Luke 3
BolesLuke 3:1-20
SECTION TWO
THE ;
OF CHRIST’S PUBLIC
Luke 3:1 to 4:13
- THE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
1, 2 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign—Luke is a true historian; he defines very accurately the time when John began his ministry. It was the fifteenth year of the reign “of Tiberius Caesar.” Luke does not refer to some one great epoch like the birth of Christ, which is followed throughout the civilized world, for then no such epoch for the world had been established. He dates from the year of the reigning Roman emperor, and adds also the name of the governor of Judea, and then the tetrarchs of the adjacent provinces, and the high priests then in office. Tiberius Caesar succeeded Augustus in A.D. 14, according to very reliable historians; his fifteenth year (and John’s entrance upon his ministry) were in A.D. 29. As Jesus was six months younger than John, and about thirty years of age (verse 23) when he began his ministry, it follows that John began to preach not far from one and a half years before the baptism of Jesus.
Pontius Pilate became governor of Judea in A.D. 25 or 26. The name “tetrarch” was originally given to one who ruled a fourth part of a province; that is, one province having been divided into four parts. Pontius Pilate was a bold, heartless ruler; his first act was an outrage on the feelings of the Jews; he sent within the city of Jerusalem a body of soldiers to winter there. The Jews obtained their removal after many efforts to get them out of the holy city. Luke very aptly fixes this date as the time for the beginning of John’s ministry.
Herod was tetrarch of Galilee at this time. This was Herod Antipas, son of the monster, Herod the Great; he had been left by his father as ruler of the province of Galilee. “Tetrarch” originally meant the fourth part, but came to be used to signify the part of a kingdom over which the man ruled. John the Baptist was slain by this Herod and our Savior was mocked by him; his brother Philip also received a third part of the kingdom of Herod. “Philip” was “tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis”; “Ituraea” was a district in the northeast of Palestine and east of the Jordan; it received its name from Jetru, one of the sons of Ishmael. (Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 5:19.) It had been subdued by Aristobulus, who compelled the people to submit to the rites of the Jews. “Trachonitis” was the region bordering upon Ituraea and east of the Jordan. The name signifies a rough mountainous country. Philip had received it on a promise to drive out the people who had dwelt there some time. “Lysanias” was “tetrarch of Abilene”; nothing is known of him; “Abilene” was named from “Ablia,” which was the principal city in the region lying northwest of Damascus.
in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,—According to the Jewish law there could be but one high priest at a time. Luke, as a historian, is not stating what should have been, but only what constituted the facts in the matter. He is taking up important names as he found them in order to fix the date of his history. He found these two men serving as high priest at that time. Caiphas was son-in-law to Annas, who was actually serving as high priest. Annas was a man of very great influence.
He had been deposed as high priest, but was serving on the Sanhedrin. As Annas had been unjustly deposed by the Roman authorities, it may be that, in the opinion of the Jews, he was still termed the high priest, and a degree of power put into his hands that made him equal in authority to Caiaphas. Luke fixes the date of the beginning of the ministry of John by an emperor on one side, by a petty governor on the other, by two high priests who were serving at the time. At this date so clearly and fully defined the historian, Luke, now proceeds to narrate facts as he has collected them. It is to be remembered always that he is guided by the Holy Spirit in writing his history. “The word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” Luke has now fixed definitely the time for the beginning of John’s work. Like the prophets of old, John was specially directed to utter the divine message to the people and to baptize. (Jeremiah 1:2 Ezekiel 6:1.) This marked the beginning of John’s ministry as is evident from the whole account, not some later appearance of John which was the cause of his imprisonment, as some have supposed. “In the wilderness” of Judea describes the barren, hilly, and sparsely-settled region between Hebron and the Dead Sea.
The word “wilderness” or “desert” in the New Testament denotes merely an untilled, unenclosed, and thinly-inhabited country. The “fulness of the time” (Galatians 4:4) has now arrived.
3-6 And he came into all the region—The populous Jordan valley was a field of labor for John the Baptist. The burden of his message was a call upon men to repent and be baptized as the condition of their forgiveness; hence John came “preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.” “Preaching” means publicly announcing; as he traveled over the country, he delivered his brief message to individuals, families, and small companies wherever he found them, and then afterward to great crowds who flocked to hear him.
“Baptism” is the Greek “baptisma” transferred into our language with its final letter dropped; it means literally “a plunging and immersion.” All lexicographers bear testimony and agree to this; its figurative meaning is based on this meaning, and always expresses an idea of immersion. (Luke 12:50.) It is only with the literal meaning that we have here to do. The baptism of John was a new rite; it was not founded on the immersions of the old dispensation, under which persons performed the ceremony of bathing or immersing the whole body, not on others, but on themselves. (Leviticus 15:6; Leviticus 16:4.) The immersion of one person by another, as a divinely appointed act, is peculiar to Christianity, and was first introduced by John baptism was not practiced among the Jews nor heathens. John himself declared that he received his commission to baptize directly from God. (John 1:33.) Jesus intimated that the right was revealed to John from heaven. (Luke 20:4.) As baptism was a new rite it distinguished John’s ministry from all other prophets; hence he is called “the Baptist.” (Luke 7:20.) John’s preaching is very specifically designated as that of “baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.”
as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah—The preaching and baptism of John were the fulfillment of certain prophetic conditions; Luke recognizes the authority of the Old Testament. “The book of the words of Isaiah” means the roll or scroll of linen, papyrus, or parchment, the ancient form of a volume, written inside and unrolled for reading. “The words” of Isaiah means his prophetic discourses. Isaiah began to prophesy under the reign of Uzziah, about 759 B.C., and continued the prophetic office about sixty years under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. (Isaiah 1:1.) The predictions here quoted are found in Isaiah 40:3-5; Isaiah 52:10. John also applies it to himself. (John 1:23.) The figure here used is founded on the eastern custom of sending persons to prepare the way for the march of a king through the country. John is described as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” and his message is to “make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” It is not John, but his preaching and mission which are made prominent here; his preaching was indeed a “voice of one crying” aloud, of short duration, but by its great earnestness excited attention.
Every valley shall be filled,—The great oral purpose of John’s preaching was so well defined in the prophecy of him by Isaiah that Luke quotes the prophecy in full; everywhere in earnest tones, John called upon the people to prepare the way for the Greek King, leveling down the mountains, filling up the valley gorges, straightening all crooked ways, and making the rough places smooth. This is the way the royal road was prepared for the coming king. In a moral sense men must put away their sins, humble their proud spirits, and so make the way ready for the redeemer of man. All this as it stood before Isaiah’s mind was to introduce the glorious reign of the Messiah by means of which “all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” So remarkable and conspicuous would be the preparation and march of the King upon the straight and smooth highway that the whole human race should “see the salvation of God,” which the Messiah would bring.
7-9 He said therefore to the multitudes—Luke now begins to record what John said to the multitudes “that went out to be baptized of him.” John was a prophet, guided by the Holy Spirit, and the forerunner of the Messiah; it was his mission to get the people ready for the Messiah. The multitudes came from various quarters of the land. Matthew 3:7 says that “many of the Pharisees and Sadducees” came to his baptism, and that John addressed them as “ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” As Luke was writing for Gentiles, there was no need of his referring to these religious classes among the Jews; hence he addressed them as “ye offspring of vipers.” It may be that some had come through curiosity, others were envious and jealous, and some, especially of the Sadducees, were sneering at the dangers impending in a future life; all seemed to be aroused and anxious. As John was filled with the Holy Spirit he could see at a glance their selfish and wicked motives in coming to him, and he at once addressed them as “offspring of vipers,” persons both deceitful and malignant, and holding pernicious doctrines and principles. The viper was a very poisonous serpent. (Acts 28:3-6.)
who warned you to flee—“Warned” literally means “to show secretly”;the word implies a private or confidential hint or reminder. (Luke 12:5; Acts 9:16; Acts 20:35.) “Who” did not call for the names of the man or persons, but rather called their thought to the point that someone ought to have warned them to flee from the impending wrath of God. John had no word for men not in earnest to escape God’s wrath. It was a Jewish maxim that no circumcised person could ever be lost, but John warns them of a “wrath to come.” The impending wrath was to be visited upon those who rejected the kingdom of heaven and neglected preparation. The Jews expected troublous times in connection with the coming of the Messiah. (Isaiah 60:12; Isaiah 63:1; Malachi 3:1; Malachi 4:5.) John here referred in a prophetic way to the wrath which would come upon the Jewish nation at the destruction of Jerusalem and upon all the wicked at the general judgment. (Matthew 24:21; Matthew 24:38-39; 1 Thessalonians 1:10.)
Bring forth therefore fruits—Matthew here uses “fruit” instead of “fruits” as used by Luke. John demanded no merely emotional and selfish fear, but such works and conduct as would show sincerity; they were to bring fruits “worthy of repentance”; if they came professing repentance then they should bring forth fruits in harmony with such a profession; they should not even think that they had Abraham as their father or they should not think that because they were descendants of Abraham they did not need repentance. The reason assigned is that “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
And even now the axe also lieth at the root—“The axe laid at the root of the tree” is a proverb that was common among the Jews. The meaning is that the axe is ready to be applied for use, and not only were the branches to be pruned, but the axe was to be applied to the root of the tree. The object of the axe was to cut down “every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit.” Men are to be judged, not by their birth or their professions, but by their hearts and lives. Without delay all barren trees were to be cut down immediately and “cast into the fire.” This was unquenchable fire. (Verse 17; Hebrews 6:8.) In this way John would prepare the people for the coming of Christ by awakening within them a sense of their true condition and of their spiritual need. Expecting a temporal deliverer, they would, without this, most certainly reject Jesus.
10-15 And the multitudes asked him,—John certainly aroused the people and stirred them to action some of them received John’s teaching and became his disciples; others were aroused to opposition. They asked: “What then must we do?” They saw that being the seed of Abraham was not sufficient and that their keeping the traditions of the law not satisfactory; hence their question, “what then must we do?” They “asked” indicates the frequent repetition of their question, so the original indicates. John’s preaching moved them to press their inquiry; what are the fruits meet for repentance which they were to do, is what disturbed them. John’s answer to these questions was as emphatic as was his preaching.
And he answered and said—John’s first answer impressed the duties of practical life—give to those who are more destitute. “He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.” A second coat no man could want if his neighbor who had none wanted his first; two coats were sometimes worn, one of them for ornamentation or luxury; in such case the one who had two coats could very well spare one to those who had none. This explains what John meant when he said “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.” It also partially answers their question as to what they should do. Avarice and selfishness characterized at this time many of the Jews. (James 4:1-4; James 5:1-6.) Furthermore, “he that hath food, let him do likewise.” The “coat” and “food” represent the physical necessities of man; these should not be hoarded, but generously given to those who had need.
And there came also publicans to be baptized,—“Publicans” were collectors of Roman taxes; the Roman officials often farmed out the direct taxes and customs to capitalists on their payment of certain sums into the public treasury, hence they were called “publicans.” Sometimes this sum, being greater than any one person could pay, was paid by a company; under these were “submagistri,” living in the provinces; and under these again were the “portitores” or actual customhouse officers, who are referred to in the New Testament. They were often chosen from the low and wicked class of people and were so notorious for their extortions that they were habitually included in the same class with harlots and sinners.
And he said unto them, Extort no more—“Extort” means “exact”; the word is used of the exaction of legal tribute, and excessive exaction is expressed by the following words: John would hardly have commanded them to extort in any case. John does not demand that they give up their employment, but that they should be honest in the performance of their duties. If these publicans truly repented, they would indeed exhibit other fruits, but this in their case was absolutely necessary;without it there could be no true repentance.
And soldiers also asked him,—The soldiers asked the same question that the multitudes and publicans asked; hence here are three classes who have asked what they should do to “bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.” The “soldiers” were probably Jewish troops; for if they had been Gentiles, John would doubtless have enjoined upon them the worship of God: such worship is here taken for granted. However, we cannot know just who they were; they could have been Jewish soldiers of the Roman province of Judea; it matters not who they were; they came under the class of bearing fruit worthy of repentance. John’s answer was adapted to their sins and temptations; they were prone to indolence, violence, malice, and insubordination. Hence, John told them that they should “extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages.” “Extort” “by violence” literally means “to shake violently,” and “to vex and harass” in order to extort money for some selfish end. Neither were they to accuse “wrongfully” anyone in order to receive a bribe or a reward. They are further admonished to be “content” with their wages. “Wages” literally means something purchased to eat with bread; hired soldiers were at first paid partly in rations of meat, grain, and fruit; hence the word came to mean rations, “wages,” or stipend.
15-17 And as the people were in expectation,—The people were anxious for John to declare himself, hence “all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John”; they were anxious to determine whether he was “the Christ.” Such preaching as John did was so out of the ordinary that the people wondered as to whether he was the Messiah. John was filled with the Holy Spirit; hence his teachings were far different from those of the scribes and Pharisees. The people were anxious to know who this wonderful prophet and teacher was. When the time came John answered them and said: “I indeed baptize you with water;but there cometh he that is mightier than I.” To baptize “with water” and only “with water” described John’s work, but there would come another who was so much greater than John, as great as they thought John was, that John was not “worthy to unloose” “the latchet” of his shoes. The language used by John implies that this “Mighty One” was already in the midst of them. Jesus was mightier than John in his nature, office, wisdom, power, and aims. (Matthew 28:18 John 5:27; John 10:30; John 10:41.) Yet none greater than John had arisen. (Matthew 11:9-11.) “The latchet” of the shoe was a strap which fastened the sandal to the feet.
The “shoes” as used here means sandals which covered only the bottom of the feet. They were taken off and laid aside on entering a house; the tying and untying the sandals was the work of the most menial servant. Yet Christ was so mighty a personage that even this work John felt himself unworthy to perform. Since John had aroused the whole Jewish nation, how great then must be the Messiah! Christ would arouse the world, his power would be felt by everyone.
he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:—Luke gives the same form of expression that Matthew did. (Matthew 3:11.) The baptism “in the Holy Spirit and in fire” must not be referred to water baptism in any sense, for Christ never baptized in water, but left that to his disciples. (John 4:2.) Neither does this baptism refer to the common influences of the Holy Spirit which are peculiar to the work of the Spirit. (John 20:22.) It must refer to the sending of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which was peculiarly the work of Christ. (John 16 :; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16.) Many think that “in fire” has reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, because “there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire and it sat upon each one of them.” (Acts 2:3.) But this was not a baptism “in fire,” for these “tongues” were not “fire,” but only “like as of fire”; and these tongues only sat upon the apostles, but did not immerse them in the tongues “like as of fire.” There seems to be two baptisms mentioned here that Christ would administer; one was the baptism “in the Holy Spirit,” which was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) and at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44; Acts 11:15-18). The baptism in the Spirit of these two groups of persons has brought blessings to all mankind; the one on Pentecost brought blessings directly to the Jews, and the one at the house of Cornelius brought blessings to the Gentiles; hence the baptism in the Holy Spirit has resulted in blessings to the entire human family.
whose fan is in his hand,—The figure used here was taken from the custom of threshing grain in the East by treading it out with oxen (Deuteronomy 25:4), or a threshing machine was drawn over the grain (Isaiah 41:15; Amos 1:3). The grain and chaff were mingled; in this condition both were thrown up against the wind with a shovel; the chaff was ’thus blown away, while the grain fell in a heap; in this way the wheat and the chaff were separated; the chaff was burned and the wheat was gathered into the garner. The figure as used by John represents the Messiah as separating the evil from the good, according to the tests of his kingdom and his gospel;the worthy are to be received into his kingdom and given a rich reward, while the unworthy are to be destroyed. There is a sharp contrast not only between the wheat and the chaff, but the destiny of the two classes. The fire that burns the wicked is “unquenchable,” which means never extinguished the doom it describes is eternal.
18-20 With many other exhortations—Luke here gives a synopsis of John’s preaching by saying “with many other exhortations” he preached “good tidings unto the people.” John rebuked sin, called upon the people to repent, and to manifest it by a thorough change of heart and life proclaimed the Messiah approaching with blessings and salvation to the righteous, the believing, and judgments and destruction to the wicked, the unbelieving. In this way John prepared the way for Christ; some hearts were ready to receive him when he came. (John 1:37; John 1:41; John 1:43.) The warnings and admonitions of John extended to every class of people; he made no distinction in his condemnation of sin. Luke here gives a brief account of John’s ministry, and, by way of anticipation, refers to the imprisonment of John, which occurred several months after the baptism of Jesus. (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17.)
but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved—Herod had taken “Herodias his brother’s wife”; Herodias was the wife of Philip;she was the granddaughter of Herod the Great, the daughter of Aristobulus, and niece of Herod Antipas. She married Philip, a son of Herod the Great, who lived in private life, having been disinherited by his father. Herodias, preferring royalty, left Philip and married Herod Antipas, who, to make way for her, divorced his own wife, daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, supposed to be the one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32. Notwithstanding that Herodias had left her husband and married Antipas, she was “his brother’s wife.” (Mark 6:17-20.) John not only reproved Herod for this one crime, but “for all the evil things which Herod had done.” He condemned his revelings, his debaucheries, and his murders. According to Jewish testimony, Herod Antipas was very wicked and slew many of the wise men of Israel. In addition to all these evils, he “added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.” It is generally understood that John was imprisoned in the fortress of Machaerus, on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.
John was imprisoned about a year after the baptism of Jesus. He remained in prison until he was beheaded; we do not know the exact time.
Luke 3:21-22
- THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
21 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, —There are three accounts of the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22); Matthew’s account is the fullest; he gave the conversation of John and Jesus before the baptism. Matthew and Mark give the place, the river Jordan, where he was baptized; these writers also state that Jesus came from Galilee to John. Mark is specific and states that he came from Nazareth. The main points mentioned by Luke are the visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and the voice from heaven proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God. Each of the writers records the descent of the Holy Spirit and the audible voice endorsing him as the Son of God.
“All the people were baptized” does not mean that every one in all Judea was baptized, but it means a great number. The baptism of Jesus forms the climax of John’s ministry; it was the great crowning act, for he came baptizing in water that Jesus might be manifested to Israel. (John 1:31-34.) From this time John began to decrease, but Jesus to increase; all the people were no longer gathering to hear John, but to see and hear Jesus. The disciples of Jesus were baptizing more than John. (John 4:1-2.) Jesus was baptized at the time when the people were baptized; some think that John’s work ceased when he baptized Jesus. John had a double function; he was to get the people ready for Jesus, and then to point him out to the people. He did this soon after he baptized Jesus. (John 1:29-34.)
22 Thou art my beloved Son;—The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus “in a bodily form, as a dove.” There was a sudden and visible parting asunder in a portion of the sky; Jesus saw it (Mark 1:10) and John also witnessed it (John 1:32) , we do not know whether anyone else saw this visible manifestation. This manifestation was “as a dove” or like a dove. Some understand this to mean that the Holy Spirit descended in the manner of a dove which descends gently and swiftly. It has been a question whether the comparison here is between the descent of the Holy Spirit and that of a dove, or whether the comparison is between the visable appearance of the Spirit and the shape of a dove. Nothing is to be gained by disputing on this point. The dove was a fit emblem of the pure, gentle, and peaceful character of Jesus and his work. (Isaiah 61:1-3; Matthew 10:16; Matthew 11:29; Matthew 12:19-21.) The descent of the Holy Spirit was also a token of the Messiah to John. (John 1:33.)
There is some variation in the record given by Matthew and Luke; Mark agrees with Luke. Matthew expresses this statement in the third person—“this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”—but Mark and Luke state it in the second person—“thou art my beloved Son in thee I am well pleased.” Mark and Luke record this as God speaking to Jesus, while Matthew expresses it as God speaking to John or some other. Jesus was not only the “Son” of God, but emphatically he is “the beloved Son.” The voice from heaven added “in thee I am well pleased.”
Luke 3:23-38
- THE OF JESUS
23-38 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach,—The meaning here is that Jesus was “about thirty years of age” when he began to teach. Luke had already specified the date of the beginning of John’s ministry, and now he states the age of Jesus when he began to teach. Soon after his baptism Jesus began to teach. Luke says that he was “about thirty years of age”; it is very common for Luke to use the word “about” with a specification of time. (Luke 1:56; Luke 9:28; Luke 22:59; Luke 23:44; Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4; Acts 5:36; Acts 10:3; Acts 19:7.) “About thirty” is not here a round or general number, referring to any year within two or three years of thirty, but a specific designation of time, meaning a few months below or rather above thirty. The meaning appears to be that Jesus began his ministry when he was more than thirty and less than thirty-one. This agrees with what we know of the time of our Lord’s birth and baptism.
Thirty was also the age when Levites entered upon their public services (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:47; 1 Chron. 23 3), and when scribes were accustomed to enter upon their office as teachers. The people would not have been disposed to recognize the authority of a teacher who had not attained that age. It was God’s purpose that the Messiah should not enter upon his public duties until he had arrived at the age of thirty.
being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, —It has always been regarded a very difficult task to harmonize the genealogical tables given by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s design was to trace our Lord’s genealogy from Abraham down to his reputed father, Joseph, in order to furnish legal evidence to the Jews, that Jesus of Nazareth was, through his male ancestry, the lineal descendant of David and of Abraham. Luke traces his genealogy from Joseph, “as was supposed,” father of Jesus, on back through David and Abraham to Adam. The difficulty seems to lie in the fact that Luke diverges from Joseph, and pursues the lineal descent of Jesus through a different series to David. How is it that Joseph is in the one case declared to be the son of Jacob and in the other the son of Heli? Many attempts have been made to answer this question; many of the attempts are not satisfactory.
If Heli was Mary’s father, it is clear that Joseph was his son-in-law; the assumption that this relationship is here designated agrees with the facts of the case, or at least is not contradicted by them. The words “as was supposed,” although immediately referable to the following words, “the son of Joseph,” yet indicate that Luke had in mind the real parentage of Jesus, first as being the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and then of David, through the line of his maternal ancestry, which alone was true and real. It is as though Luke intended his readers mentally to supply in the next clause the words “but in reality (according to the flesh) the son of Heli.” If it be asked why Luke did not openly express this idea, by putting the name of Mary in place of Joseph, and writing, “which was the daughter of Heli,” the answer is furnished in the almost invariable usage of the ancients, especially the Jews, to reckon one’s genealogy through the paternal rather than the maternal line. But unless Luke, after his reference to our Lord’s supposed relationship to Joseph, passed over to his real ancestry, his genealogical table would be according to his own showing, one that was fictitious. The complete list of names back to Adam would rest on that of one who was only the “reputed” father of our Lord.
OF CHRIST.
(Matthew and Luke Compared.)
ADAM
Adam to Abraham ac-
Seth Seth
Christ to Adam accord.
cording to Genesis. Abra-
Enosh
Enos
ham to Christ accord-
Kenan
Cainan
ing to Luke.
ing to Matthew.
Mahalalel
Mahalaleel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
—Flood 2343 B.C.—
Shem
Arpachshad
Arphaxad
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Pele
Serug
eu
Nahor
Terah
ABRAHAM
—Call of Abraham 1917 B.C.—
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram
Arni
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse Jesse
DAVID
Building of the Temple—Solomon
Nathan-1000 years Before Christ
Rehoboam
Mattatha
Abijah
Menna
Asa
Melea
Jehoshaphat
Eliakim
Joram
Jonam
Uzziah
Joseph
Jotham
Judas
Ahaz
Symeon
Levi
Hezekiah
Matthat
Jorim
Manasseh
Eliezer
Jesus
Amon
Er
Elmadam
Josiah
Cosam
Addi
Jechoniah
Melchi
Neri
Shealtiel
Temple destroyed 584 B.C.——Rebuilt by Zerubbabel 70 years
Abiud
Rhesa
afterwards
Joanan
Joda
Azor
Semein
Mattathias
Sadoc
Maath
Naggai
Achim
Esli
Nahum
Eliud
Amos
Eleazar
i
Matthan
Me
lchi
Heli
Mary
CHRIST
It is natural to expect a genealogy somewhere in the gospels which would verify to the very letter the prediction that Christ was to be of the seed of David and of Abraham. The ancestry of Joseph, who was only his reputed father, would not answer this demand. It might be adduced in the way of legal proof to the Jew that Jesus had this mark of the Messiahship, but does not satisfy the conditions of the prophecy that he was to be a real descendant of David. The fact that Luke had this in mind is strengthened by the proof that he gives in tracing the true lineage of Jesus back to David and Abraham in his genealogical table. The fact that Luke carries his record back to Adam, who was declared to be the “Son of God,” shows clearly that it was designed to subserve a different purpose from that of Matthew. We are forced to the conclusion that Joseph was Heli’s son by the marriage of his daughter, and perhaps also by adoption, and that this genealogy of Luke was designed to furnish proof that our Lord “was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3.)