Luke 3
LenskiCHAPTER III
One may begin the body of the Gospel with this chapter, for the first two chapters constitute a unit. Yet the genealogy should be considered together with the birth story rather than with the body of the book, hence we place chapter three into the beginning with the two preceding chapters.
Luke 3:1
1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, moreover Philip, his brother, being tetrarch of the region of Ituria and Trachonitis, and Lysanias being tetrarch of the Abilene, at the time of the high priest Annas and Caiaphas, came God’s utterance to John, the son of Zacharias, in the desert.
It is at once apparent that, as far as Luke is concerned, the important thing to be dated most carefully is not the birth or the death of Jesus but the beginning of the work of the forerunner of Jesus, with whom and whose work the entire Messianic career of Jesus began. Moreover, Luke piles up these items solely for the purpose of dating, not, as some think, for the purpose of describing the political and the ecclesiastical situation that prevailed at this time; for the mere naming of rulers and high priests does not describe a situation. Luke lifts the reference to the Roman emperor into prominence in a neat way by making this a phrase and by placing it at the head whereas all the minor rulers are added by means of a genitive absolute and by ending with another but a different phrase with regard to the ecclesiastical rulers, cf. v. 2.
Luke’s most important item for the date is this fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, whose name and title always appear in this order and never reversed. It is pretty well agreed that the years of the reign of Tiberius must be counted so as to include the two years in which, by a decree of the Senate, he ruled conjointly with his foster-father Augustus as collega imperii, consors tribuniciae potestatis. This may be the reason Luke uses ἡγεμονία in designating his reign although it is at once followed by the similar ἡγεμονεύειν to indicate the far lower rule of Pilate. Augustus died on August 19 in the year 14; counting from the time of the joint reign, which began at the end of the year 11 or at the opening of the year 12, John’s ministry began in the year 26.
Luke adds the fact that Pontius Pilate was at this time acting as the governor or procurator of Judea. He ruled ten years; since he was deposed shortly before the Passover of 36, his governorship began in 26, the year of John’s activity. On a par with that of Pilate was the authority of the tetrarchs, three of whom Luke mentions. He thus covers all that could in any way be considered Jewish land even if it was inhabited by Gentiles. When Herod the Great died in 4 B. C., his domain was divided among his sons.
One of the brothers, Archelaus, was deposed in A. D. 6. The one that Luke mentions as “Herod” usually went by this name alone (coins being so stamped), but he was Herod Antipas who ruled from 4 B. C. to 39 A. D., the chief part of his territory being Galilee. Τετραρχεῖν means to rule over a fourth part and thus to be a tetrarch. Philip, Herod’s brother, ruled from 4 B.
C. to 33 or 34 A. D., over a territory that lay northeast of the Sea of Galilee and was composed of various sections. Instead of naming them in detail Luke names two prominent regions and combines them with χώρα: being tetrarch “of the region of Ituria and Trachonitis.” The Iturean part extended east and south from Mount Hermon from Damascus, and Trachonitis lay still farther to the east. It was Philip who built up and beautified the ancient Panias and named it “Cæsarea Philippi” in honor of Cæsar.
Luke adds the last tetrarchy and completes the four (Pilate governed the one as a procurator): “Lysanias being tetrarch of the Abilene,” ἡἈβιληνή (supply χώρα), the territory that surrounded the city Abilene and lay on the eastern declivity of the Antilebanon northwest of Damascus. Luke most likely names this region as completing the tetrarchies and also because after the death of Lysanias his domain was added to that of Philip and thus formed the domain of King Agrippa the First (Acts 12:1–23) and after him of King Agrippa the Second (Acts 25:13–26:32).
Luke has been charged with a gross error in making Lysanias tetrarch of the Abilene at this time. It is said that he confuses this man with the king Lysanias who ruled this territory previous to B. C. 36 and was murdered in that year. The fact that the one was a king and the other, of whom Luke speaks, a tetrarch, seems to escape the critics, as does also an inscription that has been known for a century, a new and improved copy of which was found on the site of Abila. It refers to the dedication of a temple and has the words “on behalf of the salvation of the Lords Imperial and their whole household” by “Nymphaios, a freedman of Lysanias, the tetrarch.” “The Lords Imperial” can be only the emperor Tiberius and Julia, his mother. The latter died A.
D. 29, and thus the time of the inscription must come between A. D. 14 (or 12) and 29. Luke is not in error. He lived close to this time and in all his writings shows himself so exact (1:3) and so thoroughly informed on all points.
Luke 3:2
2 Ἐπί is used in the temporal sense (R. 603) and is followed by neither the plural “high priests” (A. V.) nor the abstract “high priesthood” (R. V.) but by the title “high priest,” which is, of course, to be construed with Annas as well as with Caiaphas (Doric genitives, R. 255). It is hasty to conclude that Luke, who informed himself with such exactness, did not know the official relation of Annas and Caiaphas. The suppositions that the two held the office together or alternated in the office annually deserve but little attention. Annas was in office from 18 to 20 years, longer than any high priest during the Herodian period.
Deposed in A. D. 15 or 16, he was followed in quick succession by Ismael, son of Phabi, by Eleazar, his own son, by Simon, son of Camithes, and either in A. D. 18 or 19 or in 25 or 26 (the date is uncertain) by his son-in-law Joseph, with the added name Caiaphas, who was deposed early in A. D. 36.
The high priesthood no longer continued until the death of the incumbent but was manipulated by the Romans according to their politics. For this reason we find “high priests”—a number of them—in the Sanhedrin. Annas is especially prominent, having held the office so long and being a man of great ability and influence. Perhaps the Jews believed that, once appointed, the man in this office could not be deposed and thus went on calling them high priests. Annas is naturally named first by Luke in this connection since he was the older man; to reverse the names would be misleading (Acts 4:6) although Caiaphas was the reigning high priest at this time.
John is named in connection with his father in order to connect him with the account of his birth. The time of his showing forth to Israel (1:80) had now arrived. He is still in the desert where 1:18 left him. The aorist ἐγένετο is merely historical. God’s ῥῆμα means his “utterance” and is not the same as his λόγος which points to the contents; we may compare the LXX’s equivalent in Isa. 38:4 and Jer. 1:1, the debar Yahweh coming to these prophets. God said something to John, and the result is described in what follows, from which we can also gather what he said. Thus, as being under God’s own direction and instruction, John proceeds with the fullest assurance as did the old prophets.
Luke 3:3
3 And he went into all the neighborhood of the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins as it has been written in a book of addresses of Isaiah, the prophet:
A voice of one shouting in the desert,
Make ready the way of the Lord,
Keep making straight his paths!
Every ravine shall be filled,
And every mountain and hill shall be made low,
And the curved places shall be as straight roads
And the rough as smooth roads;
And all flesh shall see the saving gift of God.
It is the Jordan wilderness in which we find John, the so-called El Ghor, the deep depression through which the Jordan flows toward the Dead Sea, starting at 600 feet below sea level and ending at 1, 300 feet below. We may include the adjacent upland region on both sides. The εἰς clause modifies ἦλθεν, and we need not have it modify κηρύσσων in order to escape making John an itinerant preacher. He moved about, although not constantly, and confined his activity to “the neighborhood of the Jordan,” this hot, uninhabited depression which is wild in every way and removed from all civilization. Luke is more specific than the others by at once naming the Jordan as the scene of John’s activity.
The added participle κηρύσσων is durative even as ἦλθεν is constative; the latter includes all John’s movements, and the participle adds the fact that he was preaching during this entire time. The verb means “to act as a κῆρυξ or herald,” as one who announces with a loud voice what his superior has ordered him to announce. When we translate “to preach,” the original meaning should be retained. Preaching in the Biblical sense is merely announcing clearly and distinctly what God orders us to announce in his Word. No herald dare change his message by alteration, by omission, or by addition. The preacher is not to utter his own eloquent wisdom but to confine himself to the foolishness and the skandalon of the gospel.
It was certainly a strange thing to send this herald into a forsaken, wild region like this where no people ordinarily dwelt. But this region was chosen by God for the Baptist’s work in order to draw people away from all their ordinary occupations and interests and thus the more to fix their minds and hearts on their spiritual condition and the saving message of God’s great herald. This wild region called to mind the desert wanderings of Israel for forty years, when their unbelief had shut them out of the promised land for so long a time.
The substance of the Baptist’s heralding was βάπτισμαμετανοίαςεἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν. The absence of the articles stresses the meaning of the three nouns (R. 782). The genitive μετανοίας is descriptive and characterizes the baptism which John preached. It was a baptism that was marked by repentance: “repentance-baptism.” In his preaching he set that fact forth with all due clearness. That meant that repentance alone fitted a person for this baptism; hence we also find John refusing to baptize the impenitent.
In μετάνοια and the verb μετανοεῖν we have one of the most important concepts of the New Testament, the Hebrew nicham, “repent by changing the mind,” and shub, “to turn,” or to be converted. The verb originally meant “to perceive or see afterward” (μετά), i. e., when it is too late, “to change one’s mind” and thus “to regret” and “to repent.” The Scriptural use of the word added a spiritual depth that was far beyond the thought of secular writers. The word referred to that religious change of the heart which turns from sin and guilt to cleansing and forgiveness by God’s grace. A synonym of this verb is ἐπιστρέφειν, with this difference that the former looks both backward toward the regretted sin and forward toward the accepted pardon while the latter looks more to the grace toward which the turning is made.
The assertion that the word repentance meant less in the Baptist’s mouth than it means afterward in the mouth of the apostles; in particular, that it did not include faith in the Messiah, is answered by John 1:8: “The same came for a witness to the Light, that all men through him might believe”; by Luke 3:18 where the Baptist’s preaching is called εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, “to preach the gospel”; and by the fruits of this repentance, which are such as only faith in the Redeemer and forgiveness of sins are able to produce. In the Smalcald Articles Luther calls the Baptist “the fiery angel St. John, the true preacher of repentance,” Concordia Triglotta, 487, 30. “Repentance” and “to repent” are at times used as designations for contrition alone as when faith is also mentioned; and again for contrition plus faith, i. e., for conversion in its entirety, which consists of contrition and faith. For the former use compare Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; Luke 24:26, 47, where the narrower sense is indicated; for the latter our present passage and 13:5; 15:7, where the wider meaning is apparent. The latter is well described in Concordia Triglotta, 259, 29 and 35.
The entire expression “baptism of repentance for remission of sins” should be read together as a unit. The baptism, as it was preached and administered by John, was characterized by repentance (genitive) and resulted in remission of sins (εἰς); Mark 1:3. Ἄφεσις is one of the most blessed words in the Bible; it is derived from ἀφίημι and means “sending away.” The sins are taken from the sinner and are sent away so far and in such a way that even God will not find them on judgment day; as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:12), like a writing that is blotted out (Isa. 43:25), cast into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19). Can there be sweeter words than these for any poor sinner?
What is sent away are the sins, ἁμαρτιῶν, objective genitive. The plural spreads them out in their number, heaps them up in their mountainous mass. When we meet the singular, sin in general, we have a collective, the vast content of which must be unfolded in order to have it properly understood. Ἁμαρτία means “a missing of the mark,” namely the mark set by the divine law, a mark which God must hold us to meet fully and perfectly. Sin thus entails guilt, and whereas we may speak of the two separately, they are actually never separated. The instant we sin we have guilt, and guilt cannot exist where sin is absent. Sin and guilt entail punishment, and this follows the guilt as surely as the guilt follows the sin. When the sins are thus sent away, all their guilt and punishment leave likewise.
The force of the phrase εἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν, which modifies βάπτισμαμετανοίας, is to make remission of sins the result of the baptism of repentance. Every such baptism bestowed remission upon the person baptized. Note that βάπτισμα is the objective sacrament administered upon the person, and μετάνοια the subjective condition that is necessary in the person to receive the gift (remission) offered in the sacrament. Speaking Scripturally, it is impossible to conceive that any repentant sinner was baptized by John without release from his sins.
But some understand the words in a different sense: John preached and practiced a baptism which “obligated to repentance” and by this obligation promised remission when the Messiah would appear. The point that is labored is that this baptism did not itself bestow remission. Dogmatic and not linguistic considerations produce interpretations of this kind. The simple descriptive genitive cannot convey obligation, and an interval of time cannot be worked in before the εἰς phrase. Suppose a person received John’s baptism of repentance and then died before the Messiah came, would he die without remission and be forever lost? John baptized only those who repented and confessed their sins and turned all others away, and all who were thus baptized received remission in their baptism. Hypocrites, who did not repent, only increased their guilt.
Robertson, p. 595, is reluctant to have εἰς denote aim or purpose. He turns the matter over to the interpreters without himself stating what εἰς means linguistically. We may very well think of aim and purpose, but a purpose that is realized in the baptism of repentance itself, not one to be realized at some later indefinite time and by some other indefinite means or by no means at all. What is back of these refusals to understand Luke’s (and Mark’s) words as they read is, in most cases, the idea that baptism is only a symbol and thus bestows nothing since it is only an act of obedience on our part (law) and not an act of God’s bestowing grace (gospel).
In addition, not a few consider John’s baptism to be different from Christ’s, John’s conveyed no grace and remission while that of Jesus does. Acts 2:38 is decisive on this point where εἰςἄφεσιντῶνἁμαρτιῶνὑμῶν is used with reference to Christ’s baptism exactly as this phrase is here used with reference to John’s. Jesus himself took up and continued John’s baptism (John 4:1, 2) and eventually instituted this baptism for all nations. John’s and Christ’s baptisms are the same in essentials. The Baptist’s was administered on the basis of the revelation made at that time; that of Jesus on the level of his completed work. The Baptist’s made followers of the Christ to come; that of Jesus followers of the Christ already come.
Thus the baptism of John was preparatory for Israel alone, Christ’s permanent for all nations. Only in this way was the one merged into the other. The remission that was bestowed by them was identical.
Luke 3:4
4 The standard formula for quotation, the perfect γέγραπται, “has been written,” always implies that, once written, the words stand so to this day. Luke alone adds the phrase “in a book of addresses” and then mentions the prophet Isaiah and thus informs Theophilus that the quotation is taken from a prophet’s address. Luke quotes not only Isa. 40:3 but also v. 4 and the second line from v. 5. Since he uses the LXX in this, the only quotation he himself makes, the conclusion that he could not read the Hebrew is by no means safe. Exactly as does Matthew, Luke construes: “one shouting in the wilderness,” whereas the Hebrew has the phrase in the second line: “in the wilderness prepare.” Both evangelists were thus satisfied with the LXX although Matthew certainly knew Hebrew. Both the voice shouting and the preparation were, of course, “in the wilderness,” which makes the construction indifferent.
The poetic lines are highly dramatic, they are like a tableau: “Voice of a crier!” qol qore’ (status constructus), the two words in Hebrew as in Luke being viewed as an exclamation. Delitzsch writes: “The person disappears in the glory of his calling, receding before the contents of his cry. The cry sounds like the long drawn-out trumpet blast of a herald.” We are placed out “in the wilderness” in the same dramatic way.
When commentators on Isaiah explain the wilderness imagery which is here used as being derived from the Lord’s coming to Egypt through the Arabian (southern) desert to bring his people into Canaan they do what is unnecessary, for a great stretch of desert lay also between Babylon, where Israel was held in exile, and their homeland Palestine. The desert is, however, used figuratively by Isaiah; it is made to denote the hindrances and obstacles which separate the people from Jehovah. Hence a road must be prepared through them, on which Jehovah may come to his people in order to deliver them. Though Babylon is inhabited it is a heathen land and is thus pictured as a desert or wilderness in which Jehovah’s people were lost. All this was symbolized by the Baptist who was ordered to shout in the literal wilderness near the Jordan.
When the moral and the spiritual import of the prophet’s imagery is perceived, its application to the Baptist’s call to repentance will be understood. The wilderness and its obstacles are found in the hearts of the people; that is where the Lord’s way is to be prepared. The aorist ἑτοιμάσατε is effective, “prepare completely,” but the present ποιεῖτε is durative, “go on making.” The way must be prepared so that the Lord can come to us over it, but the work will always continue since sins appear in us constantly. One preparation is not enough so that after that we may sit down and rest; the work goes on throughout life. So it is all one grand ὁδός, “way” or “road,” and yet its parts are τρίβοι, “beaten tracks” or paths that must be made to run straight (the Hebrew has only the singular “highway”).
Observe that the picture in the prophet’s words refers to Jehovah’s coming to his people, not to their coming to him. They could not come to him; if a union is to be effected, he must come to them. The basis of the whole imagery is thus pure gospel, Jehovah’s coming to his people with salvation. Like some grand, Oriental king in festal procession, with criers sent out far in advance to have the road fitly prepared for his royal progress, so the Lord is here shown moving out to his captive people who are pictured as being far out in the wilderness.
Luke 3:5
5 Matthew and Mark quote only two lines, Luke adds more, the details of the preparation to be made. Every ravine shall be filled, and every mountain and hill made low, so that the great highway may run straight and true and not need to bend to the right or to the left and at the same time run smooth and level to its destination. It should impress us that the requirement which is here set down is on a scale that is so grand as to comport with the greatness of him who is to use this roadway. It should at the same time not escape us that this immense work of filling up ravines and laying low mountains and hills is certainly beyond our natural ability. That is exactly the impression to be conveyed, for to prepare the Lord’s way into our hearts is a work which, strictly speaking, he alone can perform, and when we are asked to do it, it is only in the sense that we use his law and gospel and let their power operate in our hearts. Thus every call to repent and to believe carries with it in the very call itself the grace to bring about repentance and faith.
After the mention of ravines, mountains, and hills it seems to be an anticlimax to add “curved places” and “the rough,” for these would be only minor inequalities in the path of the road. The thing to be noted is the fact that three of the Hebrew terms used designate moral conditions as well as localities. Thus in these two lines a touch of interpretation is added to the figurative language. The Hebrew term for τὰσκολιά, “curved or crooked places,” is ‘aqob which signifies “deceitful,” and when it is used with reference to localities means full of unevenness where one may hide. These crooked places are to be made “straight,” mishor, “evenness,” a term that is used for “right” and “justice.” We thus see the moral and the spiritual meaning coming out through the imagery. The same is true with regard to “rough places,” for the plural rekasim is used to designate all kinds of banding together for evil and only in its transposed meaning refers to “rough places” such as masses of rough and rocky ridges. These are to be turned into smooth roads.
Since three of the terms apply to moral states, we feel that the entire description has a moral and a spiritual import: the hearts of Israel are to be changed. “Such preparation is spiritual; it consists in the deep conviction and confession that you are unfit, a sinner, poor, damned, and miserable with all the works you are able to do.” Luther. It is, of course, not necessary to change every figurative term used into some spiritual counterpart, which would lead to fanciful combinations. Impenitence, whatever its form, is the real hindrance to the Lord’s coming into men’s hearts; it is like ravines, mountains, etc., and therefore the Baptist’s great call was: “Repent!” The future tenses used in this verse are best explained as imperative, the future in commands (R. 942), although they may also be prophetic. The feminine εὐθείας refers to ὁδούς (R. 652), and εἰς is predicative, “as” or “for” (R. 595). This is proper Greek but is due to Hebrew influence, especially in translations (R. 458).
Luke 3:6
6 The future tense is plainly only prophetic, in the nature of a great promise: all flesh “shall see,” etc. Although here, too, καί is grammatically merely copulative, in the present connection it implies that what the preceding lines require shall indeed be fulfilled: the way will be prepared, and the Lord will come. Since it is a prophecy concerning the Baptist, the meaning is that the Lord could come in the person of the Messiah. Hence the astounding statement that “all flesh,” all men generally, not merely the Jews, should see the saving gift of God. We should note the comprehensive view of Isaiah: he begins with Israel’s deliverance from Babylon, by which the Lord manifested to the whole world his power over the nations and his mercy and truth upon Israel; this deliverance continued in the most wonderful manner in the incarnation of God’s Son and in the world-wide spread of his gospel; and it will culminate in the great salvation at the last day.
The remarkable thing is that the LXX translated kebod Yahweh, “the glory of the LORD,” with τὸσωτήριοντοῦΘεοῦ, which Luke retains unchanged, and which for some reason Simeon already has (2:30), the genitive σοῦ also refers to Θεός. This LXX translation may be considered interpretative, the glory consists in this saving thing (act or gift) of God. Yet we cannot explain why Yahweh should be translated “God” instead of “Lord.” The glory of the Lord consists of all his attributes shining forth in supreme radiance for men to see; and the central part of this glory is, of course, his saving work in Christ Jesus. John came to prepare for this, and the gospel has made all men, who as flesh cannot see God, to see this great saving gift in order that they might appropriate it.
Luke 3:7
7 He, therefore, went on to say to the multitudes coming out to be baptized by him: Offspring of vipers, who did warn you to flee from the coming wrath? Do, therefore, fruits worthy of repentance; and do not begin to say in yourselves, As father we have Abraham; for I say to you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
The connective οὖν intends to say that since it was written by Isaiah regarding John that he was a voice crying thus in the wilderness, he preached as is here stated. The imperfect ἔλεγεν is merely descriptive as it is in any number of cases and is thus distinguished from εἶπε which points merely to the fact (B.-D., 329). Matthew has this speech addressed to the Sadducees and Pharisees whereas Luke says “to the multitudes coming out to be baptized by him.” This address was made on the occasion when a lot of Sadducees and Pharisees came to John’s baptism (as Matthew says) and asked also to be baptized but confessed no sins as did the others whom John had baptized. Many other people no doubt came with these Sadducees and Pharisees. John then spoke this mighty warning to all and drove them away from his baptism unless they were truly repentant. We do not regard “coming out to be baptized by him” as meaning being actually ready for the baptism.
In a general movement such as the one that was started by John the great danger was mere outward conformity. John must have been at the height of his ministry at this time. Comparing John 1:19, etc., and v. 24, etc., we may conclude that the scene described in Matthew and in Luke came first, and that the two delegations of which John writes arrived some time later to demand an official answer from the Baptist concerning himself and his baptizing.
The situation is thus dramatic in the highest degree. The address is like a blow in the face. Here come the proud leaders of the people to capture this movement of the people for themselves. Them and all others who are as scheming and as superficial as they are the Baptist addresses as “offspring of vipers” and in one expression exposes the great and fatal sin that stamped their character. The form γεννήματα is used to denote living creatures (from γεννάω) whereas γενήματα (from γίνομαι) designates fruits of the earth. The ἔχιδνα, “viper,” is a small, very poisonous serpent such as fastened its fangs in Paul’s hand at Melita, Acts 28:3.
The Baptist does not say “viper” but “offspring of vipers,” for others had preceded them, and instead of taking warning they had deliberately entered into the sins of their fathers. What quality the figure of the viper intends to express is evident, viz., deadly hypocrisy, base treachery, and the fatal deceptions in which they lived. Their original progenitor is the serpent which deceived Eve; hence Christ called them “the children of the wicked one,” Matt. 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10. When it comes to dealing with these deadly sins, no words are minced by the Baptist or by Jesus or by the apostles. The conscience is struck with a directness that almost takes one’s breath.
The stunning address opens a dismaying question: “Who did warn you to try to flee from the coming wrath?” Somebody, John says, secretly and in an underhanded way (ὑπό in the verb) whispered this to them and did it in order to deceive them. John leaves this somebody unnamed since only the devil prompts a man to try to flee from God’s wrath by mere outward religious acts. Note the aorist φυγεῖν by which the devil suggests that these hypocrites can actually escape God’s wrath by adding another hypocritical act. By this tense the Baptist exposes the devil’s trick of making these men think that they will really escape when by such an action of theirs (getting John’s baptism without repentance) they will run only the more directly into the coming wrath. By this exposure of the devil’s trick John truly warns these men, and not by an underhand whisper but openly and publicly. Lies are whispered, truth is shouted from the housetops. There are two points in John’s question: first, that nobody can escape by insincere outward use of the means of grace; secondly, that the real way of escape is still open, even for hypocrites if they allow themselves by God’s grace to be turned from hypocrisy to true, sincere repentance and the honest use of the means of grace.
Although the “wrath” of God is an anthropomorphitic expression it is not a figure of speech but a terrible reality which is mentioned over 300 times in the Old Testament and many times in the New. It is the necessary reaction of God’s holiness and righteousness against sin as the persistent rejection of his love and grace. It is always active, and that not merely at the end of the world but in repeated acts of judgment from day to day although it is often restrained by God’s longsuffering. “The coming wrath,” ἡμέλλουσαὀργή, is a pregnant expression for the final manifestation of God’s wrath at the end of the world. The connection of this wrath in punishment and judgment with the coming of the Messiah may be seen in Zeph. 1:15 (dies iræ, dies illa); 2:2; Malachi 3:2, etc., and 18:4. When the Jews thought that the Messianic wrath would be turned upon the Gentiles alone, in particular upon their Roman oppressors, they were sadly mistaken.
Luke 3:8
8 Over against the false way suggested by the devil, which deceives men into thinking that they have escaped when they have not, the Baptist presents the one and only true way; he does this with the purely illative οὖν (R. 1192). The expression “do fruits” (Matthew has the singular) is one of the many found in the Scriptures in which figure and reality are combined: the fruits consist of acts that are done; and the aorist imperative demands actual doing (R. 835). Ποιεῖν is the Greek for the Hebrew ‘asah, schaffen, produced by work and effort. Luke as well as Matthew use it repeatedly in connection with “fruit.” The plural “fruits” divides into its component parts what may also be viewed as a whole in the singular “fruit.”
These fruits are to be “worthy of repentance”—on μετάνοια see v. 3. The genitive “of repentance” cannot be appositional because it depends on the adjective “worthy”; hence also repentance cannot be meant by “fruits.” As the Baptist himself explains in v. 11–14, these fruits are worthy of repentance when they harmonize with repentance. “Fruits” indicate an organic connection between themselves and repentance just as the tree brings the fruit that is peculiar to its nature. Ἄξιος means “of equal weight” and in that sense the actual presence of repentance in the heart. The latter is invisible; hence we judge its presence by the former, which are visible. We dare judge in no other way. We often encounter a superficial repentance; it brings forth fruit that is different from that which is demanded by the Baptist, namely a passing regret, a few tears, perhaps, and a transient emotion, a few sighs, an excuse or two, a wish to be different, a resolve to change by one’s own efforts, a brief outward betterment, and the like. The Baptist demands a repentance which is true conversion that is wrought by God himself through the very preaching of the Baptist and is thus easily and clearly attested in the resultant life.
The Baptist at once cuts off the false assurance which the Jews hugged: “and do not begin to say in yourselves, As father we have Abraham.” The aorist in a negative command is the subjunctive, not the imperative, and as an aorist is strongly peremptory. The great danger was that the Jews would exempt themselves from true repentance by imagining that their descent from Abraham assured them of salvation. “In yourselves” is added because they would say this secretly in their hearts. With his opening question as well as with this reflexive pronoun the Baptist exposes what is going on in the very hearts of his impenitent hearers; their hypocrisies do not deceive him.
The predicate object “as father” is placed first, and the direct object “Abraham” last, thereby both are made emphatic. It was the old Jewish conviction that all the physical descendants of Abraham through Jacob were safe from God’s wrath because of their father Abraham; they were sure that this connection with Abraham guaranteed to them all the blessings of the Messianic kingdom to the exclusion of the Gentile world. See how Jesus shatters this conviction in John 8:39, 40. The rich man in hell also had Abraham for his “father” and heard from him the word “son,” but it availed him nothing.
“For I say to you” meets this delusion squarely by giving the decisive reason why the Jews should never cling to this false thought. “I say to you” confronts the Jews with the Baptist’s full authority; he speaks as God’s own prophet. He tells them the decisive truth: “that God is able of these stones to raise up children for Abraham,” i. e., to fill the place these Jews leave vacant by being false children of Abraham. This figure is tremendous—to turn common, lifeless stones such as were lying there in the wilderness into spiritual children of Abraham! The figure describes the creative power of God’s grace most drastically. If these Jews turn their hearts into flinty stones by resisting God’s converting grace, God will turn other men whom these Jews regard as nothing but dead, useless stones into truly repentant hearts by that same grace. Abraham shall, indeed, have his children.
The contrast is not merely between men and stones in general, replacing impenitent men by such as seem incapable of any spiritual impression. For the thought might then be a contrast only between Jews, the proud upper class as represented in the Sadducees and Pharisees and the despised lowest class, open sinners, harlots, publicans, etc. The contrast is between the Jews of any and all classes as descendants of Abraham and common stones that have no descent at all. These stones represent Gentiles. The Baptist is not using an abstract comparison, he is speaking prophecy. Matthew recorded these words as being pertinent for his readers of Jewish extraction in order to humble them in repentance; Luke records them for the Gentile Theophilus in order to point him to the universality of grace for him and for all Gentiles.
Luke 3:9
9 Grace and judgment go together. When repentance is refused, nothing is left for impenitence but wrath and judgment. So John continues: Already, moreover, also the ax is lying at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree not doing excellent fruit is hewn out and is thrown into fire.
Time presses, judgment is fast drawing near. How true the Baptist’s words are we see from the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later. Jesus repeated the Baptist’s warnings in the parable of the barren fig tree, in the call to “walk while ye have the light” (John 12:35), and in other statements; see also Isa. 55:6; Mal. 4:5. This is indeed operating with fear as a religious motive. After love and grace fail to appeal, the threat and the terror of judgment alone are left. Because men still have a conscience, the terrores conscientiæ, which the law intends to produce, have their rightful place, no matter what rationalistic minds may predicate of God and his law.
The figure of “doing fruit,” i.e., producing it, is expanded in the most telling way. To the fruit there is added the tree, the root, the ax, the hewing out, and the consuming fire. “Already” is placed first, and it is the more emphatic because it is so far removed from the verb, R. 418, 423. Judgment is ready to descend. Δέ connects this statement as being something else, and καί adds it to the foregoing (see 2:35). The article with “the ax” points to the one divine judgment that is pictured as an ax together with fire; both match “the trees.” This plural is a designation for all the impenitent Jews. The present tenses are timeless and picture the thought as such as is done in general propositions; this is true especially of the verbs “is hewn out” and “is thrown”; R. 870 regards the presents as futuristic.
The ax lies “at the root,” πρός, facing it with dire intent. Although κεῖται is present, its root is perfect and has the sense of completion, not of linear action but of condition or state; it is often used as the passive of τίθημι; the ax “lies,” having been placed at the root, R. 881. As an instrument it connotes the hand that shall swing this ax. The figure is overdrawn when it is thought to mean that the ax is already swung by the hand, its blade quivering in the air as it is about to sever the root. The ax merely lies; the trees are already selected for felling and the ax already brought beneath them. Only one ax, yet many trees.
The figure is of necessity strained since one and the same judgment strikes many individuals. Hence we also have the singular “root” with regard to all the trees. In the divine imagery the figure is often strained to convey the full reality; human pictures are too weak to paint all that should be conveyed. So also the reality at times protrudes through the figure. When the divine speakers use figures they always have the full reality in their minds and are never, like other speakers and writers, fettered by mere figures.
“To the root,” not to the twigs or to the branches—not even a stump will be left—judgment will be complete. The plural “trees” is dissolved into the singular “every tree,” which yet omits none; πᾶν without the article following = “every.” Judgment is discriminatingly just; it strikes none but the fruitless, yet every one of these. The characterization μὴποιοῦνκαρπὸνκαλόν takes up the thought of v. 8, the present participle characterizing the tree as one whose nature it is not to “do” anything in the way of “excellent fruit” but to bring only and steadily καρπὸνκακόν, good-for-nothing fruit. Repentance is again not viewed as good fruit but as belonging to the tree and marking its nature. Only by the inward change of repentance (contrition and faith, see v. 3) through grace and the Word is a man made a good tree, and, being such, the “excellent fruit” follows as a matter of course and evidences the spiritual nature of the tree, at whose root no ax will ever lie.
Ἐκκόπτεται = “is hewn out” from among the good trees, hewn out at the very root. Then it “is thrown into fire,” the phrase being placed forward in the Greek for the sake of emphasis. The very timelessness of these present tenses lends them additional power. This is what is done. When it is done makes no difference; keep your mind on these terrible acts and use the day of grace now. The Scriptures frequently speak of fire in describing the judgment.
Mal. 4:1: “The day cometh, that shall burn as an oven”; the branches cut from the Vine are burned, John 15:6; the tares are gathered and burned, Matt. 13:40. All God’s judgments are like fire, especially the final ones; for the wicked shall go “into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched,” Mark 9:43, “into everlasting fire,” “into hell fire,” Matt. 18:8, 9. The fire of the figurative language thus merges into the fire of the literal passages. The Sadducees of all ages have tried to quench this fire by making sport of it but thereby only prepare themselves the more for it and hasten its coming for themselves.
Luke 3:10
10 Luke stops here in his record of John’s address and adds an account of the effect it produced among those who were stirred to repentance. And the crowds went on to inquire of him, What, then, shall we do? Now answering he went on to say to them, He having two tunics let him share with him that has none; and he having food portions let him do likewise.
The ὄχλοι are the people in general, those who have nothing especial to distinguish them. We do not regard the imperfects occurring in these two verses and the one used in v. 14 regarding the soldiers as denoting repetition as Robertson does in his Translation of Luke’s Gospel and in his W. P. The imperfect used in v. 14 especially forbids this. And what about the aorists occurring in v. 12, 13—did the publicans ask only once and receive only one answer whereas all the others asked many times and had the answer repeated over and over again? These imperfects are descriptive and picture the scene; they are just like the imperfect ἔλεγεν that occurs in v. 7.
The question: “What, then, shall we do?” as οὖν indicates, rests on John’s address, especially does ποιήσωμεν echo ποιήσατε in v. 8. The subjunctive is deliberative: they ask themselves as much as they ask John what they must do in the way of fruits that are worthy of repentance.
Luke 3:11
11 The answer is so simple, and they should have known it, but we see in what a state of ignorance these Jews were despite all their rabbis. John answers by citing two concrete examples that deal with clothing and food, but he is, of course, not confined to these two but illustrates the entire conduct of conversion. He that has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and he who has portions of food is to do likewise—which means to love one’s neighbor as himself. Compare what Micah required (6:6–8) and again what Jesus asked in Luke 10:25–37. No new, strange laws are laid down; nor does John require of others the mode of life that he led as part of his peculiar calling. It is the old law and will of God that are done with a converted heart in the power of God’s grace.
A χιτών is the garment that is worn next to the body, and in cool weather several were often put on; and the plural βρώματα, Speisen, means portions of food. No indiscriminate giving is advocated by John or by Jesus but a giving that relieves real human need.
12, 13) Moreover, also publicans came to be baptized and said to him, Teacher, what shall we do? But he said to them, Stop exacting more than what has been prescribed.
Roman knights and wealthy men at Rome bought the taxes and customs of particular provinces for a fixed sum which was paid into the public treasury (in publicum) and were thus called publicani; but these are not mentioned in the New Testament. Under them there were chiefs of publicans like Zacchæus in the provinces, and under these again the actual collectors of the taxes and customs, the τελῶναι or “publicans” of the New Testament. The latter class especially was odious to the Jews in the highest degree when they themselves were Jews. They were then considered traitors to Israel who aided the Roman oppressors. They were hated also for their extortion as John’s charge and also the restitution promised by Zacchæus imply. The Pharisees were the respectable people, publicans belonged in the same class with harlots and the most disreputable.
To have a publican in the family was a public disgrace; promises need not to be kept to murderers, thieves, and publicans; the synagogue and the Temple corban did not receive their alms, and their money was considered as having been gotten by rapine. This contempt hardened the publicans against all better feelings so that they defied public opinion.
Δὲκαί is used as it was in v. 9, and the absence of the article means “some publicans.” The implication is that they repented and were baptized, John’s answer to them agrees with this. It means much that John accepted them, almost as much as Jesus’ treatment of them. They ask the same question as did the others, not as though John’s answer to the others did not apply to them, but as recognizing that they were in a separate class and needed additional instruction. Were they to give up their work as publicans as proof of their repentance? That was the main point. John does not say so; Jesus, too, did not.
But this he tells them, to prosecute their tax collecting with honesty and never to exact more than the assigned amount. In negative commands the present imperative often means to stop an action already begun: “Stop exacting!” R. 851, etc. Πράσσειν means “to practice” and in money affairs “to collect,” eintreiben, exact. Παρά is used after the comparative: “more beyond,” etc., (R. 667), and the perfect substantivized participle “what has been definitely fixed” (this is the force of διά) implies that it is now so fixed. These taxgatherers are especially warned against the besetting sin of extortion. A mark of conversion is honesty in all our dealings, but honesty for God’s sake.
Luke 3:14
14 Moreover, there were inquiring of him also men serving as soldiers, saying, What shall we also on our part do? And he said to them, Intimidate no one, nor accuse falsely; and be satisfied with your wages.
By using the participle στρατευόμενοι instead of the noun στρατιῶται Luke conveys the idea that these men served voluntarily as soldiers and were thus mercenaries. One wonders how they came to be present and, of course, as John’s answer implies, as penitent men who were baptized by him. Were they soldiers of Pilate or of Herod, Gentiles, perhaps, and did John speak to them in Greek instead of in Aramaic? By using καὶἡμεῖς in their question they themselves indicate that they are in a very special class. Will John forbid them military service as a requirement of their conversion? John does nothing of the kind but demands that they show their conversion by avoiding the sins of soldiers.
The two negative commands are aorist subjunctives, constative (R. 853) to express actions that are fixed once for all; and the positive command is a present imperative to indicate a constant course of action. We may put it in this way: “Let the first two be settled once for all and go on steadily with the third.”
Διασείω means to shake thoroughly and thus to terrify, perhaps thus also to extort money, although the latter need not be added. Soldiers have the power in their hands and on occasion abuse and terrify civilians. This is enough here. Linguists dispute about the derivation of συκοφαντέω (see M.-M., R. W. P., and others), but the sense is assured: to raise false accusation in order to extort money, to blackmail.
As soldiers were in that day they often found opportunity for extortion and made use of it. Another of their besetting sins was dissatisfaction with their wages. So John forbids that. The word ὀψώνιον, usually plural when referring to wages, is from ὄψον, anything cooked that is to be eaten along with bread, and ὠνέομαι, to buy; hence “rations” and in general wages; 1 Cor. 9:7, of a soldier’s pay; 2 Cor. 11:8, of pay for Paul; and Rom. 6:23, of the wages of sin.
Each station in life has its peculiar temptations and sins. Repentance will show amendment especially in avoiding these sins. Failing in this is proof of spuriousness. It is especially hard in any profession to oppose its common practices, which always elicits ridicule, perhaps even persecution by the impenitent. Hence the avoidance of these sins is a good test of real repentance (conversion). Verse 11, of course, applies to all.
Luke 3:15
15 Now the people being in constant expectation, and all continuing to reason concerning John, whether perhaps he himself was the Christ, John answered, saying to all: I on my part am baptizing you with water, but One stronger than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not fit to unfasten; he will baptize you in connection with the Holy Spirit and fire.
It was John’s task to announce the coming of the Christ. Since he himself was such a strange and powerful personage, it was no wonder that in their expectation of the Messiah the people kept wondering whether, perhaps, John himself was this Messiah. Though Luke does not say so directly, the implication is that John had from the start proclaimed the Messiah’s nearness and coming. The περί phrase is to be construed only with the second participle. The optative in the indirect question is deliberative (R. 940) and is used for the indicative of the direct question (R., W. P.).
Luke 3:16
16 Here and again in John 1:20 John emphatically denies that he is the Messiah. The opinion that the thoughts of the people constituted a temptation for John to make himself the Messiah or to persuade himself that he actually was the Messiah, has no support in Luke or in John; the very contrary is the fact. We need not puzzle about how John found out what the people thought in their hearts; some of them spoke, and John learned of it. He at once made a public answer to suppress this false supposition. With an emphatic ἐγώ John places himself over against the Messiah whom, by comparison, he calls “One stronger than I.” He intends to say: “If you think I am great, he who will be here presently is infinitely greater.” With ἔρχεται John says that the Messiah is not yet here, but that he is on the way, is coming right now. How much greater than John the Messiah will be is stated in the relative clause.
It was the duty of the lowest slave to remove and to clean the sandals of his master or of any visitor. John says that for this task as regards the Messiah he, great prophet though he was, was “not fit.” In saying this he was not debasing himself in extravagant Oriental language; he was speaking as God’s prophet who was filled with the Spirit and told the literal truth by explaining the greatness and the exaltation of the Messiah. Luke speaks of untying the sandals, Matthew of carrying them away. If John is not fit to handle the sandals which only the feet of the Messiah have touched, how great, then, must this Messiah be? The answer is: he is God’s own Son. Note that ἰσχυρότερος, from the noun ἰσχύς, refers to the personal possession of strength, whether that strength is exercised or not.
By the comparative John implies that he, too, is ἰσχυρός, “strong,” the divine strength of the Word having been given to him. His is no false humility but a clear understanding of the facts.
With this difference between the persons there corresponds the difference in their work. John makes this plain by use of another comparison. Since he is appointed to baptize he places beside his baptizing that act of the stronger One which may also be called a baptizing. John baptizes with the ordinary sacrament by employing water (ὕδατι, dative of means); God’s Son will crown his great redemptive work by baptizing “in connection with the Holy Spirit and fire” (no dative but an ἐν phrase). A divinely appointed man may use water in the sacrament; only the Son of God can pour out the Holy Spirit, and even he only after completing his redemptive work and then ascending to heaven.
John is describing his own strength when he says that he is engaged in baptizing “with water.” This was the power that had been put into his hands by God. Compare the exposition of v. 3. It is unwarranted to stress ὕδατι so that John’s baptism becomes nothing but a symbolical sprinkling with water or, as some claim, immersion in water (against which the dative rebels). To claim that because Jesus baptized in connection with the Holy Spirit, John’s baptism was devoid of the Spirit, is to draw an unwarranted conclusion. As the Holy Spirit wrought throughout the Old Testament, so he wrought in both John’s preaching and his baptism and in all gospel preaching and in the first baptizing of the apostles (John 4:1, 2) until the day of Pentecost, from which day onward his presence, power, and gifts flowed out in wholly unrestrained measure and over all the earth. The distinction is not: before Pentecost no Spirit; after Pentecost the Spirit.
If this were true, no soul could have been saved before Pentecost. The true distinction is: before the actually completed work of redemption the limited preparatory work of the Spirit; after Pentecost the superabounding fullness of the Spirit everywhere.
The idea that even our present baptism is only water, a mere sign and symbol without the Spirit, only a confessional act and a work of obedience on our part; and that the only baptism that gives us the Spirit is the so-called “baptism of the Spirit,” by which the Spirit is supposed to seize a man suddenly, without the use of divine means (converting him by this seizure and later in the same way suddenly totally sanctifying him), is a fanatical outgrowth which casts aspersions upon the very means of grace by which the Spirit does come to us and for these means substitutes human emotions, imaginings, and dreams by which the Holy Spirit never comes.
When John says that the stronger One “shall baptize you in connection with the Holy Spirit and fire,” we have Jesus’ own commentary: “John baptized with water (ὕδατι, dative); but ye shall be baptized in connection with (ἐν phrase) the Holy Ghost, and not many days hence,” Acts 1:5. And v. 8: “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you,” etc. Peter also reports how the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and the Gentiles with him “as on us at the beginning,” i.e., at Pentecost. He adds: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how he said, John, indeed, baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” Acts 11:16. The miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is the supreme work and thus the final great mark of the Messiah. None but the Son, who had gone to the Father (John 16:7) after completing redemption, could thus send the Comforter. This stronger One, who was to show his strength by thus sending the Spirit miraculously, was also miraculously pointed out to the Baptist and by no less a sign than the descent of the Spirit upon him “in a bodily shape like a dove” (3:22); compare John 1:32–34.
Matthew uses ἐν with both “water” and “the Holy Spirit,” Luke only with the latter. One may admire the courage of those who find immersion in ἐνὕδατι but not in ἐνΠνεύματιἉγίῳκαὶπυρί. Could Luke’s simple dative also mean immersion? R. 586 makes ἐνὕδατι locative and translates Luke’s dative “in water”; but the locative is inept when it comes to the parallel phrase ἐν with a person, the Holy Spirit, and with fire.
Others think of an instrumental ἐν and of a simple dative which is also instrumental. The Spirit is never an instrument or even a means such as water and as fire may be. The simple fact is that in Luke ὕδατι is the dative of means, and ἐν used with the Holy Spirit and fire in Luke as well as the two ἐν in Matthew has just its original meaning “in connection with.” So Matthew says that John baptized in connection with water, and Luke says with water as, of course, everybody saw; and both say that Christ would do a baptizing “in connection with the Holy Spirit and fire” as everybody would also see when the time came. The nature of the connections with ἐν lies, not in the prepositions, but in the nouns that follow. Luke says that in the case of John the water was only a means and not a place.
One ἐν connects the Spirit and fire and thus regards the two as one concept which as one is also placed over against the one water. Even when this is recognized it is quite often disregarded, for “in the Holy Spirit” is referred to a work of grace (not, however, Pentecost but a peculiar immediate bestowal) and, separated from this by the interval of the whole New Testament era, “in fire” as the final work of judgment. The reason for this is that in v. 9 “fire” is used figuratively in connection with judgment. This view silently inserts a second “in” which is not there. It also misunderstands v. 16 which speaks of grace and leaves the reference to judgment to v. 17. This view forgets that judgment is never conceived as a baptism; baptism and baptizing always mean cleansing and never destruction.
This view assumes that “fire” is always a sign of judgment and destruction; but see the refiner’s fire in Mal. 3:2, 3; and fire as an image of purification in Zech. 13:9; Isa. 6:6, 7; 1 Pet. 1:7, and the “spirit of burning,” taking away filth in Isa. 4:4. Clearest of all, Pentecost, the fulfillment of John’s prophecy, has the two combined: the Spirit and cloven tongues of fire as the visible manifestation of the Spirit. Thus the church, too, has never had the least trouble with this fire. She sings:
“Come as the fire and purge our hearts
Like sacrificial flame.”
Reede.
“Come, Holy Spirit, from above
With thy celestial fire;
Come and with flames of zeal and love
Our hearts and tongues inspire.”
Cotterill.
“And each believing soul inspire
With thine own pure and holy fire.”
Luther, translated by Massie.
Finally, note the contrast between water and fire—the former with reference to John, the latter to Christ; but both in grace.
Luke 3:17
17 It is one of the great features of Old Testament prophecy that it views the two comings of the Messiah, that for the purpose of redemption and that for final judgment, without regard to the great interval of time between them. The prophets see the future, but without the perspective of time. The Baptist does the same: Christ pours out the Spirit with all his grace (v. 16) and also separates the grain from the chaff. The great stretch of time that lies between these two acts remains unrevealed. To assume that these prophecies disregarded the interval of time, i.e., that the final judgment would quickly succeed Pentecost, is to misunderstand the prophecies, all of which intended to hide from us the time of the end as they do to this day. Such a misunderstanding, of course, declares all these prophecies to be false because they were unfulfilled.
But when we understand this feature we see how John joins the description of the Messiah’s final work to that of Pentecost by a mere relative clause: whose winnowing shovel in his hand, thoroughly to clean his threshing floor and to collect the grain into his garner; but the chaff he will burn up with fire unquenchable. After the figure of the trees and the fruit they bear (v. 8, etc.) we now have the allied figure of the grain and the chaff and the imagery that is connected with these. The idea of the greatness of the stronger One is retained. The very idea of a mere man, though he be as great as the Baptist, doing what is here described, is untenable. The deity of the Messiah looms behind the two works described (v. 16 and 17); both demand that the Messiah be the Son of God and nothing less.
The judgment is divided into two natural parts: 1) separation as in Matt. 25:32; 2) disposal of the separated parts as in Matt. 25:34, “come,” etc., and in 25:41, “depart,” etc. The separation begins already in this life. The grain and the chaff, believers and unbelievers, are utterly distinct from each other. And so we see “the congregation of the saints” (Ps. 89:6; 149:1) drawing together on the one hand and “the congregation of evil doers” (Ps. 26:5) on the other, and blessed is he who keeps away from the latter (Ps. 1:1). But in this life, even in the organization of the church, this separation is not fully effected, nor can it be made fully visible to men as long as we live in a world in which “it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is,” 1 John 3:2.
The πτύον is a large wooden shovel that is designed for tossing up grain after it has been threshed out by the treading of oxen on a smooth, elevated “threshing floor” and the loose straw has been raked away. When the remaining mixture of grain and chaff is tossed up it is separated by the wind, the heavy grain falling straight to the floor, the light chaff being blown to one side. Nor shall the two ever be mixed again—their separation is now final. “Whose winnowing shovel in his hand” pictures the mighty Messiah as being ready at any moment to begin this task of separation.
In Luke we have two infinitives, both effective aorists, regarding the grain and a future tense regarding the chaff; in Matthew we have future tenses. A fine distinction results: Matthew simply records the future facts concerning grain and chaff, but Luke inserts the idea of divine purpose in connection with the grain and omits this in connection with the chaff by stating only the bare fact concerning it. Διακαθᾶραι, which is itself an effective aorist, is made perfective by διά, “to clean through,” “throughly” (A. V.), an old form for “thoroughly.” To clean the threshing floor means to remove all the straw and chaff and to leave in the center of the round, hard-packed floor a great heap of grain only. Both wheat and barley are called σῖτος, and both are extensively grown in Palestine and in Syria where the writer saw the oxen going ‘round and’ round treading out the grain, and in the circle they made a cone-shaped pile of the winnowed grain.
After the separation has been made and the threshing floor has been completely cleaned as stated, both the grain and the refuse find disposal. The infinitive of purpose in connection with the grain, συναγαγεῖν, shows that it was God’s object from the start to gather in the grain. It is collected in the ἀποθήκη (ἀπό and τίθημι), the place for “putting it away,” the granary or storehouse. It is valuable and is treasured accordingly. In fact, the one great object of tilling the field was to obtain this grain. The chaff is just waste; hence the Messiah “will burn it up,” κατά in the verb is perfective but with the thought of “down,” it is a mere future tense since God will, indeed, do this but did not make it his purpose from the start. The verb alone is enough.
But it might be understood as denoting annihilation of the wicked. The Baptist shuts out this view by adding the dative of means “with fire unquenchable.” The remarkable thing is that the adjective “unquenchable” leaves the figure and adds the reality after the manner of Biblical allegory (on which see Trench, Parables, p. 9). As noted above, the figure is too weak to bring out all that ought to be stated, so the reality is added. If the wicked were to be annihilated, the fire would burn itself out; instead it will never be quenched, it simply cannot be, it will burn on eternally as an eternal punishment for the wicked. Some have “eternal” as it is used in the Scriptures, as it is applied to the fate of the wicked signify only a long age of time; but then “eternal” in connection with the blessedness of the saints in heaven would also mean a blessedness that finally ends. “Unquenchable” blocks all such views. It shuts out both annihilation and final restitution.
Speculations as to the nature of this unquenchable fire are useless. God will provide a fire that is fully adequate; and they who burn in it will cease to question about its peculiar nature.
The imagery of the Baptist is wholly transparent, especially to Jews who know this imagery from the Old Testament. Only the godly, who repent and accept in faith the One coming, are “grain,” true children of Abraham (v. 8). Only they will enter heaven. All the rest are chaff which the wind blows away (Ps. 1:4). How valueless is chaff compared with grain! Who ever plants a field in order to garner nothing but chaff? All the proud works of men—what do they make of men when the judgment comes? Light as chaff will they be who bring nothing else on that day. Christ alone, accepted by faith, makes us grain.
Luke 3:18
18 Luke now closes the account of the public ministry of John. Accordingly, exhorting in regard to many and other things he continued preaching the gospel to the people.
Πολλὰκαὶἕτερα is to be construed with the participle, not, as R., W. P., thinks, with the main verb; this verb never has two accusatives, of the person and of the thing (although it may have either in the accusative), but when it has the accusative of the thing it takes the dative of the person (1:19; 2:10). Moreover, πολλὰκαὶἕτερα is adverbial, it means either “in regard to many and other things” (such as the cases mentioned in v. 10–14) or more adverbial still: “exhorting much and in other ways.” It was all exhortation and admonition and was also highly varied and took care of all points.
We have had εὐαγγελίζεσθαι in its general sense in 1:19 and in 2:10 and may translate it so here, “continued bringing good news”; but it was here the good news that is called the gospel, and we translate accordingly. This word is used in the broader sense as including law and gospel, the law as a παιδαγωγός or child conductor leading to Christ (Gal. 3:24, 25); it often refers only to the gospel in the narrower sense, the good news concerning Christ and salvation through faith in him. Οὖν connects this statement with the foregoing “according” to what has been just narrated; but μέν leads us to expect a statement with δέ, and the imperfect εὐηγγελίζετο also points forward to something like an aorist which tells how this gospel preaching finally ended. So Luke continues:
Luke 3:19
19 But Herod, the tetrarch, being repeatedly reproved by him concerning Herodias, his brother’s wife, and concerning all the wicked things which Herod did do, added also this on top of all—he shut up John in prison.
Here we have the δέ that is indicated by the μέν; and thus was John’s preaching brought to a tragic end. This is Herod Antipas who was mentioned as “Herod” in v. 1. Luke summarizes, and it is his object not to tell the story of Herod but that of John, and how his preaching came to be silenced. The participle is durative to express repeated action: “being repeatedly reproved by him,” the reproof coming to Herod’s ears. What it was about “his brother’s wife”; and which brother this was, Luke does not say, he only implies by the next περί phrase that it, too, was something wicked, which called for no less than public reproof. It is Luke alone who reports that the reproof extended to other wicked deeds of Herod, none of which we know (ὧν is attracted from ἅ). The Greek uses the simple aorist ἐποίησε to indicate the past act whereas we should use the past perfect “had done.” Πονηρός denotes active evil, the best word for which is “wicked.”
Luke 3:20
20 Luke presents John’s arrest as being the climax of all Herod’s crimes. It was this because Herod laid hands on God’s prophet, Christ’s forerunner, and silenced his gospel preaching, an act that was worse than his adultery with Herodias. Sins are sins, and all damn, but some damn more than do others. Note the asyndeton (it is erased in our versions) which reads as if a dash separated the statements: “he added also this on top of all—he shut up John in prison,” namely in the fortress Machærus near the Dead Sea. Compare Matt. 14:3, etc.; Mark 6:17, etc.; Luke 9:7, etc.
The character of John is revealed in all its courage and fearlessness. He might have kept still about Herod because of Herod’s position and power; but, sent as a preacher of repentance, he preached against all sins, no matter who the sinners might be. How he came to reprove Herod is not recorded, but even Josephus (Ant. 18, 5, 4) declares how repulsive to the Jews Herod’s adulterous marriage was which subverted their laws.
Luke 3:21
21 Now it came to pass, while all the people were baptized, that Jesus, too, having been baptized and in the act of praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit came down with bodily form as a dove upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my Son, the Beloved! In thee I was well pleased.
Luke has used ἐγένετο plus a finite verb (1:8, for instance), he now has ἐγένετο plus the accusative with the infinitive. As in his description of the circumcision the stress is on the name that was bestowed on Jesus (2:21), so in his description of the baptism the stress is on the coming down of the Spirit and on the words of the Father. Jesus’ baptism is mentioned only by a genitive absolute. As was the case in 2:27, ἐν with the dative of the substantivized infinitive has the aorist. Even B.-D. 404, 2 takes this to mean “after all the people were baptized,” yet R., W. P., 43, is right, “there is no element of time in the aorist infinitive” which is simply punctiliar.
Luke does not say that all the people were baptized before Jesus came, or that they were baptized at the same time with him. The aorist is constative: in connection with the baptism of all the people Jesus was baptized. The idea is that he was baptized as one of this great number. The fact of his baptism is expressed by the genitive absolute καὶἸησοῦβαπτισθέντος, “Jesus, too, having been baptized.” Luke omits all the details connected with this act as these are reported by Matthew.
None of the evangelists drops even a hint as to the mode of these baptisms, including that of Jesus. Mark has the finite verb ἐβαπτίσθη, “was baptized by John in the Jordan,” Matthew, like Luke, only the aorist participle of this verb. A search through the New Testament reveals that the Holy Spirit seems purposely to have withheld a mention of the mode. If the mode were such a vital thing, then we may certainly conclude that the Holy Spirit would in this most important case, if in none other, have indicated the mode with sufficient clearness; but he does nothing of the kind. It is surprising that in the face of this situation so many are sure that Jesus was immersed. The one point which the Scripture evidence yields on the mode of Jesus’ baptism and on that of all others is that immersion was not the mode. A full discussion of the subject appears in the author’s exposition of Mark 1:5; compare also Matt. 3:16.
When we remember that John’s baptism, like its extension in Christian baptism, was pure gospel (v. 3) and in no sense law we see at once that by accepting baptism for himself Jesus is in no sense obeying a law, least of all a law that would be useless in his case. Yet he is also not accepting grace and pardon in this baptism although this was its gospel purpose for all others, for Jesus is sinless. What Jesus does by accepting baptism by John is to enter his Messianic office by means of this act. He, the sinless One, the very Son of God, in and by his baptism places himself alongside of all the sinful ones for whom this sacrament of John was ordained. He thus connects himself with all John’s baptisms, for it is his mediation that makes these baptisms truly efficacious for sinners. In thus by his own baptism joining himself to all these baptisms of John he signifies that he is now ready to take upon himself the load of all these sinners, i.e., to assume his redemptive office. No wonder that John presently calls him the Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36).
The idea that the law required of priests and of teachers that they be thirty years old and be consecrated by a religious washing and anointing can be substantiated only in the case of the Levites (Num. 4:3) and would make the whole transaction in the case of Christ, including even the anointing with the Spirit, nothing but a legal ceremonial observance. It was on an entirely higher plane. The modernistic view has Jesus come to John as others did to enroll himself among the servants of the kingdom and to submit to the same ritual as the rest. Strange that the heavens did not open also in the case of those others. This view removes the King of the kingdom from his throne and makes him one of the servants. There are many other views that deserve only to be forgotten.
We cull two minor thoughts that deserve to be preserved. Jesus honored John’s baptism, which he certainly did, but only incidentally, as using John’s ministration for a far higher purpose. Also, Jesus intended to sanctify the water for this sacrament which he would afterward send out to all the world. Concordia Triglotta, 736, 21.
The aorist participle βαπτισθέντος marks the baptismal act as it was performed upon Jesus as being complete; all else that follows is something else. The other evangelists state that Jesus moved away from the water, and Luke alone adds with a present durative participle that he was in the act of praying. Luke repeatedly notes the praying of Jesus. His prayer, we may say, dealt with his entering upon his great ministry, for which he was now offering himself. Whether his words were audible or not, those who stood by saw that he was engaged in prayer, he perhaps lifted up his eyes and his hands. Then wonderful things, indeed, occurred, but they were of such a kind that we cannot say that they came in answer to Jesus’ prayer. God inaugurated his Son into his redemptive office.
“The heaven was opened,” the aorist infinitive expresses the one act, and this infinitive with an augment is one of the unusual forms in the Koine. The aorist states the fact. This was not a mere vision and certainly not a mere impression (Eindruck) in the mind of Jesus (John 1:30–34). The fact should not be weakened by talking about a new relation of Jesus to the Father. The speculation about something that occurred in the heart of Jesus, die innere Erregung seines Geisteslebens, though it be coupled with the outward phenomenon, only darkens the facts. The ideas that the heavens just happened to brighten above Jesus, or that a thunderstorm let out flashes of lightning, are rationalistic speculations.
Ezekiel (1:1) saw the heavens opened; Stephen likewise (Acts 7:56); compare also Rev. 4:1; Isa. 64:1. “Heaven opens itself, which hitherto was closed, and becomes now at Christ’s baptism a door and window so that one can see into it; and henceforth there is no difference any more between God and us, for God the Father himself is present and says, This is my beloved Son.” Luther. We are not told what became visible when the heaven was suddenly opened as we are told in the case of Ezekiel and of Stephen. Yet we may well say that the heavenly glory was visible, and that John and any others who were present beheld its radiance. The heavens soon closed again. As far as a new, mysterious intercourse between Jesus and the heavenly world is concerned, which dated from this opening of heaven, this idea is an importation that has no warrant in the text.
Luke 3:22
22 The moment the heaven was opened the Holy Spirit came down upon Jesus in a bodily form. Matthew says that Jesus saw him come down, John 1:32, 33 makes it certain that the Baptist, too, saw the Spirit’s descent; in fact, this was the divinely appointed proof for him that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Verse 33 states that the Spirit remained upon Jesus. Luke reports only the fact of the descent as he continues the construction of the accusative with the infinitive. Matthew writes “as a dove,” to which Luke adds “with bodily form” and places this dative of means before “as a dove”; εἶδος itself signifies a visible form. This is said because the Spirit is in his very nature invisible; God, however, never had any difficulty when he wished to appear to the fathers.
It has often been asked why the Spirit chose the form of a dove. Luther thinks this was done because of its friendliness, because it is without wrath and bitterness, because the Spirit desires to show that he has no anger toward us but is ready to help us to become godly and to be saved. Others point to purity, innocence, and meekness as being symbolized by the dove. It is easy to run into all kinds of fancies by picking up cues here and there regarding the term “dove.” Gen. 1:3 is the only place in which an expression that is somewhat analogous occurs concerning the Spirit. We content ourselves by saying that the dove-like form intended to convey the idea of the graciousness of the Spirit.
The form was visible because, like the open heaven and like the voice, human senses were to perceive what was happening. He who was conceived “of the Spirit” now receives that Spirit as a permanent gift for the Messianic work he is now assuming. As his conception pertained to his human nature alone, so also does this bestowal of the Spirit. In his deity the Son was of the identical essence with both the Father and the Spirit, and thus no one person could be bestowed upon another. But in his human nature, which the Son had assumed in order by it to work out our redemption, he could receive the Spirit and did so when that work was now to begin. So great a task was this that all three persons are concerned in it, and the Spirit aids the human nature of Jesus in a special way.
The coming down of the Spirit upon Jesus is the anointing that had been prophesied in Ps. 45:7: “God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Isa. 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach,” etc. (Luke 4:18). See also Acts 10:38: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” The prophets received some of the gifts of the Spirit; Jesus, who is lifted far above them, received the Spirit as such. We see what power thus filled him when he was now led up of the Spirit to be tempted (4:1), and when in the power of the Spirit he came into Galilee to teach there in his wonderful way and to work miracles (4:14). Luther writes: “Here he begins rightly to be Christ,” namely the anointed One, “and was thus inaugurated into his entire Messianic office as our Prophet, High Priest, and King.”
Rationalists think that a common dove fluttered over Jesus. Some resort to figurative interpretations or assume a double vision, namely that what Jesus and the Baptist beheld in the spirit was also symbolized for their eyes and their ears so that they thought that they actually saw and heard. When this is put into elegant language it may even sound psychological, but it is after all a denial of the facts described. As the shepherds actually saw and heard the angels, so Jesus and John and others saw and heard what occurred when the Spirit came down and the Father spoke from above.
Luke now uses the articles τὸΠνεῦματὸἍγιον whereas from 1:15 onward the articles were omitted save in 2:26, 27 where they seem to be articles of previous reference to the unarticulated name used in 2:25. The presence or the absence of the articles makes no difference whatever as regards the person that is here referred to; a glance at Luke’s use of this name in his first three chapters makes that plain. Why the article is in some cases used with names and in others not, the grammarians have not yet solved; it is much like the German, the English has nothing comparable. Matthew has τὸΠνεῦματοῦΘεοῦ and Mark only τὸΙΙνεῦμα. All refer to the third person of the Godhead.
It is most noteworthy that all three persons are revealed at Jesus’ baptism so that we here have one of the clearest proofs for the Holy Trinity. It is sometimes overlooked that in these opening chapters Luke writes to the Gentile Theophilus about the Holy Spirit as if Theophilus knew about the three persons of the Deity. When we see from John 1:29–34 with what clarity the Baptist spoke of what his eyes, too, saw here beside the Jordan, it is unwarranted to deny that the Old Testament revealed the Trinity to the Jews, or revealed the Trinity only dimly and imperfectly. All the Baptist’s hearers understood him. Later the Jews object only to the fact that the man Jesus should call himself God’s Son; they never raise the issue that God is only one person and cannot have a Son. It is specious to raise the question as to how fully the Baptist and the Jews grasped the reality and the relation of the three divine persons and then to rate their knowledge as low as possible. To this day, and since the New has been added to the Old Testament, the Holy Trinity remains an ineffable mystery and yet a revealed reality.
The evangelists let us recognize the voice that came “out of heaven” by what that voice says. Out of the open heaven the voice sounded just as the bodily form of the dove descended. The one was as real to the ears as the other was to the eyes. The fact that the Baptist heard the voice he indicates in John 1:34 when he declares: “This is the Son of God.” Mark and Luke record the Father’s words as being addressed to Jesus: “Thou art,” etc., whereas Matthew has the third person: “This is my Son,” etc. Matthew indicates that the words that were spoken to Jesus are intended also for all others just as this is stated in John 1:34. Some distinguish between “my beloved Son” as referring to the eternal Godhead of the Son before the incarnation and “in thee I was well pleased” as referring to Christ in the flesh. But the reason for such a distinction is rather obscure. “Thou” as well as Matthew’s οὗτος refer to the God-man as he stood there on the riverbank.
In what sense the Father meant ὁυἱόςμου cannot be in doubt. This Son is the second person of the Godhead. Note the article with the predicate ὁυἱός, which makes the subject and the predicate identical and interchangeable, R. 768. Unless we see the God-man in Jesus, it would be beyond comprehension why the Father should call from heaven that this is his Son, the Beloved. Throughout the Scriptures the Sonship of Jesus is in a class absolutely by itself, on an equality with the Father, and infinitely above all other sonships. They who deny the deity of Jesus must settle accounts with the Father and the declaration he makes here.
The verbal adjective ὁἀγαπητός is added by a second article. This makes the verbal a kind of apposition and, in fact, a climax to ὁυἱός, R. 776. The weight of the statement thus rests on this verbal, on Jesus, the Son, being the Beloved. Like most verbals, ἀγαπητός is passive, and the Father is the implied agent. The verb ἀγαπᾶν, from which the verbal is derived, denotes the highest type of love, that which is coupled with full comprehension and understanding and is accompanied by corresponding purpose; compare the author’s exposition of John 3:16 and 21:15, etc. When it is used as it is here with reference to one who is worthy of that love ἀγαπᾶν includes the completest and highest manifestation of this love; such manifestation is often impossible when the sinful world, enemies, and unworthy persons are the objects.
The verb φιλεῖν denotes the love of affection, and while it is also proper with reference to the Father and the Son, it expresses less than the other verb does. It cannot be used when the object is unworthy. God cannot at all love the foul, stinking world in the sense of φιλεῖν and press it affectionately to his bosom; he can love it only in the sense of ἀγαπᾶν, understanding all its foulness and purposing to remove that filth. The Father loved Jesus, his Son, because he comprehended all that Jesus was doing and with the purpose of seconding his every act.
“Thou art my Son,” etc., is a declaration concerning the work on which Jesus is entering. It predicates far more than that the Son ἄσαρκος (unincarnate) is the Son and as such the Beloved from all eternity. That would evidently need no announcement, nor would it be reasonably connected with the baptism through such an announcement. This declaration deals with the Son ἔνσαρκος (incarnate, in the flesh), incarnate in Jesus and now entering upon his office and work. It thus proclaims who this humble person Jesus really is: “my Son,” and voices the Father’s love for him as he is now proceeding to do the Father’s will in this great work.
Some regard ἀγαπητός as being equivalent to μονογενής, “the Only-begotten,” and assert that this is the fixed meaning of the term. The evidence adduced, however, amounts only to this that an only son was at times also called “the beloved” (son); thus in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, which is the chief proof offered. The main objection to this interpretation lies in the sense attributed to “only-begotten,” namely that in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 this term refers only to the human birth of Jesus, that by being born of the Virgin he was “the only-begotten” of God since no other was born thus. The intent of this interpretation is to deny that “only-begotten” states the generatio aeterna of the Son in his divine nature as the church has always held. From all eternity the Son was the Only-begotten; and when that Son, now incarnate, came of his own free will to carry out the Father’s redemptive plan, the Father called him “the Beloved,” not “the Only-begotten.”
And to this the Father added: “In thee I was well pleased.” This is not an exposition of “the Beloved” that says only about the same thing. Our versions have this idea, but they violate the aorist tense ηὐδόκησα by translating “in thee I am well pleased.” R. 768 labors to justify this translation by making this verb a gnomic aorist or at least a timeless aorist that is used in the sense of the present. But such grammatical constructions are due to the idea that the verb must refer to the present. The fact is that we have here a simple historical aorist. The tense “I was well pleased” becomes clear when we understand that εὐδοκεῖν, when it is employed with reference to persons, often has an intensive sense and is equal to ἐκλέγεσθαι and αἱρετίζειν, “to select or choose for oneself.” The good pleasure expresses itself in the choice. See C.-K., 253.
Thus “in thee I was well pleased” really says: “I was well pleased in choosing thee.” The aorist goes back to the moment when God selected his Son for the redemptive work, and when the Son accepted that work. The aorist is thus plainly historical. The mighty fact of the heavenly selection of the Son who now stands incarnate at the Jordan, ready of his own will to begin the work, is thus announced with the Father’s supreme pleasure in having made the choice. That is why the Father now sends his Spirit upon Jesus. How much all this meant to Jesus is easy to understand.
The eternal Son is the Father’s Elect for the great task. This Son, now incarnate and now presenting himself for the task, is thus “the Beloved.” Upon the human nature of this Elect and Beloved One the Spirit himself is bestowed for the great task. All this might have transpired between the Father and the Son without any witnesses. But it took place so that the Baptist and all of us might know. The Trinity appears most clearly: the Father speaking from heaven—the Son standing incarnate at the Jordan—the Spirit as a dove descending out of heaven. Yet here, too, we have this revelation only in a limited degree, only in so far as these three are engaged in our redemption and salvation.
The deeper mysteries of the Holy Trinity remain hidden from us. God is, as it were, compelled to reveal this much of the unfathomable mystery in order that we may know how our salvation is wrought. This revelation has only the one purpose indicated and was never intended to answer the curious questions which rationalistic intellects (not hearts) may raise. The church calls this the economic Trinity, the revelation concerned with the economy of our salvation.
Zahn rejects the overwhelmingly attested reading: “In thee was I well pleased,” and substitutes the reading of D, the only Greek text that has it (also some versions and fathers): “This day have I begotten thee,” which is a quotation from Ps. 2:7 (LXX). His textual evidence is too weak. In order to accept it we should have to establish the principle that wherever D varies from the mass of texts it alone ought to be followed. No text critic has ever ventured to set up such a canon. But Zahn indicates what attracts him to insist on this ill-attested reading which is only some scribe’s annotation from the psalm. It is his misinterpretation of this psalm passage and of the New Testament statements regarding Christ’s Sonship.
The entire matter of this Sonship is fluid—Jesus is the Son in at least four different senses, and all of them have nothing to do with deity: first, as humanly begotten in a miraculous way (born indeed of a virgin but not as the pre-existent Son); secondly, just as any pious Jew might call God his Father (2:49); thirdly, as at his baptism “begotten” in the sense of Messiah and thus a son of God; fourthly, as like all men a son of Adam who was “of God.” “Son of God” thus becomes elastic as far as Jesus is concerned; whatever it may mean, one thing it never means—Deity. Modernism could certainly not go farther than Zahn does (Evangelium des Lucas, 202, etc.)
23–38) And he himself Jesus, when beginning, was about thirty years old, being a son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli, (a son) of Matthat … (a son) of Adam, (a son) of God.
The subject of the sentence is just αὐτός, which points to him with emphasis as being the one last referred to in v. 22 and there called God’s Son. His name “Jesus” is added in apposition, and ἀρχόμενος modifies this name: “when beginning,” i. e., his work and office. The years are stated in the genitive: he was about “of thirty years.” The observation that Luke intends this as an appropriate statement of Jesus’ age is correct. His age could not have been much more or less, for if it had been a few years more it would have been near the age when he died. “About 30 years” thus implies that several years followed this ἀρχόμενος and not just one year (as some would reduce Christ’s ministry), for “about” might easily include at least the greater part of that year and thus leave practically no room for the ministry. Luke’s 30 years, if these are understood as being over 30, agree with the other approximate dates, the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius (counting this reign as beginning with the time when he was associated with his father, see v. 1) for the Baptist’s activity and a date prior to Herod’s death for the birth of Jesus (Matt. 2).
The debate as to whether Luke, like Matthew, furnishes a genealogy of Joseph or of Mary has led the commentators to descend to the use of sarcastic language. It is going entirely too far when those who argue that Luke gives a genealogy of Joseph deny Mary’s Davidic descent and thus make her the daughter of a priest (see 1:36) and not “of David’s house” (see 1:27). How Luke could think of appending a genealogy of Joseph after saying that Jesus was only supposed to be a son of Joseph, i. e., a physical son, Luke himself having shown at length that this supposition was wrong, and that Jesus was a physical son only of Mary, has yet to be made clear by those who find the genealogy of Joseph here. The case is entirely different in Matthew, for there Joseph’s genealogy is given as “the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus,” i. e., of Joseph as the legal father of Jesus, in whose wedlock with Mary Jesus was born. The difference in the wording of the two evangelists is so marked as alone to settle the question. If Luke were presenting Joseph’s genealogy, it would according to his own statement be the genealogy only of the supposed father of Jesus, and of what value would such a genealogy be? No man could find a reference to the legal relation of Joseph to Jesus in ὡςἐνομίζετο.
Again, we get no answer when we ask why we have no τοῦ before Ἰωσήφ as we have before every other name, even before that of God, if Joseph is one link in this genealogical line. The answer is that Luke distinguishes Joseph from the rest as not being in their line, as being only the supposed father. Yet again, how could Joseph have two lines of descent that started with different fathers if Luke, too, presents Joseph’s line? The answer that Jacob (in Matthew) is the actual father of Joseph, and Heli (in Luke) his levirate father, is at once met by the observation that the names of these fathers ought then to be transposed. One might meet a levirate father in Matthew, since he writes for readers of Jewish descent but never in Luke who writes for a Gentile like Theophilus. When Luke’s list is read as referring to Joseph and is compared with that of Matthew it offers still other difficulties of the same nature which necessitate decidedly questionable hypotheses as solutions.
The supposition that Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph goes back to the letters of the physician Sextus Julius Africanus (about A. D. 230) whom various fathers followed. Zahn presents his views at length and adopts those of these fathers. We consider them too intricate and unsatisfactory to enter upon them here. For instance, the two fathers of Joseph (Jacob actual, Heli levirate) must not only be brothers but must also themselves have different fathers!
The objection that, if Luke is giving us the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, Heli would be the grandfather of Jesus and could not be introduced by τοῦἩλί overlooks the fact that sometimes even several links are skipped in the Biblical genealogies; this is the case in Matthew’s list and in Ezra 7:3 where six links are omitted as 1 Chron. 6:7–11 shows. The claim that Mary should have been mentioned as being the daughter of Heli is more than met by Luke’s full narrative of how she became the mother of Jesus; every reader knew that ὢνυἱός … τοῦἩλί, “being a son … of Heli,” could mean only one thing: Heli’s son through Mary (and certainly not through a supposed father). The parenthesis in our versions should be extended to include the name Joseph: “(as was supposed of Joseph).” To shorten it as is done in our versions makes the entire list up to “of God” (v. 38) dependent on “as was supposed,” for there is no way to restrict this clause except by including “of Joseph” in it as a part of the parenthesis.
The most unwarranted use that is made of the genealogy when it is regarded as presenting Joseph’s descent is that of von Hofmann who is governed by Arian ideas: Jesus has just heard himself called God’s Son in v. 22, and this is now to be made clear by the genealogy which shows in what sense alone he is derived from God (τοῦΘεοῦ, v. 38), only through his legal father Joseph.
All the names found in the list are genitives with τοῦ, and all are construed like the first: ὢνυἱὸςἩλί, “being a son of Heli, being a son of Matthat,” etc.; yet not in the sense that Jesus was a son of all these, as has been supposed, by making all the genitives depend on the one υἱός but by supplying “being a son” or just “a son” before each name in the genitive. The fact that Adam is thus called “a son of God” is striking, and although it expresses a different relation than that of the others, it is perfectly true. This final genitive “disposes of the pagan myths about the origin of man and shows that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.”
But it would be unwarranted to think that Luke meant that only through this line of human ancestors was Jesus “a son of God,” for all of these ancestors would then be sons of God in the same sense; in other words, Jesus would sink to the level of ordinary men. It is true, that, in carrying the ancestry back to Adam’s creation by God, Luke presents Jesus as the Savior of the race (universality), and that this is the chief import of this genealogy. He is the Savior of all by being the Seed of Abraham and the heir of David, the two great names in this list. To stress the fact alone that Jesus is here made “the son of David” fails to give due weight to the rest of the list; and to think that Jesus calls himself “the Son of man” because of this descent as recorded in Luke forgets the real origin and meaning of that Messianic title and in the list itself overlooks the final name: “of God.”
It is not known how Luke secured his genealogy, Although we today cannot test its correctness in all details, there is no reason for calling any of its items into question. From David the line runs through his son Nathan while Joseph is descended from David’s line through Solomon (Matt. 1:6). The two lines cross in Zerubbabel and Shealtiel (Matt. 1:12). We pass by the problems as to Rhesa, Neri, Cainan, and other names. Compare 1 Chron. 1:1–4, 24–26; 2:3–5, 9–15; Ruth 4:18–22.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.