1. Lev. xix. 11. Matt. xiii. 30. k of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto k Exod. xxiii. them, Do violence to no man, 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 iv. 12. 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. 1 render, was about thirty years of age when he began [his ministry]. 12.1 14. of repentance; see Micah vi. 8. i. e. that John would declare himself. of John's boldness in rebuking Herod, with m see Num. iv. 3, 35, 39, 43, John vi. 42. m about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 which was then Matt. xiii. 55. son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, 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 Nagge, 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. Peculiar to Luke. 23.] Jesus was about thirty years old when He began (His ministry): not, as A. V. 'began to be about,' &c., which is ungrammatical. This is the interpretation of Origen, Euthymius, and the best commentators. See Acts. i. 1. This about thirty admits of considerable latitude, but only in one direction; viz. over thirty years. He could not well be under, seeing that this was the appointed age for the commencement of public service of God by the Levites; see reference to Numbers. If no other proof were in existence of the total independence of the present Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, their genealogies would furnish what I conceive to be an undeniable one. Is it possible that either of these Evangelists could have set down his genealogy with that of the other before him? Would no remark have been made on their many, and (on such a supposition) unaccountable variations? It is quite beside the purpose of the present Commentary to attempt to reconcile the two. It has never yet been accomplished; and every endeavour to do it has violated either ingenuousness or common sense. I shall, as in similar cases, only indicate the landmarks which may serve to guide us to all that is possible for us to discover concerning them. (1) The two genealogies are both the line of Joseph, and not of Mary. Whether Mary were an heiress or not, Luke's words here preclude the idea of the genealogy being hers; for the descent of the Lord is transferred putatively to Joseph by the as was supposed, before the genealogy begins; and it would be unnatural to suppose that the reckoning, which began with the real mother, would, after such transference, pass back through her to her father again, as it must do, if the genealogy be hers. The attempts of many to make it appear that the genealogy is that of Mary, reading the son (as supposed of Joseph, but in reality) of Heli, &c.' are, as Meyer has shewn, quite un successful; see Dr. Mill's vindication of the Genealogies, p. 180 ff., for the history of this opinion. (2) St. Luke appears to have taken this genealogy entire from some authority before him, in which the expression Son of God, as applied to Christ, was made good by tracing it up, as here, through a regular ascent of progenitors till we come to Adam, who was, but here again inexactly, the son of God. This seems much more probable than that St. Luke should, for his Gentile readers, have gone up to the origin of the human race instead of to Abraham. I cannot imagine any such purpose definitely present in the mind of the Evangelist. This view is confirmed by the entirely insulated situation of the genealogy here, between ver. 23 and ch. iv. 1. (3) The points of divergence between the genealogies are,-in Matthew the father of Joseph is Jacob-in Luke, Heli; this gives rise to different lists (except two common names, Zorobabel and Salathiel) up to David, where the accounts coincide again, and remain identical up to Abraham, where Matthew ceases. (4) Here, as elsewhere, I believe that the accounts might be reconciled, or at all events good reason might be assigned for their differing, if we were in possession of data on which to proceed; but here, as elsewhere, we are not. who shall reproduce the endless combinations of elements of confusion, which might creep into a genealogy of this kind? St. Matthew's, we know, is squared so as to form three groups of fourteens, by the omission of several generations; how can we tell that some similar step, unknown to us, may not have been taken with the one before us? It was common among the Jews for the same man to bear different names; how do we know how often this may occur among the immediate progenitors of Joseph? The marriage of a brother with a brother's wife to raise up seed (which then might be accounted to either husband) was common; how do we know how often this may have contributed to produce variations in the terms For son of Joseph, which was the son of m Juda, 27 which was the son of 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 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, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of Chron. iii. David, 32 9 which was the son of Jesse, which was the son &c. 1 Chron. of 4 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 Aram, 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 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 Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 s which was the son of t Gen. r., &c.: 8 Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the o Zech. xii. 12. p 2 Sam. v. 14. 5. q Ruth iv. 18, ii. 10, &c. r Gen. xi. 24, 26. s see Gen. xi. 12. xi. 10, &c. 0 some ancient authorities have, Jesus. t the readings are very various and uncertain. Most of the ancient MSS. have, Admin, which was the son of Arni. 8 most ancient authorities have, Cainam. of a genealogy? With all these elements of confusion, it is quite as presumptuous to pronounce the genealogies discrepant, as it is over-curious and uncritical to attempt to reconcile them. It may suffice us that they are inserted in the Gospels as authentic documents, and both of them merely to clear the Davidical descent of the putative father of the Lord. HIS OWN real Davidical descent does not depend on either of them, but must be solely derived through his mother. See much interesting investigation of the various solutions and traditions, in Dr. Mill's tract referred to above: and in Lord A. Hervey's work on the Genealogies of Neri: in Matt. i. 12, "Jeconias begat 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. u Gen. v. 1, 2. into the a ver. 14. And ch. ii. 27. were b Exod. xxxiv. 28. 1 Kings xix. 8. IV. 1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit wilderness, 2 being forty days tempted of the devil. bin those days he did eat nothing: and when they ended, he [▾ afterward] hungered. 3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. 4 And Jesus answered him, [▾ saying], It is written that man shall not live by bread DRUT. viii. 3. alone, but by every word of God]. 5 And the devil,] taking him up [ 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 с t literally, in the Spirit: see note. ▾ omitted by several very ancient authorities. alternative: but I own I think the former more probable. See on the whole question 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. Certainly 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 ☐ render, in. of the present text will be: Jesus he did eat nothing testifies to the strict- 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 Jerusalem, 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 xiv. 30. Rev. xiii. 2, 7. x. 20. d John xil. 31: thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. X 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, [ Get thee behind me, Satan: e Dr. vi. 13: for] 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 f PA. xei 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 DEUT. 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, b John xiv. 30. he departed from him for a season. Heb. iv. 15. 14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into I read, it shall all. y omit. z render, the. I render, before me. notes on Matthew. 14-32.] CIRCUIT OF GALILEE. TEACHING, AND REJECTION, AT NAZARETH. Peculiar to Luke in this form: but see Matt. iv. 12-25; xiii. 53-58, and the parallel place in Mark, and note below. 14.] in the power of that full anointing of the Spirit for His holy office, which He had received at His baptism: and also implying that this power was used by Him in doing mighty works. Here the chronological order of St. Luke's history begins to be confused, and the first evident marks occur of indefiniteness in arrangement, which I believe characterizes this Gospel. And in observing this, I would once for all premise, (1) that I have no bias for finding such chronological inaccuracy, and have only done so where no fair and honest means will solve the difficulty; (2) that where internal evidence appears to me to decide this to be the case, I have taken the only way open to a Commentator who would act uprightly by the Scriptures, and fairly acknowledged and met the difficulty; (3) that so far from con sidering the testimony of the Evangelists to be weakened by such inaccuracies, I am convinced that it becomes only so much the stronger (see Introduction to the Gospels). These remarks have been occasioned by the relation of this account, vv. 14-30, to the Gospels of Matthew and John. Our verses 14 and 15 embrace the narrative of Matthew in ch. iv. 12-25. But after that comes an event which belongs to a later period of our Lord's ministry. A fair comparison of our vv. 16-24 with Matt. xiii. 53-58, Mark vi. 1-6, entered on without bias, and conducted solely from the narratives themselves, surely can hardly fail to convince us of their identity. (1) That two such visits should have happened, is of itself not impossible; though (with the sole exception of Jerusalem for obvious reasons) our Lord did not ordinarily revisit the places where He had been rejected as in our vv. 28, 29. (2) That He should have been thus treated at His first visit, and then marvelled at their unbelief on His second, is utterly impossible. (3) That the same question should have been asked on both occasions, and answered by our Lord with the same proverbial expression, is in the highest degree improbable. (4) Besides, this narrative itself bears internal marks of belonging to a later period. The whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum must refer to more than one miracle done there indeed the whole form of the sentence points to the plain fact, that our Lord |