Luke 3

     3:1.  Luke makes a real effort here to give us an exact historical time for the beginning of John’s ministry.  But there are problems.  Augustus Caesar died, and Tiberius was made emperor in A.D.14.  Add 15 years, and you have A.D.29.  Most scholars seem to believe that Jesus was crucified in A.D.30, so Luke’s date seems not to work.  Everyone seems certain that the monk who set the date of Jesus’ birth for our calendar was off a bit, and Jesus actually was born anywhere from 4 to 7 B.C.  Based on my own speculations about Dan.9:24-27, I date Jesus birth 5 or possibly 6 B.C., but I won’t get into the swamp of Daniel 9 here.  Sufficient is Mt.2:1, 15, which tells us that Jesus and his parents were in Egypt until Herod died, and everyone seems to agree that he in fact died in 4 B.C.  Jesus had to have been born at least a year or more before (cf. Mt.2:16).

     Now Luke 3:23 tells us that Jesus started his ministry when he “was about thirty years old”.  (Mary is a likely source for this.  She would know.)  Therefore, if Jesus was born in 5 B.C., and he began his ministry when he was thirty, that means he was baptized by John in A.D.26 (remember that we must add a year going from B.C. to A.D., because there was no year zero).  Yet Luke, as we have seen, seems to say that John began baptizing four years later in A.D.29, fifteen years after Augustus died in A.D.14.

     But consider the following quote from a secular historian, who was not at all thinking of this problem, or of any Scripture, so far as I can tell.  He was simply writing Roman history:

     “Left without aide or successor at a time when Germany, Pannonia, and Gaul were threatening to revolt, Augustus reluctantly recalled Tiberius (A.D.2), adopted him as a son and co-regent, and sent him off to put down the rebellions.  When he returned (A.D.9), after five years of arduous and successful campaigning, all Rome, which hated him for his stern Puritanism, resigned itself to the fact that though Augustus was still prince, Tiberius had begun to rule.”  Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p.231.

     The government of Tiberius, as all his contemporaries well knew, thus began in A.D.  9, when he began to rule for his senile stepfather.  A.D. 9 plus 15 years is A.D. 24.  This is a very likely date for John to begin baptizing.  See note at 3:21-23.

     3:2.  Cf. John 18:13,24; Acts 4:6.  Annas had been the high priest, but the Romans removed him from office and replaced him with his nephew, Caiaphas.  Therefore, the Jews still considered Annas the high priest, even though Caiaphas held the office.  Knowing this helps unravel the events of Jesus’ trial in John 18.

     3:3-6.  God is always merciful to the repentant.  He never forces forgiveness on the righteous, but freely gives it to sinners.  We are saved by grace alone, and repentance makes the way straight for grace.

     3:7-20.  John preached a strong message of judgment, but his advice on what men should do to prepare for it was uncomplicated.  Do what is right, right where you are.  That is repentance.  Do it now, because the judge is coming to bring justice to the world (16-17). This is called the gospel (18), and for preaching it to the powerful of this world, he was imprisoned (20).    

3:21-23.  But John was privileged to see his Savior baptized, not only with water but also by the Holy Spirit.  This is the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, when he was “about thirty years of age”.

     3:23-38.  See notes at 2:51-52 for a reason that supports the view that this is the male line of Mary’s genealogy, i.e., she was a primary source for Luke, the early chapters being from her point of view, and based on her memories.

      Other reasons are these.  Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew, tracing from root to branch, is that of his adoptive father, Joseph.  Luke traces back from branch to root.  Joseph is named, but only as the supposed father.  Joseph’s father was named Jacob (Mt.1:16).  So who is Eli (23)?  For three reasons, I believe he is Mary’s father.  First, from Eli to David (23-31), there are only two names in common with Joseph’s genealogy in Mt.1, Zerubbable and Shealtiel.  And they may not be the same individuals, but might only have shared names.  Second, Joseph traces to David through Solomon (Mt.1:6), but this genealogy traces to David and Bathsheba’s other son, Nathan (1 Chr.3:5; Luke 3:31).  Third, is the different purpose.  Luke’s purpose is to prove Jesus’ humanity, thus this genealogy goes all the way back through the universal father Adam to God the creator.  There are many gaps, no doubt, but the flow of the elect line is established.  Jesus’ actual blood line of descent as the seed of the woman (Gen.3:15) is thus seen through Seth’s line to all the covenant fathers, and to David, and the covenant promise to him.  This promise to David that the Messiah of the everlasting kingdom would be from his loins, could only be fulfilled through Mary (2 Sam.7:11-21).  See Heb.1:5 which applies 2 Sam.7:12 to Jesus.  See also Acts 2:30, using the lit. margin, where Peter also applies 2 Sam.7:14 to Jesus.  Ps.132:11 and Ps.89:3-4 also mention the same unconditional promise to David.  “I will raise up your seed after you, who will come forth from your bowels,… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever”  (2 Sam.7:12-13, margin).  But Mary is also close kin to Elizabeth, a daughter of Aaron (1:5; 36). (Elizabeth was likely her maternal aunt). Thus Jesus through Mary combines the lines of David and Aaron (cf. Zech.6:13).

     In short, he was adopted in Joseph’s family, and we are adopted into his.  But he was born into our family by the seed of the woman, of the very flesh of David and Adam.  The new Adam was the Son of man in every way except sin.  See Gal.4:4-5.