Chapter Three

1–6. The appearance of John the Baptist. – 7–17. The preaching of John the Baptist. – 18–20. The imprisonment of John the Baptist. – 21–38. The baptism and genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 3:1. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, Luke 3:2. under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in the wilderness. The evangelist Luke — the first among writers to introduce the Gospel history with precise chronological references into general world history — here gives an exact determination of the time when the ministry of John the Baptist, the Forerunner of the Messiah, began. “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” — more accurately: “of Caesar Tiberius.” Augustus, who was succeeded by his stepson Tiberius, died on August 19, 767 years (from the founding of Rome). But even earlier, around 765 years, Augustus appointed Tiberius as his joint ruler. From which year, then, does the evangelist count the fifteenth year? From the beginning of his joint rule with Augustus or from the beginning of his independent reign? In all probability, from the beginning of his joint rule with Augustus, since the evangelist Luke further says that Christ was baptized at the age of about thirty years (verse 23). Taking it that Christ was born in 749 years, and adding 30 years to this, we get 779 years, and subtracting from this 15 years of Tiberius’s reign, we get 764 years, precisely the year in which Augustus made Tiberius his joint ruler. “Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea” (see the commentary on Matt 27:2). Pilate ruled from the end of 778 to 789 years. “Herod” (see the commentary on Matt 2:22) ruled from 750 to 792 years, when he was deposed. “Philip, his brother,” also ruled from 750 years until his death in 786 years. He ruled over Ituraea, which can be understood as the ancient Gilead (the eastern side of the Jordan). If Josephus Flavius does not mention the name of this region, he meant it, in all probability, as Batanea or Auranitis, whose belonging to the tetrarchy of Philip he reports (Josephus Flavius, “Jewish Antiquities,” XVII, 11, 4). The region of Trachonitis also lay to the east of the Jordan, higher up than Ituraea. “Lysanias.” Modern critics insist that the evangelist Luke here made an anachronism, that Lysanias reigned in Abilene almost 60 years before the time described here and that he was not a tetrarch at all. But modern research testifies that there were two Lysaniases — one who governed Abilene 60 years before the appearance of John the Baptist, and another — contemporary with this appearance. This latter is called directly a “tetrarch” in a Greek inscription which Pococke found near Nebi Abel (the ancient Abile — a city to the northwest of Damascus, at the foot of Lebanon). Then Josephus Flavius also testifies that Agrippa, after the death of Tiberius, received the tetrarchy of Philip and the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Josephus Flavius. “Jewish Antiquities,” XVIII, 6, 10). Here Josephus Flavius cannot mean the first Lysanias, who died long ago and whose kingdom is nowhere called a tetrarchy. “Under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas.” Properly speaking, the high priest at that time was one Caiaphas. See the commentary on Matt 26:3. But his father-in-law, Annas, or more accurately, Annas, a former high priest who had been deposed by the procurator Vitellius, continued, by virtue of his character, to exercise great influence. And since in his rank as high priest he was senior to Caiaphas, the evangelist places him ahead of the latter. To make from this mention of two high priests the conclusion that the evangelist Luke thereby wished to show that the ancient theocracy had fallen into complete decline, which could only be eliminated by the Messiah (as, for example, Prof. Bogolepov says. The Public Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, issue 1 p. 17), there is no foundation whatsoever, just as it is likewise unfounded to see in Luke’s preceding reference to different civil rulers his desire to characterize the political decline of the Jewish people. “The word of God came,” that is, God commanded John to enter into his ministry (cf. Jer 1:2; Isa 38:4 and following). “In the wilderness” (see the commentary on Luke 1:80).

Luke 3:3. And he went throughout the region about the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, “And he went...” More accurately: “and he came throughout the whole region of the Jordan.” See the commentary on Matt 3:5. “Proclaiming...” Repetition of what is said in Mark (Mark 1:4).

Luke 3:4. as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah, who says: “A voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight; Luke 3:5. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough roads shall become smooth; Luke 3:6. and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’ (See Matt 3:3). The evangelist Luke, however, gives the prophecy of Isaiah in a fuller form than Matthew and Mark (Mark 1:3). In addition to verse 3 of chapter 40, he quotes verses 4 and 5 (according to the text of the Seventy, with some small changes of his own).

Amos 1:1. “In the book of the words...” that is, in the book containing the words or utterances of the prophet Isaiah (cf. Am.1:1 – “the words of Amos”). “Every valley” that is, every valley, low place, ravine (φάραγξ). This and likewise the following expressions: mountain, hill, crookedness, rough roads — all are images serving to denote moral obstacles which should be removed by John from the path along which the Messiah comes to His people. These obstacles can be removed only through sincere repentance of the people. “The salvation of God” (see the commentary on Luke 2:30). The evangelist, in agreement with the prophet, understands here the Messianic salvation, which with the coming of the Messiah and through Him will become accessible to the contemplation of all people (“all flesh” — this expression denotes humanity from the side of its weakness and need for Divine help, and likewise indicates the universality of salvation, cf. Acts 2:17). The evangelist, obviously, extended the quotation from the book of Isaiah precisely in order to give his readers to understand that the salvation brought by Christ is intended for all peoples.

Luke 3:7. So John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Luke 3:8. Bear fruits worthy of repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Luke 3:9. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. These verses represent an almost literal repetition of Matt 3:7-10. The difference consists only in the fact that in Matthew, John addresses his reproaches to the Pharisees and Sadducees, whereas in Luke — to the crowds of people. But as is evident from the threatening tone of the speech, Luke had in mind the fact that in the popular crowd the Pharisees and Sadducees had dominant influence — only he did not mention them separately. For the rest, see the commentary on Matt 3:7-10.

Luke 3:10. And the crowds asked him, “What then should we do? Luke 3:11. And he answered them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise. Luke 3:12. Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what should we do? Luke 3:13. He said to them, “Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you. Luke 3:14. Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what should we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages. The instructions John gave to the common people, which he gave in answer to the people’s question, are reported by Luke alone. The general thought of these instructions is this: the true fruits of repentance are not something special, unattainable, but simply honest fulfillment of the obligations one has taken on. “Whoever has two coats...” By this John reminds each one of the obligation to help his needy neighbor in whatever way he can. “Give,” that is, one of them. “Whoever has food” — not only large stores of food, but even a small quantity. “Do likewise,” that is, share even a piece of bread. “Tax collectors” (see the commentary on Matt 5:46). Tax collectors might have thought that John would demand that they completely abandon their hated service. “More than the amount prescribed for you,” that is, more than what the government commanded you to collect from the people. Usually, however, tax collectors demanded much also for their own personal benefit. “Soldiers.” Here there could be both Israelite soldiers and Roman soldiers of various other nations, who were likewise attracted by John’s preaching. They, just like the tax collectors, felt themselves somewhat guilty of the fact that their maintenance lay as a heavy burden on the people. It often fell to them also, during campaigns, to forcibly take others’ property, and this seemed to them an unavoidable part of their profession. Now then, how could they repent? Completely abandon military service, since it forces them to commit such injustices against their neighbor? John in answer tells them that they can do without such injustices — let them live on their wages. “Do not...falsely accuse,” more accurately: “do not inform on” (συκοφαντήσητε — a word that originally denoted among the Greeks an informing against those violating the government prohibition against the export of figs).

Luke 3:15. Now as the people were filled with expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Messiah, Luke 3:16. John answered all of them by saying, “I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Luke 3:17. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire. “Authoritative, sealed with more-than-human dignity, the word of the Forerunner, his new teaching responding to the most holy desires of the soul, together with his extraordinary external appearance and the very artless preaching — all of this produced such a powerful impression on the people that many wondered and thought in their hearts whether he might be the Messiah promised to Israel. This state of mind could easily have led to consequences harmful for John and the purpose of his ministry. Strictly faithful to his calling, not wishing for glory not belonging to him, John forestalls the possibility of such excessive enthusiasm and explains to the wondering people in brief but powerful expressions the true meaning of his ministry and his relation to the Messiah” (Bogolepov, p. 50). “Whether he himself (μήποτε αὐτός) might be the Messiah?” John spoke of another Messiah, but perhaps we — thought the people — misunderstood? Perhaps he meant himself? For the rest, see the commentary on Matt 3:11-12.

Luke 3:18. So with many other exhortations, he proclaimed the good news to the people. Luke 3:19. But Herod the tetrarch, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, Luke 3:20. added this to them all: he locked John up in prison. “And many other exhortations he proclaimed...” The evangelist Luke here notes that he, like the other evangelists, of course, relates the preaching of John only in abbreviated form. Under “proclaiming the good news” should be understood the preaching about the coming Messiah, whom John described in very vivid terms. This preaching, as is evident from the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 11:12), bore good fruit: it aroused in the people a desire for the Kingdom of Heaven. “But Herod, however...” Before proceeding to the narrative about Jesus Christ’s entry into public ministry, the evangelist Luke considers it necessary to conclude his account of the fate of John the Baptist. What he says here appears in a different sequence in Matthew and Mark (see Matt 14:1 and following; Mark 6:17 and following).

Luke 3:21. Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, Luke 3:22. and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased. “Now when all the people were baptized.” This is a more precise statement than in Matthew (Matt 3:13) and Mark (Mark 1:9) of the time of Christ’s baptism. “This was taking place,” says the evangelist Luke, “when there was a general desire of the people to receive baptism from John.” And this points to the end of the preaching ministry of the Forerunner (Bogolepov, p. 63). “Praying.” Only Luke mentions this, thereby marking that baptism was an especially important event in Christ’s life (cf. Matt 26:36; Luke 9:28). “The heaven was opened.” In Matthew and Mark it is said that the opening of heaven was an object of vision (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10), and therefore some interpreters are inclined to present this “opening” not as something actual, but as something merely appearing to certain people. But the evangelist Luke cuts off every path to such reinterpretations by saying that heaven opened and not adding that this was a vision. This miracle, as well as the subsequent descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and the voice of God the Father — all of this were actual events. “The Holy Spirit...” (see the commentary on Matt 3:16). “In bodily form” that is, He appeared in the ordinary form of a dove. “You.” The evangelist Luke in this agrees with Mark (in Matthew — “This is”) see Mark 1:11. “With you...” The evangelist Luke here again reports the voice of God the Father as a direct address to Christ (in Matthew and Mark — “in whom”).

Luke 3:23. Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph, son of Heli, Luke 3:24. son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Jannai, son of Joseph, Luke 3:25. son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Esli, son of Naggai, Luke 3:26. son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Semein, son of Joseph, son of Judah, Luke 3:27. son of Johanan, son of Rhesa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, Luke 3:28. son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Er, Luke 3:29. son of Joshua, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, Luke 3:30. son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonam, son of Eliakim, Luke 3:31. son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, Luke 3:32. son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Salmon, son of Nahshon, Luke 3:33. son of Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, Luke 3:34. son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, Luke 3:35. son of Serug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Shelah, Luke 3:36. son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, Luke 3:37. son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, son of Cainan, Luke 3:38. son of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God. Here is indicated the year of Christ’s entry into public ministry. “Jesus, beginning His ministry...” — more accurately: “and He Himself — concerning whom the voice of God spoke (verse 22) — specifically — Jesus, was, at the beginning of His activity (ἀρχόμενος), at the age of about thirty years.” The evangelist Luke evidently places the beginning of Christ’s ministry at the “anointing” of Christ with the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism. From this, one can approximately indicate the year of the general chronology in which this entry took place. As we have already accepted (see verse 1), the fifteenth year of Tiberius’s reign is 779 from the founding of Rome. But Jesus Christ was baptized probably the following year after John the Baptist appeared, which occurred in this year 779, consequently, approximately in 780. From this one can also deduce — again, of course, approximately — the year of Christ’s birth. Reckoning back from the year 780 for 30 years, we obtain the year 750 for the birth of Christ. Meanwhile, our counting of years from the Birth of Christ, the foundation for which was laid by the monk Dionysius, presupposes that Christ was born in 752 — two or three years later than the established date. “At the age of thirty.” It was customary at this age, as an age of full maturity, for Levites to enter upon the performance of their duties (Num 4:3). “And was (as was thought) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.” In Greek: ὤν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ Ἠλί. With such a reading, the word “son” (υἱός) relates to the word “Joseph” (Ἰωσήφ). But such a combination is forbidden by the absence of the article before the name Joseph: after all, everywhere else the relation of father to son is denoted by an article (τοῦ). No, the absence of the article before the word “Joseph” rather compels us to think that the evangelist does not include Joseph in the number of the ancestors of Jesus Christ. It is better therefore to accept the reading of the Alexandrian Codex, where the word “son” (υἱός) is attached to the participle ἦν (in Russian: “was”). Then it will be necessary to render this verse in Russian as follows: “and was (more precisely: being) the Son, as was thought, of Joseph — (in fact) of Heli.” But who was Heli? According to the most probable supposition, which has replaced in scholarship the explanation earlier accepted by Julius Africanus (cf. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, ch. 1), this was the father of the Most Holy Virgin Mary. She herself, by Hebrew custom, is not entered into the number of the ancestors of Christ, but it was very important to the evangelist to show that Christ, according to the flesh, is a true descendant of David, which he does by giving the genealogy of the father of Mary and showing that Mary indeed descended from David. The evangelist Luke thus leads the genealogy of Christ through His grandfather according to His mother and in ascending order. Here, however, we encounter two such names (verse 27) which are repeated also in the genealogy reported in the evangelist Matthew as the genealogy of Joseph (Matt 1:12) — namely, the names of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel. But this difficulty can be solved simply: both of them were indeed common ancestors of Joseph and Mary, and then the evangelists enumerate already different — two — sons of Zerubbabel, from one of whom came the line of Joseph, and from the other — the line of Mary. More significant are other difficulties arising here. How to explain that Luke calls Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel (Matthew also does this), whereas in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 3:18-19) Zerubbabel is called the son of Pedaiah? Probably, this can be explained by the law of levirate. Pedaiah was the brother of Shealtiel and therefore, after the death of the latter, could enter into marriage with his childless widow, and from this marriage Zerubbabel could be born. It is possible, of course, that the reverse occurred, in case of Pedaiah’s death, in short, either the evangelists or the writer of the book of Chronicles name the father of Zerubbabel not the real, actual one, but the legal one, whose name Zerubbabel bore. Finally, with respect to the fact that in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 3:20) among the sons of Zerubbabel is not mentioned the Rhesa mentioned here by Luke, this can be explained by the fact that the writer of Chronicles named all the sons of Zerubbabel, or by the fact that some of the sons bore two names (Bogolepov, Childhood of Jesus Christ, p. 54). In verse 37 is mentioned the name Cainan, found only in the translation of the book of Genesis by the Seventy (Gen 10:24). This name, in all probability, was in the original text as well. In verse 38 the evangelist Luke calls Christ the son of Adam, of God. It would be unnatural to imagine that the evangelist placed Adam in the relation to God in which Seth placed himself to Adam, that is, in the relation of son by descent. Therefore it is more correct to relate the word “of God” to the word “Jesus” in verse 23. In this way, here it will be indicated that the Son of Mary was, according to His bodily descent as well, at the same time the Son of God. It is remarkable that in Luke the genealogy is divided into groups of seven, joined three times by three into one section and once — two into a section, namely: 1) from Jesus to Neri — 21 ancestors (3 × 7), 2) from Neri to David — 21 ancestors (3 × 7), 3) from David to Abraham — 14 ancestors (2 × 7), and 4) from Abraham to Adam — 21 ancestors (3 × 7). Of course, such agreement is obtained if one counts the concluding persons of the group of seven as the beginning members of the following group of seven. Since tradition calls the father of Mary not Heli, but Joachim, then in explanation of this one can again recall the custom of the Jews to bear two names — one given at birth, and another, adopted on the occasion of some unusual event in a person’s life. As for the question of why the evangelist Luke places the genealogy of Christ not where the evangelist Matthew does, that is, not at the beginning of the Gospel, this circumstance can be explained by the custom of ancient Hebrew writers to cite genealogical tables of known historical figures where the beginning of the activity of these persons is depicted (see Exod 6:4-26).