died of old age had he not died at human hands?
What about another hypothetical. Would Adam have died if he had not eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? As I read the text, he would have done, because he was not born immortal. Death was the penalty of his disobedience, but death was only a potential penalty because he was not immortal, i.e. he had not eaten of the tree of life. The situation was so set up that mortality without sin – the original condition – would not be an option. He chose mortality and decay by not heeding the warning “In the day that you eat of it you will die”.
That all animal creation is ‘fallen’ needs qualifying. The strong prey on the weak, yes, but they don’t have a human-like knowledge of sin. They live according to the nature God gave them, by instinct.
Jesus was a human being by virtue of having a human mother. In the Protestant understanding she was prone to sin like everyone else. Nonetheless this is not actually demonstrated in the gospels. What is emphasised is that she was sexually pure when she conceived, and totally submitted to God.
The doctrine of ‘original sin’ apart from actual sin is dubious, and I don’t get any sense that Jesus had to be baptised because his humanity rendered him tainted even though he was otherwise sinless.
Enoch did not taste death in the old world. Elijah did not taste death in the new. Original sin did not seem to matter.
Thank you, Ian and James, for another excellent commentary of the Lectionary passage set for Epiphany 1. I would love your commentaries to continue, but to follow James’ suggestion of using the set New Testament passages as the basis for your commentaries.
On a small point about Luke 3:19, Herod’s action in marrying Herodias was sinful in the way that Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not lies in Herod’s brother Philip still being alive, whereas Henry’s brother Arthur was not, thus making Catherine a widow.
Graham, thanks for this suggestion. I think quite a few others have also leaned in this direction. And thanks for the chat over coffee yesterday about annihilationism!
I think you are right about the difference—but I think the issue was the same, and both were about the teaching of the Levicitical prohibitions, were they not?
If it had been in ancient Israel then Henry was actually *supposed* to marry his brother’s widow (Deut 25)!
The debate was about the interpretation of the biblical texts in conflicting directions:
Henry based his argument on Leviticus 18:16 and Leviticus 20:21, which state:
Leviticus 18:16: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.”
Leviticus 20:21: “If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.”
Catherine of Aragon and her supporters, including the Pope, argued on the basis of Deuteronomy 25:5-6 which passage suggests that a man should marry his brother’s widow to raise up offspring for his brother. Catherine argued that this law applied in her case, as her marriage to Arthur was never consummated.
I thought, Ian, that the Pope simply sat on the case until Henry realised that no reply would be forthcoming from Rome? It was tricky for Rome because the papacy had accepted a petition by the king of France seeking release from an inconvenient marriage in 1498, and even another by Henry’s sister Margaret; but the Pope was dominated at that time by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, whose mother was Catherine of Aragon’s sister.
Ian,
It seems fairly clear the Levitical verses are referring to your divorced brother’s wife: “If a man takes his divorced brother’s wife …” then all the contradictions/anomalies fall away. Roman Catholics, nor evangelicals, like this explanation but the documentary evidence is clear that divorce was not unusual in Jewish society.
I would truly like for the video presentations to continue. I look forward each week to these videos and I would certainly welcome a discussion on the New Testament readings in the future.
I have appreciated the time, effort and insight that each of you provide each week.
If in the future, you would also consider a more in depth study of the Old Testament readings, I would certainly welcome this as well. There are very few opportunities to explore the Old Testament. With thanksgiving for all that you do, Karen in Montreal
Thanks!
We have considered through the Lectionary formula the Jesus of history and grappled with the understanding of His enigmatic teachings
I feel it important to realize that the Jesus of History was and is difficult to comprehend,
Indeed, if we only had the Jesus of history we might well, as the Disciples, fail to grasp the significance of The Gospel.
We do well to recognize, as Mark and the Gospel writers realized that they were recording only the beginnings, the foundations, the fundamentals of the Gospel.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
How one builds on those foundations will be “tried by fire” 1 COR.3
3:12 Now if any man builds upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
3:13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
The writer of Hebrews urges us on to perfection, leaving behind the “first principles”
Indeed Paul’s great passion for the church was that he “Travailed in birth that Christ might be formed in them”; to him the mere knowledge of the Jesus of history, was not sufficient
For him “Christ in them” was the hope of Glory.
What is the full gospel?
The word Gospel and its derivates’ are mentioned over 100 times in the NT.
For excellent primer and discussions on this key word I recommend Tom Austin Sparks “The Gospel according to Paul” and / or MacLaren’s exposition of Mark 1 v 1 @
/biblehub.com/commentaries/mark/1-1.htm which covers the other gospel writers.
Meanwhile may the Lord guide you into the [joyous, abundant] love of God in your future deliberations.
Interesting question Anton. That Jesus evidently aged then I would have thought that the aging process would have continued otherwise.
Not sure it is a question that is relevant to the
Gospel purposes ( determined pre creation in the Trinunity) in the incarnation, in Jesus in God’s self-revelation.
What sort of ‘age’ are we meant to be in the resurrection?
Chris,
But even in corporeal form while Adam had access to the tree of life he would never die even after sinning (Gen 3:22) – implying that he wouldn’t age in the conventional sense of decline.
The New Testament seems clear that Jesus is the tree of life so it would seem odd if he aged?
All so speculative: scripturally and indicatively, redundant.
And is age in a life of eternity annd glory with Christ at all of significance, even importance?
Colin, yet he must have grown and aged like a human until he reached about 33. I would have thought his body would have aged in the same way as everyone else’s until then. So what happens on the resurrection? Are we all raised in a resuurection body to a standard adult age whatever that may be?
Chris,
Yes, it is an interesting question and I have often thought the same. Christ’s ageing was to maturity not to old age, thus as you point out ageing was a factor even in his perfection. And thus what age do we appear when we are raised?
And what happens if an elect infant dies – how do they appear in heaven?
Many thanks, Ian and James, for so many useful insights and suggestions. It’s great that your discussions are accessible to laity who are licensed to preach!
I remain bemused about intended thematic links between lectionary readings. Sometimes it might be good to explore one of the other lectionary readings where this seems to be the case. This Sunday’s reading from Acts 8 might be an example.
Thanks for the encouragement!
There are no intended thematic links between the readings. That idea was dropped with the change from the previous lectionary.
We would want to offer comment on the other NT reading—and then perhaps see if there are any connections, but not assume so.
It’s astonishing that in all the circumnavigation of the actual baptism , there has been precioius little about the theological content surrounding the baptism – the Holy Spirit as a dove ! the divine voice! ” You are my Son whom I love; with you I am well pleased ”
Psalm 2 is a messianic Psalm : ‘I will proclaim the decree of the Lord. He said to me , You are my Son, today I have begotten you —–you will rule them with an iron sceptre.” c’
In Luke’s gospel, The Holy Spirit “came upon Mary at Jesus’ conception. Elizabeth was “filled with the Holy Spirit”, as was Zechariah! But there in no anointing of the adultJesus by the Spirit – until his baptism !
Why? Anointing is one of the key words; for he is the Messiah!
But there as another key term: Isaiah 41:1-3 ” Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight. I will put my Spirit on Him, and he will bring justice to the nations —a bruised reed He will not break and a smouldering wick he will not snuff out.” Later in he same chapter, we read” I will keep you and make you a covenant to the people. ” (c.f. The song of Zechariah -Luke 1). Jesus is *the* servant.To be precise, He is the Suffering Servant as well as theMessiah! “For the Son of Man came not to be served , but to serve and to give his life as a ransdome for many!”
There is more discussion of the actual baptism in the written commentary. We ran out of time!
Quite. 1 Cor 15:35-49 does not give a lot of information. A corruptable body subject to decay and death is raised incorruptible so l would expect a wrinkly 90 year old can expect something better, but l wonder if a younger person or infant is raised to growth in the New Heavens and New Earth.
This is for Colin but seems to have landed in the wrong place.
Ive always thought humans seem their best in their 30s – bodies and brains fully developed and before the decline into greying of hair etc. I suspect that will be the equivalent age of the redeemed. But pure speculation in the end.
I’m not sure where to add this comment as it’s not directly relevant to any of the current topics on Ian’s blog, but here goes.
Today Archbishop Justin laid down his office after a lengthy and exceptionally demanding ministry at Canterbury, across the Church of England and in the Anglican Communion. Whatever our knowledge of him or views about his ministry he has obviously been deeply troubled by his experiences. I suggest we join in prayer for him and his family, for the staff at Lambeth and in the Diocese of Canterbury, thanking God for him and asking for God’s mercy, strength and blessing for him in the years that lie ahead.
And, of course, we continue to pray for all who have been caught up so tragically in the many abuse scandals which have so harmed them and shamed the Church in recent years. May the Lord have mercy on us all.
I would gladly pray for him and his family, but why should I thank God for him (meaning presumably his ministry as Archbishop)? He did his utmost to take the Church of England away from the biblical definition of right and wrong and I consider its decline in his time to be in no small way God’s response.
‘He did his utmost to take the Church of England away from the biblical definition of right and wrong.’ I suggest that may be a bit harsh and ungenerous. It implies a deliberate intention which I think is a very risky thing to say about someone. And surely not across the board and in every area? Whatever our views about his ministry we can still thank God for him because much that he did was good e.g. his role in the funeral of the late Queen and in the King’s coronation. And, as with all of us, the wheat and tares are mixed together in our lives and we may not always know which is which, for ourselves or for others.
I am perfectly prepared to say that of Welby because I regard the evidence as decisive.
You thank God for his ministry. I thank God it is ended before he got that ball over the line.
Anton,
Yes. His speech in the House of Lords when he made light of his resignation I thought showed him to be strangely out of touch with the mood of the nation. In a way a lonely and isolated figure. And certainly not the man that the Anglican church needed at this critical juncture.
Welby was a disaster.
Cottrell will be no better.
As I say, the wheat and tares are mixed together in all our lives, individually and corporately, frequently without our being aware of it. Making harsh judgements of others has a strange tendency to rebound upon us and we may do well to resist the temptation.
So, Tim, when a church leader attempts to move his church in a blatantly antiscriptural manner we should not criticise?
We’d be missing several of Paul’s letters if he had taken that line.
Tim may misunderstand the parable of wheat and tares. The tares refers to people who are not really Christians. I can readily understand that a person could be immature in his faith and personal development, with much to learn and correct. But I could not accept that such a person should become the leader of a church and iso facto a role model for how to live as a Christian.
Wheat and tares may, just possibly, be polyvalent.
I see no need to either be totally harsh in judgement or completely exonerate someone; it’s a false dichotomy. It’s perfectly OK to be critical of some things a person does and praise others. Do we not all have much to learn, are we not all still immature in some respects, but often unaware of it? Part of the role model a leader offers is their humility to know their frailties and weaknesses and offer themselves to God nevertheless. If we waited until we only had leaders such as the ones you describe we’d wait a very long time and have to avoid being leaders ourselves.
PS The tares cannot only refer to people who are not really Christians since when Jesus uttered it there were no Christians.
Let’s stop this thread now; it was started as a suggestion that it would be good to pray for former Archbishop Justin at what must be a very difficult time for him and his family. I never anticipated such strong responses to a request for prayer.
Further, the Pastoral Epistles make it clear that the task of episkopoi is to ‘teach sound doctrine’ (Titus 2.1), to ‘Preach the word, … rebuke, … correct’ (2 Tim 4.2) and to ‘set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity … Watch your life and doctrine closely’ (1 Tim 4.11, 16).
It is a complete misunderstanding of the parable of the wheat and tares to apply it to the office of leader in God’s church. James warns that teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3.1).
When will Stephen Cottrell be called to account over his promotion of ‘Mermaids’ and transgenderism and his shocking promotion of the sex offender David Tudor? Headteachers would have been sacked for that.
Tim writes:
“Part of the role model a leader offers is their humility to know their frailties and weaknesses and offer themselves to God nevertheless. If we waited until we only had leaders such as the ones you describe we’d wait a very long time and have to avoid being leaders ourselves.”
– False conclusion. The point is not that leaders should be perfect but that they should let themselves be corrected by the Word of God instead of contradicting it. Welby showed little sign of understanding what his office meant. He was theologically weak, culturally driven – and, for al his fashionable obeisance to left-wing shibboleths, basically a public school snob unable to understand ordinary people. Read John Hughdton in Anglican Ink to see what I mean. I will post a link.
“PS The tares cannot only refer to people who are not really Christians since when Jesus uttered it there were no Christians.”
– False exegesis. Jesus had true followers and false followers – including one of his disciples.
“Let’s stop this thread now; it was started as a suggestion that it would be good to pray for former Archbishop Justin at what must be a very difficult time for him and his family. I never anticipated such strong responses to a request for prayer.”
– I have already prayed for him. Praying for someone doesn’t mean agreeing with him. Have you prayed for the people he failed?
John Hudghton’s recollection of living with Justin Welby in 1977-78:
https://anglican.ink/2025/01/01/what-welby-knew-and-when-he-knew-it-a-personal-observation-on-john-smyth-and-justin-welby/
Let’s stop this thread now; it was started as a suggestion that it would be good to pray for former Archbishop Justin at what must be a very difficult time for him and his family.
Actually it was suggested that “we join in prayer for him and his family, for the staff at Lambeth and in the Diocese of Canterbury, thanking God for him…” I can gladly pray for him and his family, for the staff at Lambeth and in the Diocese of Canterbury, as I said. But I repeat that there is ample reason not to give thanks for him, presuming this means his ministry as Archbishop.
You hint that those who criticise Welby have insufficient fear of the Lord. I have plenty, I assure you. It seems to be Welby who doesn’t, or else he would not have made such a determined attempt to trample on the biblical definition of right and wrong.
Well, perhaps not on this blog then Tim? I will be offering my own reflections later in the week…
To meditate on and lay hold The Gospel Readings are essential to the full realization and enjoyment of the Gospel of God
To know only the Jesus of History is but half a gospel which in fact is no gospel
On our Lord’s own lips and in the records of His life we find the phrase, ‘the gospel of the kingdom’-the good news of the establishment on earth of the rule of God in the hearts and lives of men.
The person of the King is not yet defined by it.
’ The order is first the message of the Kingdom, then the discovery of the King.
Paul, who is so fond of the word, has taught us, the historical fact needs some explanation and commentary to make the history a gospel.
The bare facts, without the exhibition of their purpose and meaning, are no more a gospel than any other story of a death would be. The facts with any lower explanation of their meaning are no gospel, any more than the story of the death of Socrates or any innocent martyr would be.
The Gospel of Christ is the ‘Gospel of God.’
. We hear of ‘the gospel of the grace of God’ and
‘the gospel of the glory of God,’
‘the gospel of your salvation’ {Ephesians 1:13}
,‘the gospel of peace.
the gospel of God,’ may mean the gospel which has God for its author or origin, but it seems rather to mean ‘which has God for its subject
All inward serenity and outward calm, the tranquillity of a soul free from the agitations of emotion and the storms of passions and the tumults of desire, as well as the security of a life guarded from the assaults of foes and girded about with an impregnable barrier which nothing can destroy and no enemy overleap, are ours, if we take the good news about God to our heart.
They give peace with God, with the world, and with ourselves. They lead to trust, and trust is peace.
They lead to union with God.
They lead to submission, and consecration, and that is peace.
They lead to indifference to fleeting joys and treasures, They give to heart and mind and will an all-sufficient and infinite object, and they deliver us from ourselves, and that is peace.
They fill the past, the present, and the future with the loving Father’s presence, and brighten life and death with the Saviour’s footsteps-and so to live is calm, and to die is to lay ourselves down in peace and sleep, quiet by His side, like a child by its mother. The good news about God and Christ is the good news of our salvation and of our peace.
For the apostle’s, ‘my gospel,’ and ‘our gospel’; meaning not merely the message which he was charged to proclaim, but the good news which he and his brethren had made their own.
So we have to make it ours. It is not enough that we believe it, as we do other histories in which we have no concern.
What more is needed?
Another expression of the apostle’s gives the answer.
He speaks of ‘the faith of the gospel,’ that is the trust which that glad message evokes, and by which it is laid hold of.
. So in one and the same set of facts we have the history of Jesus and the revelation of God.
They are not only the biography of a man, but they are the unveiling of the heart of God that will put music into your life and make your days blaze into joy and gladness
The wondrous story of their Master’s life and death, was that of a revelation of the deepest heart of God which is the full Gospel
‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,’[Jesus]
[Summary of McLaren Mark 1 v 1]
Hi Ian & James.
Thank you for your very helpful videos. I hope they continue. I would prefer you to continue in Luke’s Gospel – redoing or adding a new perspective. The previous videos can also be accessed for added value.
Much appreciated.
John on the Gold Coast in Australia
Hello
Like John I would like to thank you for your videos and the additional thoughts on your blog. I too would prefer to hear more on Luke’s gospel
With best wishes, Christine
Note that we have a complete series on Luke from three years ago. Each week I will link back to those.