The Pulpit Commentary — Luke — Volume 1 — Section 79

l"ter prophet& So in this, the tnnsition on the official roll) pl\pere with the namee period of MPssiah, the visible glory of God of their parents aud their l\nceatore; these and the "ndible voioe of God were again !een and heard by mortal man. Jerome papers are formally witncesod." oalle attention here to the distinetneBB of It follows that, if such care were taken in each of I.be Persons of the blessed Trinity, the 08.lle of the numerous priestly houses, "" shown in thi~ baptism of the Mes.sie.h. cqnal attention would be paid to their "The mystery of the Trinity is shown in family records by the comparatively few the baptism of Christ. The Lord is bap- tiz?d, the Spin't dO!'c-~nds in the likeness of families who boasted their descent from a do"re, the voice of the Father iB beard King David and the ancient royal house. bearing witness to his Son, and the dove R. Hillel, the renowned tencher, who lived eettles on the head of Jesus, lest e.ny one in the dl\ys of Jesus Christ, belonged to the should ime.~ine that the voice was for Jc,hn poor among the people, and yet he was able and not for Christ." We may with all to prove, from existent reoords, the.t he waa reverence conclude that, aft.er the bearing of the voice from heaven, "the Messianio self- one of David's descenrlnnts. Some seventy consciousness would undoubt.edly expand years later, the grandchildren of Jude, the with rapidity, both intensively and exten- repnt.ed brother of the Lord, a son of Joseph, lli vely, into complete maturity. That self- were summoned to Rome, and appeared eonsciousness, it must be borne in mind, before the Emperor Domitian e.e ducendanll would nec=ily, 110 far as this humnn side of his Being was concerned, be subject, in of the old royal hOU81l of David. it.s development, to the condition of time" Now, no further comment would be ne- (Dr. Morrison, on Matt. iii. 17). cessary upon this elaborate "ta.hie" of St. Ver. 23a.-Alld J"e&Us h.imaelfbega.n to be Luke did there not exist in St. Matthew's about thirty yeara of age. This we.s the Gospel another family tree, purporting to be age at which the Levites entered upon their work; the age, too, at which it was lawful the line of Messiah's ancestors. Between for scribes to teach. Generally speaking, these two tables there are many important thirty among the J ewe was looked upon as differences. How are these to be explained? the time of life when manhood had l.llached Ou thiB BUbject in different times many its full development. works have been written. ID the present Vers.23o--38.-Tm: EABTHLY GENE.1.LOGY Commentary the writer does not propose to OF JESUS CHRIST. Although in every Hebrew examine the details of the two tables of SS. family .the hope seems t.o have been cherished Matthew and Luke; the question of the that the promised MeBBiah would be born existence of the two records will alone be 11,IDong them, yet generally the prophetic dealt with. The various smaller points of utterances were understood to point t.o the discrepancy in the registers of SS. Matthew Deliverer springing from the royal house and Luke, althongh curious and striking, of David. To demonstrate that thie was are utterly barren of interest to the great actually true in the CBSe of the reputed Son majority of students of the Divine Word. of Mary an.t Joseph, both the genealogies The reader who may wish to examine these contained in the GOBpele of Matthew and ii! referred-smong modem eoholars' works Luke were compiled from private and public on this subject-to Bishop Harvey's ex- records. It is well known the.t these family hanstive work on the genealogy of the Lord; trees were preserved with care in well-nigh t.o Arohdee.cou Farrar's ExcurBUB in his every Jewish family. The sacred books • Commentary on St. Luke' in the • Cam- compiled after the return from Babylon- bridge Bible for Schnols;' and to Professor ! and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and N eherniah- Godet's Commentary on this Gospel. with their long tables of descent, show DB We will confine ourselves here t.o three that these family records existed then. points. (I) Why does St. Luke insert his Josephus (second century) thUB writes; "I table of Messiah's earthly descent in this Jelat.e my genealogy 118 I find it recorded in place? (2) For what reason does he trace the publ,o te.hlt:s" (' Life,' eh. i). In his up the long ancestral line to Adam? (3) work e.gainst A pion (i 7) he uys, "From What is the broad outline of the explanation all the countries in whieh our priests a.re of St. Luke's divergency from the genea- acattered abroad, tl,ey 1end to Jerusalem logical table of St. Matthew? {i..D order that •l,cir childreo uiay be plaood tl) and (2) can ho shortly l\newered. en. m. 1-38.] THE 00:,PEL AOOJilDINO TO ST. LUKE. 71