Luke 3:23 Kommentar

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 Matthat, which was the son of Levi,.... These two, Grotius says, are omitted in the ancient exemplars; and he thinks they ought to be left out; and for which he mentions the authorities of Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, Nazianzen, Jerom, and Augustin: but not only the Vulgate Latin, but all the Oriental versions, retain them: which was the son of Melchi: and who, he thinks, was the immediate father of Eli: which was the son of Janna: frequent mention is made, in the Jewish writings (e) of , "king Jannai", who is said to be the same with king Jochanan, or John, the son of Simeon, the son of Mattithiah, that was called Hyrcanus; and his son Alexander, that reigned after him, was also called Jannai (f); but whether either of these is the same with this Janna, is not certain: but this may be observed, that they were both before the times of Herod, and the birth of Jesus, some years. And Jannai is called; in the chronicle of Jedidiah of Alexandria, or Philo the Jew (g), Hyrcanus the second, who reigned sixteen years: which was the son of Joseph. This Joseph, according to the same chronicle, is called Joseph the second, and surnamed Arsis, and was greatly honoured by Ptolemy, and governed sixty years; and accordingly we shall meet with another Joseph anon. (e) T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 11. 2. & passim. (f) Juchasin. fol. 15. 1. & 16. 2. (g) Apud. Vorst. Not. ad. Chronol. R. David Ganz, p. 311.

Such are the thirty Aeons in the erroneous system of these men; and they are described as being wrapped up, so to speak, in silence, and known to none [except these professing teachers]. Moreover, they declare that this invisible and spiritual Pleroma of theirs is tripartite, being divided into an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad. And for this reason they affirm it was that the "Saviour"-for they do not please to call Him "Lord"-did no work in public during the space of thirty years, thus setting forth the mystery of these Aeons.

They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age.

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.

But also if you who hear these words direct your thoughts to the holy Scriptures in your leisure, you will discover many great events to be comprised under the number thirty or fifty. Joseph was thirty years old when he was led out of prison and received the rule of all Egypt that he might divert the calamity of an imminent famine by divine provision. Jesus is reported to have been thirty years old when he came to baptism.

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."

But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Mel chi, whose son was Heli the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Hell, the son of Mel chi.

Let us then more carefully explain the meaning of the words themselves. For if when Matthew affirmed Joseph to be the son of Jacob, Luke had in like manner affirmed that Joseph was the son of Eli, there would be some dispute. But seeing the case is that Matthew gives his opinion, Luke repeats the common opinion of many, not his own, saying, as was supposed, I do not think that there is any room for doubt. For since there were among the Jews different opinions of the genealogy of Christ, and yet all traced Him up to David because to him the promises were made, while many affirmed that Christ would come through Solomon and the other kings, some shunned this opinion because of the many crimes related of their kings, and because Jeremiah said of Jechonias that "a man should not rise of his seed to sit on the throne of David." (Jer. 22:30.) This last view Luke takes, though conscious that Matthew gives the real truth of the genealogy. This is the first reason. The next is a deeper one. For Matthew when he began to write of the things before the conception of Mary and the birth of Jesus in the flesh, very fitly as in a history commences with the ancestry in the flesh, and descending from thence deduces His generation from those who went before. For when the Word of God became flesh, He descended. But Luke hastens forward to the regeneration which takes place in baptism, and then gives another succession of families, and rising up from the lowest to the highest, keeps out of sight those sinners of whom Matthew makes mention, (because that he who is born again in God is separated from his guilty parents, being made the son of God,) and relates those who have led a virtuous life in the sight of God. For thus it was said to Abraham, Thou shalt set out to thy fathers, (Gen. 15:15.) not fathers in the flesh, but in God, on account of their likeness in virtue. To him therefore fore who is born in God he ascribes parents who are according to God on account of this resemblance in character.

(Orat. 39.) We must therefore consider who He was who was baptized, and by whom and when: seeing He was pure, baptized by John, and at a time when His miracles had begun, that we might thence derive the lesson of purifying ourselves beforehand, and of embracing humility, and of not beginning to preach until the maturity of our spiritual and natural life. The first of these was said for their sakes who are receiving baptism; for although the gift of baptism brings remission, yet we must fear lest we return again to our vomit. The second is pointed at those who exalt themselves against the stewards of the mysteries, whom they may excel in rank. The third was uttered for those who trust in their youth, and imagine that any age is fit for promotion and teaching. Jesus is cleansed, and dost thou despise purification? By John, and dost thou say ought against thy teacher. At thirty years old, but dost thou in teaching precede thy elders? But the example of Daniel and the like are ready in thy mouth, for every guilty person is ready with an answer. But that is not the law of the Church which seldom happens, as neither does a single swallow make the spring. (Orat. 40.) Still must a child be baptized if necessity demands it. For it is better to be insensibly sanctified, than to pass from this life unsealed. But you will say, Christ is baptized at thirty years old, and He was God, but thou biddest us to hasten our baptism. In that thou saidst God, the objection was done away: He needed no cleansing, nor was any danger hanging over Him while He put off His baptism. But with thee it extends to no slight calamity, if thou passest from this life born in corruption, but not if thou hast put on the robe of incorruption. And truly it is a blessed thing to keep unsullied the clean robe of baptism, but it is better at times to be slightly stained, than to be altogether devoid of grace.

Rightly as was supposed, since in reality He was not, but was supposed to be so, because Mary who was espoused to Joseph was His mother. But we might doubt why the descent of Joseph is described rather than that of Mary, (seeing that Mary brought forth Christ of the Holy Spirit, while Joseph seemed to be out of the line of our Lord's descent,) were we not informed of the custom of the Holy Scripture, which always seeks the origin of the husband, and especially in this case, since in Joseph's descent we also find that of Mary. For Joseph being a just man took a wife really from his own tribe and country, and so at the time of the taxing Joseph went up from the family and country of David to be taxed with Mary his wife. She who gives in the returns from the same family and country, shows herself to be of that family and country. Hence He goes on in the descent of Joseph, and adds, Who was the son of Eli. But let us consider the fact, that St. Matthew makes Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, to be son of Nathan, but Luke says that Joseph (to whom Mary was espoused) was the son of Eli. How then could there be two fathers, (namely, Eli and Jacob,) to one man. For it is related that Matthas, who was descended from Salomon, begat Jacob as his son, and died leaving his wife living, whom Melchi took unto him as wife, and from her Eli was born. Again, Eli, when his brother Jacob died without children, was joined to his brother's wife, and begot a son Joseph, who according to law is called the son of Jacob, since Eli raised up seed to his deceased brother, according to the order of the ancient law. (Deut. 25:5.)

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.

It benefits no one to change what is written: "Who was thought to be the son of Joseph." For it was right that he was "thought" so, because he was not the Joseph's son by nature but was thought to be his Son, because he was born of Mary, who was engaged to Joseph, her husband. So you have: "Is not this Joseph the carpenter's son?"

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.

Or, He waited accomplishing the whole law until that age which takes in every sin, that none might say that He abrogated the law because He was not able to fulfil it.

(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.

(Quæst. Ev. ii. qu. 5.) Or there occur three reasons, by one of which the Evangelist was led. For either one Evangelist has mentioned the father by whom Joseph was begotten, but the other his maternal grandfather, or some one of his ancestors. Or one of the fathers mentioned was the natural father of Joseph, the other his father who had adopted him. Or after the manner of the Jews, when a man has died without children, the next of kin taking his wife ascribes to his dead kinsman the son whom he has himself begotten. (de Con. Ev. lib. ii. c. 3.) It is most probable that Luke took the origin by adoption, as not being willing to say that Joseph, was begotten by him whose son he related him to be. For more easily is a man said to be his son by whom he was adopted, than to be begotten by him from whose flesh he was not born. But Matthew saying, "Abraham begat lsaac, and Isaac begat Jacob," and continuing in the word "begat," until at last he says, but "Jacob begat Joseph," has sufficiently expressed that he has carried through the succession of the fathers, to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten. Although even supposing that Luke should say that Joseph was begotten by Eli, neither ought that word to perplex us. For it is not absurd to say that a man has begotten not in the flesh but in love the Son whom he has adopted. But rightly has Luke taken the origin by adoption, for by adoption are we made the sons of God, by believing on the Son of God, but by His birth in the flesh, the Son of God has rather for our sakes become the Son of man. (de Con. Ev. lib. ii. c. 3.) He sufficiently declared by this that he called not Joseph the son of Eli because he was begotten by him, but rather because he was adopted by him, for he has called also Adam himself son, since though made by God, yet by grace (which he forfeited by sin) he was placed as a son in paradise.

(Glaph. in Exod. lib. 1.) Although in truth Christ had no father according to the flesh, yet some fancied he had a father. Hence it follows, As was supposed the son of Joseph.

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.

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. Jesus is baptized at thirty years of age, and then finally begins to perform signs and teach, thereby showing the legitimate and mature time of age, to those who think any age, whether for a priest or for teaching, is appropriate. Who also, as was read above, at the age of twelve, sitting in the midst of the teachers in the temple, not teaching but asking questions, wanted to be found. For so that men would not dare to preach in an immature age, he at twelve years old asks people on earth, who by his divinity always teaches angels in heaven. Nor should anyone be moved against these things, that Jeremiah and Daniel received the spirit of prophecy as boys, because miracles are not to be drawn as examples of operation. For Almighty God makes even the tongues of infants eloquent, and out of the mouth of infants and sucklings perfected praise. But what we say with the practice of teaching is one thing, what we know from a miracle is another. However, the forty-year-old age of the baptized Savior can also intimate the mystery of our baptism, for the faith, namely of the Holy Trinity and the operation of the legal Decalogue. For the Decalogue indeed, with the grace of faith revealed, the more sublimely it is understood, the more devoutly it is fulfilled. For as some kind of sacred triennial time, he taught those to be baptized who said: Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. XXVIII). As if he ordered this same triennium to be multiplied by ten when he added: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Ibid.). In whose figure also the brazen sea, in which the priests about to enter the temple washed, is said to have been encompassed outwardly by a thirty cubit cord, and inwardly to hold three thousand baths. Because (with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.) This sense is supported by the apostles baptizing three thousand souls first after receiving the grace of the Holy Spirit. And because the mention of the brazen sea has arisen, it is pleasing to also inquire how the rules of baptism agree in other respects. From lip to lip (it says) ten cubits (3 Kings VII), because it is fitting for us not to be constrained by earthly anxiety, but to be expanded by the expectation of the heavenly denarius. Its lip is as the lip of a cup or an unfolded lily leaf: with one of which the cup of the Lord's passion is expressed, with the other the brightness of his resurrection is revealed. For that the Apostle says: Whoever is baptized into Christ Jesus is baptized into his death (Rom. VI), pertains to the lip of the cup. But that he adds: That as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Ibid.), looks to the flower of the unfolded lily. Its thickness is of three fingers, so that the strength of all baptized is solidified by the perfection of faith, hope, and charity. It had a height of five cubits, because whatever is sinned by sight, hearing, taste, smell, or touch, is all washed away by the water of regeneration. The oxen that bear it look in threes to each quarter of the sky so that the whole world is baptized in the faith of the Holy Trinity. It stood on the right side of the priest's court facing east towards the south, because with the grace of the New Testament standing, it was given by him who visited us the day spring from on high (Luke I). But also in countless places of Holy Scripture, the number thirty is found fitting for the sacraments of Christ and the Church. For even Joseph, who in the figure of resurrection and of the New Testament defended the Egyptians from famine for eighty years, took up the government of the kingdom purified of the filth of the dungeon at thirty years, and David at the same age began the kingdom, which he completed as a seventy-year-old, that is, worthy of perpetual rest, and Ezekiel received the gifts of prophecy with the heavens opened at thirty years. And because by faith both adversities should be patiently borne, and rewards should be highly hoped for, both the height of the ark or the temple and the length of the tabernacle are measured by thirty cubits.

As was supposed (he says) the son of Joseph. He placed this phrase on account of those who thought he was born from Joseph like other men are born. Hence, if it troubles anyone that since Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit, and Joseph is called his father not truly, but supposedly, why not rather is Mary’s lineage described than Joseph’s, who seemed to have no relation to him, let them first know that it is not customary in the Scriptures to set forth the order of women in genealogies. Next, Joseph and Mary were from one tribe, whence the law compelled him to take her as a relative. And that they are registered together in Bethlehem indicates they are born from one stock, and thus through Joseph’s genealogy, the origin of Mary is also shown. Certainly, Luke beautifully begins the genealogy of Christ by introducing the Father speaking: You are my beloved Son (Mark 1), so that by divine testimony he confirms the same as the true Son of God, whom by the order of human succession he proves to be the true son of man.

Who was Heli, who was Mathat, who was Levi, who was Melchi, etc. It rightly raises the question of how Joseph could have had two fathers coming from different lines of ancestors, one whom Luke mentions and the other whom Matthew mentions. For Matthew says: "And Mathan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary." But this knotty question, Africanus explained very clearly when writing about the harmony of the Gospels. He said, "Mathan and Mathat, at different times, each fathered children from the same wife named Estha. Because Mathan, who descended from Solomon, had first taken her as his wife, and upon leaving behind a son named Jacob, died. After his death, since the law does not forbid a widow from marrying another man, Mathat, who was descended from Nathan and of the same tribe but not of the same lineage, took the widow of Mathan as his wife, from whom he also fathered a son named Heli. Through this, Jacob and Heli are brothers, though from different fathers. Of these, Jacob, following the law, took the wife of his brother Heli, who died childless, and begot Joseph, who is naturally his son, which is why it is written: 'And Jacob begot Joseph.' But according to the law, Joseph is also considered the son of Heli, since Jacob, as his brother, had taken Heli’s wife to raise up seed for him, as mandated by the law. Thus, both genealogies, Matthew's saying 'And Jacob begot Joseph', and Luke's with the proper observation stating 'He was supposed the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,' are validated and intact. Moreover, Africanus conveyed these same ideas in these very words, except he wrote 'Melchi' instead of 'Matthat,' because either his copy had it so, or in the history where he learned these things, he found the same Matthat had two names. Since Matthew established the royal persona of the Lord, and Luke the priestly persona, where the strongest of the beasts, the lion, signifies the former, and the calf, the offering of priests, signifies the latter, both maintained their purpose in tracing the genealogy of the Savior. Thus, it has been observed that Matthew, who set forth the royal persona in Christ, listed forty men in his genealogical series, excluding Christ Himself. Now this number signifies the time in which we ought to be ruled by Christ in this world and on this earth according to a laborious discipline, by which God chastises (as it is written) every son whom He receives (Heb. XII). For there are not forty-two generations, which make up thrice fourteen, but due to Jeconiah being counted twice, there are forty-one generations, if we also include Christ, who presides over our temporal and earthly life to be rightly governed by the number forty. For since the number is a sacrament of this laborious time, during which we fight under the discipline of Christ the King against the devil, it is also signified by the fact that He consecrated the fast of forty days, which is the humiliation of the soul. Both the law and the prophets through Moses and Elijah, who fasted for forty days, and the Gospel through the fast of the Lord Himself, who was also tempted by the devil for forty days, what else do they prefigure but the temptation of our flesh throughout all the time of this world, which He deigned to assume from our mortality? Therefore, this number signifies this temporal and earthly life because the times of the years run in fourfold seasons, and the world itself is bounded by four parts. Forty, however, contains ten four times. Furthermore, the number ten is completed by progressing from one to four. And because Matthew wished to signify Christ descending to partake in our mortality, he therefore recounted the generations from Abraham to Joseph and up to the nativity of Christ by descending from the beginning of his Gospel. Luke, however, did not recount the generations from the beginning of his Gospel, but from the baptism of Christ, not by descending but ascending, assigning Him more as a priest in expiating sins, where a voice from heaven declared Him, where John himself bore witness, saying: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” By ascending, however, he passes from Abraham and arrives at God, to whom we are reconciled, purified and expiated. Rightly, he also took up the origin of adoption, because we are made sons of God by adoption through believing in the Son of God. But by carnal generation, the Son of God rather made the Son of Man. But he sufficiently demonstrated that he did not call Joseph the son of Heli because he was begotten from him, but because he was adopted by him, since he also called Adam the son of God, even though he was made by God, but by the grace which he later lost by sinning, he was constituted as a son in paradise. Therefore, in the generations of Matthew, the acceptance of our sins by the Lord Christ is signified: in the generations of Luke, the abolition of our sins by the Lord Christ is signified. Therefore, he recounted them descending, and the latter ascending. For what the Apostle says: He sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. VIII), this is the acceptance of sins. But what he adds: In order to condemn sin in the flesh by means of sin, this is the expiation of sins. Hence Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother he sinned. But Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose name the prophet God expiated his sin.

The thrice ten years also which our Saviour had passed when He was baptized might intimate also the mystery of our baptism, because of the faith in the Trinity, and the obedience to the Decalogue. Or else, Jacob, taking the wife of his brother Eli who had died without children according to the command of the law, begot Joseph, by natural parentage his own son, but by the ordinance of the law the son of Eli.

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.

By interpretation then Eli means, “My God,” or “climbing”;Who was the son of Mat that, i.e. “forgiving sins.” Who was as the son of Levi, i.e. “beingadded.”. David is interpreted, “with amighty arm, strong in fight.” Obith, i.e. “slavery.” Booz, i.e. “strong.” Salmon, i.e. “capableof feeling, or peacemaking.” Naas son, i.e. “augury, or belonging to serpents.” Aminadal, “thepeople being willing.” Aram, i.e. “upright, or lofty.” Esro1n, 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.”. Which is interpreted, “finding out,” or“wickedness.” Nachor, i.e. “the light rested.” Sarug, i.e. “correction,” or “holding the reins,”or “perfection.” Ragan, i.e. “sick,” or “feeding.” Phares, i.e. “dividing,” or “divided.” Heber,i.e. “passing over.” Sala, i.e. “taking away.” Canuan, i.e. “lamentation,” or “their possession.”. i.e. “healing the laying waste.” Sem, i.e. “a name,” or being “named.”Who was the son of Noah, i.e. “rest.”. i.e. “humility, or striking, or struck, or humble.” Who was the son of Mathusalem, i.e. “the sending forth of death,” or “he died,”also “he asked.”. Enoch isinterpreted “dedication.” Jared, i.e. descending or “holding together.” Malaleleel, i.e. “thepraised of God,” or “praising God.” Cainan, as above. Enos, i.e. “man,” or “despairing,” or“violent.” Seth, i.e. “placing,” “settling,” “he has placed.” Seth, the last son of Adam, is not omitted, that as there were two generations of people, it might be signified under a figure that Christ was to be reckoned rather in the last than the first. Which is “man,” or “of the earth,” or“needy.” Who was the son of God.

(interlin.) By interpretation then Eli means, "My God," or "climbing," Who was the son of Matthat, i. e. "forgiving sins." Who was the son of Levi, i. e. "being added."

(Severus.) For this reason also He came at thirty years to be baptized, to show that spiritual regeneration makes men perfect as far as regards their spiritual life.

(Aug. Quæst. Nov. ac Vet. Test. 56.) Or in another way; Matthew descends from David through Salomon to Joseph: but Luke beginning from Eli, who was in the line of our Saviour, ascends through the line of Nathan the son of David, and joins the tribes of Eli and Joseph, showing that they are both of the same family, and thereby that the Saviour was not only the Son of Joseph, but also of Eli. For by the same reason by which the Saviour is called the son of Joseph, he is also the son of Eli, and of all the rest who are of the same tribe. Hence that which the Apostle says, Of whom are the fathers, and from whom Christ came according to the flesh. (Rom. 9:5.)

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.

Thirty years of age - This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: see Num 4:3. Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph - This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: τουτου παις νομιζεται he was Supposed to be this man's son. Much learned labor has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, Matthew 1:1-17, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of Sons properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc. But Luke, in ascending from the Savior of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was Supposed the son of Joseph - of Heli - of Matthat, etc. This receives considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original ων (ὡς ενομιζετο υἱος Ιωσηφ) του Ἡλι, being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, etc. That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places - Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Mat 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: Ch1 3:17, and Mat 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter. Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim. Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Mat 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Luk 3:27. Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon's eldest brother, Ch1 3:5, this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan's daughter, and that Neri dying, probably, without male issues the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of David. It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See the notes on Mat 1:1, etc.

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].

GENEALOGY OF JESUS. (Luke 3:23-38) he began to be about thirty--that is, "was about entering on His thirtieth year." So our translators have taken the word (and so CALVIN, BEZA, BLOOMFIELD, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c.): but "was about thirty years of age when He began [His ministry]," makes better Greek, and is probably the true sense [BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN, DE WETTE, MEYER, ALFORD, &c.]. At this age the priests entered on their office (Num 4:3). being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, &c.--Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew's, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary?--a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord's real descent. But it is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes Jacob, while Luke makes "Heli," to be Joseph's father; and though the same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luke 1:2-32, and see on Luk 2:5), still it does seem unlikely--we say not incredible--that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph--here His real, there His reputed line--explain the statement about Joseph, that he was "the son of Hell," to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Rut 1:11-12), and believe that Joseph's name is only introduced instead of Mary's, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord's real descent from David. On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Saviour was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised "Seed of the woman." "The possibility of constructing such a table, comprising a period of thousands of years, in an uninterrupted line from father to son, of a family that dwelt for a long time in the utmost retirement, would be inexplicable, had not the members of this line been endowed with a thread by which they could extricate themselves from the many families into which every tribe and branch was again subdivided, and thus hold fast and know the member that was destined to continue the lineage. This thread was the hope that Messiah would be born of the race of Abraham and David. The ardent desire to behold Him and be partakers of His mercy and glory suffered not the attention to be exhausted through a period embracing thousands of years. Thus the member destined to continue the lineage, whenever doubtful, became easily distinguishable, awakening the hope of a final fulfilment, and keeping it alive until it was consummated" [OLSHAUSEN].