Luke 3

See notes on Matt. xii. 10-14.

4 to save life, or to kill? He who neglects to save life when he can do so must be held accountable for the loss of it (see Prov. xxiv. 11, 12). The descriptive touches, “They held their peace,” and, in ver. 5, “He looked round about on them with anger,” are peculiar to Mark.

5 being grieved. A word used only here, implying pity as well as indignation. Holy “anger” against sin is perfectly compatible with holy compassion and “grief” for the sinner.

6. Pharisees . . . took counsel with the Herodians. This was a very remarkable combination; for these two parties were strongly opposed to one another. On the Herodians, see Matt. xxii. 16, note.

2. B

1 the fifteenth year, etc. “The fifteenth year” from the time when Tiberius was associated with Augustus in the empire; A.U.C. 765. The date, therefore, is A.U.C. 780 (A.D. 27).

governor of Judæa. Upon the deposition of Archelaus (see note on Matt. ii. 22), Judæa had been put under the government of a Roman procurator; an officer subordinate to the governor of a province, but in this case possessing the power of life and death. Pontius Pilate had been appointed to the office about two years before the date given in the text; and he held it for ten years. He was then summoned to Rome to

Herod (Herod Antipas). See note on Mark vi. 14. Philip. This Philip (see note on Mark vi. 17) was half-brother of Herod Antipas; and was better than most of the Herodian family; Jos. Ant. xviii. 4, § 6. His tetrarchy, comprising Ituræa and Trachonitis, lay south of Damascus, and between the Haïran and the upper waters of the Jordan. Cæsarea Philippi was named from him.

Abilene. Abilene was the district round Abila, a town eighteen miles north-west of Damascus.

Annas and Caiaphas. See note on Matt. xxvi. 3. 2-17. See notes on Matt. iii. 1-12.

2 the word of God came. This denotes prophetic inspiration: ep. Jer. i. 2; Ezek. vi. 1.

6 all flesh shall see the salvation of God. This last sentence, quoted by Luke alone, agrees with the universal character of his Gospel.

7 to the multitude (multitudes). These crowds consisted largely of Pharisees and Sadducees, and of persons under their influence, to whom the following words were specifically addressed. This explains the severity of John’s language, dealing as he was with formalism on the one hand and unbelief on the other.

8 we have Abraham to our father. “We are Abraham’s children.”

14 [the] soldiers. Literally, soldiers on service. 15-18. A summary of the events narrated in John i. 19-28; on which see notes.

20 shut up John in prison. John’s imprisonment occurred some time later (see on Mark vi. 17-20), but it is mentioned here by anticipation, to show how his public ministry was brought to an end.

21. Jesus also being baptised, etc. Jesus came unostentatiously, like one of John’s converts. Luke’s aim seems to be to show how our Lord placed Himself on a level with us; and for this reason, probably, he mentions here, as in his narrative of the transfiguration, that Jesus was “praying.” On the baptism of Jesus see notes on Matt. iii. 13-17.

23 began to be about thirty years of age. Rather, “Jesus was about thirty years of age when He began” [His ministry]: see Acts i. 22: ep. R.V. This was the age at which the priests and Levites entered fully on their public service, and at which the scribes were permitted to teach (Numb. iv. 3, 43, 47).

(as was supposed). This was the general belief; the fact of the miraculous conception not having been made public.

24-35. This genealogy differs from that in Matt. i., by taking the line of David’s descendants through his son Nathan, whereas Matthew gives the line of the kings of Judah and their descendants. Both, however, terminate in Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, who is called in the one “the son of Jacob,” and in the other the “son of Heli.” This apparent discrepancy has given rise to much controversy, and many explanations have been proposed. Matthew’s purpose, in accordance with the design of his Gospel, is to show that Jesus, being adopted before His birth by Joseph, is the promised heir to “the throne of His father David,” and is “born King of the Jews” (ii. 2). He therefore gives the regal pedigree; omitting insignificant or obnoxious names, so as to bring it into three fourteens, corresponding to the periods before, during, and after the possession of the kingdom by the house of David; and suggesting that the old polity ends, and a new era begins, at the birth of Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, traces the line of natural descent up to David, and then through Abraham to Adam; showing that Jesus was the promised “seed of the woman,” and thus “the Saviour of the world.” It is therefore most probable that Joseph was the son of Heli, and the son-in-law of Jacob by marriage with his daughter Mary: Jacob and Heli being both sons of Matthan or Matthat, and Jacob having adopted Joseph as his heir (Matt. i. 16) in default of sons of his own. Mary as the daughter of Jacob would also be of the house of David (i. 27 (note); 32: see also Acts ii. 30; xiii. 23; Rom. i. 3).

The differences between the two evangelists are not real discrepancies, but are rather indications of the naturalness and truth of their narratives. Had there been any contradiction between the two accounts, it must have been pointed out in the early ages; the Jews especially would have been anxious, if possible, to disprove the descent of Jesus from David; which on the contrary they implicitly recognised.

36 the son of Cainan. The compiler of this genealogy followed the Septuagint version of Gen. xi. 12, 13.

went into the synagogue. See note on Matt. iv. 23. Our Lord’s “custom” of going to the synagogue service for reading and expounding the Scriptures and for prayer is a noteworthy example for His followers.

stood up for to read. Signifying His desire to read. Opportunity was sometimes given in synagogues for strangers to speak a word of exhortation or consolation to the people (Acts xiii. 15).