Chapter 3

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 upwards.

1. Fifteenth year. [Ministry of John the Baptist, Luke 3:1–18=Matt. 3:1–12=Mark 1:1–8. Major comment: Matthew and Luke. See The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2] In ancient times it was the usual custom to date events by the regnal years of a reigning king or by the names of officials under whom the events occurred. There was no universal chronology in any way comparable to what we use today. Although in some respects the six points of historical note Luke gives here present Bible students with a chronological problem today, they unmistakably mark Luke as a historian who took great pains to be thorough and accurate (see on ch. 1:1–4), and so testify to the reliability of his gospel narrative. The chief chronological difficulty presented here lies in correlating the “fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” with other available chronological data on the life of Christ and with Christian Era dating. For a discussion of this problem see pp. 243-247.

Though Luke is generally considered to have been a Gentile, it seems he may here be using the form of chronological reckoning then current among the Jews. On the basis of a fall-to-fall year and the nonaccession-year system for figuring regnal years (see Vol. II, pp. 136-139), the first year of Tiberius would be considered to have closed in the autumn of a.d. 14. Accordingly, his “fifteenth year” would begin in the autumn of a.d. 27 and continue until the autumn of a.d. 28. According to DA 233 the baptism of Jesus occurred during the fall of a.d. 27, and thus very early during the “fifteenth year” of Tiberius.

Another process by which some have sought to determine the commencement of Christ’s ministry is based on John 2:13, 20, which places the first Passover of His public ministry in the 46th year of the Temple. For a discussion of this problem see pp. 242, 243. Concerning the expression, “about thirty years of age,” see on Luke 3:23.

Tiberius. See p. 246. Except for the mention of Augustus in ch. 2:1, references to “Caesar” throughout the Gospels always apply to Tiberius Caesar. Tiberius was noted for several successful military campaigns before his appointment as military governor of the provinces, being acclaimed “first soldier of the Empire.” He was known for strict discipline, leniency in taxation, and rigid economy in administration. He encouraged trade and communications. The Lake of Galilee was renamed the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1; etc.) in his honor. See The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, Palestine Under the Herodians, The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2,The Reigns of the Herods, and Palestine Under the Herodians.

Pontius Pilate. Fifth in the series of procurators appointed by Rome following the deposition and banishment of Archelaus in a.d. 6 (see on Matt. 2:22). Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus c. a.d. 26 and was recalled by Tiberius c. a.d. 36, for misconduct in office. See pp. 67, 68; see The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, The Reigns of the Herods, Palestine Under the Herodians.

Governor. A “governor,” or procurator was an administrator of equestrian rank appointed by the emperor as “governor” of a subdivision of a province. At this time Judea was a subdivision of the Roman province of Syria. See p. 66; see on Matt. 27:2.

Herod. That is, Herod Antipas (see on Matt. 2:22), appointed by his father Herod the Great as tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. The appointment was later confirmed by Augustus. His mother was a Samaritan. This was the Herod who married his niece Herodias, wife of his half brother (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods), a union to which the Jews objected and for which Antipas was rebuked by John the Baptist (Luke 3:19, 20). Jesus aptly characterized him as “that fox” (ch. 13:31, 32) and referred to his evil influence as “the leaven of Herod” (Mark 8:15). It was to Herod Antipas that Jesus was sent by Pilate during the course of His trial (Luke 23:7–15). The name Antipas is the contracted form of Antipater, the name borne by his grandfather. Though only a tetrarch, he practically ruled as king from the death of his father, Herod the Great, until he was deposed about a.d. 39 (Josephus Antiquities xvii. 11, 4; War ii. 6. 3 [94, 95]). It seems that he was permitted the courtesy title of king (Mark 6:14). See pp. 64, 65; The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, Palestine Under the Herodians; Palestine During the Ministry of Jesus.

Tetrarch of Galilee. On his coins Antipas refers to himself by the title “tetrarch.” At first a “tetrarch” was strictly the governor of the fourth part of a province, later of a subdivision of a province. Finally the term was used of any ruler less than a king in rank.

Philip. Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods ), and probably the most fair and judicious of all of the sons of Herod the Great (Josephus Antiquities xvii. 4. 6). He married Salome, the daughter of Herodias and Herod Philip I, not long after the incident recorded in Mark 6:22–25 (Josephus Antiquities xvii. 5. 4). Philip was the first of the Herods to have figures of Augustus and Tiberius impressed on his coins. This the Jews considered idolatry, but fortunately for Philip his subjects were almost exclusively heathen. He rebuilt Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Mt. Hermon, naming it in honor of Tiberius Caesar and himself (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 2. 1; War ii. 9. 1 [168]). He rebuilt the city of Bethsaida Julias, which he named in honor of the daughter of Augustus. The latter city, at the north end of the Lake of Galilee, was the home of Peter, Andrew, and Philip (see John 1:44; 12:21). Philip ruled for 37 years, from 4 b.c. to a.d. 34. See The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, Palestine Under the Herodians.

Iturжa. A region northeast of the Lake of Galilee, and east of Caesarea Philippi. Some have thought that the name is derived from Jetur, a son of Ishmael (see Gen. 25:15). See Palestine During the Ministry of Jesus.

Trachonitis. A region lying generally to the east of Ituraea. The name is evidently derived from the Gr. trachus, meaning a “rough” or “stony” area, which describes this region. Its soldiers are reputed to have been skilled archers.

Lysanias. Bible critics have long pointed to Luke’s mention of “Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene” as a gross chronological blunder. They note that the only ruler by that name in the vicinity designated was a son of Ptolemy, a king (not a tetrarch), whose capital was Chalcis in Coele-Syria, not in Abilene, and who reigned from 40–36 b.c. Although it must be admitted that there is no specific historical confirmation of Luke’s statement, several indirect references to a Lysanias corresponding to the Lysanias of Luke rather than the son of Ptolemy are strongly in Luke’s favor. Josephus refers to “Abila of Lysanias” (Antiquities xix. 5. 1) and to a tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antiquities xx. 7. 1; War ii. 11. 5 [215]; 12. 8 [247]). A medal has been found designating a certain Lysanias as “tetrarch and high priest.” An inscription proves that the former Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, left children, one of whom might have been the Lysanias Luke mentions. Another inscription from the time of Tiberius speaks of a “tetrarch Lysanias.” Commenting on Luke’s supposed error, the International Critical Commentary observes that “such a mistake is very improbable; and the only difficulty about Luke’s statement is that we have no indisputable evidence of this tetrarch Lysanias.”

Abilene. A district between Damascus and the Anti-Lebanon Mountains.

2. Annas. Appointed high priest by Quirinius, governor of Syria, about a.d. 6 or 7; deposed a.d. 14 or 15 by Valerius Gratus (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 2. 2), who preceded Pilate as procurator of Judea. Annas had five sons, each of whom became high priest, as did also his son-in-law Caiaphas. The office was held by members of his family off and on for some 50 years after he himself was deposed. Though he no longer served as high priest during the ministry of Jesus, he was still considered the legitimate high priest by a majority of his countrymen (see Acts 4:6).

Caiaphas. Son-in-law of Annas. Appointed high priest by Valerius Gratus about a.d. 18 or 19, he continued in office till about a.d. 36. He was thus officially the high priest throughout the ministry of Jesus. He was a Sadducee, proud and cruel, overbearing and intolerant, but weak and vacillating in character (see John 11:49, 50; DA 539, 540, 703). See a Synopsis of the Life of Christ, The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2.

High priests. Caiaphas, officially high priest, and Annas, deposed by the Romans, still popularly honored as high priest (see John 18:13, 24; Acts 4:6). Originally the office of high priest was supposed to be hereditary and thus for life, but under Herodian and Roman rule high priests were often appointed and deposed in rapid succession. One of them held the office for but one day. From the accession of Herod the Great in 37 b.c. till the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, altogether 28 persons held the sacred office, their average term of office thus being about four years.

John. See on Matt. 3:1. Only Luke designates John as the son of Zacharias (see Luke 1:67). Apparently, the chronological data of Matt. 3:1 apply to the time when “the word of God came unto John,” meaning the time when God called him to his appointed work and gave him the specific “word,” or message, he was to proclaim. John may have commenced his ministry about the Passover season of the year a.d. 27 (see The Ministry of Our Lord).

The wilderness. See on Matt. 3:1. All three Synoptic Gospels refer to the fact that John was “in the wilderness,” by way of emphasizing the fact that he avoided places where men naturally congregate. The “word of God” probably came to John in the Wilderness of Judea, where much of his youth and young manhood had been spent (see on Luke 1:80), but he actually began his preaching and baptizing in Peraea, opposite Jericho (John 10:40; DA 132; see on Luke 1:80; John 1:28).

3. Country. Gr. perichoµros, “a region round about” (see on Matt. 3:1, 5). John began his preaching and baptizing at Bethabara (Bethany), “beyond Jordan” (John 10:40). Later he is mentioned as being near Salim (see on John 3:23). Most of his ministry was conducted in the wilderness (DA 220).

Preaching. Gr. keµrussoµ, “to proclaim.” John proclaimed the value and necessity of baptism and the forsaking of sin (see on Matt. 3:2, 6) as a necessary preparation for the coming of Messiah and His kingdom.

Baptism of repentance. See on Matt. 3:2, 6; cf. Isa. 1:16. “Repentance” as preached by John included far more than the confession of past sins (see Ps. 32:1). As his words of admonition make evident (Luke 3:9–14), “repentance” was to be followed by a new life in which the principles of righteousness already revealed in Scripture were to be put into practice (cf. Micah 6:8).

Remission. Gr. aphesis, “release,” or “forgiveness”; literally, “a sending away,” or “a dismissal.” Repentance, confession, and hence forgiveness, were to precede baptism, and were the first steps to be taken in preparing “the way of the Lord” and making “his paths straight,” in filling in the “valleys” and leveling the “mountains” of character (Luke 3:4, 5; cf. Matt. 3:6). Luke uses aphesis more often than all other NT writers combined.

4. Paths. Literally, “beaten tracks.”

5. Every valley. That is, every chasm or ravine, every rough place in the road. Luke alone of the gospel writers adds the details of vs. 5, 6, quoted from Isa. 40:4, 5. The work here described is an apt illustration of the transformation of character that accompanies genuine conversion. The high places of human pride and power were to be cast down (DA 215; see on Matt. 3:3).

6. See the salvation. Isa. 40:5, from which Luke is quoting, reads, “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” Upon beholding Jesus as an infant in the Temple, Simeon had exclaimed, “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation” (Luke 2:30). Jesus came to earth to reveal the glory of the divine character, and it is as we behold “the glory of the Lord” that we “are changed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18).

7. Said he. Literally, “he kept saying” or “used to say,” meaning that John spoke again and again, no doubt giving emphasis to the same theme. Thus Luke’s report of the preaching of John is not to be taken as referring to a particular sermon delivered upon a certain occasion, but rather as a summary of the points that impressed those who listened, gleaned from various sermons (see on v. 18).

Multitude. Gr. ochloi, “crowds,” or “multitudes.”

Came forth. See on Matt. 3:5.

To be baptized. See on Matt. 3:6.

Generation. Gr. genneµmata, in this context, “brood.” These words were addressed specifically to the Pharisees and Sadducees (see on Matt. 3:7). The graphic imagery employed by John in his preaching, with its emphasis on common, everyday scenes of the countryside, is reminiscent of the messages of such OT prophets as Joel and Amos, and of the parables of Christ. Notice the rapid succession of figures of speech: workmen repairing a highway, a brood of vipers, fruits, an ax laid to the trunk of a tree, a slave boy removing his master’s sandals, a baptism of fire, and the threshing floor with its winnowing shovel, its growing pile of grain, and the chaff blown off to one side by the wind.

Who hath warned? With this scathing inquiry, the wilderness prophet questioned the motives of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Their motives and their ideals were foreign to the principles of the kingdom of heaven. In their present mood they would be no more welcome in this kingdom than a brood of snakes would be on the threshing floor at harvesttime (see Luke 3:17; cf. on Matt. 3:7).

The wrath to come. See on Matt. 3:7; cf. Luke 3:18.

8. Bring forth. See on Matt. 3:8.

Our father. In the Greek the word translated “father” is in the emphatic position.

9. The axe is laid. See on Matt. 3:10.

10. The people. Literally, “the crowds.”

Asked. Literally, “kept asking.” After each discourse the people made personal inquiry as to how to apply these principles to their own life problems. To each John gave appropriate counsel (see vs. 10–14).

What shall we do? The Spirit-inspired words of John the Baptist stirred up hearts until the people were eager to do something immediately by way of preparing for “the wrath to come” (v. 7) and the kingdom of God (v. 4). A sermon that does not stir men to some response has failed of its purpose. John was a powerful evangelist. After his appeal to the people to prepare for the coming of the Lord, they asked him for specific information as to how they might do so. In response, John pointed out to each individual or to each group their own besetting sins, thus indicating where each man should begin. Josephus wrote that John “was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism” (Antiquities xviii. 5. 2).

11. Coats. Gr. chitoµnes, “tunics,” the inner garments worn next to the skin, as distinguished from the himatia, “cloaks,” or “mantles,” the outer garments worn over the chitoµnes, the “tunics” or “shirts.”

Impart. Literally, “share.”

Meat. Gr. broµmata, foods in general, irrespective of vegetable or animal origin.

12. Publicans. Gr. teloµnai, “tax collectors,” called by the Romans publicani.Teloµnai is from telos, “tax,” and oµneomai, “to buy,” thus literally, “buyers of taxes.” Instead of having regular government employees appointed as revenue officers to collect fixed taxes, the Romans auctioned off the privilege of collecting revenues within a city or province. Only wealthy men were able to bid at the auction, for those who acquired the privilege were required to pay a stipulated sum into the royal treasury, irrespective of how much was actually collected, and to furnish security until the amount was paid. These teloµnai usually followed the practice of subdividing, among subcontractors, the area assigned them, or of hiring agents to do the actual work of collecting taxes. In the NT “publicans” were the agents who actually collected taxes from the people, and were probably, with rare exceptions, Jews.

As representatives of a heathen conqueror, tax collectors were to the people a most painful reminder of the low state to which the Jewish nation had fallen. Adding to the disgrace of “publicans” in the sight of the Jews, was the unscrupulous practice followed by nearly all of these heartless parasites, of fleecing the people of every farthing that law or the ever-present Roman soldier might force from them. A Jew who became a “publican” was looked upon as a traitor to Israel, a lackey of the hated Romans. If it was wrong, from the Jewish point of view, to pay a tax, how much worse it must have been to collect taxes! A “publican” was therefore ostracized from society and excommunicated from the synagogue. He was looked upon and treated as a heathen dog, and tolerated only because the power of Rome was back of him (see on Mark 2:14; see p. 66).

Master. Literally, “teacher.” Like Christ, John not only preached but taught.

13. Exact no more. Or, “collect no more.” Neither John nor Christ condemned tax collecting as a profession. Jesus was a “friend” of tax collectors (see Matt. 11:19) and joined with them on social occasions (see Matt. 9:10–13). But both Jesus and John required fairness, honesty, and kindness of those among this class who applied for citizenship in the kingdom of heaven.

Appointed. They were to collect as much as was required of them, including a reasonable fee for their work. But there was no place for extortioners and heartless wolves in the kingdom of heaven.

14. Soldiers. Literally, “[ones] serving as soldiers,” possibly now on duty. John was probably preaching in Peraea (see on John 1:28), within the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (see on Luke 3:1), and the soldiers who addressed John were probably Jews in the service of Herod. They may have been sent by Herod to keep watch on John, to prevent a popular uprising, or they may have come as police assistants to the tax collectors already mentioned. The word for “soldiers” may imply that the “soldiers” were there on business and not out of curiosity. Their question was apparently asked in all sincerity—Could they, as soldiers, qualify for the kingdom of heaven? In reply, John declared they could if they would comply with the conditions of citizenship. Had the soldiers been Romans it is likely that John would have told them to believe in the true God and become converts to the Jewish faith.

Demanded. Or, “asked” (see on v. 10).

What shall we do? In the Greek “we” is emphatic, as if the soldiers had said: “And we, what shall we do?” This emphasis may imply that the soldiers were in the company of the tax collectors, who had just spoken to John (vs. 12, 13).

Do violence to no man. That is to say, “Do not extort money from anyone by intimidation.” Misuse of their power as soldiers was the besetting sin over which these men must have victory in order to be ready for the coming Prince. John did not condemn the soldiers as such, but pointed out that they must exercise their power with justice and mercy.

Wages. Gr. opsoµnia, “soldiers’ pay,” or “wages.” Paul uses opsoµnia in Rom. 6:23 for the “wages” of sin. He asks the people of the church at Corinth, “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges [Gr. opsoµnia]?” (1 Cor. 9:7). The soldiers who came to John the Baptist were apparently mercenaries and not conscripts.

15. Were in expectation. Gr. prosdokaoµ, “to expect,” “to look for,” or “to wait for.” The same Greek word is used of the lame man sitting at the gate called Beautiful, who looked up to Peter and John, “expecting to receive something of them” (see Acts 3:2–5). The imagination of the throngs of people who heard John was fired with eager anticipation that the Messianic prophecies to which he referred were on the verge of fulfillment. Like the two disciples to whom Christ appeared on the Emmaus road, whose hearts burned within them (see Luke 24:32), the people ardently hoped that Israel’s deliverer might soon appear. John’s message gripped the popular imagination in a way that stirred the nation and reached to the remotest village and hamlet.

All men. The universal excitement was at fever pitch. Josephus says that the crowds that gathered to hear John “were very greatly moved by hearing his words,” and that Herod Antipas “feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise)” (Antiquities xviii. 5. 2). John’s appointed task was to rouse men’s minds from the slumber of centuries, to fire their hearts with hope that a new day was about to dawn, and to impel them to prepare for the Coming One—the Desire of all ages. In this work he was eminently successful. In fact, he stirred even the Jewish leaders to investigate his message (see John 1:19–25). “All men” knew about John, and all who possibly could do so came to hear him.

Mused. Literally, “were reasoning,” or “were deliberating” (see on ch. 1:29). The people wondered what the result of all this excitement would be.

Whether he were the Christ. The Jewish leaders often demanded miracles of Jesus as evidence of His Messiahship (see on Matt. 12:38; 16:1; etc.). However, “John did no miracle” (John 10:41). His rude garb bore no resemblance to royalty. He was, in fact, of the tribe of Levi (see Luke 1:5), not of the tribe of Judah, as the prophets had said the Christ would be (see on Matt. 1:1). Nevertheless, the people were ready to accept him as the Messiah should he put forth the claim, and even the representatives of the Sanhedrin wondered whether he might be the Promised One (see John 1:19–21). The Jewish nation could have paid John no higher compliment; it could have borne no more eloquent testimony to the power of his message. Indeed, his proclamation of the coming of the Messiah was so effective that the people mistook him for the Messiah Himself!

16. Baptize you with water. See on Matt. 3:11.

Latchet. See on Mark 1:7.

Shoes. See on Matt. 3:11.

Not worthy to unloose. See on Mark 1:7.

Baptize you. See on Matt. 3:11.

17. Whose fan. See on Matt. 3:12.

18. Many other things. This implies that the items mentioned constitute a summary of the preaching of John the Baptist rather than a verbatim report of any one sermon (see on v. 7).

19. Herod the tetrarch. [Imprisonment of John, Luke 3:19, 20=Matt. 14:3–5. Major comment: Luke. See Judean Ministry from First Passover A.D. 28; The Ministry of Our Lord.] Luke makes reference to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist at this point in order to complete his account concerning John before proceeding to narrate the ministry of Christ. It seems that John was not imprisoned until a number of months, perhaps a year or more, after the baptism of Jesus (DA 214; cf. p. 213), at approximately the time of the Passover of a.d. 29. He remained in prison until the early spring of a.d. 30, and was beheaded a few weeks before the Passover of that year (see DA 360, 361, 364). See p. 64; the Opening of the Galilean Ministry, The Ministry of Our Lord; Additional Note on Luke 4.

Reproved. According to Josephus the Jews as a whole also took exception to this marriage (Antiquities xviii. 5. 4).

Herodias. A daughter of Aristobulus, and granddaughter of Herod the Great. Herod Antipas divorced his own wife, a daughter of King Aretas of Arabia, in order to marry Herodias (Josephus Antiquities xviii. 5. 1). See on v. 1.

Philip’s. This Herod (see The Hasmonaeans and the Herods ) was Herod Antipas’ half brother, a son of Herod the Great and Mariamne (II)— not Herod Philip the Tetrarch (see on v. 1), a son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra. Salome was the daughter of this Herod and Herodias. He had been disinherited by his father Herod the Great and lived a private life, first in Jerusalem and later in Rome.

20. Added. This was a notable addition to the other “evils” of Herod (see v. 19).

Shut up John. John was imprisoned in the early spring of a.d. 29, after a ministry of about two years (see The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2, The Reigns of the Herods, The Ministry of Our Lord; see on Matt 3:1). The fact that he was imprisoned by Herod Antipas implies that John was preaching on the Peraea side of the Jordan River at the time of his arrest (see on Luke 3:3).

It appeared to Herod that the people were ready to do whatever John told them to do, and Herod feared that a popular uprising might be the result (Antiquities xviii. 5. 2; DA 360). Josephus does not mention the matter of Herodias in connection with John’s imprisonment, though he elsewhere mentions Herodias’ marriage to Antipas (Antiquities xviii. 5. 4). Thus Josephus probably records Herod’s publicly alleged reason for imprisoning John. It would be unlikely that Herod would announce as his reason for so doing the private matter of Herodias, of which the Jews as a whole disapproved. See DA 214.

Prison. According to Josephus (Antiquities xviii. 5. 2) this was the fortress of Machaerus, in Peraea, east of the Dead Sea. The site of Machaerus was discovered in 1807, and ruins of the dungeons can still be seen. However, in view of the sequence of events in Mark 6:17–30 (cf. DA 222), certain scholars think that the birthday celebration may have been held in Tiberias, and therefore question the accuracy of Josephus’ statement.

21. All the people. [The Baptism, Luke 3:21–23^a=Matt. 3:13–17==Mark 1:9–11. Major comment: Matthew.] A common Jewish figure of hyperbole, which probably here was meant to include a decided majority of those who listened. At least the Pharisees and Sadducees declined baptism (Luke 7:30, 33; Matt. 21:25, 32).

Praying. Only Luke records that Jesus prayed as He came forth from the river. It is appropriate that Luke, who so often mentions Jesus in the act of prayer, should here note this detail.

22. In a bodily shape. Only Luke qualifies the dove thus.

My beloved Son. See on Matt. 3:17. Codex Bezae adds, “today I have begotten thee.” While here affirming the true deity of Jesus, Luke proceeds at once to prove His true humanity (vs. 23–38). Matthew opens his account of the gospel story by presenting the genealogy of Jesus (see on Matt. 1:1); Luke reserves his genealogy for the moment when Jesus took up His life mission. Moses similarly gives his own pedigree after recording his first public appearance as spokesman for God and leader of Israel (see Ex. 6:16–20).

23. Began. Gr. archomai, “to begin.” The verb appears also in Matt. 4:17; Mark 4:1; Luke 3:8; Acts 1:1, 22; 10:37; etc. A problem arises in connection with the form here used, archomenos. Whether archomenos refers to the “beginning” of the 30th year of Jesus’ life, or to the commencement of His ministry, is not clear. Tyndale’s translation of the first part of Luke 3:23 reads: “Jesus was aboute thirty yere of age when he beganne.” The Cranmer Bible of 1539 adopted a new translation, “Jesus him selfe beganne to be aboute thirty yere of age,” and this was followed by the KJV. Inasmuch as the context (vs. 1–22) is concerned with the baptism of Jesus, with which His public ministry began, many have concluded that archomenos must refer to His ministry (see on Mark 1:1; cf. Acts 1:22; 10:37, 38). They consequently add expressions such as “to teach” (RV) or “his ministry” (RSV) after archomenos. See on Luke 1:57; 2:42.

About thirty years. Luke does not commit himself as to the precise age of Jesus at the time of His baptism, but rather emphasizes the fact that He was “about thirty years of age.” So far as Luke’s statement goes, this might be a year or two more or less than precisely 30. Among the Jews the age of 30 was generally considered to be the time when a man arrived at full maturity and was consequently eligible for the responsibilities of public life. See a Synopsis of the Life of Christ, The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2.

If the birth of Jesus occurred in the autumn of 5 b.c., as seems probable (see on ch. 2:6, 8), His 30th year, by the Jewish method of reckoning (see on ch. 2:42), would have begun in the autumn of a.d. 25 and ended in the autumn of a.d. 26 (see on v. 1). This is fully in harmony with Luke’s more or less general statement that Jesus was “about” 30 years of age, and with all known chronological data pertaining to Christ’s life. It would seem, then, that Luke is not here making a precise chronological statement, but is merely noting that Jesus was of mature age at the time of His baptism and the commencement of His public ministry.

Was supposed. [The Human Ancestry of Jesus, Luke 3:23b–38=Matt. 1:1–17. Major comment: Matthew and Luke.] Jesus was “legally considered” or “popularly believed” to be the son of Joseph (see John 8:41). In the official records in the Temple at Jerusalem, Jesus was registered as the first-born of Mary and Joseph (see Luke 2:21; DA 52). Joseph’s prompt action when directed by the angel to take Mary as his wife no doubt protected both her own and the Child’s good name (see on Matt. 1:24). According to the official records and before the law Jesus was the son of Joseph.

The son. For the importance and value of the ancestral record of Jesus to people of NT times, see on Matt. 1:1. The genealogy as given by Luke differs in several important respects from that given by Matthew, and these differences confront modern readers of the Bible with what is, admittedly, a problem of no small difficulty. This problem consists essentially in the fact that although both genealogical lists purport to give the ancestry of Joseph, they differ between themselves, not only as to the number of ancestors listed within a given period of time, but also as to who most of these ancestors were. The chief points of difference between the two lists may be stated as follows:

1. Luke lists 41 descendants of David who were ancestors of Jesus; Matthew, 26.

2. With the exception of Salathiel, Zerubbabel, and Joseph the husband of Mary, the two lists are altogether different for David’s descendants.

3. The two genealogies converge briefly, with Salathiel and Zerubbabel, but Matthew identifies Salathiel as the son of Jeconiah; Luke lists him as the son of Neri.

4. Matthew identifies Joseph as the son of Jacob; Luke, as the son of Heli.

At first these differences appear to constitute major discrepancies between the lists given by Matthew and Luke. The problem is still further complicated by the fact that nothing whatever is known concerning 60 of the 64 persons named in both lists, and that information concerning the other four is at best meager. This absence of information makes a positive reconciliation of the differences between the two lists practically impossible. Fortunately, however, enough is known of ancient Jewish customs and modes of thought and expression to provide an entirely plausible explanation of each point of difference, and thus to demonstrate that the discrepancies may reasonably be considered apparent rather than real. The various points of difference will be considered in order:

1. As noted, Matthew assigns 26 generations, averaging about 37 years each, to the period of time from the death of David to the birth of Christ; Luke has 41 generations, averaging about 24 years each. According to the tentative chronology followed by this commentary, David died in the year 971 b.c. (see Vol. II, pp. 77, 143) and Christ was born 5 b.c. (see Vol. V, p. 242), an interval of about 966 years. In part, it may be possible to account for the great difference between 26 and 41 generations by assuming that each ancestor of Jesus in the line traced by Luke was, on the average, about 13 years younger at the birth of his successor than the average of Matthew’s line. But the difference is too great to be accounted for altogether on this basis. In view of the fact that Matthew has clearly omitted at least four genealogical links during that part of the 966 years where a comparison with OT lists can be made (see on Matt. 1:8, 11, 17), it is entirely possible that he may have omitted at least 11 from the more obscure period between the Testaments. It may be observed, also, that an average span of 24 years between a man’s own birth and that of his successor is far more probable than 37 years. This observation tends to confirm the 37 generations of Luke and the probability that Matthew arrived at 24 by the intentional omission of about 15 names from his list (see on Matt. 1:8, 11, 17).

2. Except for Salathiel, Zerubbabel, and Joseph the husband of Mary, the genealogical lists given by Matthew and Luke obviously trace the ancestry of Jesus back to David through two entirely different lines of descent. From David to the Captivity, Matthew follows the ruling line of the royal family, and we assume that the same is true of those listed from the Captivity onward (see on Matt. 1:17). Luke apparently follows a nonruling branch of the royal line back to Nathan, another son of David by Bath-sheba (1 Chron. 3:5; see on Luke 3:31). Intermarriage within the limits of the royal family easily accounts for the fact that Christ’s ancestry can be traced back to David through two almost entirely distinct family lines. This does not, however, account for the fact that these two lines are given (see No. 4, below).

3. For a discussion of the problem presented by the convergence of the two lists in Salathiel and Zerubbabel, after whom they again diverge, see on v. 27.

4. See below under “Of Joseph” and “Son of Heli.”

Of Joseph. Like Matthew (see on Matt. 1:16), Luke carefully avoids stating that Jesus was the son of Joseph. The parenthetical expression “as was supposed” not only implies the absence of direct blood relationship, but suggests as well that legally and popularly Jesus was considered the son of Joseph.

Among the Hebrew people the terms for “father” and “son,” “mother” and “daughter,” “brother” and “sister,” etc., were commonly used to include more distant relationship than the words imply in the English (see on Gen. 29:12; Num. 10:29; Deut. 15:2; 1 Chron. 2:7). Hence “son,” for example, as used in the Bible, may denote relationship by natural birth (whether immediate or remote), by adoption, by levirate marriage (see on Deut. 25:5–9), or simply by character (see 2 Tim. 1:2).

Son of Heli. Or, “son of Eli,” Heli being from the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name rendered in English as “Eli.” Obviously Joseph the husband of Mary could not be the literal son of both Heli, as here, and of Jacob, as in Matt. 1:16. Two plausible explanations have been proposed, either of which is fully in harmony with known Jewish customs. According to one explanation, both lists give the ancestry of Joseph, the one by blood descent and the other by adoption or by levirate marriage. According to the other explanation, Matthew gives the ancestry of Joseph, and Luke gives that of Mary, through her father.

Those who consider both lists as representing the lineage of Joseph, explain that one list gives his actual blood descent, and the other, his descent by adoption into a related family line. If Joseph was literally the “son of Jacob,” as in Matthew, he must have become the “son of Heli” in some other than a literal sense. If Heli had no natural heir, he could have adopted Joseph, through whom, according to Jewish custom, both lines might be preserved. According to the second explanation, Mary was the only child of Heli, and by marrying her Joseph became the legal son and heir of Heli in harmony with the provisions of the levirate marriage law as given in the time of Moses (see on Deut. 25:5–9; Matt. 22:24).

24. Matthat. See on Matt. 1:15. Nothing more is known concerning the persons named from Matthat in Luke 3:24 to Rhesa in v. 27 than that they were ancestors of Jesus. They are not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible because of the fact that the OT canon does not extend much beyond the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity.

27. Zorobabel. That is, Zerubbabel. Luke calls Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel, and Salathiel the son of Neri. Matthew also calls Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel, but calls Salathiel the son of Jeconiah (see on Matt. 1:12). While there may have been more than one Zerubbabel during this period (the name probably means “a shoot of Babylon” or “begotten in Babylon”) with a father named Salathiel, such a possibility is almost universally discounted. Thus the problem here raised is common to both general theories advanced in explanation of the differences between the two genealogical lists (see on Luke 3:23).

Various solutions to the problem of Salathiel’s parentage have been proposed. Some suggest that Salathiel was the literal son of Neri, but the “son” of Jeconiah [Jehoiachin; see on 1 Chron. 3:16] by adoption. Others suggest that Salathiel, though the son of Neri, became the legal successor to Jeconiah, possibly owing to the extinction of Jeconiah’s family (see on Jer. 22:30), or for some other reason. Still others suggest that a daughter of Jeconiah married Neri, and that Salathiel was thus the son of Neri and the grandson of Jeconiah, but called “son” of Jeconiah according to Jewish custom. As to Zerubbabel’s parentage, both Luke and Matthew call him the son of Salathiel (Shealtiel), in agreement with Ezra 3:2; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; and Haggai 1:1, though the Masoretic text of 1 Chron. 3:19 calls Zerubbabel the son of Pedaiah (see on 1 Chron. 3:19; Ezra 2:2). However, the LXX of 1 Chron. 3:19 lists Salathiel as the father of Zerubbabel, and it is apparent that Luke here follows the LXX whenever it provides information pertinent to his genealogical list (see on Luke 3:36).

Neri. The persons named from Neri in v. 27 to Mattatha in v. 31 are not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. The period of time covered by this group extends from the Babylonian captivity back through the time of the divided kingdom to Solomon.

31. Nathan. Nathan was a son of David and Bath-sheba, born in Jerusalem (see on 2 Sam. 5:14).

David. See on Matt. 1:1, 6. For the names from David to Abraham listed in Luke 3:31–34 see on Matt. 1:2–6.

34. Thara. That is, Terah, the father of Abraham (see on Gen. 11:26–32). The difference in the spelling of the names from Terah to Mahalaleel (Maleleel) is due to the fact that in the OT these names are transliterated into English directly from the Hebrew, whereas in the NT they are transliterated from the Greek, which in turn was transliterated from the Hebrew.

Nachor. That is, Nahor, Abraham’s grandfather (see on Gen. 11:22).

35. Saruch. That is, Serug, Abraham’s great-grandfather (see on Gen. 11:20).

Ragau. That is, Reu (see on Gen. 11:18).

Phalec. That is, Peleg (see on Gen. 11:16).

Heber. That is, Eber (see on Gen. 10:21; 11:14).

Sala. That is, Salah (see on Gen. 11:13).

36. Cainan. The name Cainan appears here and in the LXX of Gen. 11:12, 13 and 1 Chron. 1:18, but not in the Masoretic text. The fact that the Greek transliteration of these Hebrew names in Luke 3:34–38 is identical with that of the LXX in Gen. 5:5–32; 11:10–24 implies that Luke probably followed the LXX for this portion of his genealogy. This possibility is confirmed by the further fact that Luke includes Cainan here, between Salah and Arphaxad.

Arphaxad. See on Gen. 10:22; 11:12.

Sem. That is, Shem, the second son of Noah (see on Gen. 5:32; 11:10, 11).

Noe. That is, Noah (see on Gen. 5:29).

Lamech. See on Gen. 5:25.

37. Mathusala. That is, Methuselah (see on Gen. 4:18; 5:25).

Enoch. See on Gen. 5:22, 24.

Jared. See on Gen. 4:18.

Maleleel. That is, Mahalaleel (see on Gen. 4:18).

Cainan. See Gen. 5:9. This patriarch, the son of Enos, is not to be confused with the Cainan of Luke 3:36, who is not mentioned in the Masoretic text of the OT (see on v. 36).

38. Enos. See on Gen. 4:26.

Seth. The third son of Adam and Eve (see on Gen. 4:25).

Adam. For the meaning of the name see on Gen. 1:26; 3:17; Num. 24:3. Luke begins his genealogy with the supernatural birth of the second or “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45) and now closes it with a reference to the creation of the first Adam.

Son of God. Luke here affirms his faith in God as the Creator of man and the Author of life, the One that “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:25, 26). In the beginning man was created in the image of God. Through faith in Jesus Christ it is our privilege to be created anew in His likeness (see 2 Cor. 5:17).

Ellen G. White comments

1–18DA 97–108

7 PK 140

10, 11 DA 107

13 DA 553

19 EW 154

21, 22 DA 109–113

22 EW 153, 156

23 4T 109

38 Ed 33, 130; PP 45