Luke 3:32 Komentář

Nothing is related concerning our Lord Jesus from his twelfth year to his entrance on his thirtieth year. We often think it would have been a pleasure and advantage to us if we had journals, or at least annuls, of occurrences concerning him; but we have as much as Infinite Wisdom thought fit to communicate to us, and, if we improve not that, neither should we have improved more if we had had it. The great intention of the evangelists was to give us an account of the gospel of Christ, which we are to believe, and by which we hope for salvation: now that began in the ministry and baptism of John, and therefore they hasten to give us an account of that. We could wish, perhaps, that Luke had wholly passed by what was related by Matthew and Mark, and had written only what was new, as he has done in his two first chapters. But it was the will of the Spirit that some things should be established out of the mouth, not only of two, but of three witnesses; and we must not reckon it a needless repetition, nor shall we do so if we renew out meditations upon these things, with suitable affections. In this chapter we have, I. The beginning of John's baptism, and the scope and intention of it (Luk 3:1-6). His exhortation to the multitude (Luk 3:7-9), and the particular instructions he gave to those who desired to be told their duty (Luk 3:10-14). II. The notice he gave them of the approach of the Messiah (Luk 3:15-18), to which is added (though it happened after what follows) the mention of his imprisonment (Luk 3:19-20). III. Christ coming to be baptized of John, and his entrance therein upon the execution of his prophetical office (Luk 3:21, Luk 3:22). IV. His pedigree and genealogy recorded up to Adam (v. 23-38).

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,.... Emperor of Rome, and the third of the Caesars; Julius was the first, and Augustus the second, in whose time Christ was born, and this Tiberius the third; he was the son of Livia, the wife of Augustus, but not by him; but was adopted by him, into the empire: his name was Claudius Tiberius Nero, and for his intemperance was called, Caldius Biberius Mero; the whole of his reign was upwards of twenty two years, for he died in the twenty third year of his reign (g); and in the fifteenth of it, John began to preach, Christ was baptized, and began to preach also; so that this year may be truly called, "the acceptable year of the Lord". Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea; under the Emperor Tiberius, in whose reign the Jewish chronologer (h) places him, and the historian (i) also, and make mention of him as sent by him to Jerusalem: he was not the first governor of Judea for the Romans; there were before him Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annins Rufus, and Valerius Gratus: and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee; this was Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the great, and brother of Archelaus; the above chronologer (k) calls him also a tetrarch, and places him under Tiberius Caesar: he is sometimes called a king, and so he is by the Ethiopic version here called "king of Galilee"; and in the Arabic version, "prince over the fourth part of Galilee"; besides Galilee, he had also Peraea, or the country beyond Jordan, as Josephus (l) says, and which seems here to be included in Galilee; See Gill on Mat 14:1. And his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea, and of the region of Trachonitis: Pliny (m) makes mention of the nation of the Itureans, as belonging to Coele Syria; perhaps Iturea is the same with Batanea, or Auranitis, or both; since these with Trachon, the same with Trachonitis here, are allotted to Philip by Josephus (n): it seems to take its name from Jetur, one of the sons of Ishmael, Gen 25:15 Trachonitis is mentioned by Pliny (o), as near to Decapolis, and as a region and tetrarchy, as here: Ptolemy (p) speaks of the Trachonite Arabians, on the east of Batanea, or Bashan: the region of Trachona, or Trachonitis, with the Targumists (q), answers to the country of Argob. This Philip, who as before by Josephus, so by Egesippus (r), is said, in agreement with Luke, to be tetrarch of Trachonitis, was brother to Herod Antipas, by the father's, but not by the mother's side. Philip was born of Cleopatra, of Jerusalem, and Herod of Malthace, a Samaritan (s): he died in the twentieth year of Tiberius (t), five years after this: and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene: mention is made of Abila by Pliny (u), as in Coele Syria, from whence this tetrarchy might have its name; and by Ptolemy (w), it is called Abila of Lysanius, from this, or some other governor of it, of that name; and the phrase, "from Abilene to Jerusalem", is to be met with in the Talmud (x), which doubtless designs this same place: who this Lysanias was, is not certain; he was not the son of Herod the great, as Eusebius suggests (y), nor that Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy Minnaeus, whom Josephus (z) speaks of, though very probably he might be a descendant of his: however, when Tiberius Caesar reigned at Rome, and Pontius Pilate governed in Judea, and Herod Antipas in Galilee, and Philip his brother in Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias in Abilene, John the Baptist began to preach and baptize; to fix the area of whose ministry and baptism, all this is said. (g) Suetou. Octav. Aug. c. 62, 63. & Tiberius Nero, c. 21, 49, 73. (h) R. David Ganz par. 2. fol. 15. 1. (i) Joseph. de Bello, Jud. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 2, 3. (k) Par. 1. fol. 25. 2. (l) De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 6. sect. 5. (m) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 23. (n) Ib. ut supra. (de Bello, Jud. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 2, 3.) (o) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 12. (p) Lib. 5. c. 15. (q) Targum Jon. in Deut. iii. 4. 14. 1 Kings iv. 13. & T. Hiefos. in Deut. iii. 14. & Numb. xxxiv. 15. (r) De Excid. l. 1. c. 46. & 3. 26. (s) Joseph de Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 28. (t) Ib. Antiqu. l. 18. c. 6. (u) Lib. 5. c. 18. (w) Lib. 5. c. 15. (x) T. Bab. Bava Kama, fol. 59. 2. (y) Hist. Eccl l. 1. c. 9. 10. (z) De Belle Jud. l. 1. c. 13. sect. 1.

Which was the son of Saruch,.... The Septuagint call him Serouch, the same with Serug, Gen 11:22 which was the son of Ragau; so the Septuagint, the same with Reu, Gen 40:20 which was the son of Phaleg; the same with Peleg, Gen 11:18 the Septuagint reads as here: "which was the son of Heber", or Eber, Gen 11:16 which was the son of Sala, or Salah, Gen 11:14 the Septuagint there call him Sala.

Having related our Lord's baptism, he next enters upon the generation of the Lord, not bringing it down from the higher to the lower, but beginning with Christ, he carries it up to God Himself. Hence he says, And Jesus Himself began. For when He was baptized, and had Himself undergone the mystery of the second birth, then He is said to have begun, that thou also mightest destroy this first birth and be born in the second. The Lord descending into the world took upon Him the person of all sinners, and was willing to be born of the stock of Solomon, (as Matthew relates,) whose sins have been written down, and of the rest, many of whom did evil in the sight of God. But when He ascended, and is described as being born a second time in baptism, (as Luke relates,) He is not born through Salomon, but Nathan, who reproves the father for the death of Uriah, and the birth of Solomon.

Matthew, who makes him descend from the heavenly regions, mentions women—not any women at all, but sinners, and those whom Scripture had reproved. But Luke, who tells of Jesus at his baptism, mentions no woman. Matthew, as we said, names Tamar, who by deception lay with her father-in-law. Ruth was not from the race of Israel. I cannot discover where Rahab was taken from. The wife of Uriah violated her husband's bed. For our Lord and Savior had come for this end, to take upon himself humankind's sins. God "made him who had committed no sin to be sin for our sake." For this reason, he came down into the world and took on the person of sinners and depraved people. He willed to be born from the stock of Solomon, whose sins have been recorded, and from Rehoboam, whose transgressions are reported,and from the rest of them, many of whom "did evil in the sight of the Lord."

(Carm. 18.) But some say that there is one succession from David to Joseph, which each Evangelist relates under different names. But this is absurd, since at the beginning of this genealogy, two brothers come in Nathan and Salomon, from whom the lines are carried in different ways. (ubi sup.) From David upwards according to each Evangelist there is an unbroken line of descent; as it follows, Who was the son of Jesse.

Luke rightly thought, seeing that he could not embrace more of the sons of Jacob, lest he should seem to be wandering from the line of descent in a superfluous course, that the ancient names of the Patriarchs though occurring in others far later, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and Levi, should not be omitted. For we recognise in these four kinds of virtue; in Judah, the mystery of our Lord's Passion prophesied by figure; in Joseph, an example of chastity going before; in Simeon, the punishment of injured modesty; in Levi, the priestly office. Hence it follows, Who was the son of Melchi, i. e. "my King." Who was the son of Janna, i. e. "a right hand." Who was the son ofJoseph, i. e. "growing up;" but this was a different Joseph. Who was the son of Mattathias, i. e. "the gift of God," or "sometimes." Who was the son of Amos, i. e. "loading, or he loaded." Who was the son of Naum, i. e. "help me." Who was the son of Matthat, i. e. "desire." Who was the son of Mattathias, as above. Who was the son of Simei, i. e. "obedient." Who was the son ofJoseph, i. e. "increase." Who was the son of Judah, i. e. "confessing." Joanna, "the Lord, his grace," or "the gracious Lord." Resa, "merciful." Zorobabel, "chief or master of Babylon." Salathiel, "God my petition." Neri, "my lanthern." Melchi, "my kingdom." Addi, "strong or violent." Cosam, "divining." Her, "watching, or watch, or of skins." Who was the son of Jesus, i. e. "Saviour." Eliezer, i. e. "God my helper." Joarim, i. e. "God exalting, or, is exalting." Matthat, as above. Levi, as above. Simeon, i. e. "He has heard the sadness, or the sign." Juda, as above. Joseph, as above. Jonah, a dove, or wailing. Eliachim, i. e. "the resurrection of God." Melchi, i. e. "his king." Menan, i. e. "my bowels." Mattathias, i. e. "gift." Nathan, i. e. "He gave, or, of giving." But by Nathan we perceive expressed the dignity of Prophecy, that as Christ Jesus alone fulfilled all things, in each of His ancestors different kinds of virtue might precede Him. It follows, Who was the son of David. The mention of just Noah ought not to be omitted among our Lord's generations, that as our Lord was born the builder of His Church, He might seem to have sent Noah beforehand, the author of His race, who had before founded the Church under the type of an ark. Who was the son of Lamech. His years are numbered beyond the deluge, that since Christ is the only one whose life experiences no age, in His ancestors also He might seem to have felt not the deluge. Who was the son of Enoch. And here is a manifest declaration of our Lord's piety and divinity, since our Lord neither experienced death, and returned to heaven, the founder of whose race was taken up into heaven. Whence it is plain that Christ could not die, but was willing that His death should profit us. And Enoch indeed was taken, that his heart might not change by wickedness, but the Lord, whom the wickedness of the world could not change, returned to that place whence He had come by the greatness of His own nature. Nor do the Evangelists seem so to differ who have followed the old order, nor can you wonder if from Abraham down to Christ there are more successions according to Luke, fewer according to Matthew, since you must admit the line to have been traced through different persons. But it might be that some men have passed a very long life, but the men of the next generation have died at an early age, since we see how many old men live to see their grandchildren, while others depart as soon as they have sons born to them.

You see that the description of descent is connected by the old custom from the fathers to the sons and from the sons to the fathers. You see that the family is everywhere listed through the generations of the husband. Do not marvel if Matthew reports the order of the generations from Abraham to Joseph, and Luke from Joseph to Adam and to God. Do not marvel that Joseph's lineage is described. Indeed, being born according to the flesh, he must follow the usage of the flesh, and he who came into the world must be described in the custom of the world, particularly as the lineage of Mary is also in the lineage of Joseph. For since Joseph was a righteous man, he took a wife from his own tribe and his own country, nor could a righteous man contravene what is prescribed in the law. "The inheritance of the people of Israel shall not be transferred from one tribe to another. For every one of the people of Israel shall cleave to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. Every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the people of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that every one of the people of Israel may possess the inheritance of his fathers." Therefore, also at the time of the enrollment, Joseph went up from his house and the country of David to be enrolled with Mary his wife. She who enrolls from the same house and the same country surely signifies that she is of this same tribe and this same country.

Here too some … raise issues: that Matthew counted forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ, but Luke fifty, and that Matthew reported that the generation descended through some persons, and Luke mentioned others. In this matter, you can test what we said. Although Matthew wove some forefathers of the divine lineage, but Luke others, into the order of generation, nevertheless each indicated that the remaining ancestors were from the race of Abraham and David. Matthew thought the generation should be derived through Solomon, but Luke through Nathan. This fact seems to show both a royal and a priestly family of Christ. We should not consider one account truer than the other, but that the one agrees with the other in equal faith and truth. According to the flesh, Jesus was truly of a royal and priestly family, King from kings, Priest from priests. Although the prophecy pertains not to the carnal but the celestial, since a King exults in the power of God, to whom judgment is committed by the King, his Father, and a Priest is forever. Accordingly it is written, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Then, each fittingly kept faith, so that Matthew established his origin led through kings, and Luke, by deriving the lineage of his race transmitted through priests from God to Christ, declared his very descent the more holy. At the same time, the image of a calf is indicated, in so much as he thinks the priestly mystery must be preserved.

He could not include more sons of Jacob, lest he seem to digress outside the generations in an irrelevant series. Of course, in the case of other, that is, distant, descendants of the patriarchs, Luke did not think the names should be omitted, but that those of Joseph, Judah, Simeon and Levi should be preferred beyond the rest. We know that there were four kinds of virtues in those from whom they were descended. In Judah, the mystery of the Lord's passion was prefigured. In Joseph, an example of chastity went before. In Simeon, the payment for violated virginity was represented. In Levi, the office of a priest was symbolized. We observe the dignity of prophecy manifested also through Nathan so that because Christ Jesus is one and all, diverse kinds of virtues went before also in individual forefathers.

Yet it seems needful to explain why St. Matthew began to enumerate the descent of Christ from Abraham but St. Luke led it from Christ up to God. But first I think we should not set aside by any means the question why St. Matthew, when he began the order of descent from Abraham, did not say, "The Book of the Generation of Abraham," but "The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham." Why he named these two in particular.…The Evangelist selected those two authors of the race, the one who received the promise concerning the congregation of the nations, the other who obtained the prophecy of the generation of Christ. Although he is later in the order of the succession, yet he is described before Abraham in the generation of the Lord, because it is more to have received the promise concerning Christ than that concerning the church, since the church itself is through Christ. Then there is one prince of the race according to the flesh, and another according to the spirit. The one is a prince by grace of children, the other through the faith of the peoples. For greater is he who saves than he who is saved. Hence he is called "the Son of David," "the Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David."

(Hom. 31, in Ep. ad Rom.) But because this part of the Gospel consists of a series of names, men think there is nothing valuable to be derived therefrom. Lest then we should feel this, let us try to examine every step. For from the mere name we may extract an abundant treasure, for names are indicative of many things. For they savour of the Divine mercy and the offerings of thanks by women, who when they obtained sons gave a name significant of the gift. (Hom. in Matt 1.) Matthew, who wrote as for the Jews, had no further object than to show that Christ proceeded from Abraham and David, for this was most grateful to the Jews. Luke however, as speaking to all men in common, carried his account beyond as far even as Adam. Hence it follows, Who was the son of Thara.

(ubi sup. c. 4.) Matthew indeed wished to set forth God descending to our mortality; accordingly at the beginning of the Gospel he recounted the generations from Abraham to the birth of Christ in a descending scale. But Luke, not at the beginning, but after the baptism of Christ, relates the generation not descending but ascending, as if marking out rather the high priest in the expiation of sins, of whom John bore testimony, saying, Behold, who taketh away the sins of the world. But by ascending he comes to God, to whom we are reconciled, being cleansed and expiated. (Quæst. Ev. lib. ii. qu. 6.) But most fitly with regard to our baptized Lord does Luke reckon the generations through seventy-seven persons. For both the ascent to God is expressed, to whom we are reconciled by the abolition of sins, and by baptism is brought to man the remission of all his sins, which are signified by that number. For eleven times seven are seventy-seven. But by the tenth number is meant perfect happiness. Hence it is plain that the going beyond the tenth marks the sin of one through pride coveting to have more. But this is said to be seven times to signify that the transgression was caused by the moving of man. For by the third number the immortal part of man is represented, but by the fourth the body. But motion is not expressed in numbers, as when we say, one, two, three; but when we say, once, twice, thrice. And so by seven times eleven, is signified a transgression wrought by man's action.

What do you say about the sacred words of Luke When he the genealogy repeats, The fleshly line retracing through old sires? Up generations seventy-two Christ mounts—so many teachers into the world He sent—and by the steps down to his birth Goes back to Adam, head of earthly flesh. The Father then receives his Son and us, And Adam son of God becomes through Christ. Nothing now remains but that you deem this race Unreal, Levi, Judah, Simeon, King David, other mighty kings, unreal, The virgin’s swelling womb itself grown big With lying vapor, flimsy clouds and mist. That airy blood dissolves, the bones grow soft And melt, the trembling muscles disappear. That every deed the idle wind dispels, The breezes scatter, all an empty tale.

Who was (he says) Mathan, who was David, who was Jesse. This number which Luke follows certainly indicates the abolition of sins, about which you will see in its place. Do not be surprised if Luke lists more successions from David to Christ, and Matthew fewer: that is, the former forty-three, the latter twenty-eight, admitting that the generation runs through different persons. For it can happen that some lived a long life, while men of another generation died prematurely, since we see many old men living with their grandchildren, but other men die as soon as they have begotten sons.

For this reason he closes the generations in God, that we may learn that those fathers who intervene, Christ will raise up to God, and make them sons of God, and that it might be believed also that the birth of Christ was without seed; as if he said, If thou believest not that the second Adam was made without seed, you must come to the first Adam, and you will find that he was made by God without seed.

The Lord was baptized, being thirty years old, because this age is the most perfect, and in it a man appears honorable or unworthy. Luke presents the genealogy of the Lord in reverse order, compared to the evangelist Matthew (Mt.1, 1–16), to show that the One born now according to the flesh is from God – for look, how the genealogy ascends to God – and also so that we might know that He became incarnate in order to raise all the intervening fathers to God and make them sons. I can say it differently: the birth of the Lord, as being without seed, encountered unbelief. Therefore the evangelist, wishing to show that at another time also man was without seed, ascends from the lower to Adam and God. He speaks as if: if you do not believe how the second Adam was born without seed, then I ask, turn your mind to the first Adam, and you will find that he was created by God without seed, and after this do not be unbelieving. Some ask: how does Matthew call Joseph the son of Jacob, and Luke – of Heli? For it is impossible, they say, for one and the same to be the son of two fathers. To this they answer that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers, but from different fathers, that after the death of Heli, Jacob took his wife in order to raise up children from her, and that therefore Joseph is called son of Jacob by nature, and of Heli by the Law. For Jacob truly begat him by nature, and he was his own son, but he was the son of Heli only by the Law. For the Law commanded that the wife of him who died childless should be united with his brother and that the child born of this union should be considered the child of the deceased (Deut. 25, 5–6), although by nature it was from the living. Therefore the evangelists speak truly and do not contradict each other. Matthew recorded the natural father of Joseph, and Luke the one reckoned to him as father according to the Law, that is Heli; and both show that the Lord was born in order to sanctify nature and the Law.

(ubi sup.) David is interpreted, "with a mighty arm, strong in fight." Obith, i. e. "slavery." Booz, i. e. "strong." Salmon, i. e. "capable of feeling, or peace-making." Naasson, i. e. "augury, or belonging to serpents." Aminadab, "the people being willing." Aram, i. e. "upright, or lofty." Esrom, i. e. "an arrow." Phares, i. e. "division." Judah, i. e. "confessing." Who was the son of Jacob, i. e. "supplanted." Isaac, i. e. "laughing or joy." Abraham, i. e. "the father of many nations, or the people."

The time in which John the Baptist began to preach, Luk 3:1-3. The prophecies which were fulfilled in him, Luk 3:4-6. The matter and success of his preaching, Luk 3:7-9; among the people, Luk 3:10, Luk 3:11; among the publicans, Luk 3:12, Luk 3:13; among the soldiers, Luk 3:14. His testimony concerning Christ, Luk 3:15-18. The reason why Herod put him afterwards in prison, Luk 3:19, Luk 3:20. He baptizes Christ, on whom the Spirit of God descends, Luk 3:21, Luk 3:22. Our Lord's genealogy, vv. 23-38.

PREACHING, BAPTISM, AND IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN. (Luke 3:1-20) Here the curtain of the New Testament is, as it were, drawn up, and the greatest of all epochs of the Church commences. Even our Lord's own age (Luk 3:23) is determined by it [BENGEL]. No such elaborate chronological precision is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and it comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that he had "accurately traced down all things from the first" (Luk 1:3). Here, evidently, commences his proper narrative. Also see on Mat 3:1. the fifteenth year of Tiberius--reckoning from the period when he was admitted, three years before Augustus' death, to a share of the empire [WEBSTER and WILKINSON], about the end of the year of Rome 779, or about four years before the usual reckoning. Pilate . . . governor of Judea--His proper title was Procurator, but with more than the usual powers of that office. After holding it about ten years he was ordered to Rome, to answer to charges brought against him, but ere he arrived Tiberius died (A.D. 35), and soon after Pilate committed suicide. Herod--(See on Mar 6:14). Philip--a different and very superior Philip to the one whose wife Herodias went to live with Herod Antipas. (See Mar 6:17). Iturea--to the northeast of Palestine; so called from Ishmael's son Itur or Jetur (Ch1 1:31), and anciently belonging to the half tribe of Manasseh. Trachonitis--farther to the northeast, between Iturea and Damascus; a rocky district, infested by robbers, and committed by Augustus to Herod the Great to keep in order. Abilene--still more to the northeast, so called from Abila, eighteen miles from Damascus [ROBINSON].