Page images

1. Lev. xix. 11.

1 Micah iv. 12.

Matt. xiii. 30.

of him, saying, And what k shall we do? And he said unto k Exod.zvili, them, Do violence to no man, k neither accuse any falsely;

and be content with your wages. 15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize

you with the Holy Ghost and with fire : 17 whose fan is in 1 Micah ivi 1. his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and 'will

gather the wheat into his garner ; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. 18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people. 19 But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for Herodias his kk brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, 20 added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison. 21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in

thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself 1 began to be k render, must.

kk read, brother's. I render, was about thirty years of age when he began [his ministry]. of repentance ; see Micah vi. 8. 12.7 of John's boldness in rebuking Herod, with publicans, see on Matt. v. 46. 14.] this slight variation, that whereas in Mark soldiers - properly, men on march: but Herod heard him gladly, and did many this need not be pressed, only that they things in consequence, here the rebuke for were soldiers serving in an army. Who general profligacy seems to have contrithese were, we have no means of deter. buted to his imprisonment. These acmining. Certainly not soldiers of the army counts however, though perfectly distinct, which Herod Antipas sent against Aretas, are by no means inconsistent. The same his father-in-law :-see notes on Matt. xiv. rebukes which stung Herod's conscience 1 ff. neither accuse any falsely] The and aided the desire to imprison John, way in which soldiers would be likely to might work on that conscience, and cause act the part of informers, would be by the wish to hear more from the man of laying vexatious charges of disaffection God. Vv. 19, 20 are in anticipation of what against persons. 15–17.] Ver. 15 is follows; which is in St. Luke's manner; peculiar to Luke, but is equivalent to see ch. i. 80. 21, 22.] Matt. iii. 13– John i. 19-25. in expectation, 17. Mark i. 9-11. St. Luke's account is i. e. that John would declare himself. much more concise than usual, and wholly 16, 17.] Matt. iii. 11, 12. Mark i. 7, 8. independent of the others; see note on John i. 26, 27. The four accounts are cog. Mark i. 10: we have here however three nate, but vary in expression and arrange. additional particulars — 1. that all the ment: ver. 17 is nearly verbatim as Mat people had been baptized before the Lord's thew. latchet] the lace, or thong baptism : 2. that He was praying at the with which the sandal was fastened. time of the descent of the Spirit: 3. that 18-20.] Luke only : containing the cor. the Spirit appeared in a bodily form. On roboration of the account in Mark vi. 20 (3), see note at Matt. ii. 16, $ 2.

3, 35, 39, 43,

John vi. 42.

m about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) " the m see Num. iv. son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 which was the tatt. xiii. 86. son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Jannæ, which was the son of Joseph, 25 which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Naggæ, 26 which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the

23–38.] GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD. successful; see Dr. Mill's vindication of Peculiar to Luke. 23.] Jesus was the Genealogies, p. 180 ff., for the history about thirty years old when He began of this opinion. (2) St. Luke appears to (His ministry): not, as A. V. 'began to be have taken this genealogy entire from some about,' &c., which is ungrammatical. This authority before bim, in which the expres. is the interpretation of Origen, Euthymius, sion Son of God, as applied to Christ, was and the best commentators. See Acts. i. 1. made good by tracing it up, as here,

This about thirty admits of con through a regular ascent of progenitors till siderable latitude, but only in one direc. we come to Adam, who was, but here again tion; viz. over thirty years. He could not inexactly, the son of God. This seems much well be under, seeing that this was the more probable than that St. Luke should, appointed age for the commencement of for his Gentile readers, have gone up to the public service of God by the Levites; see origin of the human race instead of to reference to Numbers. If no other Abraham. I cannot imagine any such purproof were in existence of the total inde pose definitely present in the mind of the pendence of the present Gospels of St. Mat. Evangelist. This view is confirmed by thew and St. Luke, their genealogies would the entirely insulated situation of the gene. furnish what I conceive to be an unde. alogy here, between ver. 23 and ch. iv. 1. niable one. Is it possible that either of (3) The points of divergence between the these Evangelists could have set down his genealogies are,-in Matthew the father of genealogy with that of the other before Joseph is Jacob- in Luke, Heli; this gives him ? Would no remark have been made rise to different lists (except two common on their many, and (on such a supposition) names, Zorobabel and Salathiel) up to unaccountable variations ? It is quite be- David, where the accounts coincide again, side the purpose of the present Commen- and remain identical up to Abraham, where tary to attempt to reconcile the two. It Matthew ceases. (4) Here, as elsewhere, I has never yet been accomplished; and believe that the accounts might be reconevery endeavour to do it has violated either ciled, or at all events good reason might ingenuousness or common sense. I shall, be assigned for their differing, if we were as in similar cases, only indicate the land. in possession of data on which to proceed; marks which may serve to guide us to all but here, as elsewhere, we are not. For that is possible for us to discover concern. who shall reproduce the endless combinaing them. (1) The two genealogies are tions of elements of confusion, which might both the line of Joseph, and not of Mary. creep into a genealogy of this kind ? St. Whether Mary were an heiress or not, Matthew's, we know, is squared so as to Luke's words here preclude the idea of the form three groups of fourteens, by the genealogy being hers; for the descent of omission of several generations ; how can the Lord is transferred putatively to Joseph we tell that some similar step, unknown to by the as was supposed, before the genea. us, may not have been taken with the one logy begins; and it would be unnatural to before us? It was common among the suppose that the reckoning, which began Jews for the same man to bear different with the real mother, would, after such names; how do we know how often this transference, pass back through her to her may occur among the immediate progeni. father again, as it must do, if the genealogy tors of Joseph ? The marriage of a brother be hers. The attempts of many to with a brother's wife to raise up seed make it appear that the genealogy is that (which then might be accounted to either of Mary, reading the son (as sup. husband) was common ; how do we posed of Joseph, but in reality of Heli, know how often this may have contri. &c. are, as Meyer has shewn, quite un. buted to produce variations in the terms

p 2 Sam. v. 14.

q Ruth iv. 18,

ii. 10, &c.

son of Joseph, which was the son of m Juda, 27 which was the son of a Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 which was the son of o Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 which was the son of Melea, which

was the son of p Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, o Zech. xii. 12. which was the son of • Nathan, Pwhich was the son of 3.Chron. iii. David, 32 9 which was the son of Jesse, which was the son &c. 91 Chron. of 9 Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of

Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of rAram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was

the son of Juda, 34 which was the son of Jacob, which was r Gen. xi. 24, the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which

was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of

Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of s see Gen. xi. Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 8 which was the son of * Gem &C.: 8 Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the m read, Joda.

read, Joanan. O some ancient authorities have, Jesus.

P or, Menna. q some ancient authorities read, Jobed.

I the readings are very various and uncertain. Most of the ancient MSS. have, Admin, which was the son of Arni.

s most ancient authorities have, Cainam. of a genealogy ? With all these ele- Lord A. Hervey's work on the Genealogies ments of confusion, it is quite as pre- of our Lord. 27.] of Salathiel : .. sumptuous to pronounce the genealogies of Neri: in Matt. i. 12, “ Jeconias begat discrepant, as it is over-curious and un- Salathiel.” 31.7 Nathan : see 2 Sam. critical to attempt to reconcile them. It v.14: 1 Chron. iii. 5: Zech, xii. 12. may suffice us that they are inserted in 36. Cainam] This name does not exist in the Gospels as authentic documents, and our present Hebrew text, but in the LXX, both of them merely to clear the Davidical Gen. x. 24 ; xi. 12, 13, and furnishes a descent of the putative father of the Lord. curious instance of one of two thingsHis own real Davidical descent does not either (1) the corruption of our present depend on either of them, but must be Hebrew text in these chronological passolely derived through his mother. See sages; or (2) the incorrectness of the much interesting investigation of the LXX, and notwithstanding that, the high various solutions and traditions, in Dr. reputation which it had obtained in so Mill's tract referred to above : and in short a time. Lightfoot holds the latter


12. t Gen. v. 6, &

xi. 10, &c.

u Gen. v. 1, 2.

a ver. 14.

ch. ii. 27.

son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, " which was the son of God.

IV. 1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led t by the Spirit « into the averil on. wilderness, 2 being forty days tempted of the devil. And b in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were b Exod. xixiv: ended, he [V afterward] hungered. 3 And the devil said xix.s unto him, If thou be the son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 4 And Jesus answered him, [V saying), · It is written that man shall not live by bread c Devr. vili. 3. alone [v, but by every word of God]. 5 And [v the devil,] taking him up (w into an high mountain), shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give t literally, in the Spirit : see note.

u render, in.
V omitted by several very ancient authorities.
W omit, and render, he shewed below.

re b Exod. xxxiv.

28. 1 Kings d John xii. 31 :

alternative: but I own I think the former ‘more probable. See on the whole ques. tion of the appearance of this second Cainam(n) among the ancestors of our Lord, Lord A. Hervey's work above cited, ch. viii., in which, with much research and acuteness, he has endeavoured to shew that the name was probably interpolated here, and got from hence into the LXX. Cer: tainly it appears not to have existed in the earliest copies of that version.

CHAP. IV. 1–13.] TEMPTATION OF JESUS. Matt. iv. 1-11. Mark i. 12, 13. Ver. 1 is peculiar to Luke, and very important. Our Lord was now full of the Holy Ghost, and in that fulness He is led up to combat with the enemy. He has arrived at the fulness of the stature of perfect man, outwardly and spiritually. And as when His Church was inaugurated by the descent of the Spirit in His fulness, so now, the first and fittest weapon for the combat is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The discourse of Peter in Acts ii., like our Lord's replies here, is grounded in the testimony of the Scripture

The accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke (St. Mark's is principally a compendium) are distinct; see notes on Matthew and Mark. 2.] The literal rendering

of the present text will be: Jesus ...
was led by (in, in the power of) the Spirit
in the wilderness, being tempted (i. e. be-
cause he was tempted) during forty days
by the devil. So that St. Luke, as also
St. Mark, implies that the temptation
continued the whole forty days.
he did eat nothing testifies to the strict-
ness in which the term “fasted' must be
taken. 8.] this stone, pointing to
some particular stone-command that it
become a loaf (so literally). 4.] The
citation is given in full by St. Matthew.

5.] There can be little doubt that the order in Matthew, in which this temptation is placed last, is to be adhered to in our expositions of the Temptation. No definite notes of succession are given in our text, but they are by Matthew : see notes there. Some suppose that the inversion has been made as suiting better the requirements of probability : it seeming more natural that our Lord should be first taken to the mountain and then to Jerusalein, than the converse. 6.] Satan is set forth to us in Scripture as the prince, or god of this world, -by our Lord Himself, John xii. 31; xiv. 30; xvi. 11 :- by St. Paul, 2 Cor. iv. 4 (Eph. vi. 12). On the signification of this temptation, see

ziv. SO. Rev. xiii. 2, 7.

X. 20.

Heb. iv. 15.

John xii31: thee, and the glory of them : for a that is delivered unto

me: and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7 If thou therefore wilt worship & me, xx all shall be thine. 8 And Jesus

answered and said unto him, [Get thee behind me, Satan : e Deur. vi. 18: for) e it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,

and him only shalt thou serve. 9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on % a pinnacle of the temple, and

said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself 1 Poa. Ici 11. down from hence : 10 for 'it is written, He shall give his

angels charge over thee, to keep thee : 11 and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash

thy foot against a stone. 12 And Jesus answering said & Devr. vi. 16. unto him, & It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy

God. 13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, h John xiv. so. he departed from him h for a season.

14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into I render, before me. XX read, it shall all. I omit. Z render, the. notes on Matthew. 8.] If the words sidering the testimony of the Evangelists “ Get thee behind me, Satan” had been to be weakened by such inaccuracies, I here, as in A. V., St. Luke could hardly am convinced that it becomes only so have left the record as it stands: this much the stronger (see Introduction to being the first direct recognition by our the Gospels). Lord of His foe, after which, and in These remarks have been occasioned by obedience to which command, he departs the relation of this account, vv. 14—30, from Him. 10.] to keep thee is to the Gospels of Matthew and John. wanting in Matthew. The LXX, follow. Our verses 14 and 15 embrace the nar. ing the Hebrew, adds “in all thy ways.rative of Matthew in ch. iv. 12-25. But

13.] for a season : see on Matthew, after that comes an event which belongs ver. 11, and note on ch. xxii. 53. . to a later period of our Lord's ministry.

14-32.] CIRCUIT OF GALILEE. TEACH. A fair comparison of our vv. 16-24 with ING, AND REJECTION, AT NAZARETH. Pe Matt. xii. 53–58, Mark vi. 1–6, entered culiar to Luke in this form : but see Matt. on without bias, and conducted solely iv. 12-25; xiii. 53—58, and the parallel from the narratives themselves, surely can place in Mark, and note below. 14.] in bardly fail to convince us of their identity. the power of that full anointing of the (1) That two such visits should have hapSpirit for His holy office, which He had pened, is of itself not impossible ; though received at His baptism : and also imply (with the sole exception of Jerusalem for ing that this power was used by Him in obvious reasons) our Lord did not ordidoing mighty works. Here the chrono varily revisit the places where He had logical order of St. Luke's history begins to been rejected as in our vv. 28, 29. (2) be confused, and the first evident marks That He should have been thus treated occur of indefiniteness in arrangement, at His first visit, and then marvelled at which I believe characterizes this Gospel. their unbelief on His second, is utterly And in observing this, I would once for impossible. (3) That the same question all premise, (1) that I have no bias for should have been asked on both occasions, finding such chronological inaccuracy, and and answered by our Lord with the same have only done so where no fair and honest proverbial expression, is in the highest means will solve the difficulty ; (2) that degree improbable. (4) Besides, this narwhere internal evidence appears to me to rative itself bears internal marks of bedecide this to be the case, I have taken longing to a later period. The what. the only way open to a Commentator soever we have heard done in Capernaum who would act uprightly by the Scrip- must refer to more than one miracle done tures, and fairly acknowledged and met there : indeed the whole form of the senthe difficulty; (3) that so far from con- tence points to the plain fact, that our Lord

« PreviousContinue »