Luke 3:26

(ubi sup. c. 4.) Matthew indeed wished to set forth God descending to our mortality; accordingly at the beginning of the Gospel he recounted the generations from Abraham to the birth of Christ in a descending scale. But Luke, not at the beginning, but after the baptism of Christ, relates the generation not descending but ascending, as if marking out rather the high priest in the expiation of sins, of whom John bore testimony, saying, Behold, who taketh away the sins of the world. But by ascending he comes to God, to whom we are reconciled, being cleansed and expiated. (Quæst. Ev. lib. ii. qu. 6.) But most fitly with regard to our baptized Lord does Luke reckon the generations through seventy-seven persons. For both the ascent to God is expressed, to whom we are reconciled by the abolition of sins, and by baptism is brought to man the remission of all his sins, which are signified by that number. For eleven times seven are seventy-seven. But by the tenth number is meant perfect happiness. Hence it is plain that the going beyond the tenth marks the sin of one through pride coveting to have more. But this is said to be seven times to signify that the transgression was caused by the moving of man. For by the third number the immortal part of man is represented, but by the fourth the body. But motion is not expressed in numbers, as when we say, one, two, three; but when we say, once, twice, thrice. And so by seven times eleven, is signified a transgression wrought by man's action.

Having related our Lord's baptism, he next enters upon the generation of the Lord, not bringing it down from the higher to the lower, but beginning with Christ, he carries it up to God Himself. Hence he says, And Jesus Himself began. For when He was baptized, and had Himself undergone the mystery of the second birth, then He is said to have begun, that thou also mightest destroy this first birth and be born in the second. The Lord descending into the world took upon Him the person of all sinners, and was willing to be born of the stock of Solomon, (as Matthew relates,) whose sins have been written down, and of the rest, many of whom did evil in the sight of God. But when He ascended, and is described as being born a second time in baptism, (as Luke relates,) He is not born through Salomon, but Nathan, who reproves the father for the death of Uriah, and the birth of Solomon.

And the descent and ascent of the genealogy are not through the same persons. For the one who brings him down with the word brings him down also through sinful women, mentioning only those with faults, but the one genealogizing the baptized does not mention women in his genealogy: Tamar, who unlawfully came together with her father-in-law; Ruth the Moabitess; Rahab, whom we do not even know; and the one of Uriah. For since he came to take the sins of men, and "he who knew no sin, for our sake was made sin" by God, thus descending he took on sinful persons and is born through Solomon, whose sins are recorded, and Rehoboam, whose failings are mentioned in the Kings, and the others of whom many "did evil in the sight of the Lord."

What do you say about the sacred words of Luke When he the genealogy repeats, The fleshly line retracing through old sires? Up generations seventy-two Christ mounts—so many teachers into the world He sent—and by the steps down to his birth Goes back to Adam, …

(Hom. 31, in Ep. ad Rom.) But because this part of the Gospel consists of a series of names, men think there is nothing valuable to be derived therefrom. Lest then we should feel this, let us try to examine every step. For from the mere name we may extract an abundant treasure, for names are indicative of many things. For they savour of the Divine mercy and the offerings of thanks by women, who when they obtained sons gave a name significant of the gift. (Hom. in Matt 1.) Matthew, who wrote as for the Jews, had no further object than to show that Christ proceeded from Abraham and David, for this was most grateful to the Jews. Luke however, as speaking to all men in common, carried his account beyond as far even as Adam. Hence it follows, Who was the son of Thara.

The Lord was baptized, being thirty years old, because this age is the most perfect, and in it a man appears honorable or unworthy. Luke presents the genealogy of the Lord in reverse order, compared to the evangelist Matthew (Mt.1, 1–16), to show that the …

Third, he adds the degrees of the processions, when he adds: Who was of Heli, etc. — But this seems to be contradicted by Matthew one, where it is said that "Jacob begot Joseph," who descends through Solomon. If therefore it is impossible that someone …

For this reason he closes the generations in God, that we may learn that those fathers who intervene, Christ will raise up to God, and make them sons of God, and that it might be believed also that the birth of Christ was without seed; as if he said, If thou believest not that the second Adam was made without seed, you must come to the first Adam, and you will find that he was made by God without seed.

son of Matthat, &c.--(See on Mt 1:13-15). In Lu 3:27, Salathiel is called the son, while in Mt 1:12, he is called the father of Zerubbabel. But they are probably different persons.

quarantine:debris (2026-07-29) — starts-lowercase

We see in the passage before us — the high honor the Lord Jesus has put on baptism. We find that among others who came to John the Baptist — the Savior of the world came, and was "baptized." An ordinance which the Son of God was pleased to use, and afterwards to appoint for the use of His whole Church — ought always to be held in peculiar reverence by His people. If Christ Himself was baptized — then Baptism cannot be a thing of slight importance.

We see in the passage before us — the high honor the Lord Jesus has put on baptism. We find that among others who came to John the Baptist — the Savior of the world came, and was "baptized." An ordinance which the Son of God was pleased to use, and afterwards to appoint for the use of His whole Church — ought always to be held in peculiar reverence by His people. If Christ Himself was baptized — then Baptism cannot be a thing of slight importance. The use of baptism would never have been enjoined on the Church of Christ — if it had been a mere outward form, incapable of conveying any blessing. It is hardly necessary to say that errors of every sort and description abound on the subject of baptism. Some make an idol of it — and exalt it far above the place assigned to it in the Bible. Some degrade it and dishonor it — and seem almost to forget that it was ordained by Christ Himself. Some limit the use of it so narrowly, that they will baptize none unless they are grown up, and can give full proof of their conversion. Some invest the baptismal water with such magic power — that they would like missionaries to go into heathen lands and baptize all people, old and young indiscriminately, and believe that however ignorant the heathen may be, baptism must do them good. On no subject, perhaps, in religion — have Christians more need to pray for a right judgment and a sound mind. Let it suffice us to hold firmly the general principle, that baptism was graciously intended by our Lord to be a help to His Church, and "a means of grace" — and that, when rightly and worthily used, we may confidently look upon it for a blessing. But let us never forget that the grace of God is not tied to any sacrament — and that we may be baptized with water, without being baptized with the Holy Spirit.