Luke 3

H.Leo Boles Commenary On Luke 3 THE OF JOHN THE BAPTISTLuk_3:1-20 Luke 3:1-2 —Now in the fifteenth year of the reign—Luke is a true historian; he defines very accurately the time when John began his ministry. It was the fifteenth year of the reign “ of Tiberius Caesar.” Luke does not refer to some one great epoch like the birth of Christ, which is followed throughout the civilized world, for then no such epoch for the world had been established. He dates from the year of the reigning Roman emperor, and adds also the name of the governor of Judea, and then the tetrarchs of the adjacent provinces, and the high priests then in office. Tiberius Caesar succeeded Au¬gustus in A.D. 14, according to very reliable historians; his fifteenth year (and John’ s entrance upon his ministry) were in A.D. 29. As Jesus was six months younger than John, and about thirty years of age (verse 23) when he began his minis¬try, it follows that John began to preach not far from one and a half years before the baptism of Jesus. Pontius Pilate became governor of Judea in A.D. 25 or 26. The name “ tetrarch” was originally given to one who ruled a fourth part of a province; that is, one province having been divided into four parts. Pontius Pilate was a bold, heartless ruler; his first act was an outrage on the feelings of the Jews; he sent within the city of Jerusalem a body of soldiers to winter there. The Jews obtained their removal after many efforts to get them out of the holy city. Luke very aptly fixes this date as the time for the beginning of John’ s ministry. Herod was tetrarch of Galilee at this time. This was Herod Antipas, son of the monster, Herod the Great; he had been left by his father as ruler of the province of Galilee. “ Tetrarch” originally meant the fourth part, but came to be used to signify the part of a kingdom over which the man ruled. John the Baptist was slain by this Herod and our Sav¬ior was mocked by him; his brother Philip also received a third part of the kingdom of Herod. “ Philip” was “ tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis” ; “ Ituraea” was a district in the northeast of Palestine and east of the Jordan; it received its name from Jetru, one of the sons of Ishmael. (Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 5:19.) It had been subdued by Aris- tobulus, who compelled the people to submit to the rites of the Jews. “ Trachonitis” was the region bordering upon Ituraea and east of the Jordan. The name signifies a rough mountain¬ous country. Philip had received it on a promise to drive out the people who had dwelt there some time. “ Lysanias” was “ tetrarch of Abilene” ; nothing is known of him ; “ Abilene” was named from “ Ablia,” which was the principal city in the re¬gion lying northwest of Damascus. in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,—According to the Jewish law there could be but one high priest at a time. Luke, as a historian, is not stating what should have been, but only what constituted the facts in the matter. He is taking up important names as he found them in order to fix the date of his history. He found these two men serving as high priest at that time. Caiphas was son-in-law to Annas, who was actually serving as high priest. Annas was a man of very great influence.

He had been deposed as high priest, but was serving on the Sanhedrin. As Annas had been unjustly deposed by the Roman authorities, it may be that, in the opinion of the Jews, he was still termed the high priest, and a degree of power put into his hands that made him equal in authority to Caiaphas. Luke fixes the date of the beginning of the ministry of John by an emperor on one side, by a petty governor on the other, by two high priests who were serving at the time. At this date so clearly and fully defined the historian, Luke, now proceeds to narrate facts as he has collected them. It is to be remembered always that he is guided by the Holy Spirit in writing his history. “ The word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” Luke has now fixed defi-nitely the time for the beginning of John’ s work. Like the prophets of old, John was specially directed to utter the divine message to the people and to baptize. (Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 6:1.) This marked the beginning of John’ s ministry as is evident from the whole account, not some later appearance of John which was the cause of his imprisonment, as some have sup¬posed. “ In the wilderness” of Judea describes the barren, hilly, and sparsely-settled region between Hebron and the Dead Sea.

The word “ wilderness” or “ desert” in the New Testament denotes merely an untilled, unenclosed, and thinly- inhabited country. The “ fulness of the time” (Galatians 4:4) has now arrived. Luke 3:3-6 —And he came into all the region—The populous Jordan valley was a field of labor for John the Baptist. The burden of his message was a call upon men to repent and be baptized as the condition of their forgiveness; hence John came “ preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.” “ Preaching” means publicly announcing; as he traveled over the country, he delivered his brief message to individuals, families, and small companies wherever he found them, and then afterward to great crowds who flocked to hear him. “ Baptism” is the Greek “ baptisma” transferred into our lan-guage with its final letter dropped; it means literally “ a plunging and immersion.” All lexicographers bear testimony and agree to this; its figurative meaning is based on this meaning, and always expresses an idea of immersion. (Luke 12:50.) It is only with the literal meaning that we have here to do. The baptism of John was a new rite; it was not founded on the immersions of the old dispensation, under which persons performed the ceremony of bathing or immersing the whole body, not on others, but on themselves. (Leviticus 15:6 Leviticus 16:4.) The immersion of one person by another, as a divinely appointed act, is peculiar to Christianity, and was first introduced by John: baptism was not practiced among the Jews nor heathens. John himself declared that he received his commission to baptize directly from God. (John 1:33.) Jesus intimated that the right was revealed to John from heaven. (Luke 20:4.) As baptism was a new rite it distin-guished John’ s ministry from all other prophets; hence he is called “ the Baptist.” (Luke 7:20.) John’ s preaching is very specifically designated as that of “ baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.”as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah—The preaching and baptism of John were the fulfillment of certain prophetic conditions; Luke recognizes the authority of the Old Testament. “ The book of the words of Isaiah” means the roll or scroll of linen, papyrus, or parchment, the ancient form of a volume, written inside and unrolled for reading. “ The words” of Isaiah means his prophetic discourses. Isaiah began to prophesy under the reign of Uzziah, about 759 B.C., and continued the prophetic office about sixty years under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. (Isaiah 1:1.) The predictions here quoted are found in Isaiah 40:3-5 Isaiah 52:10. John also applies it to himself. (John 1:23.) The figure here used is founded on the eastern custom of sending persons to prepare the way for the march of a king through the country. John is described as “ the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” and his message is to “ make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” It is not John, but his preaching and mis¬sion which are made prominent here; his preaching was in¬deed a “ voice of one crying” aloud, of short duration, but by its great earnestness excited attention. Every valley shall be filled,—The great oral purpose of John’ s preaching was so well defined in the prophecy of him by Isaiah that Luke quotes the prophecy in full; everywhere in earnest tones, John called upon the people to prepare the way for the Greek King, leveling down the mountains, filling up the valley gorges, straightening all crooked ways, and making the rough places smooth. This is the way the royal road was prepared for the coming king. In a moral sense men must put away their sins, humble their proud spirits, and so make the way ready for the redeemer of man. All this as it stood before Isaiah’ s mind was to introduce the glorious reign of the Messiah by means of which “ all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” So remarkable and conspicuous would be the preparation and march of the King upon the straight and smooth highway that the whole human race should “ see the salvation of God,” which the Messiah would bring. Luke 3:7-9 –He said therefore to the multitudes—Luke now begins to record what John said to the multitudes “ that went out to be baptized of him.” John was a prophet, guided by the Holy Spirit, and the forerunner of the Messiah; it was his mission to get the people ready for the Messiah. The multitudes came from various quarters of the land. Matthew 3:7 says that “ many of the Pharisees and Sadducees” came to his baptism, and that John addressed them as “ ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” As Luke was writing for Gentiles, there was no need of his referring to these religious classes among the Jews; hence he addressed them as “ ye offspring of vipers.” It may be that some had come through curiosity, others were envious and jealous, and some, especially of the Sadducees, were sneering at the dan¬gers impending in a future life; all seemed to be aroused and anxious. As John was filled with the Holy Spirit he could see at a glance their selfish and wicked motives in coming to him, and he at once addressed them as “ offspring of vipers,” per-sons both deceitful and malignant, and holding pernicious doctrines and principles. The viper was a very poisonous ser-pent. (Acts 28:3-6.) who warned you to flee—“ Warned” literally means “ to show secretly”; the word implies a private or confidential hint or reminder. (Luke 12:5; Acts 9:16 Acts 20:35.) “ Who” did not call for the names of the man or persons, but rather called their thought to the point that someone ought to have warned them to flee from the impending wrath of God. John had no word for men not in earnest to escape God’ s wrath. It was a Jewish maxim that no circumcised person could ever be lost, but John warns them of a “ wrath to come.” The impending wrath was to be visited upon those who rejected the kingdom of heaven and neglected preparation. The Jews expected troublous times in connection with the coming of the Messiah. (Isaiah 60:12 Isaiah 63:1; Malachi 3:1 Malachi 4:5.) John here referred in a prophetic way to the wrath which would come upon the Jew¬ish nation at the destruction of Jerusalem and upon all the wicked at the general judgment. (Matthew 24:21 Matthew 24:38-39; 1 Thessalonians 1:10.) Bring forth therefore fruits—Matthew here uses “ fruit” instead of “ fruits” as used by Luke. John demanded no merely emotional and selfish fear, but such works and conduct as would show sincerity; they were to bring fruits “ worthy of repentance” ; if they came professing repentance then they should bring forth fruits in harmony with such a profession; they should not even think that they had Abraham as their father or they should not think that because they were descendants of Abraham they did not need repentance. The reason assigned is that “ God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”And even now the axe also lieth at the root—“ The axe laid at the root of the tree” is a proverb that was common among the Jews. The meaning is that the axe is ready to be applied for use, and not only were the branches to be pruned, but the axe was to be applied to the root of the tree. The object of the axe was to cut down “ every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit.” Men are to be judged, not by their birth or their professions, but by their hearts and lives. Without delay all barren trees were to be cut down immediately and “ cast into the fire.” This was unquenchable fire. (Verse 17; Hebrews 6 Hebrews 8.) In this way John would prepare the people for the coming of Christ by awakening within them a sense of their true condition and of their spiritual need. Expecting a temporal deliverer, they would, without this, most certainly reject Jesus. Luke 3:10-15 —And the multitudes asked him,—John certainly aroused the people and stirred them to action; some of them received John’ s teaching and became his disciples; others were aroused to opposition. They asked: “ What then must we do?” They saw that being the seed of Abraham was not sufficient and that their keeping the traditions of the law not satisfactory; hence their question, “ what then must we do?” They “ asked” indicates the frequent repetition of their question, so the original indicates. John’ s preaching moved them to press their inquiry; what are the fruits meet for repentance which they were to do, is what disturbed them. John’ s an¬swer to these questions was as emphatic as was his preaching. And he answered and said—John’ s first answer impressed the duties of practical life—give to those who are more destitute. “ He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.” A second coat no man could want if his neighbor who had none wanted his first; two coats were sometimes worn, one of them for ornamentation or luxury; in such case the one who had two coats could very well spare one to those who had none. This explains what John meant when he said: “ Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.” It also partially answers their question as to what they should do. Avarice and selfishness characterized at this time many of the Jews. (James 4:1-4 James 5:1-6.) Furthermore, “ he that hath food, let him do likewise.” The “ coat” and “ food” represent the physical necessities of man; these should not be hoarded, but generously given to those who had need. And there came also publicans to be baptized,—“ Publicans” were collectors of Roman taxes; the Roman officials often farmed out the direct taxes and customs to capitalists on their payment of certain sums into the public treasury, hence they were called “ publicans.” Sometimes this sum, being greater than any one person could pay, was paid by a company; under these were “ submagistri,” living in the provinces; and under these again were the “ portitores” or actual customhouse officers, who are referred to in the New Testament. They were often chosen from the low and wicked class of people and were so notorious for their extortions that they were habitually included in the same class with harlots and sinners. And he said unto them, Extort no more—“ Extort” means “ exact”; the word is used of the exaction of legal tribute, and excessive exaction is expressed by the following words: John would hardly have commanded them to extort in any case. John does not demand that they give up their employment, but that they should be honest in the performance of their duties. If these publicans truly repented, they would indeed ex¬hibit other fruits, but this in their case was absolutely necessary ; without it there could be no true repentance. And soldiers also asked him,—The soldiers asked the same question that the multitudes and publicans asked; hence here are three classes who have asked what they should do to “ bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance.” The “ soldiers” were probably Jewish troops; for if they had been Gentiles, John would doubtless have enjoined upon them the worship of God: such worship is here taken for granted. However, we cannot know just who they were; they could have been Jewish soldiers of the Roman province of Judea; it matters not who they were; they came under the class of bearing fruit worthy of repentance. John’ s answer was adapted to their sins and temptations; they were prone to in¬dolence, violence, malice, and insubordination. Hence, John told them that they should “ extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully; and be content with your wages.” “ Extort” “ by violence” literally means “ to shake violently,” and “ to vex and harass” in order to extort money for some selfish end. Neither were they to accuse “ wrongfully” anyone in order to receive a bribe or a reward. They are further admonished to be “ content” with their wages. “ Wages” literally means something purchased to eat with bread; hired soldiers were at first paid partly in rations of meat, grain, and fruit; hence the word came to mean rations, “ wages,” or stipend. Luke 3:15-17 —And as the people were in expectation,—The people were anxious for John to declare himself, hence “ all men rea¬soned in their hearts concerning John” ; they were anxious to determine whether he was “ the Christ.” Such preaching as John did was so out of the ordinary that the people wondered as to whether he was the Messiah. John was filled with the Holy Spirit; hence his teachings were far different from those of the scribes and Pharisees. The people were anxious to know who this wonderful prophet and teacher was. When the time came John answered them and said: “ I indeed baptize you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I.” To baptize “ with water” and only “ with water” described John’ s work, but there would come another who was so much greater than John, as great as they thought John was, that John was not “ worthy to unloose” “ the latchet” of his shoes. The language used by John implies that this “ Mighty One” was already in the midst of them. Jesus was mightier than John in his nature, office, wisdom, power, and aims. (Matthew 28:18; John 5:27 John 10:30 John 10:41.) Yet none greater than John had arisen. (Matthew 11:9-11.) “ The latchet” of the shoe was a strap which fastened the sandal to the feet.

The “ shoes” as used here means sandals which covered only the bottom of the feet. They were taken off and laid aside on entering a house; the tying and untying the sandals was the work of the most menial servant. Yet Christ was so mighty a personage that even this work John felt himself unworthy to perform. Since John had aroused the whole Jewish nation, how great then must be the Messiah! Christ would arouse the world, his power would be felt by everyone. he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:—Luke gives the same form of expression that Matthew did. (Matthew 3:11.) The baptism “ in the Holy Spirit and in fire” must not be referred to water baptism in any sense, for Christ never baptized in water, but left that to his disciples. (John 4:2.) Neither does this baptism refer to the common influences of the Holy Spirit which are peculiar to the work of the Spirit. (John 20:22.) It must refer to the sending of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which was peculiarly the work of Christ. (John 16:7; Acts 1:5 Acts 11:16.) Many think that “ in fire” has reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, because “ there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them.” (Acts 2:3.) But this was not a baptism “in fire,” for these “ tongues” were not “fire,” but only “like as of fire” ; and these tongues only sat upon the apostles, but did not immerse them in the tongues “ like as of fire.” There seems to be two baptisms mentioned here that Christ would administer; one was the baptism “ in the Holy Spirit,” which was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) and at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44 Acts 11:15-18). The baptism in the Spirit of these two groups of persons has brought blessings to all mankind; the one on Pentecost brought blessings directly to the Jews, and the one at the house of Cornelius brought blessings to the Gentiles; hence the baptism in the Holy Spirit has resulted in blessings to the entire human family. whose fan is in his hand,—The figure used here was taken from the custom of threshing grain in the East by treading it out with oxen (Deuteronomy 25:4), or a threshing machine was drawn over the grain (Isaiah 41:15; Amos 1:3). The grain and chaff were mingled; in this condition both were thrown up against the wind with a shovel; the chaff was thus blown away, while the grain fell in a heap; in this way the wheat and the chaff were separated; the chaff was burned and the wheat was gathered into the garner. The figure as used by John represents the Messiah as separating the evil from the good, according to the tests of his kingdom and his gospel; the worthy are to be received into his kingdom and given a rich reward, while the unworthy are to be destroyed. There is a sharp contrast not only between the wheat and the chaff, but the destiny of the two classes. The fire that burns the wicked is “ unquenchable,” which means never extinguished; the doom it describes is eternal. Luke 3:18-20 —With many other exhortations—Luke here gives a synopsis of John’ s preaching by saying “ with many other exhortations” he preached “ good tidings unto the people.” John rebuked sin, called upon the people to repent, and to manifest it by a thorough change of heart and life; proclaimed the Messiah approaching with blessings and salvation to the righ¬teous, the believing, and judgments and destruction to the wicked, the unbelieving. In this way John prepared the way for Christ; some hearts were ready to receive him when he came. (John 1:37 John 1:41 John 1:43.) The warnings and admonitions of John extended to every class of people; he made no distinction in his condemnation of sin. Luke here gives a brief ac-count of John’ s ministry, and, by way of anticipation, refers to the imprisonment of John, which occurred several months after the baptism of Jesus. (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17.) but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved—Herod had taken “ Herodias his brother’ s wife”; Herodias was the wife of Philip ; she was the granddaughter of Herod the Great, the daugh¬ter of Aristobulus, and niece of Herod Antipas. She married Philip, a son of Herod the Great, who lived in private life, having been disinherited by his father. Herodias, preferring royalty, left Philip and married Herod Antipas, who, to make way for her, divorced his own wife, daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, supposed to be the one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32. Notwithstanding that Herodias had left her husband and married Antipas, she was “ his brother’ s wife.” (Mark 6:17-20.) John not only reproved Herod for this one crime, but “ for all the evil things which Herod had done.” He condemned his revelings, his debaucheries, and his murders. According to Jewish testimony, Herod Antipas was very wicked and slew many of the wise men of Israel. In addition to all these evils, he “ added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.” It is generally understood that John was imprisoned in the fortress of Machaerus, on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.

John was imprisoned about a year after the baptism of Jesus. He remained in prison until he was beheaded; we do not know the exact time.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS Luke 3:21-22 Luke 3:21 —Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized,—There are three accounts of the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22); Matthew’ s account is the fullest; he gave the conversation of John and Jesus before the baptism. Matthew and Mark give the place, the river Jordan, where he was baptized; these writers also state that Jesus came from Galilee to John. Mark is specific and states that he came from Nazareth. The main points mentioned by Luke are the visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit descend¬ing upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and the voice from heaven proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God. Each of the writers records the descent of the Holy Spirit and the audible voice endorsing him as the Son of God. “ All the people were baptized” does not mean that every one in all Judea was baptized, but it means a great number. The baptism of Jesus forms the climax of John’ s ministry; it was the great crowning act, for he came baptizing in water that Jesus might be manifested to Israel. (John 1:31-34.) From this time John began to decrease, but Jesus to increase; all the people were no longer gathering to hear John, but to see and hear Jesus. The disciples of Jesus were baptizing more than John. (John 4:1-2.) Jesus was baptized at the time when the people were baptized; some think that John’ s work ceased when he baptized Jesus. John had a double function; he was to get the people ready for Jesus, and then to point him out to the people. He did this soon after he bap¬tized Jesus. (John 1:29-34.) Luke 3:22 —Thou art my beloved Son;—The Holy Spirit came upon Jesus “ in a bodily form, as a dove.” There was a sudden and visible parting asunder in a portion of the sky; Jesus saw it (Mark 1:10) and John also witnessed it (John 1:32) ; we do not know whether anyone else saw this visible manifestation. This manifestation was “ as a dove” or like a dove. Some understand this to mean that the Holy Spirit descended in the manner of a dove which descends gently and swiftly. It has been a question whether the comparison here is between the descent of the Holy Spirit and that of a dove, or whether the comparison is between the visable appearance of the Spirit and the shape of a dove. Nothing is to be gained by disputing on this point. The dove was a fit emblem of the pure, gentle, and peaceful character of Jesus and his work. (Isaiah 61:1-3; Matthew 10:16 Matthew 11:29 Matthew 12:19-21.) The descent of the Holy Spirit was also a token of the Messiah to John. (John 1:33.) There is some variation in the record given by Matthew and Luke; Mark agrees with Luke. Matthew expresses this statement in the third person—“ this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”— but Mark and Luke state it in the second person—“ thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” Mark and Luke record this as God speaking to Jesus, while Matthew expresses it as God speaking to John or some other Jesus was not only the “ Son” of God, but emphatically he is “ the beloved Son.” The voice from heaven added “ in thee I am well pleased.”THE OF JESUS Luke 3:23-38 Luke 3:23-38 —And Jesus himself, when he began to teach,—The meaning here is that Jesus was “ about thirty years of age” when he began to teach. Luke had already specified the date of the beginning of John’ s ministry, and now he states the age of Jesus when he began to teach. Soon after his baptism Jesus began to teach. Luke says that he was “ about thirty years of age” ; it is very common for Luke to use the word “ about” with a specification of time. (Luke 1:56 Luke 9:28 Luke 22:59 Luke 23:44; Acts 2:41 Acts 4:4 Acts 5:36 Acts 10:3 Acts 19:7.) “ About thirty” is not here a round or general number, referring to any year within two or three years of thirty, but a specific designation of time, meaning a few months below or rather above thirty. The meaning appears to be that Jesus began his min¬istry when he was more than thirty and less than thirty-one.

This agrees with what we know of the time of our Lord’ s birth and baptism. Thirty was also the age when Levites en¬tered upon their public services (Numbers 4:3 Numbers 4:47; 1 Chronicles 23:3), and when scribes were accustomed to enter upon their office as teachers. The people would not have been disposed to recognize the authority of a teacher who had not attained that age. It was God’ s purpose that the Messiah should not enter upon his public duties until he had arrived at the age of thirty. being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, —It has always been regarded a very difficult task to harmonize the genealogical tables given by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’ s design was to trace our Lord’ s genealogy from Abraham down to his reputed father, Joseph, in order to furnish legal evidence to the Jews, that Jesus of Nazareth was, through his male ancestry, the lineal descendant of David and of Abraham. Luke traces his genealogy from Joseph, “ as was supposed,” father of Jesus, on back through David and Abraham to Adam. The difficulty seems to lie in the fact that Luke diverges from Joseph, and pursues the lineal descent of Jesus through a different series to David. How is it that Joseph is in the one case declared to be the son of Jacob and in the other the son of Heli? Many attempts have been made to answer this question; many of the attempts are not satisfactory. If Heli was Mary’ s father, it is clear that Joseph was his son-in-law; the assumption that this relationship is here designated agrees with the facts of the case, or at least is not contradicted by them. The words “ as was supposed,” although immediately referable to the following words, “ the son of Joseph,” yet indicate that Luke had in mind the real parentage of Jesus, first as being the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and then of David, through the line of his maternal ancestry, which alone was true and real. It is as though Luke intended his readers mentally to supply in the next clause the words “ but in reality (according to the flesh) the son of Heli.” If it be asked why Luke did not openly express this idea, by putting the name of Mary in place of Joseph, and writing, “ which was the daughter of Heli,” the answer is furnished in the almost invariable usage of the ancients, especially the Jews, to reckon one’ s genealogy through the paternal rather than the maternal line. But unless Luke, after his reference to our Lord’ s sup-posed relationship to Joseph, passed over to his real ancestry, his genealogical table would be according to his own showing, one that was fictitious. The complete list of names back to Adam would rest on that of one who was only the “ reputed” father of our Lord. It is natural to expect a genealogy somewhere in the gos¬pels which would verify to the very letter the prediction that Christ was to be of the seed of David and of Abraham. The ancestry of Joseph, who was only his reputed father, would not answer this demand. It might be adduced in the way of legal proof to the Jew that Jesus had this mark of the Messi- ahship, but does not satisfy the conditions of the prophecy that he was to be a real descendant of David. The fact that Luke had this in mind is strengthened by the proof that he gives in tracing the true lineage of Jesus back to David and Abraham in his genealogical table. The fact that Luke car¬ries his record back to Adam, who was declared to be the “ Son of God.” shows clearly that it was designed to subserve a different purpose from that of Matthew. We are forced to the conclusion that Joseph was Heli’ s son by the marriage of his daughter, and perhaps also by adoption, and that this genealogy of Luke was designed to furnish proof that our Lord “ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3.)

Verse 1 In this chapter lies the record of the emergence of John the Baptist (Luke 3:1-6), the message he delivered (Luke 3:7-14), his announcement of the Christ (Luke 3:15-17), the conclusion of John’s ministry and the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:18-21), and the genealogy of Jesus as traced through Mary (Luke 3:23-38). Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Iturea and Trachinitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.(Luke 3:1-2) The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius … On Sept. 17,14 A.D., this ruler ascended the throne of the Roman Empire.[1]; Luke 3:23 of this chapter states that Jesus, very near this time, was “about thirty years of age.” This was the consideration that led to the mistake in our present calendar of dating Jesus’ birth at the beginning of our era in the year 1. It is now known, however, that Tiberius was reigning at the beginning of the year 11 A.D. The Encyclopedia Britannica has this: From the beginning of 11, when he celebrated a magnificent triumph, to the time of the emperor’s death in 14, Tiberius remained almost entirely in Italy, and held rather the position of joint-emperor than that of expectant heir.[2]All of the provincial affairs of the empire were in the hands of Tiberius from the date 11 A.D.; and, as Robertson noted, “Luke would naturally use the provincial point of view."[3] This dates the emergence of John the Baptist and the beginning of the ministry of Christ, the latter being in 26 A.D., and John’s ministry having been prior to that, with the two overlapping somewhat, as detailed in John’s Gospel. This harmonizes with a date of April 6,30 A.D. for Jesus’ crucifixion, as recently determined scientifically through computer studies.[4] It is further corroborated by Matthew’s Gospel, which definitely placed the birth of Christ prior to the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.). The calculation based on John 2:20, where Jesus’ enemies affirmed that the temple had been under construction for forty-six years, also confirms this. “The temple was begun the year the emperor came to Syria; and this was in 20 or 19 B.C."[5] Adding the forty-six years brings us to the year 26 A.D. in which the first passover of our Lord’s ministry occurred. Any more exact determination of the date would appear to be impossible at this time, as the many contradictory opinions of great scholars indicate. It will be noted that Luke cited no less than six notable persons in high office with the Roman empire and also with the Jews, nailing down the historical context of this record with the most dogmatic certainty. This student has an impression that Luke’s citing so many names here was prompted by some uncertainty on his part with regard to the exact meaning of “fifteenth year of Tiberius,” knowing perhaps that it could have been counted from either 11 A.D. or 14 A.D. Here is a list of the dates history has assigned to the periods when each of the notables Luke here mentioned exercised his authority: Pontius Pilate, Roman Governor of Judaea (26 A.D. to 36 A.D.). Herod (Antipas), tetrarch of Galilee (4 B.C. to 39 A.D.). (Herod) Philip, tetrarch of Iturea (4 B.C. to 34 A.D.). Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene (not certainly known).[6] Annas and Caiaphas, high priests in Jerusalem: Annas was high priest from 7 B.C., and although deposed in 15 A.D., continued to be recognized by the Jews as the true high priest. Caiaphas was only one of five sons and sons-in-law of Annas, among whom the high priesthood was rotated during New Testament times.[7] Caiaphas was named high priest, perhaps briefly, in 18 A.D.; and Dummelow stated that he was appointed “before 26 A.D., being deposed in 37 A.D."[8] Significantly, Luke regarded Annas and Caiaphas as joint-high priests, corresponding exactly with statements in John. The date of 26 A.D., as accepted in this commentary for the baptism of Jesus, is not denied by any of the dates noted in the table. The word of God came to John … It is not related just how the word of God came to John, for God spoke of old to the fathers by the prophets in various ways (Hebrews 1:1). [1] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1971), p. 143. [2] Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1961), Vol. 22, p. 177. [3] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 264. [4] Roger Rusk, “The Day He Died,” article in Christianity Today (Vol. 18, No. 19, March 1974). [5] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 265. [6] The dates of all four of these secular rulers are from the Encyclopedia Britannica. [7] H. C. Hervey, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 18, Acts I, p. 123. [8] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Macmillan Company, 1837), p. 708.

Verse 3 And he came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins.This was an extensive area evangelized by John, some sixty-five miles in a straight line from Galilee to the Dead Sea, but as the river runs, more than twice that. Baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins … This baptism was a new rite, “not founded on the immersions of the old dispensation, but a divinely appointed act, peculiar to Christianity, and first introduced by John."[9] It is one of the seven baptisms mentioned in the New Testament.[10] It consisted of the immersion of the penitent in water by the administrator, requiring John to preach where there was “much water” (John 3:23); and, coupled with repentance, it was “unto the remission of sins.” John’s baptism was, in fact, “God’s baptism”; and those who rejected it rejected God (Luke 7:30). It was the only baptism ever submitted to by the apostles of Christ (Paul excepted) and was the only baptism in force until Pentecost. Those baptized by John and who followed on to receive the Spirit of Christ experienced the new birth, being born of water and of the Spirit, as Jesus commanded (John 3:1-5). Significantly, the new birth, which requires a birth of water (baptism) and a birth of the Spirit (receiving the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38), could not be experienced until after Jesus was risen from the dead (John 7:39). From this it is clear that “the remission of sins” was a blessing which John promised prospectively, the actuality of it being necessarily deferred until Pentecost. For an extensive discussion of the new birth, see my Commentary on John, chapter 3. Only a very few of the proud Jewish leaders submitted to John’s baptism, a failure on their part which issued finally in their total rejection of the Lord. Christ brought the rite of baptism over into Christianity, making it mandatory for all who would be saved (Mark 16:15-16); but, the tragic pattern of rejection, as in the case of John’s baptism, has been continued under the new covenant; and those who reject it should take note of the consequences in the people who rejected baptism under John. Repentance … is a change of the human will that issues in reformation of life. It may occur in a moment, but the best results of it last a lifetime. Jesus allowed that repentance may occur seven times in a single day (17:4), and this shows that it may not last a lifetime! However, it is admitted by all that it should. It is the basic condition of God’s forgiveness; and, as long as one is under the probation of life, the need of repentance is constant. [9] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke (Nashville, 1940), p. 76. [10] James Burton Coffman’s Commentary on Matthew, p. 29.

Verse 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, And every mountain and hill shall be brought low; And the crooked shall become straight, And the rough ways smooth: And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.This great prophecy is from Isaiah 40:3 ff, the same being God’s promise of a mighty prophet who would precede the coming of the Messiah, the imagery being that of a herald going before an ancient king to make his journey easier. Josephus relates how Vespasian marched into Galilee, with his men going before him to prepare the way, thus: (They) were to make the road even and straight and if it were anywhere rough and hard to be passed over, to plane it, and to cut down the woods that hindered their march, etc.[11]Of course, it was no such thing that John the Baptist would do for Christ. The preparation needed for the rising of the Sun of righteousness was a moral improvement of the people. The conceit that physical descent from Abraham would entitle them to Messiah’s blessing, the foolish notion that the Messiah would be a secular king like Solomon, the conviction that he would drive out the Romans and execute a vindictive and punitive judgment against their Gentile enemies, and the widespread hypocrisy and immorality of the people, the selfishness and hardheartedness of the rich, and the greedy gouging of the people by the concessioners in the temple itself, the gross ritualism and secularism that had buried God’s true law under the priestly traditions - all these cried out to God for correction; and thus it was no small task that challenged the son of Zacharias! All flesh shall see the salvation of God … Isaiah’s great prophecy should have alerted the Jews to the inclusion in God’s plans of salvation for the Gentiles; but the leaders of the people were set adamantly against any such idea. The chosen people were destined to find in this concept the impossibility of their accepting Christ, which resulted in their own rejection and judicial hardening. ENDNOTE: [11] Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p. 717.

Verse 7 He said therefore to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?THE OF JOHN THE BAPTISTThis was addressed to the insincere, those who were willing to submit to a rite, but whose lives bore no fruit of repentance. Farrar is credited with the statement that “Only teachers of transcendent holiness, immediately inspired by God with fervency and insight, may dare to use such language.”

Verse 8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.The usual response to any demand that the Israelites of that day should repent was to the effect that they did not need to repent, since they were sons of Abraham. The fact that all the promises were not to Abraham’s fleshly descendants, but to his spiritual seed (the people who were of the character and faith of Abraham), was unknown to the Israel of that generation. Paul spelled it out in Romans; but here, the nigh impossible task of enlightenment fell on John the Baptist. He succeeded in such instances as John the apostle, and others who became followers of Jesus; but the majority of fleshly Israel only scoffed at the truth.

Verse 9 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.Axe … at the root … This was a prophetic vision of the destruction of the Holy City which would ensue as a result of the rejection of Christ by Israel. The metaphor is that of a farmer who chops down an unfruitful tree and burns it. Too long Israel had been barren, as far as any fruits of righteousness were concerned; and her day of grace at the time John spoke was growing short.

Verse 10 And the multitude asked him, saying, What then must we do?In general, John’s message was that the people should live moral and upright lives, with unselfishness toward the hungry, poor, and the naked, as stated in the next verse.

Verse 11 And he answered and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath food, let him do likewise.See under preceding verse.

Verse 12 And there came also publicans to be baptized, and they say unto him, Teacher, what must we do?The significance here is that a class of persons utterly despised by the Israelites because of their work as tax collectors for the hated Romans, accepted John’s baptism, conforming their lives as he directed; but there was an additional affront to Israel in the very theory that such persons could please God while still in the employ of the Romans. Significantly, John did not suggest that they resign their jobs.

Verse 13 And he said unto him, Extort no more than that which is appointed you.Not tax collecting, but dishonest extortion was viewed as sin.

Verse 14 And soldiers also asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them, Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse anyone wrongfully; and be content with your wages.Even soldiers, just whose soldiers is not clear, were not considered beyond the bounds of redemption. They were not commanded to leave the army but to exhibit attitudes of restraint, truthfulness, and contentment. If these were Roman soldiers, the implications of these words from John must have been extremely distasteful to Israel.

Verse 15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ.JOHN THE BAPTIST THE CHRISTThis denotes the widespread, sensational success of John’s preaching, and the wonderment on the part of many if, perhaps, this was indeed the Messiah. Such impressions reached Jerusalem, as we read in John; and the Pharisees sent a delegation to ascertain the facts. However, John denied that he was the Christ (John 1:18-28).

Verse 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptized you with water; but there cometh he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am unworthy to unloose: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.Who are those to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? and in fire? The conviction here is that John spoke of the two classes of humanity to be “baptized” by Jesus, his followers to be guided by the indwelling of the Spirit, and the unbelievers to go away into eternal fire (Matthew 25:41); and the fact of the two general divisions of mankind being in view is proved by the next verse.

Verse 17 Whose fan is in his hand, thoroughly to cleanse his threshing-floor, and to gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.Israel was the Lord’s threshing-floor; the wheat to be gathered into the granary was the true spiritual seed who would accept Christ and be saved. The chaff represented the unbelievers who would reject and crucify the Lord. The unquenchable fire is a metaphor for the everlasting punishment which shall be meted out to the wicked. Although, in this first context, Israel is the portion of humanity in focus, the teaching here is actually to all men of all ages, regardless of race or any other human distinction.

Verse 18 With many other exhortations therefore preached he good tidings unto the people; but Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his brother’ s wife, and for all the evil things which Herod had done, added this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.THE OF JOHN’S This concluded John’s ministry, Luke not pausing to recount the story of John’s death; but there is a suggestion in this account which reveals Herod’s treatment of John as the worst of all his crimes. With many other exhortations … Luke gave only a brief summary of John’s message, but it is sufficient. Characteristic of Luke’s writings is his pursuit of the narrative about John to its conclusion and then returning to relate a significant event which took place somewhat earlier.

Verse 21 Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that, Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.THE BAPTISM OF JESUSJesus being baptized, and praying … Many have pondered the reasons why Jesus was baptized; and among reasons that might have entered into his submission to that rite are the following: (1) The reason that he himself gave, “thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15), indicates that it would have been unbecoming, even of the sinless Christ, to have withheld obedience to God’s commandment. The message for all men in this is plain. (2) By so doing, he indicated the adoption of the rite of baptism to be the initiatory ceremony by which men are inducted into Christianity. (3) Through this obedience he “fulfilled” God’s command. (4) His baptism, as revealed in the Scriptures, prefigured the importance of the ceremony in the true religion under the new covenant. Jesus’ baptism announced the importance of it for all men. (5) His baptism symbolized the true meaning of the ordinance in Christianity: (a) one is not a child of God until he is baptized, just as God recognized Christ as his beloved Son immediately AFTER his baptism; (b) prayer, though not denied to anyone, is in many special ways the peculiar privilege of Christians, a privilege contingent upon their baptism; hence Luke indicated Christ’s praying, immediately AFTER his baptism; (c) the Holy Spirit is a gift to Christians, contingent upon their being (among other things) baptized (Acts 2:38); and significantly, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended and remained upon Jesus AFTER his baptism. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the baptism commanded in the great commission (following faith, repentance, and confession) isPRIOR to the convert’s becoming a child of God, receiving the Holy Spirit, and entering into the more exalted prayer-privileges pertaining only to Christians; and we do not hesitate to add that baptism is a precondition to his ever being so endowed. In this connection, one of the reasons that may not be assigned to Christ’s baptism is this, that he was baptized to set us an example how we might follow him in baptism, since it is impossible for believer’s baptism to correspond to Christ’s. It was not necessary for him but it is necessary for men. He was baptized at about the age of thirty, and that is far longer than any mortal’s baptism should be delayed. Believer’s baptism is “for the remission of sins”; but Christ’s was to fulfill all righteousness. Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove … This was the heavenly portent by which John the Baptist recognized the Messiah (John 1:33). Appropriately, the dove was a clean creature under the Mosaic law, acceptable in the holy sacrifices as an offering to God, an emblem in all ages of peace, gentleness, and innocence, a monogamous creature, possessing no gall, and used as a messenger.[12]Voice out of heaven … Thou art my beloved Son … It should be noted that John the Baptist is not the subject of the paragraph, and where his conversation is recorded, it was necessary for Matthew to record it as addressed in the third person in order to avoid misunderstanding. See more under Mark 1:11 in my Commentary on Mark. Three persons of the Godhead are in evidence here: Christ coming up out of the water, the Spirit as a dove descending upon him, and the voice of the Father out of heaven. ENDNOTE: [12] G. Gordon Brownville, Symbols of the Holy Spirit (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1945), p. 19.

Verse 23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat … THE OF JESUS THROUGH MARYThirty years of age … On the bearing this has with reference to dating the birth of Jesus, see under Luke 3:2. We shall not undertake any exhaustive “harmonization” of the two separate genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and here. It is now and has been this student’s conviction for many years that Luke’s genealogy cannot possibly be for Joseph’s line at all, since Luke spelled out in the most emphatic manner the fact that Joseph had no physical connection whatever with Jesus; and in this fact disappears any reason why Luke might have written a genealogy of Joseph. It is incumbent upon us, however, to demonstrate that the interpretation preferred in this commentary is valid. (1) Many of the most illustrious and competent scholars who ever lived have accepted ’this as Mary’s line, not Joseph’s. This fact is offered, not for the sake of proving this position by human testimony, because many other great scholars deny it; but it is presented to show that the greatest weight of scholarly evidence tends to the view accepted here. “Among the many modern scholars who accept it are Professor Godet and Dean Plumptre."[13] Robertson affirmed that the theory of this being Mary’s line “seems the most plausible,” citing the following as concurring in that view: Luther, Bengel, Olshausen, Lightfoot, Wieseler, Robinson, Alexander, Godet, Weiss, Andrews, Broadus, and many recent writers.14 The solid evidence that supports this is in the Greek text itself, where the article “the” is omitted before the name of Joseph, and yet is found before all the names in the long list without exception, save for this solitary omission. What does it mean? Godet said: “The omission of the article puts the name (Joseph) outside of the genealogical series."[15] Robertson said, “This would indicate that Joseph' belongs in the parenthesis ... (it should) read thus, being son (as supposed of Joseph) of Heli, etc.’"[16] Jesus was thus the grandson of Hell, “grandson” being an absolutely legitimate meaning of “son” as used in Jewish genealogies. As a matter of fact, the word “son” in such tables also had the meaning of “son by creation” (as in Luke 3:38), and sometimes even “son-in-law.” It is the context that must determine the meaning. In no case would the name of Mary have appeared in the direct line of such genealogies, being contrary to Jewish custom. This necessitated the listing of Jesus as the “son (grandson) of Hell.” It certainly cannot be proved that this interpretation is incorrect. (3) And was Jesus actually the grandson of Heli? The writers of the Jewish Talmud have a passage concerning the pains of hell with the statement: Mary, daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering the horrid tortures. (After quoting this Haley said) This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Hell; hence that is her genealogy that we find in Luke.[17]Those who would make Joseph the son of Hell would thus make him the husband of his own sister, besides denying the truth stated by Matthew that Joseph was “begat” by Jacob! (4) There are other ways of reconciling the two accounts of the genealogy of Jesus, but this is the most plausible and convincing. This is an extensive question, debated for centuries, and it must be confessed that human knowledge is by no means complete with regard to it. Perhaps the most persuasive fact related to the genealogies is that when the enemies of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, sought to discredit the faith, none of them ever alleged any contradiction in the genealogies. If people who lived when the genealogical tables were still preserved did not dare to allege any contradiction, those who dare to do so nineteen centuries later stand on the most tenuous and uncertain ground. But what is the point of the genealogy? Surely some attention should be given to that! Once, when this writer was a minister of a great congregation in New York City, a group of students from one of the universities visited him, asking, “But don’t you really believe that the whole Jesus story is a myth?” It happened, when this occurred, that this writer had only recently memorized all seventy-seven names in this list, and he quoted it rapidly, and in full, to the astonished group of students; and then he said: “Now, will any of you brilliant young people give the genealogy of Santa Claus, or of Paul Bunyan, or of Beowulf?” The point was dramatically made. Jesus Christ was no myth! His genealogy is the only one ever constructed that reaches all the way back to God himself. Since then, this preacher has quoted the genealogy before assemblies of college students and congregations throughout America, because the central message is devastating to any alleged mythological explanation of Jesus of Nazareth. Some have asserted that Luke ignored Abraham; but that is not true. Abraham is in the genealogy; the story of Abraham’s bosom is found only in Luke (Luke 16:19 ff); and one of the strongest statements with reference to that patriarch in the entire New Testament is Luke 13:28. By taking the genealogy back to Adam, Luke stressed the fact of Jesus’ being the Saviour of all men, not merely of Jews. Matthew’s genealogy through Joseph was given for the purpose of showing that Christ, through his legal father Joseph, was the legitimate heir to the throne of David. In the very nature of the God-Man, it was inherent that two genealogies should be provided, one showing his legal status in the eyes of men, and the other giving his true physical descent. The Messianic title, “Son of David,” as applied to Jesus required a dual proof: (1) that he was entitled to the throne, as proved by Matthew’s genealogy, and (2) that he was literally descended from David, as proved by Luke’s genealogy.

The fundamental “rightness” of this approach to the problem will commend itself to any careful student of the Scriptures. Also, Matthew wrote from Joseph’s standpoint, Luke from Mary’s. A NOTE ABOUT THE VIRGIN MARYAs this commentary was being written, the writer taught a Bible class each Sunday, the lesson being based on the previous week’s studies. Reference was one day made repeatedly to “the Virgin Mary,” and, after class, a lady objected to the expression on the grounds that the title thus used tended to support the theory of the virgin’s perpetual virginity. However, this is clearly an incorrect view. Matthew referred to “Simon the Leper” (Matthew 26:6) without any implication that he still had leprosy when Jesus was in his house for dinner; in the same manner, a reference to the Virgin Mary implies nothing of her virginity during the period after the birth of our Lord. [13] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 71. [14] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 261. [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] John W. Haley, Examination of Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 326.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 31. What important man is about to be introduced? 2. Who was governor of Judea? 3. At what place did he Tule? 4. What position did Philip hold? 6. Who were priests at this time? 6. In what section did John work ? 7. What did he preach? 8. What was it for? 9. State what prophet wrote concerning this. 10. What did he call John? 11. Tell what he was to prepare. 12. How were valleys and mountains to be affected 13. What other effects were to be accomplished? 14. Tell what all were to see. 15. State John’ s question to multitudes who came. 16. What did he command them to produce? 17. Tell what boast he headed off. 18. God was able to do what? 19. Where is the ax applied? 20. Which tree is to be felled? 21. What done with it then? 22. State the question the people asked. 23. And his answer. 24. State his answer to the publicans. 25. Why had they come to John? 26. What other class asked for instructions? 27. Tell his reply. 28. What were the people expecting? 29. Tell what they were musing in their hearts. 30. Who was able to read their thoughts? 31. With what element did John baptize? 32. How did this contrast with the one to come? 33. How much was he to be mightier than John ? 34. What will be in his hand? 35. Tell the use of this instrument. 36. How will the wheat be disposed of? 37. And how the chaff? 38. Was this John’ s only subject in preaching? 39. Why was Herod angry with John? 40. How did he show his anger? 41. What noted person did John baptize? 42. Tell what he was doing at time of his baptism. 43. What opened up to him? 44. Tell what descended. 45. In what form? 46. What else came from heaven? 47. Repeat its words. 48. How old was Jesus at this time? 49. Whose son was he supposed to be? 50. To what man does Joseph’ s pedigree reach?

Luke 3:1

1 According to some facts of history it would seem that the.fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar is too late for the other things mentioned in this verse. The difficulty is made clear by a statement in Webster’s Ancient History, page 447. “Of the successors of Augustus, the first, and by far the ablest, was his stepson, Tiberius. His merits as a soldier and administrator were well known to Augustus, who, even during his own lifetime, granted Tiberius a share in the government.” The fifteen years of Tiberius mentioned by Luke includes the three years he reigned jointly with Augustus.

Luke 3:2

2 Joh 18:13 calls Annas the father-in-law to- Caiaphas the high priest. There was no provision made in the law of Moses for more than one high priest to be in office at the same time, but in the days of Christ the secular government was taking much part in the affairs of the Jews. In that arrangement Annas was president of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas was high priest for religious activities. Chapter 1:80 leaves John in the wilderness, and the present verse says the Lord called him by His word.

Luke 3:3

3 At the Lord’s call, John came out of his retirement and began preaching in the region of the Jordan. Baptism of repentance means baptism that is preceded and prompted by repentance or a turning away from the practice of sin. For remission of sins denotes that repentance and baptism was in order to the remission of sins.

Luke 3:4

4 Esaias is the same as Isaiah, and this prophecy is in that book, chapter 40:3; 4. Make his paths straight is explained at Matthew 3:3.

Luke 3:5

5 This verse is a figurative description of preparing the path mentioned in the preceding verse, which was to be accomplished by adjusting the conditions in the lives of men to suit them for the service of Christ who was to follow soon.

Luke 3:6

6 All flesh signifies that the Gentiles as well as the Jews were to receive the benefits of salvation through the work of Christ.

Luke 3:7

7 This verse is explained at Matthew 3:7.

Luke 3:8

8 Fruits worthy of repentance means to show by a reformation of life that they had repented. For further comments on this verse see those at Matthew 3:9.

Luke 3:9

9 Ax is laid means it will be done at the proper time which will be at the judgment day. However, the way for them to avoid that “ax” was being pointed out by John, and it required the people to bring forth a life of righteousness.

Luke 3:10

0 John had been preaching in general terms, now the people wished him to specify some of the things they would be expected to do.

Luke 3:11

1 This verse pertains to the duty that one owes to another, in sharing his good things of life with those who do not have them.

Luke 3:12

2 The publicans are described by comments on Matthew 9:10.

Luke 3:13

3 The quotation cited at the preceding verse shows that the publicans were assigned the duty of collecting the taxes from the people. Many of them had taken advantage of their appointment to demand more than the government levied, then putting the difference in their own pockets.

Luke 3:14

4 A soldier has no right to oppress the citizens just because he is a military man. To accuse falsely means to extort money from the people to be used on their own gratification. Be content with your wages. Dissatisfaction with one’s wages does not make it right to use violence against the government or other employer.

Luke 3:15

5 Mused is properly rendered “reasoned, or debated” in the margin. The people were considering the reasons for and against the question whether John were the Christ predicted in the Scriptures.

Luke 3:16

6 John answered. The people had done their reasoning in their hearts, hence John had to be inspired to answer them. He did so by telling some of the differences between himself and “the Christ.” The first one he gave was the baptism each performed. John baptized with water only but the one coming next would baptize with the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and with fire. The first one by Jesus took place on the day of Pentecost and the subjects were the apostles. The second one will take place after the judgment and the subjects will be the disobedient persons of the earth. What he says about the shoes is to illustrate his sense of inferiority to Christ.

Luke 3:17

7 Fan is explained by the comments on Matthew 3:12.

Luke 3:18

8 John not only’ preached the truth to the people, but he exhorted them, which means to “insist on doing a known duty.”

Luke 3:19-20

0 For the information on this see Matthew 14:3-5 and comments.

Luke 3:21-22

2 The reader should see the comments on Matthew 3:13-17.

Luke 3:23

3 As was supposed is from NOMIZO and is defined by Thayer, “to hold by custom or usage, own as a custom or usage.” The people in general did not understand the whole story of Jesus and Joseph, hence Luke inserts the clause in order to make his record conform to the facts. Matthew (chapter 1) records the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham, down through David’s son Solomon until he gets to the same Joseph of our chapter, who was the son-in-law of Heli, the father of Mary. Then, beginning his genealogy of Jesus on his real mother’s side, Luke records it from her and her father Heli up on that side and joins the genealogy with that of Matthew when he gets to Nathan who was the full brother of Solomon. From there on Luke records the same genealogy as Matthew until he gets to Abraham, the plate where Matthew begins his, but Luke goes on up until he gets to Adam who was the first man. Before going any further here, the reader should carefully consult the comments on Matthew 1:1-2.

Luke 3:24-38

8 I have grouped these verses into one paragraph because they have been virtually all considered in the preceding one. In ancient times certain names were used even by more than one person in the same family. If the reader observes some that he thinks he has read elsewhere he should not become confused. To clarify the subject for a final comment, let it be understood that Matthew gives the genealogy of Christ on his foster father’s (Joseph) side of the house, while Luke gives it on his mother’s side, both blood streams being joined in David.