Luke · Chapter 3

V. 1. The fifteenth year of Tiberius-Reckoning from the time when Angustus made him his colleague in the empire.

Herod being tetrarch of Galilee-The dominions of Herod the Great were, after his death, divided into four parts or tetrarchies. This Herod his son was tetrarch of Galilee, reigning over that fourth part of his dominions. His brother reigned over two other fourth parts, the region of Iturea, and that of Trachonitis (that tract of land on the other side Jordan, which had formerly belonged to the tribe of Manasseh.)

And Lysanias (probably descended from a prince of that name, who was some years before governor of that country) was tetrarch of the remaining part of Abilene, which was a large city of Syria, whose territories reached to Lebanon and Damascus, and contained great numbers of Jews. Matthew 3:1; Mark 1:1.

Verse 1. Fifteenth year] This was the fifteenth of his principality and thirteenth of his monarchy: for he was two years joint emperor, previously to the death of Augustus.

Tiberius Cæsar] This emperor succeeded Augustus, in whose reign Christ was born. He began his reign August 19, A.D. 14, reigned twenty-three years, and died March 16, A.D. 37, aged seventy eight years. He was a most infamous character. During the latter part of his reign especially, he did all the mischief he possibly could; and that his tyranny might not end with his life, he chose Caius Caligula for his successor, merely on account of his bad qualities; and of whom he was accustomed to say, This young prince will be a SERPENT to the Roman people, and a PHÆTHON to the rest of mankind.

Herod] This was Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great who murdered the innocents. It was the same Herod who beheaded John Baptist, and to whom our Lord was sent by Pilate. See the account of the Herod family in the notes on Matthew 2:1.

Iturea and Trachonitis] Two provinces of Syria, on the confines of Judea.

Abilene] Another province of Syria, which had its name from Abila, its chief city.

These estates were left to Herod Antipas and his brother Philip by the will of their father, Herod the Great; and were confirmed to them by the decree of Augustus.

That Philip was tetrarch of Trachonitis, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, we are assured by Josephus, who says that Philip the brother of Herod died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, after he had governed Trachonitis, Batanea, and Gaulonitis thirty-seven years. Antiq. b. xviii. c. 5, s. 6. And Herod continued tetrarch of Galilee till he was removed by Caligula, the successor of Tiberius. Antiq. b. xviii. c. 8, s. 2.

That Lysanius was tetrarch of Abilene is also evident from Josephus. He continued in this government till the Emperor Claudius took it from him, A.D. 42, and made a present of it to Agrippa. See Antiq. b. xix. c. 5, s. 1. Tetrarch signifies the ruler of the fourth part of a country. See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 14:1”.

Verses 1, 2. Now in the fifteenth year of Tiberius — Reckoning from the time when Augustus made him his colleague in the empire: Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea — He was made governor in consequence of Archelaus being banished, and his kingdom reduced into a Roman province. See note on Matthew 2:22. And Herod — Namely, Herod Antipas; being tetrarch of Galilee — The dominions of Herod the Great were, after his death, divided into four parts or tetrarchies: this Herod, his son, reigned over that fourth part of his dominions. His brother Philip reigned over another fourth part, namely, the region of Iturea and that of Trachonitis; (that tract of land on the other side Jordan, which had formerly belonged to the tribe of Manasseh;) and Lysanias, (probably descended from a prince of that name, who was some years before governor of that country,) was tetrarch of Abilene, which was a large city of Syria, whose territories reached to Lebanon and Damascus, and contained great numbers of Jews. Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests — “By the original constitution of the Israelitish state, one only could be high-priest at one time, and the office was for life. But after the nation had fallen under the power of foreigners, great liberties were taken with the sacred office; and high-priests, though still of the pontifical family of Aaron, were put in or out arbitrarily, as suited the humour, the interest, or the political views of their rulers. And though it does not appear that they ever appointed two to officiate jointly in that station, there is some probability that the Romans about this time made the office annual, and that Annas and Caiaphas enjoyed it by turns. See John 11:49; 18:13; Acts 4:6. If this was the case, which is not unlikely; or if, as some think, the sagan, or deputy, is comprehended under the same title, we cannot justly be surprised that they should be named as colleagues by the evangelist. In any event it may have been usual, through courtesy, to continue to give the title to those who had ever enjoyed that dignity, which, when they had no king, was the greatest in the nation.” — Campbell. Thus the time of the public appearance of John the Baptist, the harbinger of the Messiah, is distinctly marked by Luke; for he tells us the year of the Roman emperor in which it happened, and mentions, not only the governor or procurator of Judea, and the high-priest who then officiated, but several contemporary princes who reigned in the neighbouring kingdoms. By his care, in this particular, he has fixed exactly the era of the commencement of the gospel. The word of God came unto John — John, the son of Zacharias and forerunner of Jesus, was a priest by descent, and a prophet by office, (Luke 1:76.) He was surnamed the Baptist, from his baptizing his disciples; (see note on Matthew 3:1;) and was foretold anciently under the name of Elijah, because he was to come in the spirit and power of that prophet. From his infancy he dwelt in the wilderness, or hill-country, with his father, till the word of God, by prophetic inspiration, or, as some think, by an audible voice from heaven, such as the prophets of old heard, and which he knew to be God’s by the majesty thereof, came to him — Called him forth to enter upon the work to which he was destined before he was conceived in the womb, namely, to prepare the Jews for the reception of the Messiah.

Verse 1. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar. St. Luke begins this chapter in a scientific manner; he speaks as a man of letters, and gives posterity a chronological record. Pontius Pilate had been governor, or as some call him only procurator of Judea, but one or two years, when the word of the Lord came to John.

Herod the great, tetrarch of Galilee. From this title it would seem that he held four provinces under his government.

Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis; that is, from the sea of Galilee, to the foot of mount Lebanon, comprising Galilee of the gentiles, and the region beyond JorDaniel

Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, a considerable country of Cœlo-Syria, between Lebanon and little Lebanon. Abila, now Bellinas, was its capital. The river Chrysorrhoas flowed through the centre of the country. Coins have been found with the name Abila. The Greeks, from the adjacent white rocks, called it Leucadia. Those four governments comprised the Roman dominions in all Syria.

1. Now—As in his preface, Luke 1:1-3, so here, Luke exhibits the true historical spirit. Christianity is a religion of facts. It stands in its place in history. It is neither theory, nor legend, nor myth. Here are its dates, and during the rule of these princes, and in the localities here designated, the commencing events of our religion transpired in open historic day. The challenge is thus boldly given to learned criticism to invalidate the record. Learned criticism has tried its best, and it has totally and signally failed. Luke’s chronology is triumphant over every assault, and is in every point TRUE.

Reign of Tiberius Cesar—He was the cruel and sensual successor of Augustus in the empire of Rome. Reckoning the fifteen years from the death of Augustus, when Jesus was seventeen years of age, Jesus would be thirty-two years of age. But as in fact he was but about thirty, it is beyond doubt that Luke reckons in this fifteen years the two years in which Tiberius reigned in connection with Augustus. Pontius Pilate—See note on Matthew 27:2. Herod being tetrarch—See note on Matthew 14:1-12. Philip tetrarch—See note on Matthew 14:1. Iturea—The name of the modern province of Jedur, in the Old Testament Jetur, was prolonged in pronunciation by the Greeks, in the day of their predominance, into the euphonius Iturea. Our reader will find it on the map, a tract about thirty miles long and twenty-five broad, lying between the Damascus region on the north, Batanea on the south, the Hermon range of mountains on the west, and the rough Trachonitis on the east. Jetur (1 Chronicles 1:31, and 5:9) was the name of one of the sons of Ishmael, and thence of his Ishmaelitish tribe who settled this locality. Though this tract in the course of centuries was conquered by different occupants, much of the old stock remained. Aristobulus, king of Judea, about B.C. 100, subdued and compelled them to accept the Jewish faith. Herod the Great, in dividing his kingdom, left Iturea as part of a tetrarchy to his son Philip. Trachonitis—Lay on the east of Iturea. Abilene—The tract bordering on the anti-Lebanon ridge, and extending indefinitely eastward, so as to include Abila as its capital, from which the territorial name is derived. Of this Abilene history mentions no Lysanias as ruler, but one who was slain by Mark Antony about sixty years before the point of time here designated by Luke. Hence Strauss, assuming that Luke has this Lysanias in mind, makes a very abortive charge to convict him of chronological mistake. But 1. There is not a word in any history of this point of time to contradict Luke’s statement that a later Lysanias (probably grandson of the historical Lysanias) was tretrach of Abilene; for history leaves the matter perfectly blank; there being no history of that period extant. 2. Josephus, describing the transfer of Abilene to Agrippa, styles it the “Abilene of Lysanias,” which could hardly refer to a Lysanias no later than the Lysanias of seventy years before. 3. Traces of Luke’s Lysanias are found outside of history. A coin has been found, belonging to a period later than Herod’s death, bearing the inscription, “Lysanias, tetrarch and high priest.” A Doric temple in Abila bears the inscription, “Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene.” This must have been Luke’s Lysanias, for the first Lysanias was not tetrarch, that title having been first adopted after Herod’s death. And we may here note an admonitory warning against drawing arguments against the truth of Scripture history from the nonexistence of confirmatory secular history. No Abilenean history was extant, and so, forsooth, no second Lysanias could have existed. Such was the sceptical argument until an accidental medal authenticated the man named.

1 The preaching and baptism of John: 15 his testimony of Christ. 20 Herod imprisoneth John. 21 Christ, baptized, receiveth testimony from heaven. 23 The age and genealogy of Christ from Joseph upward.

CHAPTER 3. Verse 1. The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar. — Reckoning from his being made colleague with Augustus in the empire, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea. After the death of Herod the Great. Archelaus succeeded to Judea; but he was deposed by Augustus, and thenceforth Judea was governed by his procurators. Pilate was the fourth procurator in succession, and held that office about ten years. He was appointed about a year before John the Baptist began his ministry. Herod being tetrarch of Galilee. — See the note on Matthew 2:1. This was Herod Antipas, the same that married Herodias, slew John the Baptist, and to whom our Lord was sent by Pilate to be examined, Luke 23:6,

7. Philip, the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, countries which lay between the land of Israel and Syria, was the brother of Herod, and rightful husband of Herodias, and father of the daughter of Herodias, who danced before Herod, and pleased him so as to draw from him the rash vow which led to the murder of the holy John. Abilene, in Cœlo-Syria, was a part of the domains of Herod the Great, and was, on the death of Herod, given to Lysanias, a descendant of a former proprietor, from whom it had been taken away by Antony.

V. 2. Annas being high priest, and Caiaphas-There could be but one high priest, strictly speaking, at once. Annas was the high priest at that time, and Caiaphas his sagan or deputy.

Verse 2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests] Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas or Ananias, and it is supposed that they exercised the high priest’s office by turns. It is likely that Annas only was considered as high priest; and that Caiaphas was what the Hebrews termed כהנ hnvm cohen mishneh, or כהנים ˆgs sagan cohanim, the high priest’s deputy, or ruler of the temple. See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 2:4”, and see Clarke on “John 18:13”.

The facts which St. Luke mentions here tend much to confirm the truth of the evangelical history. Christianity differs widely from philosophic system; it is founded in the goodness and authority of God; and attested by historic facts. It differs also from popular tradition, which either has had no pure origin, or which is lost in unknown or fabulous antiquity. It differs also from pagan and Mohammedan revelations, which were fabricated in a corner, and had no witnesses. In the above verses we find the persons, the places, and the times marked with the utmost exactness. It was under the first Cæsars that the preaching of the Gospel took place; and in their time, the facts on which the whole of Christianity is founded made their appearance: an age the most enlightened, and best known from the multitude of its historic records. It was in Judea, where every thing that professed to come from God was scrutinized with the most exact and unmerciful criticism. In writing the history of Christianity, the evangelists appeal to certain facts which were publicly transacted in such places, under the government and inspection of such and such persons, and in such particular times. A thousand persons could have confronted the falsehood, had it been one! These appeals are made-a challenge is offered to the Roman government, and to the Jewish rulers and people-a new religion has been introduced in such a place, at such a time-this has been accompanied with such and such facts and miracles! Who can disprove this? All are silent. None appears to offer even an objection. The cause of infidelity and irreligion is at stake! If these facts cannot be disproved, the religion of Christ must triumph. None appears because none could appear. Now let it be observed, that the persons of that time, only, could confute these things had they been false; they never attempted it; therefore these facts are absolute and incontrovertible truths: this conclusion is necessary. Shall a man then give up his faith in such attested facts as these, because, more than a thousand years after, an infidel creeps out, and ventures publicly to sneer at what his iniquitous soul hopes is not true!

The word of God came unto John] That is, the Holy Spirit that revealed to him this doctrine of salvation. This came upon him in the desert, where he was living in such a state of austerity as gave him full right to preach all the rigours of penitence to others. Thus we find that the first preachers, historians, and followers of the doctrines of the Gospel were men eminent for the austerity of their lives, the simplicity of their manners, and the sanctity of their conduct; they were authorized by God, and filled with the most precious gifts of his Spirit. And what are the apostles which the new philosophy sends us? Philosophers full of themselves, not guided by the love of truth or wisdom, but ever seeking their own glory; in constant hostility among themselves, because of their separate pretensions to particular discoveries, of the honour of which they would almost as soon lose life as be deprived. Who are they? Men of a mortified life and unblamable conversation? No-they are poets and poetasters; composers of romances, novels, intrigues, farces, comedies, &c., full of extravagance and impurity. They are pretended moralists that preach up pleasure and sensual gratification, and dissolve, as far as they can, the sacred and civil ties that unite and support society. They are men whose guilt is heightened by their assuming the sacred name of philosophers, and dignifying their impure system with a name at which Philosophy herself blushes and bleeds.

Verses 1, 2. Now in the fifteenth year of Tiberius — Reckoning from the time when Augustus made him his colleague in the empire: Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea — He was made governor in consequence of Archelaus being banished, and his kingdom reduced into a Roman province. See note on Matthew 2:22. And Herod — Namely, Herod Antipas; being tetrarch of Galilee — The dominions of Herod the Great were, after his death, divided into four parts or tetrarchies: this Herod, his son, reigned over that fourth part of his dominions. His brother Philip reigned over another fourth part, namely, the region of Iturea and that of Trachonitis; (that tract of land on the other side Jordan, which had formerly belonged to the tribe of Manasseh;) and Lysanias, (probably descended from a prince of that name, who was some years before governor of that country,) was tetrarch of Abilene, which was a large city of Syria, whose territories reached to Lebanon and Damascus, and contained great numbers of Jews. Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests — “By the original constitution of the Israelitish state, one only could be high-priest at one time, and the office was for life. But after the nation had fallen under the power of foreigners, great liberties were taken with the sacred office; and high-priests, though still of the pontifical family of Aaron, were put in or out arbitrarily, as suited the humour, the interest, or the political views of their rulers. And though it does not appear that they ever appointed two to officiate jointly in that station, there is some probability that the Romans about this time made the office annual, and that Annas and Caiaphas enjoyed it by turns. See John 11:49; 18:13; Acts 4:6. If this was the case, which is not unlikely; or if, as some think, the sagan, or deputy, is comprehended under the same title, we cannot justly be surprised that they should be named as colleagues by the evangelist. In any event it may have been usual, through courtesy, to continue to give the title to those who had ever enjoyed that dignity, which, when they had no king, was the greatest in the nation.” — Campbell. Thus the time of the public appearance of John the Baptist, the harbinger of the Messiah, is distinctly marked by Luke; for he tells us the year of the Roman emperor in which it happened, and mentions, not only the governor or procurator of Judea, and the high-priest who then officiated, but several contemporary princes who reigned in the neighbouring kingdoms. By his care, in this particular, he has fixed exactly the era of the commencement of the gospel. The word of God came unto John — John, the son of Zacharias and forerunner of Jesus, was a priest by descent, and a prophet by office, (Luke 1:76.) He was surnamed the Baptist, from his baptizing his disciples; (see note on Matthew 3:1;) and was foretold anciently under the name of Elijah, because he was to come in the spirit and power of that prophet. From his infancy he dwelt in the wilderness, or hill-country, with his father, till the word of God, by prophetic inspiration, or, as some think, by an audible voice from heaven, such as the prophets of old heard, and which he knew to be God’s by the majesty thereof, came to him — Called him forth to enter upon the work to which he was destined before he was conceived in the womb, namely, to prepare the Jews for the reception of the Messiah.

Ver. 2. Caiaphas being the sagon, or acting highpriest, for Annas was then alive. The word of God came to John, a manifestation of mercy worthy of the exactest record. — The next seven verses are much the same as in Matthew 3.

2. Annas and Caiaphas being high priests—There could, by the Mosaic law, be but one high priest at a time. See our note on Matthew 26:3, in regard to the high priesthood and Caiaphas. In regard to Annas, see our note on John 18:13.

Verse 2. Annas and Caiaphas being high priests. — Annas was made high priest and deposed by the Romans. Three of his sons were put into that office in succession, and then his son-in-law Caiaphas, who continued high priest throughout the administration of Pilate. But Annas had still the honorary title of “high priest,” though deposed, and was a man of great rank and influence among the Jews.

The word of the Lord came unto John. — Having been trained up by communion with God, in the solitudes of the wilderness, the word of the Lord came to him, the command of God was laid upon him, by voice or vision, or some other mode of Divine manifestation, to commence his mission; and with that commenced the doctrine he was to preach, and the testimony he was to bear to the Christ, which were fully revealed to him; together with other particulars which suppose a very distinct and explicit communication.

The account which St. Luke gives of the preaching of John differs not from that in St. Matthew, chap. iii, on which see the notes. In the tenth and following verses this evangelist introduces some new circumstances.

Verse 3. The baptism of repentance] See Clarke on Matthew 3:4-6, and see Clarke on “Mark 1:1”, &c., and Mark 16 at the end. {See Ancillary Writings on Baptism}

Verses 3-6. And he came into all the country about Jordan — He made his first public appearance in the wilderness of Judea, Matthew 3:1; that is, in the uncultivated and thinly-inhabited parts of the hill-country round Hebron, where his father dwelt; Luke 1:39, 40; but after his fame was spread abroad, and many came to him, he left Judea and passed over Jordan, residing chiefly at Bethabara, for the conveniency of baptizing, John 1:28; 10:40. He travelled, however, through all that country; preaching the baptism of repentance — That is, calling sinners of all descriptions to repentance, and admitting the penitent to the baptism of water as an outward or visible sign, or emblem of the free and full remission of all their sins. In other words, he enjoined the penitent to be baptized, as a testimony, on their part, of the sincerity of their repentance, and on the part of John, who administered this ordinance by the commandment of God, as a seal or token that their sins were remitted. As it is written in the book of Esaias, The voice of one crying, &c. — See the notes on Isaiah 40:3-5. The evangelist, by citing this prophecy, as accomplished in the Baptist’s preaching, shows us its true meaning. Isaiah, by expressions taken from the custom of kings, who commonly have the roads through which they pass prepared for them, signified that the Messiah’s forerunner was to prepare his way, by intimating that the institutions of Moses were to be relinquished as the means of salvation, and by exhorting the people to repentance and amendment of life. Matthew tells us, that John enforced his exhortations to repentance from the consideration that the Messiah’s kingdom was at hand; the kingdom of heaven, foretold by Daniel the prophet, the new dispensation of religion, wherein all ceremonial observances were to be abolished, and nothing but repentance, partly flowing from, and partly followed by, faith in the Messiah, and producing sincere obedience, would avail toward the pardon of sin, acceptance with God, and the enjoyment of eternal life. According to Luke, the argument whereby John enforced his exhortations to repentance was, that sinners would thereby obtain the remission of their sins. The two evangelists, therefore, being compared, show, that the great and distinguishing privilege of the new dispensation is, that therein pardon is promised to, and conferred on, penitents who believe in Jesus, and that the kingdom of God, including righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, (Romans 14:17,) is set up in their hearts and governs their lives. Every valley shall be filled, &c. — Of these metaphors, which are plainly taken from the making of roads, the meaning is, that the Messiah’s forerunner, by preaching the doctrine of repentance, and thereby affecting men’s minds with remorse and shame for their past conduct, and producing amendment of life, should be instrumental in effecting such a change in the hearts and lives of the Jews, that many of them should acknowledge, receive, and become subject to the Messiah, when he appeared. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God — After such a preparation of the way as is now described, mankind shall behold, not a splendid temporal monarch, accompanied with a magnificent retinue, but the author of that salvation which God has prepared before the face of all people. Luke 2:30, 31; see notes on Matthew 3:3.

3-9. In regard to John’s baptism, consult notes on Matthew 3:1-12.

V. 4. Isaiah 40:3.

Verse 4. Prepare ye the way] It was customary for the Hindoo kings, when on journeys, to send a certain class of the people two or three days before them, to command the inhabitants to clear the ways. A very necessary precaution where there are no public roads.-WARD.

Verses 3-6. And he came into all the country about Jordan — He made his first public appearance in the wilderness of Judea, Matthew 3:1; that is, in the uncultivated and thinly-inhabited parts of the hill-country round Hebron, where his father dwelt; Luke 1:39, 40; but after his fame was spread abroad, and many came to him, he left Judea and passed over Jordan, residing chiefly at Bethabara, for the conveniency of baptizing, John 1:28; 10:40. He travelled, however, through all that country; preaching the baptism of repentance — That is, calling sinners of all descriptions to repentance, and admitting the penitent to the baptism of water as an outward or visible sign, or emblem of the free and full remission of all their sins. In other words, he enjoined the penitent to be baptized, as a testimony, on their part, of the sincerity of their repentance, and on the part of John, who administered this ordinance by the commandment of God, as a seal or token that their sins were remitted. As it is written in the book of Esaias, The voice of one crying, &c. — See the notes on Isaiah 40:3-5. The evangelist, by citing this prophecy, as accomplished in the Baptist’s preaching, shows us its true meaning. Isaiah, by expressions taken from the custom of kings, who commonly have the roads through which they pass prepared for them, signified that the Messiah’s forerunner was to prepare his way, by intimating that the institutions of Moses were to be relinquished as the means of salvation, and by exhorting the people to repentance and amendment of life. Matthew tells us, that John enforced his exhortations to repentance from the consideration that the Messiah’s kingdom was at hand; the kingdom of heaven, foretold by Daniel the prophet, the new dispensation of religion, wherein all ceremonial observances were to be abolished, and nothing but repentance, partly flowing from, and partly followed by, faith in the Messiah, and producing sincere obedience, would avail toward the pardon of sin, acceptance with God, and the enjoyment of eternal life. According to Luke, the argument whereby John enforced his exhortations to repentance was, that sinners would thereby obtain the remission of their sins. The two evangelists, therefore, being compared, show, that the great and distinguishing privilege of the new dispensation is, that therein pardon is promised to, and conferred on, penitents who believe in Jesus, and that the kingdom of God, including righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, (Romans 14:17,) is set up in their hearts and governs their lives. Every valley shall be filled, &c. — Of these metaphors, which are plainly taken from the making of roads, the meaning is, that the Messiah’s forerunner, by preaching the doctrine of repentance, and thereby affecting men’s minds with remorse and shame for their past conduct, and producing amendment of life, should be instrumental in effecting such a change in the hearts and lives of the Jews, that many of them should acknowledge, receive, and become subject to the Messiah, when he appeared. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God — After such a preparation of the way as is now described, mankind shall behold, not a splendid temporal monarch, accompanied with a magnificent retinue, but the author of that salvation which God has prepared before the face of all people. Luke 2:30, 31; see notes on Matthew 3:3.

3-9. In regard to John’s baptism, consult notes on Matthew 3:1-12.

V. 5. Every valley shall be filled, &c.-That is, every hinderance shall be removed.

Verse 5. Every valley shall be filled] All hinderances shall be taken out of the way: a quotation from the Greek version of Isaiah 40:4, containing an allusion to the preparations made in rough countries to facilitate the march of mighty kings and conquerors. See the instance produced on Matthew 3:3.

Verses 3-6. And he came into all the country about Jordan — He made his first public appearance in the wilderness of Judea, Matthew 3:1; that is, in the uncultivated and thinly-inhabited parts of the hill-country round Hebron, where his father dwelt; Luke 1:39, 40; but after his fame was spread abroad, and many came to him, he left Judea and passed over Jordan, residing chiefly at Bethabara, for the conveniency of baptizing, John 1:28; 10:40. He travelled, however, through all that country; preaching the baptism of repentance — That is, calling sinners of all descriptions to repentance, and admitting the penitent to the baptism of water as an outward or visible sign, or emblem of the free and full remission of all their sins. In other words, he enjoined the penitent to be baptized, as a testimony, on their part, of the sincerity of their repentance, and on the part of John, who administered this ordinance by the commandment of God, as a seal or token that their sins were remitted. As it is written in the book of Esaias, The voice of one crying, &c. — See the notes on Isaiah 40:3-5. The evangelist, by citing this prophecy, as accomplished in the Baptist’s preaching, shows us its true meaning. Isaiah, by expressions taken from the custom of kings, who commonly have the roads through which they pass prepared for them, signified that the Messiah’s forerunner was to prepare his way, by intimating that the institutions of Moses were to be relinquished as the means of salvation, and by exhorting the people to repentance and amendment of life. Matthew tells us, that John enforced his exhortations to repentance from the consideration that the Messiah’s kingdom was at hand; the kingdom of heaven, foretold by Daniel the prophet, the new dispensation of religion, wherein all ceremonial observances were to be abolished, and nothing but repentance, partly flowing from, and partly followed by, faith in the Messiah, and producing sincere obedience, would avail toward the pardon of sin, acceptance with God, and the enjoyment of eternal life. According to Luke, the argument whereby John enforced his exhortations to repentance was, that sinners would thereby obtain the remission of their sins. The two evangelists, therefore, being compared, show, that the great and distinguishing privilege of the new dispensation is, that therein pardon is promised to, and conferred on, penitents who believe in Jesus, and that the kingdom of God, including righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, (Romans 14:17,) is set up in their hearts and governs their lives. Every valley shall be filled, &c. — Of these metaphors, which are plainly taken from the making of roads, the meaning is, that the Messiah’s forerunner, by preaching the doctrine of repentance, and thereby affecting men’s minds with remorse and shame for their past conduct, and producing amendment of life, should be instrumental in effecting such a change in the hearts and lives of the Jews, that many of them should acknowledge, receive, and become subject to the Messiah, when he appeared. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God — After such a preparation of the way as is now described, mankind shall behold, not a splendid temporal monarch, accompanied with a magnificent retinue, but the author of that salvation which God has prepared before the face of all people. Luke 2:30, 31; see notes on Matthew 3:3.

3-9. In regard to John’s baptism, consult notes on Matthew 3:1-12.

V. 6. The salvation of God-The Saviour, the Messiah.

Verses 3-6. And he came into all the country about Jordan — He made his first public appearance in the wilderness of Judea, Matthew 3:1; that is, in the uncultivated and thinly-inhabited parts of the hill-country round Hebron, where his father dwelt; Luke 1:39, 40; but after his fame was spread abroad, and many came to him, he left Judea and passed over Jordan, residing chiefly at Bethabara, for the conveniency of baptizing, John 1:28; 10:40. He travelled, however, through all that country; preaching the baptism of repentance — That is, calling sinners of all descriptions to repentance, and admitting the penitent to the baptism of water as an outward or visible sign, or emblem of the free and full remission of all their sins. In other words, he enjoined the penitent to be baptized, as a testimony, on their part, of the sincerity of their repentance, and on the part of John, who administered this ordinance by the commandment of God, as a seal or token that their sins were remitted. As it is written in the book of Esaias, The voice of one crying, &c. — See the notes on Isaiah 40:3-5. The evangelist, by citing this prophecy, as accomplished in the Baptist’s preaching, shows us its true meaning. Isaiah, by expressions taken from the custom of kings, who commonly have the roads through which they pass prepared for them, signified that the Messiah’s forerunner was to prepare his way, by intimating that the institutions of Moses were to be relinquished as the means of salvation, and by exhorting the people to repentance and amendment of life. Matthew tells us, that John enforced his exhortations to repentance from the consideration that the Messiah’s kingdom was at hand; the kingdom of heaven, foretold by Daniel the prophet, the new dispensation of religion, wherein all ceremonial observances were to be abolished, and nothing but repentance, partly flowing from, and partly followed by, faith in the Messiah, and producing sincere obedience, would avail toward the pardon of sin, acceptance with God, and the enjoyment of eternal life. According to Luke, the argument whereby John enforced his exhortations to repentance was, that sinners would thereby obtain the remission of their sins. The two evangelists, therefore, being compared, show, that the great and distinguishing privilege of the new dispensation is, that therein pardon is promised to, and conferred on, penitents who believe in Jesus, and that the kingdom of God, including righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, (Romans 14:17,) is set up in their hearts and governs their lives. Every valley shall be filled, &c. — Of these metaphors, which are plainly taken from the making of roads, the meaning is, that the Messiah’s forerunner, by preaching the doctrine of repentance, and thereby affecting men’s minds with remorse and shame for their past conduct, and producing amendment of life, should be instrumental in effecting such a change in the hearts and lives of the Jews, that many of them should acknowledge, receive, and become subject to the Messiah, when he appeared. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God — After such a preparation of the way as is now described, mankind shall behold, not a splendid temporal monarch, accompanied with a magnificent retinue, but the author of that salvation which God has prepared before the face of all people. Luke 2:30, 31; see notes on Matthew 3:3.

3-9. In regard to John’s baptism, consult notes on Matthew 3:1-12.

Verses 7. - 9. On this account of the Baptist’s mode of preaching, see Clarke’s notes on Matthew 3:7-11.

Verses 7-9. Then said he to the multitude, O generation of vipers — See note on Matthew 3:7. Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance — The Baptist did not stop at preaching repentance, and rest satisfied with the people’s making a profession thereof, but he insisted on the necessity of their bringing forth fruits suitable to such a profession, or a thorough reformation of their conduct in all respects. See this explained particularly in the notes on Matthew 3:8-10. Begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father — That is, trust not in your being members of the visible church, or in any external privileges whatsoever; for God requires a change of heart, and that now, without delay. For the axe is laid to the root of the trees — That is, the patience of God is very near come to an end, with respect to you, and his judgments are at hand and ready to be inflicted; so that if you continue unfruitful, notwithstanding the extraordinary means now to be tried with you, destruction will speedily overtake you. The drift of all John’s sermons was to root out their prejudices, and give them a sense of this important truth, that acceptance with God does not depend upon flowing garments, broad phylacteries, frequent ablutions, much fasting, and long prayers; but that good works, proceeding from faith and love, are necessary thereto.

7. Baptized of him—Baptism proper, doubtless, was inaugurated by John the Baptist. It was an appropriation and concentration into a single rite of all the lustrations and washings of the Old Testament dispensation. Thereby it became the emblem of the out-poured spirit, of regeneration, and so of induction from the world into the kingdom of God. And thence being the rite of initiation into the Christian Church, it becomes the successor of circumcision.

John’s baptism proclaimed to the Jew that he needed yet to be introduced into the kingdom of God. That baptism by faith was the transition process by which the nation was to pass from the old Church to the new. Rejecting it, Israel would miss his way, and finally find himself outside the kingdom of God.

Generation of vipers—No apology must be made (as by Van Oosterzee) for the denunciatory preaching of John; no more than for the thunder and smoke of Sinai, or for the fire and brimstone of Gehenna. Neither commentator nor preacher should effeminately shrink at the “mention of hell to ears polite.” Doubtless John applied precisely the right epithet, and threatened precisely the true destiny, to these future murderers of the Messiah he crone to announce.

The multitude hero embraced, according to Matthew 3:7, the Pharisees and Sadducees, for whom the rebukes of John, however general, had a special application.

V. 8. Say not within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father-That is, trust not in your being members of the visible Church, or in any external privileges whatsoever: for God now requires a change of heart; and that without delay.

Verses 7. - 9. On this account of the Baptist’s mode of preaching, see Clarke’s notes on Matthew 3:7-11.

Verses 7-9. Then said he to the multitude, O generation of vipers — See note on Matthew 3:7. Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance — The Baptist did not stop at preaching repentance, and rest satisfied with the people’s making a profession thereof, but he insisted on the necessity of their bringing forth fruits suitable to such a profession, or a thorough reformation of their conduct in all respects. See this explained particularly in the notes on Matthew 3:8-10. Begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father — That is, trust not in your being members of the visible church, or in any external privileges whatsoever; for God requires a change of heart, and that now, without delay. For the axe is laid to the root of the trees — That is, the patience of God is very near come to an end, with respect to you, and his judgments are at hand and ready to be inflicted; so that if you continue unfruitful, notwithstanding the extraordinary means now to be tried with you, destruction will speedily overtake you. The drift of all John’s sermons was to root out their prejudices, and give them a sense of this important truth, that acceptance with God does not depend upon flowing garments, broad phylacteries, frequent ablutions, much fasting, and long prayers; but that good works, proceeding from faith and love, are necessary thereto.

3-9. In regard to John’s baptism, consult notes on Matthew 3:1-12.

Verses 7. - 9. On this account of the Baptist’s mode of preaching, see Clarke’s notes on Matthew 3:7-11.

Verses 7-9. Then said he to the multitude, O generation of vipers — See note on Matthew 3:7. Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance — The Baptist did not stop at preaching repentance, and rest satisfied with the people’s making a profession thereof, but he insisted on the necessity of their bringing forth fruits suitable to such a profession, or a thorough reformation of their conduct in all respects. See this explained particularly in the notes on Matthew 3:8-10. Begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father — That is, trust not in your being members of the visible church, or in any external privileges whatsoever; for God requires a change of heart, and that now, without delay. For the axe is laid to the root of the trees — That is, the patience of God is very near come to an end, with respect to you, and his judgments are at hand and ready to be inflicted; so that if you continue unfruitful, notwithstanding the extraordinary means now to be tried with you, destruction will speedily overtake you. The drift of all John’s sermons was to root out their prejudices, and give them a sense of this important truth, that acceptance with God does not depend upon flowing garments, broad phylacteries, frequent ablutions, much fasting, and long prayers; but that good works, proceeding from faith and love, are necessary thereto.

3-9. In regard to John’s baptism, consult notes on Matthew 3:1-12.

V. 10. He answereth-It is not properly John, but the Holy Ghost, who teaches us in the following answers, how to come ourselves, and how to instruct other penitent sinners to come to Christ, that he may give them rest. The sum of all this is, Cease to do evil, learn to do well. These are the fruits worthy of repentance.

Verse 10. What shall we do then?] The preaching of the Baptist had been accompanied with an uncommon effusion of that Spirit which convinces of sin, righteousness, and judgment. The people who heard him now earnestly begin to inquire what they must do to be saved? They are conscious that they are exposed to the judgments of the Lord, and they wish to escape from the coming wrath.

Verses 10-14. And the people asked him, What shall we do then? — To avoid the judgments of God. He answereth, He that hath two coats, &c. — Be careful, not only to observe the ceremonies of religion, but to attend to the great duties of justice, mercy, and charity. The sum of all is: Cease to do evil, learn to do well: these are the fruits worthy of repentance. Then came also publicans — A set of men whose office it was to collect the taxes which the Romans had imposed on the Jews, and to pay them to others, who were called the chief of the publicans; and these people, being generally persons of an infamous character for their injustice and oppression, applied themselves to John, under a strong conviction of their guilt, and said, Master, what shall we do? — Namely, to testify the sincerity of our repentance. And he said, Exact no more than is appointed you — As if he had said, I do not require you absolutely to quit your employment, but take care that, in levying the taxes, you compel no man to pay you more than his just proportion of the sum which you are allowed by the law to raise. And the soldiers applied themselves to him on the same occasion, saying, What shall we do? — The Baptist’s sermons were so affecting, that they impressed men even of the most abandoned characters, such as the private soldiers in all countries commonly are. And he said, Do violence to no man — Commit no violence on any man’s person or property. “The word diaseishte properly signifies, to take a man by the collar and shake him; and seems to have been used proverbially for that violent manner in which persons of this station of life are often ready to bully those about them, whom they imagine their inferiors in strength and spirit; though nothing is an argument of a meaner spirit, or more unworthy that true courage which constitutes so essential a part of a good military character.” — Doddridge. Neither accuse any falsely — Do not turn informers, and give false evidence against innocent persons, in order that with the protection of the law you may oppress them, and enrich yourselves with their spoils. The word sukofantein, which we render, to accuse falsely, answers to the Hebrew qc[, and signifies also to circumvent and oppress. And be content with your wages — Live quietly on your pay, and do not mutiny when your officers happen not to bestow on you donations and largesses to conciliate your favour. It is well known the word oywnioiv, here rendered wages, signifies provision, or food; but, when applied to soldiers, it is generally used to signify the pay that was allotted for their subsistence. It appears that the soldiers who now addressed the Baptist were not heathen, but Jews; otherwise one part of his advice to them would certainly have been, that they should relinquish idolatry, and embrace the worship of the true God. To account for this it must be observed, that it was the custom of the Romans to recruit their armies in the conquered provinces, and, as the Jews did not scruple to engage in a military life, many of them may now have been in the emperor’s service. Or, we may suppose that after Judea was made a province, the Romans took into their pay the Jewish troops which Herod and his son Archelaus had maintained. See Macknight.

10-14. We have here a most interesting fragmentary passage, furnished by Luke alone, of the manner in which John strikes at the sins of the times for the purpose of setting things in order for Messiah by reformation. He had bidden the multitude, in verse 8, to bring forth fruits meet for repentance under penalties prescribed in verse 9. In verse 10 they ask him, What shall we do then? that is, as works meet for repentance in order to avoid the threatened wrath. John replies to each question by pointing them to their besetting sins, and enjoining reformation to test the sincerity of their repentance. There is nothing so purely legal in all this as Olshausen represents. There is law in all gospel, and there is gospel in the law. Though the atonement had not been made in the Old Testament times, yet sin was forgiven through the forbearance of God, in view of the atonement. Hence the faith in the Messiah to come as the remitter of sin was mingled with the repentance of John’s dispensation, and it had power to save, when genuine, in its time and kind. The genuineness was to be tested by the bringing forth works meet; that is, by the reformation of sins as prescribed in John’s preaching.

John’s preaching is here given as addressed to three classes: the people, the publicans, the soldiers.

Verse 11. He that hath two coats, &c.] He first teaches the great mass of the people their duty to each other. They were uncharitable and oppressive, and he taught them not to expect any mercy from the hand of God, while they acted towards others in opposition to its dictates. If men be unkind and uncharitable towards each other, how can they expect the mercy of the Lord to be extended towards themselves?

Verses 10-14. And the people asked him, What shall we do then? — To avoid the judgments of God. He answereth, He that hath two coats, &c. — Be careful, not only to observe the ceremonies of religion, but to attend to the great duties of justice, mercy, and charity. The sum of all is: Cease to do evil, learn to do well: these are the fruits worthy of repentance. Then came also publicans — A set of men whose office it was to collect the taxes which the Romans had imposed on the Jews, and to pay them to others, who were called the chief of the publicans; and these people, being generally persons of an infamous character for their injustice and oppression, applied themselves to John, under a strong conviction of their guilt, and said, Master, what shall we do? — Namely, to testify the sincerity of our repentance. And he said, Exact no more than is appointed you — As if he had said, I do not require you absolutely to quit your employment, but take care that, in levying the taxes, you compel no man to pay you more than his just proportion of the sum which you are allowed by the law to raise. And the soldiers applied themselves to him on the same occasion, saying, What shall we do? — The Baptist’s sermons were so affecting, that they impressed men even of the most abandoned characters, such as the private soldiers in all countries commonly are. And he said, Do violence to no man — Commit no violence on any man’s person or property. “The word diaseishte properly signifies, to take a man by the collar and shake him; and seems to have been used proverbially for that violent manner in which persons of this station of life are often ready to bully those about them, whom they imagine their inferiors in strength and spirit; though nothing is an argument of a meaner spirit, or more unworthy that true courage which constitutes so essential a part of a good military character.” — Doddridge. Neither accuse any falsely — Do not turn informers, and give false evidence against innocent persons, in order that with the protection of the law you may oppress them, and enrich yourselves with their spoils. The word sukofantein, which we render, to accuse falsely, answers to the Hebrew qc[, and signifies also to circumvent and oppress. And be content with your wages — Live quietly on your pay, and do not mutiny when your officers happen not to bestow on you donations and largesses to conciliate your favour. It is well known the word oywnioiv, here rendered wages, signifies provision, or food; but, when applied to soldiers, it is generally used to signify the pay that was allotted for their subsistence. It appears that the soldiers who now addressed the Baptist were not heathen, but Jews; otherwise one part of his advice to them would certainly have been, that they should relinquish idolatry, and embrace the worship of the true God. To account for this it must be observed, that it was the custom of the Romans to recruit their armies in the conquered provinces, and, as the Jews did not scruple to engage in a military life, many of them may now have been in the emperor’s service. Or, we may suppose that after Judea was made a province, the Romans took into their pay the Jewish troops which Herod and his son Archelaus had maintained. See Macknight.

Ver. 11. He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none. Sinners should begin to ask mercy by first showing mercy. From many traits of ancient history we gather, that the poor in primitive society were half naked. Hence the law of not keeping a pledge over night, it being the only covering of a poor labourer. Deuteronomy 24:12, 13.

11. He that hath two coats—For coat see note on Matthew 5:40. As selfishness, rapine, and robbery were the order of the day, the Baptist prescribes, even to a mortification, the reverse work: let the recklessness of might be checked by the example of divine magnanimity; let the surplus of the rich, both in food and clothing, be given in charity to the poor.

Verse 11. What shall we do then? — These were probably the truly penitent, who asked advice as to their conduct, especially as to bringing forth “fruits meet for repentance;” and he commends to them the cultivation of a benevolent and liberal spirit; which would be most unequivocally expressed by giving clothing to the naked, and bread to the hungry: for the precept is not to be taken literally, as though it were a crime to have two coats; but as teaching that from our abundance the wants of others are to be supplied, and that there can be no true repentance where there is no renunciation of a selfish and unfeeling covetousness.

Verse 12. Then came also publicans] He next instructs the tax-gatherers in the proper discharge of their duty: though it was an office detested by the Jews at large, yet the Baptist does not condemn it. It is only the abuse of it that he speaks against. If taxes be necessary for the support of a state, there must be collectors of them; and the collector, if he properly discharge his duty, is not only a useful, but also a respectable officer. But it seems the Jewish tax-gatherers exacted much more from the people than government authorized them to do, Luke 3:13, and the surplus they pocketed. See the conduct of many of our surveyors and assessors. They are oppressors of the people, and enrich themselves by unjust surcharges. This, I am inclined to think, is too common an evil; and the executive government is often the people’s scape-goat, to bear the crimes of its officers, crimes in which it has no concern. For an account of the publicans, see Clarke’s note on “Matthew 5:46”.

Verses 10-14. And the people asked him, What shall we do then? — To avoid the judgments of God. He answereth, He that hath two coats, &c. — Be careful, not only to observe the ceremonies of religion, but to attend to the great duties of justice, mercy, and charity. The sum of all is: Cease to do evil, learn to do well: these are the fruits worthy of repentance. Then came also publicans — A set of men whose office it was to collect the taxes which the Romans had imposed on the Jews, and to pay them to others, who were called the chief of the publicans; and these people, being generally persons of an infamous character for their injustice and oppression, applied themselves to John, under a strong conviction of their guilt, and said, Master, what shall we do? — Namely, to testify the sincerity of our repentance. And he said, Exact no more than is appointed you — As if he had said, I do not require you absolutely to quit your employment, but take care that, in levying the taxes, you compel no man to pay you more than his just proportion of the sum which you are allowed by the law to raise. And the soldiers applied themselves to him on the same occasion, saying, What shall we do? — The Baptist’s sermons were so affecting, that they impressed men even of the most abandoned characters, such as the private soldiers in all countries commonly are. And he said, Do violence to no man — Commit no violence on any man’s person or property. “The word diaseishte properly signifies, to take a man by the collar and shake him; and seems to have been used proverbially for that violent manner in which persons of this station of life are often ready to bully those about them, whom they imagine their inferiors in strength and spirit; though nothing is an argument of a meaner spirit, or more unworthy that true courage which constitutes so essential a part of a good military character.” — Doddridge. Neither accuse any falsely — Do not turn informers, and give false evidence against innocent persons, in order that with the protection of the law you may oppress them, and enrich yourselves with their spoils. The word sukofantein, which we render, to accuse falsely, answers to the Hebrew qc[, and signifies also to circumvent and oppress. And be content with your wages — Live quietly on your pay, and do not mutiny when your officers happen not to bestow on you donations and largesses to conciliate your favour. It is well known the word oywnioiv, here rendered wages, signifies provision, or food; but, when applied to soldiers, it is generally used to signify the pay that was allotted for their subsistence. It appears that the soldiers who now addressed the Baptist were not heathen, but Jews; otherwise one part of his advice to them would certainly have been, that they should relinquish idolatry, and embrace the worship of the true God. To account for this it must be observed, that it was the custom of the Romans to recruit their armies in the conquered provinces, and, as the Jews did not scruple to engage in a military life, many of them may now have been in the emperor’s service. Or, we may suppose that after Judea was made a province, the Romans took into their pay the Jewish troops which Herod and his son Archelaus had maintained. See Macknight.

Ver. 12, 13. Then came the publicans, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? — And he said, exact no more than that which is appointed. The officers of the revenue in those times, added as much to the tax as the tax itself, for the expense and trouble of collecting. A French traveller in Egypt mentions the case of a woman whose gleanings and winter food in a sack of wheat being carried off for taxes, who in sore anguish dashed her infant out of her arms on the stones, and killed it dead on the spot.

10-14. We have here a most interesting fragmentary passage, furnished by Luke alone, of the manner in which John strikes at the sins of the times for the purpose of setting things in order for Messiah by reformation. He had bidden the multitude, in verse 8, to bring forth fruits meet for repentance under penalties prescribed in verse 9. In verse 10 they ask him, What shall we do then? that is, as works meet for repentance in order to avoid the threatened wrath. John replies to each question by pointing them to their besetting sins, and enjoining reformation to test the sincerity of their repentance. There is nothing so purely legal in all this as Olshausen represents. There is law in all gospel, and there is gospel in the law. Though the atonement had not been made in the Old Testament times, yet sin was forgiven through the forbearance of God, in view of the atonement. Hence the faith in the Messiah to come as the remitter of sin was mingled with the repentance of John’s dispensation, and it had power to save, when genuine, in its time and kind. The genuineness was to be tested by the bringing forth works meet; that is, by the reformation of sins as prescribed in John’s preaching.

John’s preaching is here given as addressed to three classes: the people, the publicans, the soldiers.

Verses 12, 13. The publicans. — Many of those had been wrought upon by his preaching, and naturally ask his advice also, as to their particular conduct. He does not in his reply affirm the occupation to be unlawful, as many of the Jews thought, for governments must be upheld by tribute, and that must be collected: but they were exposed to great temptations from the practices of their fellows, from the low standard of rectitude which existed among them, and from favourable opportunities to practise injustice; and he therefore made it the test of their sincerity, the “fruit meet for repentance” in their case, that they should exact no more than was appointed them; that is, appointed by law, or fixed by the authority of the supreme power.

Verses 10-14. And the people asked him, What shall we do then? — To avoid the judgments of God. He answereth, He that hath two coats, &c. — Be careful, not only to observe the ceremonies of religion, but to attend to the great duties of justice, mercy, and charity. The sum of all is: Cease to do evil, learn to do well: these are the fruits worthy of repentance. Then came also publicans — A set of men whose office it was to collect the taxes which the Romans had imposed on the Jews, and to pay them to others, who were called the chief of the publicans; and these people, being generally persons of an infamous character for their injustice and oppression, applied themselves to John, under a strong conviction of their guilt, and said, Master, what shall we do? — Namely, to testify the sincerity of our repentance. And he said, Exact no more than is appointed you — As if he had said, I do not require you absolutely to quit your employment, but take care that, in levying the taxes, you compel no man to pay you more than his just proportion of the sum which you are allowed by the law to raise. And the soldiers applied themselves to him on the same occasion, saying, What shall we do? — The Baptist’s sermons were so affecting, that they impressed men even of the most abandoned characters, such as the private soldiers in all countries commonly are. And he said, Do violence to no man — Commit no violence on any man’s person or property. “The word diaseishte properly signifies, to take a man by the collar and shake him; and seems to have been used proverbially for that violent manner in which persons of this station of life are often ready to bully those about them, whom they imagine their inferiors in strength and spirit; though nothing is an argument of a meaner spirit, or more unworthy that true courage which constitutes so essential a part of a good military character.” — Doddridge. Neither accuse any falsely — Do not turn informers, and give false evidence against innocent persons, in order that with the protection of the law you may oppress them, and enrich yourselves with their spoils. The word sukofantein, which we render, to accuse falsely, answers to the Hebrew qc[, and signifies also to circumvent and oppress. And be content with your wages — Live quietly on your pay, and do not mutiny when your officers happen not to bestow on you donations and largesses to conciliate your favour. It is well known the word oywnioiv, here rendered wages, signifies provision, or food; but, when applied to soldiers, it is generally used to signify the pay that was allotted for their subsistence. It appears that the soldiers who now addressed the Baptist were not heathen, but Jews; otherwise one part of his advice to them would certainly have been, that they should relinquish idolatry, and embrace the worship of the true God. To account for this it must be observed, that it was the custom of the Romans to recruit their armies in the conquered provinces, and, as the Jews did not scruple to engage in a military life, many of them may now have been in the emperor’s service. Or, we may suppose that after Judea was made a province, the Romans took into their pay the Jewish troops which Herod and his son Archelaus had maintained. See Macknight.

Ver. 12, 13. Then came the publicans, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? — And he said, exact no more than that which is appointed. The officers of the revenue in those times, added as much to the tax as the tax itself, for the expense and trouble of collecting. A French traveller in Egypt mentions the case of a woman whose gleanings and winter food in a sack of wheat being carried off for taxes, who in sore anguish dashed her infant out of her arms on the stones, and killed it dead on the spot.

13. Exact no more—The publicans, in regard to whom see our life of St. Matthew, (prefixed to his Gospel,) were not only unpopular from being the officers of a foreign dominion, but as being plunderers of the public. By extorting more than the appointed government rates of taxes and pocketing the surplus, they made dishonest gains. That the proper dues of government should be collected was right; but there was needed an immense reformation on the part of this class of persons to bring the public morality to its proper tone, and repair the general apostacy of the times.

Verses 12, 13. The publicans. — Many of those had been wrought upon by his preaching, and naturally ask his advice also, as to their particular conduct. He does not in his reply affirm the occupation to be unlawful, as many of the Jews thought, for governments must be upheld by tribute, and that must be collected: but they were exposed to great temptations from the practices of their fellows, from the low standard of rectitude which existed among them, and from favourable opportunities to practise injustice; and he therefore made it the test of their sincerity, the “fruit meet for repentance” in their case, that they should exact no more than was appointed them; that is, appointed by law, or fixed by the authority of the supreme power.

Verse 14. The soldiers likewise demanded of him] He, thirdly, instructs those among the military. They were either Roman soldiers, or the soldiers of Herod or Philip. Use no violence to any, mhdena diaseishte, do not extort money or goods by force or violence from any. This is the import of the words neminein concutite, used here by the Vulgate, and points out a crime of which the Roman soldiers were notoriously guilty, their own writers being witnesses. Concussio has the above meaning in the Roman law. See RAPHELIUS in loco.

Neither accuse any falsely] Or, on a frivolous pretence-mhde sukofanthshte, be not sycophants, like those who are base flatterers of their masters, who to ingratiate themselves into their esteem, malign, accuse, and impeach the innocent. Bishop PEARCE observes that, when the concussio above referred to did not produce the effect they wished, they often falsely accused the persons, which is the reason why this advice is added. See Clarke’s note on “Luke 19:7”.

Be content with your wages.] oywnioiv. The word signifies not only the money which was allotted to a Roman soldier, which was tico oboli, about three halfpence per day, but also the necessary supply of wheat, barley, &c. See Raphelius.

Verses 10-14. And the people asked him, What shall we do then? — To avoid the judgments of God. He answereth, He that hath two coats, &c. — Be careful, not only to observe the ceremonies of religion, but to attend to the great duties of justice, mercy, and charity. The sum of all is: Cease to do evil, learn to do well: these are the fruits worthy of repentance. Then came also publicans — A set of men whose office it was to collect the taxes which the Romans had imposed on the Jews, and to pay them to others, who were called the chief of the publicans; and these people, being generally persons of an infamous character for their injustice and oppression, applied themselves to John, under a strong conviction of their guilt, and said, Master, what shall we do? — Namely, to testify the sincerity of our repentance. And he said, Exact no more than is appointed you — As if he had said, I do not require you absolutely to quit your employment, but take care that, in levying the taxes, you compel no man to pay you more than his just proportion of the sum which you are allowed by the law to raise. And the soldiers applied themselves to him on the same occasion, saying, What shall we do? — The Baptist’s sermons were so affecting, that they impressed men even of the most abandoned characters, such as the private soldiers in all countries commonly are. And he said, Do violence to no man — Commit no violence on any man’s person or property. “The word diaseishte properly signifies, to take a man by the collar and shake him; and seems to have been used proverbially for that violent manner in which persons of this station of life are often ready to bully those about them, whom they imagine their inferiors in strength and spirit; though nothing is an argument of a meaner spirit, or more unworthy that true courage which constitutes so essential a part of a good military character.” — Doddridge. Neither accuse any falsely — Do not turn informers, and give false evidence against innocent persons, in order that with the protection of the law you may oppress them, and enrich yourselves with their spoils. The word sukofantein, which we render, to accuse falsely, answers to the Hebrew qc[, and signifies also to circumvent and oppress. And be content with your wages — Live quietly on your pay, and do not mutiny when your officers happen not to bestow on you donations and largesses to conciliate your favour. It is well known the word oywnioiv, here rendered wages, signifies provision, or food; but, when applied to soldiers, it is generally used to signify the pay that was allotted for their subsistence. It appears that the soldiers who now addressed the Baptist were not heathen, but Jews; otherwise one part of his advice to them would certainly have been, that they should relinquish idolatry, and embrace the worship of the true God. To account for this it must be observed, that it was the custom of the Romans to recruit their armies in the conquered provinces, and, as the Jews did not scruple to engage in a military life, many of them may now have been in the emperor’s service. Or, we may suppose that after Judea was made a province, the Romans took into their pay the Jewish troops which Herod and his son Archelaus had maintained. See Macknight.

Ver. 14. The soldiers likewise — and John said, do violence to no man. The Romans governed chiefly by military force; intimidation was the principal argument. Military men should be protectors, not oppressors of their country. Thus John exalted the vallies, and levelled the moral mountains that stood in the way.

14. Soldiers—The word soldiers here is a participle, signifying those who were in actual performance of war duties, and hence it has been supposed that the soldiers specified were those engaged in the war of Herod against Aretas. See note on Matthew 14:1. But the participle perhaps is used because war was so frequent that the soldier was always considered as warring.

Do violence to no man—John does not forbid the forcible execution of military duties as ordered by the government, but that illegal violence which transforms the soldier into a private ruffian.

Content with your wages—Without adding pillage thereto. And this very injunction implies their continuance in the military service for which the wages were received. That is, war, as an act of government, is allowed by the divine law.

Verse 14. The soldiers. — These were most probably the soldiers of Herod; for the Roman soldiers were little likely to go to his baptism. Many of these also had been touched with a sense of their sins under his preaching, and, like the publicans, came to be baptized. They also asked for practical direction in that new state and profession into which the baptism of John had introduced them; and here it has been often justly remarked that he does not exhort them to abandon a military life, as inconsistent with piety and godliness, but simply prohibits those vices which the licentiousness of the soldiery in those days most encouraged. They were therefore to do violence to no man; that is, to put no man in fear, as the word signifies, either from wanton cruelty, or in order to extort property by threats of violence; nor accuse any falsely, in order to obtain reward for a seeming zeal in the discharge of duty, or to share in the fines and confiscations inflicted upon suspected persons; and be content with your wages oywnia, which includes meat, money, and all lawful perquisites.

Verse 15. Whether he were the Christ] So general was the reformation which was produced by the Baptist’s preaching that the people were ready to consider him as the promised Messiah. Thus John came in the spirit and power of Elijah, and reformed all things; showed the people, the tax-gatherers, and the soldiers, their respective duties, and persuaded them to put away the evil of their doings. See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 17:11”.

Verses 15-17. And as all the people were in expectation, &c. — The austerity of John’s life, the important subjects of his sermons, the fervency of his exhortations, and the freedom, impartiality, and courage with which he rebuked all classes of sinners, raised him very high in the esteem of the generality of people; insomuch that many began to be of opinion he might be the Messiah. And possibly the extraordinary events which had occurred thirty years before, namely, the vision which his father Zacharias had seen in the temple, the coming of the eastern sages to Jerusalem, the prophecies of Simeon, and the testimony of Anna, which doubtless would be fresh in the memories of many of them, and would all be applied to John, might strengthen that opinion. And, if John had aspired after grandeur, he might for a while have possessed honours greater than any of mankind could justly claim. But he was too upright and pious to assume a character which he had no right to, and therefore he declared plainly that he was not the Messiah, but one of the lowest of his servants; one sent to prepare his way before him. At the same time, to give his hearers a just idea of his Master’s dignity, he described the authority and efficacy of his ministry. John answered, saying, I indeed baptize you with water, &c. I am sent from God, and the message I bring is, that all ranks and orders of persons must repent. Withal, to impress this doctrine more deeply on their minds, I address their senses by baptizing all my disciples with water. But one mightier than I cometh — There is an infinitely greater prophet than I am, ready to appear, namely, the Messiah; the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose — For whom I am not worthy to perform the meanest servile office. He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire — His baptism shall be unspeakably more efficacious than mine, for he will bestow on you the gifts and graces of his Holy Spirit. Whose fan is in his hand — See this and the preceding verse explained at large, in the notes on Matthew 3:11, 12.

Verse 15. The people were in expectation, &c. — St. Luke hastens to conclude his account of John, that he may without interruption pursue that of Christ. He expresses here, in few words, what St. John has dwelt more largely upon in the beginning of his gospel. The impression of John’s appearance and ministry was so great, that for some time the minds of men were in expectation, — they looked out for some farther developement of John’s character, being in suspense whether he might not be the Christ. On this point they mused, or reasoned in their hearts, until John answered, made an explicit declaration in answer to the priests sent from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who art thou?” St. Luke omits this circumstance, but gives the material part of John’s disclaimer, and his testimony to Jesus.

Verses 16. - 17. On these verses see Matthew 3:11, 12, and Mark 1:7, 8, and particularly Clarke’s note on “John 3:5”.

Verses 15-17. And as all the people were in expectation, &c. — The austerity of John’s life, the important subjects of his sermons, the fervency of his exhortations, and the freedom, impartiality, and courage with which he rebuked all classes of sinners, raised him very high in the esteem of the generality of people; insomuch that many began to be of opinion he might be the Messiah. And possibly the extraordinary events which had occurred thirty years before, namely, the vision which his father Zacharias had seen in the temple, the coming of the eastern sages to Jerusalem, the prophecies of Simeon, and the testimony of Anna, which doubtless would be fresh in the memories of many of them, and would all be applied to John, might strengthen that opinion. And, if John had aspired after grandeur, he might for a while have possessed honours greater than any of mankind could justly claim. But he was too upright and pious to assume a character which he had no right to, and therefore he declared plainly that he was not the Messiah, but one of the lowest of his servants; one sent to prepare his way before him. At the same time, to give his hearers a just idea of his Master’s dignity, he described the authority and efficacy of his ministry. John answered, saying, I indeed baptize you with water, &c. I am sent from God, and the message I bring is, that all ranks and orders of persons must repent. Withal, to impress this doctrine more deeply on their minds, I address their senses by baptizing all my disciples with water. But one mightier than I cometh — There is an infinitely greater prophet than I am, ready to appear, namely, the Messiah; the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose — For whom I am not worthy to perform the meanest servile office. He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire — His baptism shall be unspeakably more efficacious than mine, for he will bestow on you the gifts and graces of his Holy Spirit. Whose fan is in his hand — See this and the preceding verse explained at large, in the notes on Matthew 3:11, 12.

16-18. See notes on Matthew 3:11, 12.

§ 60. DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, 19, 20;

Mark 6:17-20; Matthew 14:3-5.

§ 16. BAPTISM OF JESUS, 21-23;

Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11.

We may remark on this passage that Luke’s account is much more concise than, and wholly independent of, the others. We have here, however, three additional particulars: First, that all the people were being baptized before the Lord’s baptism; second, that he was praying at the time of the descent of the Spirit; third, that the Spirit appeared in a bodily representation.

Verse 16. I indeed baptize you with water, &c. — See the note on Matthew 3:11.

Whose fan is in his hand, &c. — See the note on Matthew 3:12.

Verses 16. - 17. On these verses see Matthew 3:11, 12, and Mark 1:7, 8, and particularly Clarke’s note on “John 3:5”.

Verses 15-17. And as all the people were in expectation, &c. — The austerity of John’s life, the important subjects of his sermons, the fervency of his exhortations, and the freedom, impartiality, and courage with which he rebuked all classes of sinners, raised him very high in the esteem of the generality of people; insomuch that many began to be of opinion he might be the Messiah. And possibly the extraordinary events which had occurred thirty years before, namely, the vision which his father Zacharias had seen in the temple, the coming of the eastern sages to Jerusalem, the prophecies of Simeon, and the testimony of Anna, which doubtless would be fresh in the memories of many of them, and would all be applied to John, might strengthen that opinion. And, if John had aspired after grandeur, he might for a while have possessed honours greater than any of mankind could justly claim. But he was too upright and pious to assume a character which he had no right to, and therefore he declared plainly that he was not the Messiah, but one of the lowest of his servants; one sent to prepare his way before him. At the same time, to give his hearers a just idea of his Master’s dignity, he described the authority and efficacy of his ministry. John answered, saying, I indeed baptize you with water, &c. I am sent from God, and the message I bring is, that all ranks and orders of persons must repent. Withal, to impress this doctrine more deeply on their minds, I address their senses by baptizing all my disciples with water. But one mightier than I cometh — There is an infinitely greater prophet than I am, ready to appear, namely, the Messiah; the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose — For whom I am not worthy to perform the meanest servile office. He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire — His baptism shall be unspeakably more efficacious than mine, for he will bestow on you the gifts and graces of his Holy Spirit. Whose fan is in his hand — See this and the preceding verse explained at large, in the notes on Matthew 3:11, 12.

16-18. See notes on Matthew 3:11, 12.

§ 60. DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, 19, 20;

Mark 6:17-20; Matthew 14:3-5.

§ 16. BAPTISM OF JESUS, 21-23;

Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11.

We may remark on this passage that Luke’s account is much more concise than, and wholly independent of, the others. We have here, however, three additional particulars: First, that all the people were being baptized before the Lord’s baptism; second, that he was praying at the time of the descent of the Spirit; third, that the Spirit appeared in a bodily representation.

Verses 18-20. And many other things preached he unto the people — In this manner did John inculcate the doctrine of repentance, and declare his Master’s greatness. But his sermons were not confined to these matters. He discoursed also on many other important subjects, according as he knew they would be profitable to his hearers. But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him, &c. — In the whole course of John’s ministry he showed great integrity and courage, but especially in his intercourse with Herod the tetrarch, who, it seems, had heard him, and admitted him into conversation; for he was so bold as to address the tetrarch on the subject of his favourite sins, particularly his adultery with Herodias. This he represented to him in its true colours, and reproved him for it. But the effect of his exhortation was not what it ought to have been. It did not bring Herod to repentance. On the contrary, it so provoked him, that he cast the Baptist into prison, and thereby put an end to his ministry, after it had lasted a considerable time. This circumstance, though it happened after, is here mentioned before our Lord’s baptism, that his history (that of John being concluded) might then follow without any interruption.

16-18. See notes on Matthew 3:11, 12.

§ 60. DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, 19, 20;

Mark 6:17-20; Matthew 14:3-5.

§ 16. BAPTISM OF JESUS, 21-23;

Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11.

We may remark on this passage that Luke’s account is much more concise than, and wholly independent of, the others. We have here, however, three additional particulars: First, that all the people were being baptized before the Lord’s baptism; second, that he was praying at the time of the descent of the Spirit; third, that the Spirit appeared in a bodily representation.

Verse 19. Herod the tetrarch] See this subject explained at large, Matthew 14:1, &c., and Mark 6:21, 23.

Verses 18-20. And many other things preached he unto the people — In this manner did John inculcate the doctrine of repentance, and declare his Master’s greatness. But his sermons were not confined to these matters. He discoursed also on many other important subjects, according as he knew they would be profitable to his hearers. But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him, &c. — In the whole course of John’s ministry he showed great integrity and courage, but especially in his intercourse with Herod the tetrarch, who, it seems, had heard him, and admitted him into conversation; for he was so bold as to address the tetrarch on the subject of his favourite sins, particularly his adultery with Herodias. This he represented to him in its true colours, and reproved him for it. But the effect of his exhortation was not what it ought to have been. It did not bring Herod to repentance. On the contrary, it so provoked him, that he cast the Baptist into prison, and thereby put an end to his ministry, after it had lasted a considerable time. This circumstance, though it happened after, is here mentioned before our Lord’s baptism, that his history (that of John being concluded) might then follow without any interruption.

Verses 19, 20. Herod the tetrarch being reproved. — See note on Matthew 14:3, 4. St. Luke adds that the faithful John reproved Herod, not merely for marrying Herodias, but for all the evils he had done. That is, he had habitually reproved him, as often probably as he had access to him, which appears not to have been unfrequent. And for a time his reproofs were not wholly lost, nor were they malignantly resented till the darling sin, the choice and favourite lust was touched, till the incestuous marriage with his brother Philip’s wife was denounced. Then indeed Herod added this evil above all, that he shut up John in prison; which was a sin, not only of injustice against man, but a crime against God, whose prophet John was; and it proved the occasion of a still greater sin than even this; for the imprisonment led finally to his murder, which Herod does not appear at first to have the least intended. Thus sin draws on sin, in rapid and frightful increase!

V. 20. He shut up John-This circumstance, though it happened after, is here mentioned before our Lord's baptism, that his history (that of John being concluded) may then follow without any interruption.

Verses 18-20. And many other things preached he unto the people — In this manner did John inculcate the doctrine of repentance, and declare his Master’s greatness. But his sermons were not confined to these matters. He discoursed also on many other important subjects, according as he knew they would be profitable to his hearers. But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him, &c. — In the whole course of John’s ministry he showed great integrity and courage, but especially in his intercourse with Herod the tetrarch, who, it seems, had heard him, and admitted him into conversation; for he was so bold as to address the tetrarch on the subject of his favourite sins, particularly his adultery with Herodias. This he represented to him in its true colours, and reproved him for it. But the effect of his exhortation was not what it ought to have been. It did not bring Herod to repentance. On the contrary, it so provoked him, that he cast the Baptist into prison, and thereby put an end to his ministry, after it had lasted a considerable time. This circumstance, though it happened after, is here mentioned before our Lord’s baptism, that his history (that of John being concluded) might then follow without any interruption.

Verses 19, 20. Herod the tetrarch being reproved. — See note on Matthew 14:3, 4. St. Luke adds that the faithful John reproved Herod, not merely for marrying Herodias, but for all the evils he had done. That is, he had habitually reproved him, as often probably as he had access to him, which appears not to have been unfrequent. And for a time his reproofs were not wholly lost, nor were they malignantly resented till the darling sin, the choice and favourite lust was touched, till the incestuous marriage with his brother Philip’s wife was denounced. Then indeed Herod added this evil above all, that he shut up John in prison; which was a sin, not only of injustice against man, but a crime against God, whose prophet John was; and it proved the occasion of a still greater sin than even this; for the imprisonment led finally to his murder, which Herod does not appear at first to have the least intended. Thus sin draws on sin, in rapid and frightful increase!

V. 21. Jesus praying, the heaven was opened-It is observable, that the three voices from heaven, see Luke 9:29, 35; John 12:28; by which the Father bore witness to Christ, were pronounced either while he was praying, or quickly after it. Matthew 3:13; Mark 1:9.

Verse 21. Jesus-being baptized] See on Matthew 3:16, 17.

Verses 21, 22. When all the people were baptized — If we reflect on the number of the people who followed John, and were baptized by him, and the regard they expressed for him before and after his death, and yet that no sect was produced in consequence of such belief and baptism, it will afford a very good argument in favour of the superior power, dignity, character, and office of Jesus. Jesus, praying, the heaven was opened — It is observable, that the three voices from heaven (see Luke 9:29, 35; John 12:28) by which the Father bore witness to Christ, were pronounced, either while he was praying, or quickly after it. Thou art my beloved Son, &c. — See note on Matthew 3:16, 17.

Ver. 21. When all the people were baptized — Jesus being also baptized, prayed. Matthew 3:15. He came to fulfil all righteousness; he came with a final blessing above all the expectations of John, and of his people, and manifested forth his glory.

21. Jesus also being baptized—But how, it is asked, could the sinless Jesus confess any sins as by John required? But where, we ask in reply, is it said that such a confession was required of Jesus? The people, the multitude, were indeed so required, for they were sinners. But John, instead of requiring confession of Jesus, really confessed to Jesus, acknowledging his need of baptism by him. On the relation of Christ’s baptism to sin, see note on Matthew 3:15.

Verse 21. Now when all the people, &c. — Not that our Lord was baptized publicly when others were baptized. That was private between him and John; but the meaning is, that at the period when John’s ministry excited the most attention, when multitudes were coming to him to be baptized in Jordan, that is, in the early period of it, Christ went and submitted to that ordinance also. On our Lord’s baptism, see the notes on Matthew 3:13-17.

Verses 21, 22. When all the people were baptized — If we reflect on the number of the people who followed John, and were baptized by him, and the regard they expressed for him before and after his death, and yet that no sect was produced in consequence of such belief and baptism, it will afford a very good argument in favour of the superior power, dignity, character, and office of Jesus. Jesus, praying, the heaven was opened — It is observable, that the three voices from heaven (see Luke 9:29, 35; John 12:28) by which the Father bore witness to Christ, were pronounced, either while he was praying, or quickly after it. Thou art my beloved Son, &c. — See note on Matthew 3:16, 17.

22. The Holy Ghost descended—Were these supernatural phenomena, it is asked, a mere vision, made up of conceptions like a dream, wrought in the mind of John, or were they an external reality? Beyond all question, we reply, an external reality. The Apocalypse is a series of visions produced by inspiring power within the seer’s mind without any external object; but this movement of the Spirit upon Jesus was, externally, as real as John or Jesus himself. But how can God’s Spirit move from place to place? God’s Spirit, we reply, is not a pantheistic, move-less vapor—a universal, fixed, and stagnant essence—but a living, personal, powerful Being, omnipotent to operate according to His own will. And if angelic spirits, like Gabriel, can invest themselves with visible embodiments, or if even a human spirit can be clothed with a material body, so beyond all question can the Divine Spirit. And we must firmly repudiate that utter falsification of Luke’s words of which many, even orthodox commentators of the present day, are guilty. Every evangelist mentions the dove; and Luke declares there was bodily shape like a dove. To make this (with Olshausen, Van Oosterzee, and others) a ray of light, a shapeless something “with a quivering motion as of a dove,” is not to interpret Luke’s language, but to substitute words of one’s own.

There is nothing in the narrative to show that it was a private transaction, and equally nothing to show that it was in the presence of and seen by numbers.

A dove—As the lamb is the gentle and tender image of Jesus, so the dove is the symbol of the pure and gentle Spirit. “Harmless as doves” is the Saviour’s simile for his followers in the Spirit. To the simplicity of antiquity such symbols were permanent, impressive lessons, shaping the crude mind to high and holy conceptions. Olshausen well says, “According to biblical symbolism certain mental characters appear expressed in several animals, as the lion, the lamb, the eagle, the ox.” And so he might have inferred, that as it is the form of the animal that expresses the symbol, so the shape of the dove must have been present in that most signal of all instances of the exhibited symbol.

Voice from heaven—As true a voice, with as true an articulation, as ever came from human or superhuman organs of utterance. It was no dream or conception of John’s, but a reality to his perception. And such a voice and articulation are no more difficult to divine power than the inarticulate thunder through the medium of electric fluid, and no more incredible when properly authenticated. From heaven—The voice came audibly from heaven; the dove came visibly from “the heaven opened.” Heaven, as we have elsewhere shown, (note on Mark 16:19,) is, both in conception and reality, up, above us. Hence, both in conception and in reality, a shape or a voice from heaven must come down to us. It comes down through space and atmosphere. If it be a reality it cuts through both. It comes through the open air, ether, and firmament. Let the retina of the eye be duly quickened, and the very opening of air and firmament becomes visible. Even then there is not conception but perception.

The ancient Greek Church celebrated the baptism of Jesus upon the sixth day of January, under the title of EPIPHANY, or Manifestation. The reason of this Chrysostom thus concisely asks and answers: “Why is not the day on which he was born called Epiphany, but the day on which he was baptized? Because he was not manifested to all when he was born, but when he was baptized. For to the day of his baptism he was generally unknown, as appears from those words of John the Baptist, ‘There standeth one among you whom ye know not.’ And what wonder that others should not know him when the Baptist himself knew him not before that day?”

But Augustine furnishes several additional reasons combined together for celebrating the Epiphany: “On this day we celebrate the mystery of God manifesting himself by his miracles in human nature; either because on this day the star in heaven gave notice of his birth; or because he turned water into wine at the marriage feast at Cana in Galilee; or because he consecrated water for the reparation of mankind by his baptism in the river Jordan; or because with the five loaves he fed five thousand men. For in either of these are contained the mysteries and joys of our salvation.” From all this it is clear that the celebration by the Church of a Scripture event, on a certain day, is no very conclusive proof that the day is the authentic anniversary of the event. For the three first centuries in the Greek Church Christmas and the Epiphany were on the same day, namely, the sixth of January.

§ 9. GENEALOGY OF JESUS, 22-38.

Matthew 1:1-17.

To what we say on the authenticity of this genealogy in our note on Matthew 1:1, we may here add the following: 1. The Jews positively affirm that most accurate genealogies were kept in Jesus’s day. Says Josephus against Apion, 1:7, “Whosoever desires to become priest must be married to a wife from his own people, and must fetch proof of his lineage from our archives. Wherever any of our race reside the same law is observed; for they all transmit catalogues of their fathers and forefathers, with the names of the witnesses, to Jerusalem. Our high priests keep written family registers, which contain the names of their ancestors for the two thousand past years.” R. Jochanan, the Jews say, asseverated thus: “By the temple! we are able to detect all of impure blood in Israel.” And Rabbi Levi says: “They discovered in Jerusalem a family pedigree in which Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David.” 2. The genuineness of the genealogy was not questioned by the Jews in the first Christian ages. On the contrary, Mary is expressly called the daughter of Heli in the Talmud. And on that passage in the Talmud Raschi thus comments, “Jesus was connected with the blood royal by birth.”

V. 23. And Jesus was-John's beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour's by the years of his own life, as a more august era. About thirty years of age-He did not now enter upon his thirtieth year (as the common translation would induce one to think) but he now entered on his public ministry: being of such an age as the Mosaic law required. Our great Master attained not, as it seems, to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionable zeal, despatches the great business of life; and so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

The son of Heli-That is, the son-in-law: for Heli was the father of Mary. So St. Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by St. Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families.

Verse 23. 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 Clarke on “Numbers 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: touton paiv nomizetai he was SUPPOSED to be this man’s son.

Much learned labour 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, &c. But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour 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, &c. This receives considerable support from Raphelius’s method of reading the original wn (wv enomizeto uiov iwshf) tou, hli, being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, &c. 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, nomizesqai 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, Matthew 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1 Chronicles 3:17, and Matthew 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, Matthew 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Luke 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, 1 Chronicles 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 Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 1:1”, &c.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

23. About thirty years of age—Thirty years was the legal age for entering on the priesthood. It was also the age at which the scribes entered upon professional duty as teachers. The word about here simply implies that Jesus may have been some months younger or older. As was supposed— Being his apparent and legal son.

Of the different theories of reconciliation between the genealogies of Jesus given respectively by Matthew and by Luke, we may discuss but two:— I. Matthew gives the line of Joseph; Luke, of Mary. Mary’s name does not indeed appear in Luke’s list; but that agrees with the Jewish rule of genealogy, that the female is not reckoned in any genealogical line. Luke’s genealogy is really that of Heli; and it is adduced here by Luke to show that Jesus, son of Mary, is in that line, and so in the natural line of David. Joseph rightfully and legally takes his place in the recorded descent from Heli, because he is his son-in-law. And it is remarkable that the Jews in their Talmud call Mary the daughter of Heli, showing that either that is their own tradition, or that so they originally understood the genealogy as recorded.

II. The theory of Lord Arthur Hervey, lately published in England, founded in a good degree on the theory of Grotius, seems likely to be ultimately universally adopted. This theory in its details solves so many of the facts as not only to remove difficulties, but to furnish a sort of proof of the genuineness of the record.

By this theory Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph (including in fact that of Mary) in the line of royal inheritance; Luke gives that of natural descent. This is made clear by the following table:

From David Matthew traces the royal line through Solomon to Jechonias; whereas Luke gives the private line through Nathan to Salathiel. But Jechonias was childless, (Jeremiah 22:30,) so that with him the Solomonic line ended. Consequently Salathiel, of the Nathanic line, came into the royal heirship. By this transfer Salathiel stands in both: namely, the line of natural descent from David through Nathan, and the line of political succession to the crown. From Zorobabel’s son, Abiud, Matthew furnishes a series of heirs; from his other son, Rhesa, Luke gives the natural line of Joseph down to Matthat. But this Matthat is the same as Matthew’s Matthan. Of this Matthat Jacob and Heli are two sons; the former, being the elder, is crown-heir; the second stands in the private line. Heli’s son is JOSEPH; Jacob, the crown-heir, has only a daughter, MARY. The royal line thus failing of a direct male heir, Joseph marries Mary and is thus transferred to the royal line both by kin and by marriage. Both these views secure the true Davidic descent of Mary; which is indeed absolutely necessary to the fulfilment of that most explicit divine promise (2 Samuel 7:12,) “I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels.” So Peter affirms (Acts 2:30) that God sware to David, “that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.” Words like these cannot be fulfilled by any adoptive or marriage paternity.

Verse 23. Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, &c. — It has been much disputed by critics, whether these words, which are somewhat indefinite, indicate that our Lord was then entering his thirtieth year, or had completed it. Grotius contends that wsei often expresses excess as well as deficiency, and that it here implies that Christ came to his baptism a few days after the birthday of thirty complete years. — Lightfoot, on the contrary, observes that the current year, however lately begun, was reckoned as a year in a person’s age, and that arcomenov, joined with wsei, shows that he was beginning to be as it were thirty, or just past his twenty-ninth year. Many more recent critics take the sense to be, “And Jesus himself beginning, or when beginning (to teach) was about thirty years of age,” which assumes an ellipsis of didaskein. The notion that the period of admission into the Jewish priesthood, which was thirty years complete, was respected at the time in which our Lord began his public ministry, has perhaps no foundation; and the principal reason of recording the age of Christ was to show that he was in the vigour of life; that he neither commenced his ministry when inexperienced, nor when his faculties had begun to suffer from age. Still it is likely that Jewish notions were not altogether disregarded, and that, as they thought thirty years to be the most fitting period for entering upon public offices, this was conformed to both in the case of John and Jesus; and with reference to this impression it was recorded. The words, after all the criticism expended upon them, appear simply to mean that our Lord, at the time of his baptism, was just entering upon the completion of thirty years, einai merely being supplied after arcomenov.

As was supposed. — This was the general belief; the account of the miraculous conception not being made public, but reserved in the breasts of Joseph and Mary. When it was first declared does not appear. The absence of all allusion to it in the subsequent history of the Gospel makes it probable that it was not declared even to the disciples themselves, so that they as well as others supposed him to be the son of Joseph as well as Mary, and that it was one of those things which Mary kept in her heart, under Divine direction, till after the resurrection from the dead. The previous publication of it must have exposed her to numerous and often captious interrogatories after Christ had entered upon his ministry; and when there was so much division of opinion respecting him with his enemies, it might have exposed her to some danger, or placed her, at least, in very trying circumstances. These considerations make it strongly probable that this fact was not made known to any during the life of Christ. St. Luke, however, by his qualifying clause, being AS WAS SUPPOSED the son of Joseph, shows that it had been among the earliest facts made known to the first disciples after the ascension, and was, without doubt, received. Hence it makes a part of two of the gospels, St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s. On the genealogy of our Lord, see the notes on Matthew 1:2.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verses 23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more august era: — began to be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, kai autov hn o Ihsouv wsei etwn triakonta arcomenov, should rather be rendered, (as many commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,) namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I can recollect no sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should have been hn arcomenov einai, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,] extremely dissatisfied with all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them, And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty years; and produces several passages from approved Greek writers, in which arcomenov signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some connection or opposition, which determines the sense; and therefore none of them are instances parallel to this. Luke evidently uses arcomenwn, Luke 21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before expressed our Lord’s subjection to his parents by the word upotassomenov, Luke 2:51, there is great reason to believe he would have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist, therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having received those different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in presence of the multitudes assembled to John’s baptism, began his ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites entered on their sacred ministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the Jews would not have received any doctrines from them if they had begun it sooner. Our great Master, as it seems, attained not to the conclusion of his thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.

Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families. The genealogy inserted here by Luke will appear with a beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It stands immediately after Jesus is said to have received the testimony of the Spirit, declaring him the Son of God, that is to say, Messiah; and before he entered on his ministry, the first act of which was, his encountering with and vanquishing the strongest temptation of the arch enemy of mankind. Christ’s genealogy by his mother, who conceived him miraculously, placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seed of the woman, which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafed to mankind after the fall, was predicted to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogy to Adam, who, together with Eve, received the fore-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed of the woman.” — Macknight.

Verse 36. Of Cainan] This Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. See Genesis 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24, where Arphaxad is made the father of Sala, and no mention at all made of Cainan. Some suppose that Cainan was a surname of Sala, and that the names should be read together thus, The son of Heber, the son of Salacainan, the son of Arphaxad, &c. If this does not untie the knot, it certainly cuts it; and the reader may pass on without any great scruple or embarrassment. There are many sensible observations on this genealogy in the notes at the end of Bishop Newcome’s Harmony.

See Ancillary Writings for:

FARTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON THE BEST MODE OF

RECONCILING AND EXPLAINING THE GENEALOGY OF OUR

LORD.

ST. LUKE

Verses 36, 37. Which was the son of Cainan — “There is no mention made of this Cainan in either of the genealogies which Moses gives, Genesis 10:24, and 11:12; but Salah is there said to be the son of Arphaxad. Cainan must therefore have been introduced here from the translation of the Seventy interpreters, who have inserted him in both these places in the same order as we find him here; and as this translation was then commonly used, and was more generally understood than the Hebrew, it is probable that some transcriber of this gospel added Cainan from that version. Unless we suppose that Luke himself might choose, in writing this genealogy, to follow the LXX., as he appears to do in several other passages that he has quoted from the Old Testament.” The evangelist’s design was only to present us with the genealogy of Christ in its ascent to Adam, and this is equally clear, whether we reckon Salah as the immediate descendant of Arphaxad, or whether we consider him as his grandson by Cainan.

Ver. 36. The son of Cainan. The name of this progenitor is in the LXX, but not in the Hebrew text. Eusebius however retains it in his chronological canon, and St. Luke must have found it in the early gospels to which he had access. The LXX read, “Arphaxad lived one hundred and thirty five years, and begat Cainan: and Cainan lived one hundred and thirty and five years, and begat Salah.” Genesis 11:12, 13. From the exact number of a hundred and thirty five years in both those patriarchs, before the reigning prince was born, it is contended that Cainan is but a surname of the same person. — Be that as it may, learned men very much adhere to the chronology of the LXX, notwithstanding the derangement it makes in the Hebrew chronology. Unless the years which the LXX give to Cainan be admitted, the time allowed from the deluge of Noah to the inundation of Ogyges can never be explained.

36. Which was the son of Cainan—The name of this Cainan does not appear in the Old Testament catalogues. It has been inserted, both in the Septuagint and in this place, by means unknown. There seems to be some reason to suppose that it was first inserted in the Septuagint for the purpose of lengthening the chronology. It may thence have been inserted by early transcribers into Luke’s genealogy in order to make it agree with the Septuagint.

Verses 36, 37. Which was the son of Cainan — “There is no mention made of this Cainan in either of the genealogies which Moses gives, Genesis 10:24, and 11:12; but Salah is there said to be the son of Arphaxad. Cainan must therefore have been introduced here from the translation of the Seventy interpreters, who have inserted him in both these places in the same order as we find him here; and as this translation was then commonly used, and was more generally understood than the Hebrew, it is probable that some transcriber of this gospel added Cainan from that version. Unless we suppose that Luke himself might choose, in writing this genealogy, to follow the LXX., as he appears to do in several other passages that he has quoted from the Old Testament.” The evangelist’s design was only to present us with the genealogy of Christ in its ascent to Adam, and this is equally clear, whether we reckon Salah as the immediate descendant of Arphaxad, or whether we consider him as his grandson by Cainan.

V. 38. Adam the son of God-That is, whatever the sons of Adam receive from their human parents, Adam received immediately from God, except sin and misery.

Verse 38. Adam, which was the son of God — Adam, being descended from no human parents, but formed by the power of a divine creating hand, might with peculiar propriety be called the son of God, having, in his original state, received immediately from God, whatever the sons of Adam receive from their parents, sin and misery excepted.

Ver. 38. Adam, which was the son of God. He was justly so called, because though a creature, he had neither father nor mother, but was the immediate production of the great Creator. Being thus the son of God, he was heir and lord of all the earth. All living beings were put under his power, and were caused to revere a presence superior to all their affinities.

Verse 38. Which was the son of God. — Adam is so called, as having no human father, and not being begotten, but created immediately by the Divine power.