Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Judah, 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,

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. But how is it that Luke diverges from Joseph, and pursues the pedigree of our Lord 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? Alford's mode of explanation, that the two genealogies are both in the line of Joseph and not of Mary, is a notable instance of begging the very question at issue, and brings with it the still greater difficulty, of accounting for the disagreement of names in the two tables. If we suppose the two Evangelists to have been endowed with common sense, without inspiration, they could not have fallen into so obvious an error as to give a list of our Lord's paternal ancestry, so totally diverse from Joseph back to David. That each of his ancestors had two distinct names, is too absurd to believe for a moment. We are therefore driven to the alternative, that two distinct pedigrees are given, and that Luke traces our Lord's genealogy in the line of Mary. This will require the word son, in the link between Joseph and Heli, to be taken in the sense of son-in-law, a meaning which it has in 1 Sam. 24: 16; 26: 21, 25. Compare also Ruth. 1: 11, 12, 13. That this is its true

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 Judah, 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 Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, "which was the son of David,

t Zec. 12: 12. u 2 Sa. 5: 14; 1 Ch. 3: 5.

signification here appears from the following considerations:

1. If Heli was Mary's father, it is clear that Joseph was his son-in-law. The assumption, therefore, that this relationship is here designated, comports with the facts of the case, or at least is not contradicted by them.

2. The words, being as was supposed, although immediately referable to the following words, the son of Joseph, yet indicate that the Evangelist had his eye on the real parentage of Jesus, first as being the Son of God (see Luke 1: 35), and then of David, through the line of his maternal ancestry, which alone was true and real. It is as though he 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 pedigree through the paternal rather than the maternal line. But unless Luke, after this reference to our Lord's supposed relationship to Joseph, passes over to his real ancestry, his genealogical table would be according to his own showing, one that was fictitious. The whole array of names back to Adam, would rest on that of one who

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of 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 Judah,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham,

Ru. 4: 18, &c.; 1 Ch. 2: 10, &c.

was only the reputed father of our Lord. Matthew, whose design was to furnish legal evidence to the Jews that Jesus was the descendant of David by the paternal line, makes no such qualifying remark, as is here found in Luke, for it would have vitiated and rendered worthless the record. But Luke, whose object was to show his real rather than his legal ancestry, which with the Jews could only be reckoned in the paternal line, advertises us in the very outset, that Joseph was not our Lord's real father, and prepares us, therefore, to pass to Heli, with whom the male ancestry on his mother's side commences. This then is the sentiment which Luke's qualifying phrase, being as was supposed, gives to the passage: the reputed pedigree of Jesus was in the line of Joseph's ancestors, but his real pedigree was to be found in the line of Heli, to whom Joseph sustained the relation of son, if not by adoption, yet by his having married Mary, the daughter of Heli, and mother of Jesus.

3. We should expect a genealogy somewhere in the Gospels, 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 Messiahship, but does not satisfy the conditions of the prophecy,

that he was to be a real descendant of David. Now to fill this niche in the proof of our Lord's Messiahship, by tracing his true lineage back to David and Abraham, was doubtless the reason why Luke prepared and inserted his genealogical table.

4. The fact that Luke carries 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, viz. to furnish a full and authentic register of the real ancestry of Jesus, back to Adam, who, as having no earthly father, was appropriately called son of God, and thus became the type of the second Adam, who was in the highest sense the SON OF GOD.

We come then 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 made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Romans 1: 3.

It is a well authenticated fact, that the Jews never disputed the real descent of Christ from David, until, in modern times, they were taught by infidels this mode of parrying the arguments of the Messiahship of Jesus.

In regard to the catalogue of names, it is most likely that Luke took his account from family records. This will account for the introduction of Cainan

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 Cai

nan,

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.

b Ge. 5: 1, 2.

the son of Arphaxad, which is omitted in Gen. 11:12, 13, probably for a similar reason that the names of three kings are omitted in Matthew's genealogy. See N. on Matt. 1: 1. As it regards the occurrence of the names Zorobabel and Salathiel in both records, we must not infer from this that they were the same persons; for in that case, as Salathiel, according to Matthew, was the son of Jeremiah by natural descent, he must have been called the son of Neri in Luke (v. 27), either from adoption or marriage. "In that case," as Dr. Robinson well remarks, "his connection with David through Nathan, as given by Luke, was not his own personal genealogy. It is difficult therefore to see why Luke, after tracing back the descent of Jesus to Salathiel, should abandon the true personal lineage in the royal line of kings, and turn aside again to a merely collateral and humbler line. If the mother of Jesus was in fact descended from the Zorobabel and Salathiel of Matthew, she, like them, was descended also from David through the royal line. Why rob her of this dignity, and ascribe to her only a descent through an inferior lineage?"

CHAPTER IV.

1-13. THE TEMPTATION. Desert of Judea. See Ns. on Matt. 4: 1-11; Mark 1: 12, 13. Luke's account of this transaction is the fullest, Mark's being comprised in two verses, and Matthew omitting several particulars noted by Luke.

1. Being full of the Holy Ghost. This

is peculiar to Luke, and is to be referred to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him after his baptism. See 3: 22. He was now fully prepared for his mission, introductory to which was to be that awful and mysterious conflict, in the wilderness, with the great adversary and tempter. Returned from Jordan, i. e. he left the immediate vicinity of the river. By the Spirit, i. e. the Holy Spirit. The words Ghost and Spirit are the same in the original.

2. Being forty days, &c. Were it not for the parallel passage in Mark 1: 13, I should be disposed, with Bengel, to construct and read thus: "he was led into the desert, and was there forty days," referring the time specified solely to his withdrawal from the sight of men. But, with Mark's account in view, I cannot avoid the conclusion, that to a greater or less extent, he was subject to the assaults of Satan, during his whole sojourn in the desert, but that, at the close, such fierce and unwonted temptations beset him, that it was as though the tempter had come to him for the first time. In this aspect Matthew presents the transaction, ignoring the assaults made upon our Lord's integrity during the whole time he was in the wilderness, and referring only to what took place at the close of his abode there. In those days, &c. See N. on Matt. 4: 2. He afterward hungered. During the previous forty days, he had been in such a state of ecstasy, as to be insensible to hunger. But now he feels the want of food, and this the adversary seeks to make the occasion of his

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 alone, but by every word of God.

5 And the devil, taking him up into a 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 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.

8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me,

d De. 8: 3.

e John 12:31; & 14: 80; Re. 13: 2, 7.

sinning by the unlawful creation of food.

5. This temptation is the third and last in Matthew. That such is the true order we may justly argue, from the more open display of Satanic craft in this temptation, which leads Jesus to command him to be gone. After such a peremptory dismissal, we can hardly suppose, that he would immediately set about plying our Lord with a third temptation. In a moment of time. The word rendered moment, literally signifies a prick, point, and is tropically put for the minutest particle. When applied to time, it signifies an instant, a moment, not unlike our expression, at a glance of the eye. The suddenness of this prospect added much to the power of the temptation. At such a burst of dazzling splendor, the mind would be apt to be captivated, ere it was aware of the danger to which it was exposed.

Satan: 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 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 unto him, 'It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

f De. 6: 13; & 10:20. g Mat. 4:5. h Ps. 91: 11. i De. 6:16. k John 14:30; He. 4:15.

that (viz. the power and glory of these kingdoms) is delivered unto me. This may be explained by Eph. 2: 2, where Satan is called "the prince of the power of the air," and by John 12: 31; 2 Cor. 4: 4, where he is denominated the god and prince of this world; yet this does not imply lawful power or dominion. God has delegated to him no such authority as he here claims, and in this, as in all his vain promises and assumptions, he shows himself to be the father of lies (John 8:44).

8. Unless we adopt the order of Matthew, we cannot well see how Satan would have dared to approach our Lord with another temptation, after such a recognition of his true character and authoritative command to depart.

15 And he taught in their syna

about.

7 Mat. 4:12; John 4: 48. m V. 1. n Ac. 10: 87.

Lord's "soul was sorrowful even unto death." See Matt. 26: 38; John 14: 30.

14. Jesus returned, &c. See N. on Matt. 4:12. In the power of the Spirit, which had descended upon him after his baptism, and impelled by which he had gone into the wilderness. It was henceforth never to leave him. The expression, power of the Spirit, does not here signify that the divine energy was exerted in causing him to return to Galilee, but that he was so possessed of the Spirit, that all his words and acts demonstrated its existence in him. Into Galilee. A considerable interval elapsed between the time of the temptation and this visit to Galilee, in reference to which see N. on Matt. 4: 12. There went out a fame, &c. His mode of teaching, and the spirituality of his doctrines, excited the attention of men. The report also of the things he did at the feast (John 4: 45) had found its way into Galilee, and spread rapidly and extensively around. Together with this came up the remembrance of his miracle performed in Cana, on a previous visit to this region (John 2: 1-12). All these things had a wonderful effect upon the people, and served to draw their attention to this new spiritual teacher who had come among them. Alford refers this fame of his doings also to what he did at Capernaum; but the healing of the nobleman's son (John 4: 46-54) took place after this, and the fame to which reference is made, was evidently what had preceded his return to Galilee.

15. And he taught; literally, he himself taught. The idea is, that not only the general report alluded to in v. 14, gave him publicity, but he made himself still more known by his addresses in their synagogues. Being glorified of VOL. II.-3*

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went

o Mat. 2: 23; & 13: 54; Ma. 6: 1.
p Ac. 13: 14; & 17: 2.

all, i. e. being in high estimation with all. They were in that state of wonder and excitement, which would naturally attend the first appearance and preaching of so remarkable a person.

16-31. JESUS IS REJECTED AT NAZARETH, AND TAKES UP HIS ABODE AT CAPERNAUM. The account of this incident at Nazareth, is found only in Luke, although it is doubtless alluded to in Matt. 4: 13-16. Alford refers this visit to Nazareth, to one made at a later period in our Lord's ministry. But see N. on Matt. 4: 13. Before this incident at Nazareth, is to be placed the healing of the nobleman's son at Capernaum (John 4: 46–54).

16. Where he had been brought up. When we consider that our Lord had passed nearly or quite twenty-eight years of a blameless life in Nazareth, we see how highly exasperated they must have become at the truth, to treat him as they did on the occasion of this visit. As his custom was. The construction of the original is such, as to refer this clause solely to his habit of attending the synagogue worship on the Sabbath. At the same time we may infer that he made it his practice, at least after his entrance upon his public ministry, to read and expound the word of God on such occasions. Stood up for to read (see N. on Matt. 4:23). It appears from this that the service of reading in the synagogue, was a voluntary one. This however does not forbid the idea, that persons were sometimes selected beforehand to perform this duty. In the present instance, our Lord expressed his readiness to read by standing up, which posture he maintained while reading. Dr. Jahn says, that the person whose duty it was to read, placed upon his head, as is done at the present day, a