Gospel according to Saint Luke, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 3

Luke 3, 1-6 = Matt. 3, 1-6 = Mark. 1, 1-6.

Luke 3.¹ In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, Philip his brother tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, – This paragraph begins with a solemn, beautifully arranged period, the purpose of which is to establish the time toward which the ministry of St. John began. By means of a synchronic date that is of the utmost importance for the chronology of the Savior's life (see The Holy Bible, General Introduction to the Gospels by Father Louis-Claude Fillion (141-page PDF on JesusMarie.com), St. Luke links sacred history to secular history, and assigns to the events he will recount their true place on the grand stage of the activity of peoples. «"« The time of Christ's birth is not precisely defined, nor is that of his death, his resurrection, or his ascension» (Bengel). But the appearance of the Forerunner had particular importance: it was «the beginning of the Gospel,» Mark 1:1 (cf. Thom. Aq. Summa Theologica, p. 3, q. 38, a.1), and consequently the beginning of the Church. This date, unique in the New Testament, is further proof of the accuracy with which St. Luke proceeds as the Gospel narrator. (cf. 1:3) It has, so to speak, six distinct facets, which complement one another: or rather, they are like six concentric spheres, successively approaching their center, and dedicated to each of the civil and religious authorities who then administered, under one title or another, the land where John the Baptist was to appear. – 1° The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. At the top of the list, we naturally find the name of the Roman emperor, since at that time Judea was directly dependent on Rome. This was Tiberius (Claudius Tiberius Nero), son of Tiberius Nero and the famous Livia Drusilla. His mother having later become the wife of Augustus, he quickly rose to the highest offices: he was finally associated with the empire two or three years before the death of his father-in-law. This association creates a slight difficulty here. Should it be considered the starting point for the date set by St. Luke? Or did the evangelist calculate the years of Tiberius's rule only from the death of Augustus, which occurred on August 7, 767 UC, that is, in the year 14 or 15 of the Christian era? Most modern exegetes adopt the first view, which is more consistent with the chronological data of verse 1. 23. Indeed, if we counted the fifteenth year from the moment Tiberius reigned alone, we would have to go back to the Roman year 781 or 782, and Jesus, born towards the end of 749 or the beginning of 750, would have been 32 or 33 years old at the time of his baptism, whereas St. Luke only gives him "about thirty." On the contrary, taking Tiberius's association with the empire as our starting point, we obtain the year 779 or 780, which coincides quite exactly with the thirtieth year of Our Lord's life. Wieseler demonstrated, with the help of inscriptions and medals, that this way of calculating the length of the emperors' reigns was used in the eastern provinces. Moreover, the other view is easily reconciled with the flexible date of verse 5. 23. In any case, we find Tiberius' fifteenth year to fall between 779 and 782, which is not a very large difference. This first date is the most important of the six because it is the most limited, and therefore the most precise. – 2° Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea. From the supreme head of the empire, St. Luke moves to the Roman magistrate who represented him in Judea. A radical change had taken place in the political constitution of this province for quite some time. It was no longer governed by the princes of Herod's family, but was under the direct jurisdiction of Rome, and, as such, it was administered by a governor. On Pontius Pilate, who was the sixth governor of Judea, see Matthew 27:2 and the commentary. His governorship lasted ten years, from 779 to 789. – 3° Herod, tetrarch of Galilee. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, p. 287. He is the second of the Herods of the New Testament. Becoming tetrarch in 750, upon the death of his father Herod the Great, he held power for 42 years: he was deposed by Caligula in 792 and banished to Lyon. Perea was also part of his tetrarchy. – 4° Philippe, his brother…It was also in 750 that Philip, brother or rather half-brother of Herod Antipas, since they did not share the same mother, inherited the provinces mentioned by St. Luke. He retained them until his death, which occurred around 786. He should not be confused with the prince of the same name, the legitimate husband of Herodias, mentioned in St. Mark 6:17 (see the commentary). Ituraea, whose name is generally linked to Jethur, son of Ishmael (Genesis 25:15), who was undoubtedly one of its ancient rulers, must not have differed much from present-day Jedurum, a region located east of the Jordan and Mount Hermon, southwest of Damascus, near the northern borders of Palestine. It is a plateau with an undulating surface, dotted at intervals with conical mounds. The southern part is well-watered and very fertile; the north, on the contrary, is rocky, devoid of soil, and almost barren. The nature of the terrain and rocks everywhere indicates a volcanic formation. Trachonitis is identified with the district of El-Ledscha, which forms a kind of triangle whose points are turned north towards Damascus, east towards Batanea, and west towards Auranitis. Flavius Josephus described it: «The inhabitants have neither cities nor fields; they live in caves, which serve as shelters for them and their flocks… The entrances to these caves are so narrow that two men cannot pass through them side by side; but the interior is immensely wide. The region forms a plain, or nearly so: only, it is covered with rough rocks and is difficult to access.» We need a guide to find the paths, which wind and meander a thousand times.” Ant. 15, 10, 1. According to Josephus, the tetrarch Philip's dominion also extended over Batanea, Auranitis, and the land of Gaulo: the entire northeast of Palestine therefore belonged to him. – 5° Lysanias, tetrarch of AbileneFor a time, it was fashionable in the rationalist camp to accuse St. Luke of ignorance or error regarding this fifth date. The Lysanias he mentions here as a contemporary of the Public Life of Jesus was said to be the king of Chalcis who was put to death by Mark Antony around 34 BC (Dio Cass. 49, 32; Flavius Josephus). The War Jews, 1, 13, 1. But providential discoveries have completely vindicated the inspired account, so much so that rationalists are the first to defend our evangelist. Cf. Renan, Mission to Phoenicia, pp. 316 ff.; Id., Memoir on the Dynasty of the Lysanias of Abilene (in the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, vol. 26, part 2, 1870, pp. 49-84). It has therefore been recognized that there were several Lysanias, and that one of them was certainly tetrarch of Abilene at the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is evident from various passages in the historian Josephus, in which the tetrarch of Abila appears as a prince entirely distinct from the king of Chalcis mentioned above. This one is linked to Mark Antony, that one to the reigns of Claudius and Caligula. Cf. Flavius Josephus, Ant. 14, 3, 3; 15, 4, 1; 18, 6, 10; 19, 5, 1, etc. See also Wallon, De la croire due à l'Évangile, pp. 393 ff. What was the tetrarchy of Abilene? Its exact boundaries cannot be determined, as the eastern provinces underwent frequent changes during this turbulent period; but its location is not in doubt. The ruins of its capital, Abila (modern-day Suq Wadi Barada), can still be seen on the eastern slopes of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains, a few leagues northwest of Damascus, in a region as fertile as it is beautiful, watered by the Barada River.

Luke 3.² In the days of the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came to John, son of Zechariah, in the desert. – 6° Under the high priests…After identifying the men who exercised civil authority in Palestine when St. John began his public ministry, St. Luke also mentions those who, at the same time, held religious power in Jerusalem. But the way he does so has created a rather serious exegetical difficulty. 1. Everyone knows that, in the Mosaic religion, there were never two high priests at the same time. 2. Moreover, at the time our evangelist speaks of, Annas had ceased for many years to be the supreme pontiff of the Jews, since, having been raised to this dignity in the year 759 of Rome, he had been deposed in 767 by the procurator Valerius Gratus. Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this apparent inaccuracy. 1. Annas and Caiaphas would have alternately managed the High Priesthood from year to year. Cf. John 11:49, 51; 18:13 and the commentary; 2. Annas would have been the Sagan, that is to say, the substitute for the high priest Caiaphas: or else 3° he would have fulfilled the functions of Naci or of president of the Sanhedrin, which would have conferred upon him considerable religious authority. But these conjectures are poorly founded. We prefer to suppose, with several commentators, 4) that St. Luke, perhaps with a slight touch of irony, intended to describe the true state of affairs, that is, to show that the exercise of the high priesthood was then much more in the hands of Annas than in those of Caiaphas; or 5) that Annas continued to be given the honorary title of high priest, although Caiaphas was the true holder; or finally, 6) that, in the general opinion, Annas was regarded, despite his deposition, as the rightful pontiff, since, according to Jewish law, the high priesthood was for life: Caiaphas would then have been only the de facto high priest. See Acts 4:6 and the commentary. Josephus, Antiquities. 20:20 also applies the title of Pontiff to Annas; St. Luke cannot therefore be accused of error for having used this same expression. On Caiaphas, see St. Matthew. – To all the names that the evangelist has just cited were attached, for the Jewish people, from both a moral and political standpoint, the deepest miseries. How Israel was then in need of penance and redemption. The word of the Lord was heard. A majestic formula, used to express the divine communications made to the prophets. Cf. 1 Kings 17:1; Isaiah 38:4, 5; Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Hosea 1:1; John 1:1, etc. Here, it designates the solemn moment when God made it clear to John the Baptist that it was time to leave his desert (cf. 1:80) and go prepare the way for the Messiah. To Jean. The names of Tiberius, Pilate, the tetrarchs and the high priests were therefore only intended to introduce that of Zechariah's son.

Luke 3.³ And he went throughout the region of the Jordan, preaching repentance baptism for the forgiveness of sins, Obedient to God's commands, John left his retreat and went to the deep Jordan Valley, where he immediately began to preach. St. Luke, in the same terms as the second Synoptic Gospel (1:4), indicates the principal purpose of John the Baptist's preaching: repentant baptism for the remission of sins. Cf. St. Mark. He will show us later, in verse 7, albeit incidentally, the Forerunner himself administering this repentant baptism.

Luke 3.⁴ as it is written in the book of the oracles of the prophet Isaiah: «A voice heard in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Like his two predecessors, St. Luke applies to the ministry of St. John the Baptist the beautiful prophecy of Isaiah, which, several centuries earlier, had so clearly defined its nature. However, he quotes it in a much more complete way: St. Matthew and St. Mark had limited themselves to reporting its opening words. He calls the collection of the great prophet a book of speeches, in accordance with Hebrew custom. – A voice rang out Or a voice cries out. «It is good to call John the Voice, the herald of the Word, because the voice, which is inferior, precedes, and because the Word, which is superior to it, follows.» St. Ambrose. The voice of the Forerunner will cry out to the Jews: Prepare the way of the Lord…; John will thus be the mystical pioneer of Jesus.

Luke 3.⁵ Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill shall be lowered, the crooked roads shall become straight and the rough ones leveled. – The sublime metaphor continues, the prophet describing in detail how to prepare the way of the Lord, straightening the roads on which he will soon travel. 1° Every valley will be filled in. 1. An operation that consists of filling, by means of embankments, depressions in the ground that would make the road dangerous or impassable. 2. Every mountain and every hill will be made low., to avoid excessively steep climbs. 3° What is crooked will be straightened. 4° What is rough will be smoothed.. Rough, uneven ground must also be prepared to provide a smooth and easy path. Four beautiful figures of the moral obstacles that hinder the preaching of the Gospel, and which everyone must overcome if they wish to fully possess Jesus Christ. See St. Thomas Aquinas's *Golden Chain* on this verse.

Luke 3.⁶ And all flesh shall see God's salvation.» – The original text reads: «And all flesh shall see also that the mouth of the Lord has spoken.» When every obstacle has been removed, the King-Messiah will make his triumphant entry into hearts, and no one, except those who willfully rebel against grace, will be excluded from his visitation. This idea is quite in keeping with the universal character of the third Gospel. See the Preface, § 5.

Luke 3:7-9 = Matthew 3:7-10.

In this passage, St. Luke's narration coincides almost word for word with that of St. Matthew (see the commentary): nevertheless, several characteristic details are found there. 

Luke 3.⁷ He said to those who were flocking to be baptized by him: «Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? – He said. The imperfect tense shows that St. John the Baptist frequently addressed the crowd with the terrible admonitions that follow. Those who flocked to them The multitudes left the inhabited places to come to the wild and deserted lands where St. John preached and baptized. Race of vipers. Matthew 3:7 takes care to explain this severe rebuke by stating that many of the Jews upon whom it fell were hypocritical Pharisees or depraved Sadducees. These leaders of the nation had molded it entirely in their own image. Who taught you to run away?…The Greek verb is full of energy; it properly means: «to put something before someone’s eyes so that they may see.» Who, then, could have convinced these hardened sinners that they could, without changing their feelings or behavior, and by virtue of a mere ceremony, escape divine punishment? By anger to come We must primarily understand the anger that the sovereign Judge will manifest in the next life against the fishermen unrepentant, as indicated by this similar saying of Jesus, Matthew 23:33.

Luke 3.⁸ Therefore bear worthy fruits of repentance and do not try to say to yourselves: Abraham is our father, for I tell you that from these very stones God can raise up children to Abraham. – So do Since you have no other way to save yourself. fruits of penance, That is to say, acts of penance, will demonstrate the reality of their conversion. The forerunner will point out some of these in the following verses. Don't try to say Don't even try to speak like that; it's completely pointless. Abraham is our father. The Jews, and rightly so, were proud to have Abraham as their father; but they should have remembered that this lineage, glorious as it was, was not enough to deliver them on the day of divine wrath. (cf. 16:24-31; Romans 2:17-29) «If you were Abraham’s children, you would do Abraham’s works,» Jesus rightly replied when they boasted of being Abraham’s sons (John 8:39ff). Because I tell you…St. John, contrasting spiritual offspring with carnal fatherhood, continues to mercilessly overturn the proud and foolish pretensions of his listeners. Abraham is a friend of God, and that is a great advantage for his children, granted. But who are the true children? “Those who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” John 113. Now he who miraculously brought forth Isaac will be able, if he so wills, to raise up other miraculous children for Abraham, whom he will draw not only from a barren womb, but from the very stones of the desert. St. John was thus referring to the Gentiles, who would soon replace, by right of adoption, the disinherited Jews.

Luke 3.⁹ The axe is already at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.» «Beware,» continued John the Baptist, “the ‘coming wrath’ may soon befall those who refuse to convert. The axe already lies beside the wicked trees, or rather, it is even leaning against their roots. All that remains is to seize it, strike a decisive blow, and the wicked will be lost forever.” Will be cut… thrown into the fire. In the original text, the verb is in the present tense, to express more forcefully the rapid execution of the celestial threats.

Luke 3.¹⁰ And the people asked him, "What then must be done?"« – The people asked him This request was frequently repeated. So what needs to be done? “Therefore,” since it follows from your words, vv. 7-10, that we have something to do to bring about our salvation, what should the moral activity you so urgently recommend to us consist of? This is a very natural question, one that is immediately asked by souls resolved to convert sincerely. cf. Act 2, 37; 16, 30; 22, 10. It therefore proves the good intentions of those who addressed it to St. John.

Luke 3.¹¹ He replied, "Whoever has two tunics should give one to the one who has none, and whoever has food should do likewise."« The Forerunner graciously acquiesces to the pious desire of the crowd. But what are we to make of his first answer? Maldonat had already remarked, with all the subtlety of his criticism, that it seems, at first glance, rather far removed from the question. And yet, how well the advice, if one examines it closely, corresponds to the intentions and needs of the questioners! The Orientals, with their vivid imaginations, rarely express themselves in purely speculative terms. Among them, precepts are readily translated into concrete and practical examples. Thus, beneath this piece of bread, beneath this tunic, which St. John recommends giving to the poor, we must see the precept of loving one's neighbor in its full scope, without limiting ourselves to the letter of the advice. Our Lord Jesus Christ uses similar formulas in the Sermon on the Mount to instill the same commandment. The prophets, moreover, had done the same. “Share your bread with the hungry, bring the homeless poor into your house, and clothe the naked when you see them,” Isaiah 58:7. “Redeem your sins with your almsgiving, and your iniquities with your compassion to the poor,” Daniel 4:24. This last text shows us how wise John the Baptist’s advice was, and how, without departing from the ideas of the Old Covenant, the Forerunner could advise mercy, there fraternal charity, as an act of penance and as a means of conversion. Two tunics. This refers to the inner tunic (a type of shirt), most often with sleeves, and sometimes extending down to the ankles. something to eat. – So there you have it charity described in a popular way by two of his principal works. Clothing and food, these are indeed the two most pressing needs of the poor.

Luke 3.¹² Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, «Teacher, what should we do?» – Publicans. On this class, so widely criticized at the time, see Matthew 3:47 and the commentary. After the practical address to the entire crowd (vv. 10 and 11), we find two others aimed at specific groups: the tax collectors and the soldiers. Master. They called him Rabbi in Hebrew. See Matthew 23:7 and the commentary. Only the tax collectors give St. John this honorable title. Cf. verses 10 and 14.

Luke 3.¹³ He told them, "Do not demand anything beyond what you are commanded."« To what was euphemistically called the debauchery of the tax collectors, what bulwark will the austere Precursor oppose? Only, and we are almost surprised by this, that of justice and duty. Instead of the sharp rebukes we expected, we find simply these words, which might be considered frivolous if they came from another mouth: Demand nothing more than the legitimate tax. For there are certain careers, certain offices, in which justice and truth somehow intersect, careers and offices where vigorous virtue is required to remain within the bounds of what is "just." Such was the office of the tax collectors according to the system of collection then in use. Indeed, it facilitated the most odious exactions, and tax collectors greatly benefited from their position to enrich themselves at the expense of the public. (cf. 19, 8; Tacitus, Annals.) 13.50.

Luke 3.¹⁴ Soldiers also questioned him, saying, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Refrain from all violence and fraud, and be content with your pay."« – «Luke shows the power of John’s preaching, which softened even soldiers, most of them fierce.» (Maldonat). The Greek term used to designate these soldiers indicates that they were men currently under arms and on active duty. Were these soldiers part of Herod Antipas’s army? Or were they Roman legionaries? It would be rather difficult to say. It seems certain, at least, that they were of Jewish origin, since Israelite mercenaries were found in all the armies of that time. See Grotius, in hl. The reputation of the soldiers of that turbulent era was, if possible, even worse than that of the tax collectors. What we have seen during contemporary wars cannot suffice to give us an idea of their depredations, their ferocity. The way in which the armies were formed already contributed greatly to the barbarity of military customs. They were largely composed of adventurers from all corners of the globe, especially from the most notoriously harsh regions (Thrace, Dalmatia, Germania), insolvent debtors, prodigal sons who, having squandered their savings with their earnings, had sought refuge in the militia, bandits, idlers, and so on. The numerous wars that had recently taken place and the freedom that Rome granted its legions in invaded or conquered territories had fostered these bad habits to a formidable degree: thus, even the troops considered the best and most exemplary were themselves greatly to be feared. All of ancient history, as well as that of the Middle Ages, is filled with lamentations on this subject. And yet, the preaching of John the Baptist touched some of these hardened hearts. And we, they ask emphatically, following the publicans, what should we do To them too, the precursor confines himself to outlining rules of perfection that do not exceed the limits of strict duty. 1° Refrain from all violence…the Greek verb means to vex, torment. With this first recommendation, St. John thus forbade the soldiers who consulted him from plundering, pillaging, and violent and unjust requisitions. 2° From any fraud. The Greek verb here means to falsely accuse. To more easily obtain the plundering of a house or village, soldiers fabricated false accusations against the inhabitants. It is this method of extortion that St. John forbids them. 3° Be content of your balance. This third opinion was practical at the time, as the troops were constantly mutinying over pay and food. Several times the Roman emperors were forced to significantly increase the legionaries' pay and rations. The daily wage, which had been ten asses (one-third of a denarius) under Julius Caesar, was raised by Augustus to two denarii per day. (cf. Tacitus, Annals 5, 17)

Luke 3, 15-18 = Matt. 3, 11-12 = Mark 1, 7-8.

Luke 3.¹⁵ As the people waited in expectation and all wondered in their hearts, with regard to John, whether he might be the Christ, – Like the first two Synoptic Gospels, St. Luke associates the preaching of John the Baptist with the testimony that the herald gave to his Master in front of all the people; but he alone has noted the occasion, which is not without importance. The people were waiting.The Greek verb indicates anxious anticipation, a palpable tension of minds. This anticipation, this tension, is expressed even more strongly by the words "in their hearts," literally weighing the pros and cons. They must have soon shared their thoughts with one another, thoughts which centered on St. John and his mission. This reflection by the evangelist allows us to glimpse the enormous influence the Baptist had acquired, the astonishing impression he had made. "Amazed by all that they see and hear, struck by the manifest holiness of the new prophet, moved by his fervent eloquence, the people wondered if they might be in the presence of the awaited Messiah. A little knowledge or reflection would dissuade them from this conjecture, since the Messiah must be born of the line of David, and John the Baptist is not descended from him. Popular imagination and spontaneity do not stop at this kind of obstacle." M. L'abbé Planus, St. Jean-Baptiste, Étude sur le Précurseur, Paris 1879, p. 180. What ardent excitement of the minds appears in the simple reflection of St. Luke. But one sees at the same time how much St. John had succeeded in making the thought of the Messiah come alive. cf. John 1, 19-28.

Luke 3.¹⁶ John said to them all, «I baptize you with water, but one who is more powerful than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. ¹⁷ His hand holds the winnowing fork, and he will clear his threshing floor, and he will gather the wheat into his barn, and he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.» – John responds as solemnly as possible. «At the first sign of the feelings that are emerging, John the Baptist takes the offensive. He anticipates the exaggerated esteem that is about to be bestowed upon him, he shies away from the acclamations that are being prepared, he effaces himself before the One whom he is charged to announce to the world: in what terms, with what energy and what suddenness!» M. Planus, ibid., p. 181. «He shows no zeal for himself, but for the bridegroom; he hates to be loved for himself.» St. Augustine. – In solemn circumstances, Easterners readily give their words a poetic form, not only by choosing more elevated, more figurative expressions, but also by the structure and phrasing of the sentences. The present testimony of the Forerunner is a striking example of this. We readily discern a true rhythm, preserved even in the Greek text, consisting of three distinct periods or stanzas: the first two with three clauses and interrelated, the third with only two. 1. The baptism of St. John and that of Christ are compared to one another by means of a strong antithesis. Me… is opposed to he…, baptizes in water has will baptize in the Holy Spirit and fireWhat fire is to water, the baptism of Christ will be to the baptism of St. John. Water washes only outwardly, fire purifies inwardly, washing, so to speak, to the marrow, and this is especially true in moral matters, concerning the fire of the Holy Spirit spoken of here. See, for a detailed explanation of the parallel verses, St. Matthew. 2. The dignity of St. John and that of Christ: another antithesis. The picturesque and modest figure by which John the Baptist expresses his personal inferiority to the Messiah is truly admirable. The Forerunner does not even consider himself worthy to render Christ the humblest service. On the contrary, he continues, using another, entirely majestic image (cf. 22:11 and Jeremiah 15:7), the Messiah will manifest himself as a sovereign judge, whom no one will be able to resist. For details, we again refer the reader to Matthew – verse 17, 3, describes the opposite fate that awaits the righteous in the next life and the fishermen. – It was in these terms that St. John, at the height of his popularity, vigorously rejected the undue honor that was being bestowed upon him. Nothing could remove him from his role as Forerunner and witness of the Messiah.

Luke 3.¹⁸ Through these exhortations and many others like them, he was therefore announcing the good news to the people. The evangelist concludes his account of John the Baptist's preaching with this concise summary, which is uniquely his own. On the lips of the Forerunner, the proclamation of the good news—that is, the imminent arrival of the Messiah—was accompanied by urgent exhortations aimed at preparing hearts for this coming. St. John was thus both a preacher of the Old Testament and an evangelist of the New.

Luke 3, 19-20 = Matt. 14, 3-4 = Mark 6, 17-18

While the first two synoptic Gospels only recount the imprisonment of the Forerunner in a late manner, on the occasion of his martyrdom, St. Luke places it in anticipation following the ministry of John the Baptist.

Luke 3.¹⁹ But Herod the tetrarch, being rebuked by him concerning Herodias, his brother's wife, and all the evil he had done, – On the tetrarch Herod, see the note in verse 1. He was correcting Herod… about Herodias This is why Antipas had dared to have St. John arrested. John, with his noble courage, had rebuked the tetrarch for the criminal union he had contracted with Herodias, his brother's wife. (See Matthew 14:3-4, notes.) St. John had also reproached Herod for all his other scandals and evil deeds.

Luke 3.²⁰ He added this crime to all the others and imprisoned Jean in prison. He compounded all his previous iniquities with a new crime, which combined the malice of sacrilege with that of an unjust arrest. This forceful turn of phrase is peculiar to St. Luke. Moreover, it is our evangelist who most formally accuses Herod in this instance. St. Mark, 6:20, has some details in defense of the tetrarch. He locked Jean in prison : probably in the fortress of Machaerus north of the Dead Sea.

Luke 3:21-22 = Matthew 3:13-17 Mark 1:8-11. We have little to add to the details written about this important event in our commentaries on the first two Gospels. St. Luke's account is indeed the shortest and least complete of the three. It seems that the narrator was less concerned with relating the baptism of Jesus than with the divine manifestations to which this ceremony gave rise. Nevertheless, he has preserved for us several new and characteristic details. St. Ambrose: "Luke makes a fine summary of things that have been said by others."«

Luke 3.²¹ Now, at the time when all the people had just received baptism, Jesus was also baptized, and while he was praying, the heavens were opened,– Gold,… connects this verse to verse 18. The entire people had just received baptism…is a first detail specific to St. Luke. It is not necessary to assume that the baptism of Our Lord took place at the same time as that of the crowd, and therefore in the presence of many witnesses. This phrase would seem rather to imply that Jesus was alone with John the Baptist at that time. Cf. Matthew 3:13-15. Moreover, as translated by the Vulgate, it can simply mean: at the time when the people were being baptized. «All the people» is a hyperbole intended to show the large gathering that took place around St. John.  Jesus was also baptized, and while he was praying… Second special detail: barely baptized, Jesus begins to pray on the banks of the Jordan. We have already noted in the Preface, § 5, 2, that St. Luke records with particular interest some of the prayers of the God-Man, for example, those that preceded his baptism, the choosing of the Apostles, the Transfiguration, etc. cf. 5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 29; 10:21; 11:1; 21:37; 22:31, 32; 23:34; 24:33. The sky opened. This is the first of the divine manifestations, which contain in a way God's answer to Jesus' prayer. It recalls, by its nature, the poet's words: "I see the middle heaven open" (Virgil).

Luke 3.²² And the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, like a dove, and a voice came from heaven, saying, «You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.» – Second demonstration: the Holy Spirit descended… St. Luke mentions on this occasion a third special detail: the appearance of the Holy Spirit was therefore an external and real phenomenon. – The third manifestation consists in the heavenly voice which, addressing Jesus (« You are »"…), with very expressive words, recognized him as the beloved Son of the eternal Father. This is the first of the mysterious voices that resounded during the public life of Jesus to bear witness to him. Cf. Matthew 17:5; John 12:28. The traditional site of Jesus' baptism is a short distance from the ruins of a monastery built in honor of St. John the Baptist by St. Helena and now called Qasr al-Yahoud (Castle of the Jews). See Gratz, Theater of Events Narrated in the Divine Scriptures, vol. 1, pp. 307 ff. of the French translation. "Like a man, you came into the river, Christ the King, to receive servile baptism. Hasten, O good one, by the hand of the forerunner, for our sins, you who love human beings!" …It was an astonishing thing to see the Lord of heaven and earth, naked, receive baptism as a servant, by a servant, for our salvation. And the angels' astonishment ranged from fear to joy. With them we adore you. Save us! ». Extract from the Menaeus of the Greek Church (ap. D. Guéranger, Liturgical Year t. 2, pp. 204 et seq.

Luke 3, 23-38. = Matt. 1, 1-16.

In the third Gospel, as in the first, we find a genealogy of the Savior; but while this passage serves as an introduction to St. Matthew's account, St. Luke placed it only at the beginning of the public life of Our Lord. Each of the two evangelists was guided in this by his overall plan. For the Jews, for whom St. Matthew was writing, it was necessary to immediately provide an official, irrefutable demonstration of Jesus' messianic character. St. Luke could wait, and he seems to have been pleased to juxtapose the heavenly voice that had just proclaimed Jesus the Son of God (v. 22) with a document by which Christ's human lineage was proven in the most authentic way. In Exodus (6:14), the genealogy of Moses is similarly established only when he appears before Pharaoh, fully empowered.

We will first quickly review the genealogical list of Jesus according to St. Luke; we will then compare it with that of St. Matthew and resolve the difficulties that this comparison will raise.

Luke 3.²³ Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry; he was, as was believed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli., ²⁴ son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of Melchi, son of Janneh, son of Joseph, ²⁵ son of Mattathias, son of Amos, son of Nahum, son of Hesli, son of Naggé, ²⁶ son of Maath, son of Mattathias, son of Shemei, son of Josech, son of Judah, ²⁷ son of Joanan, son of Resa, son of Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, son of Neri, These words do not mean, as Erasmus thought, that Our Lord Jesus Christ "was beginning to be thirty years old," that is, that he was entering his thirtieth year, when he was baptized by St. John: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began (his ministry). This is how Origen and Eusebius already translated it. "At thirty, Jesus presents himself at the baptism of John, and from that moment begins to teach and perform miracles" (Eusebius, Ad Stephan. q. 1, ap. May, Script. vet. nova collect., t. 1, p. 1). It is quite in keeping with the third evangelist's practice of chronological precision to fix a date; and such an indication could not have been better placed than at the moment when Jesus received the messianic inauguration in the mystery of his baptism. Approximately This shows, however, that St. Luke did not intend to speak with rigorous precision. The Savior was therefore then "about" thirty years old, that is to say, he was neither much above nor much below that age. Note that this is considered the ideal age. St. John the Baptist was likewise thirty years old when he left his desert to preach. Joseph, that gracious type of the Messiah, was also thirty years old when he was appointed viceroy of Egypt. As was believed, son of JosephThere is in this expression a clear allusion to the miraculous conception of Jesus. The crowd, uninitiated into the mystery recounted by St. Luke from its very first page, 1:26-38, assumed that Our Lord was the son of Joseph and of Married (cf. 4:22); but this was a gross error, which Providence was soon to rectify. See similar indications in St. Matthew 1:16, 18, 25. The Holy Spirit delicately safeguards, whenever the opportunity arises, the virginal honor of Jesus and of Married. – son of Heli. From here until verse 27 inclusive, we read the names of the Savior's ancestors who lived after the Babylonian captivity. They are generally written with considerable variation in manuscripts and versions: they are, in fact, Hebrew words, difficult to transcribe, which scribes inevitably distorted. All the figures they represent are unknown, except for Salathiel and Zorobabel (v. 27), which we found in the list of St. Matthew. Some exegetes, it is true (Paulus, Wieseler, etc.), have claimed that there is here a simple resemblance of names; but their opinion is very commonly rejected, and rightly so, since these names are found in both nomenclatures around the same time and express the same father-son relationships. 

Luke 3.²⁸ son of Melchi, son of Addi, son of Cosam, son of Elmadam, son of Her, ²⁹ son of Jesus, son of Eliezer, son of Jorim, son of Matthat, son of Levi, ³⁰ son of Simeon, son of Judah, son of Joseph, son of Jonan, son of Eliakim, ³¹ son of Melea, son of Menna, son of Mattatha, son of Nathan, son of David, These four verses correspond to the time that elapsed between the Babylonian captivity and the reign of David. The same observation as before applies to the spelling of almost all these proper names. With NathanThe genealogical list in St. Luke comes into contact with those we find in the Old Testament; it will henceforth follow Jewish history step by step. Nathan was, like Solomon, the son of David by Bathsheba. cf. 2 Samuel 5, 14.

Luke 3.³² son of Jesse, son of Obed, son of Boaz, son of Salmon, son of Nahshon, ³³ son of Amminadab, son of Aram, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah, ^34a son of Jacob, son of Isaac, – This is the third phase of the genealogy: it leads us from David to Abraham.

Luke 3.^34b son of Abraham, son of Terah, son of Nahor, ³⁵ son of Sarug, son of Reu, son of Peleg, son of Eber, son of Salé, ³⁶ son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Shem, son of Noah, son of Lamech, ³⁷ son of Methuselah, son of Enoch, son of Jared, son of Malaleel, son of Cainan, ³⁸ son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God. – Fourth phase: from Abraham to Adam. The first Cainan (v. 36) presents a difficulty, because no patriarch of that name is mentioned in the Hebrew text between Arphaxad And Dirty (cf. Genesis 11:12-15), nor in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Chaldean Targum, the Syriac version, or the Vulgate. On the other hand, it must have been part of St. Luke's nomenclature from a very early period, since it is found in all the manuscripts of the New Testament (except for one, Codex D), in the best versions (Vulgate, Italian, Syriac, Ethiopian), and in the Church Fathers. Everything becomes clear if one consults the Septuagint text at the passage of Genesis cited above; indeed, the name Cainan is explicitly mentioned there. It is therefore likely that this name, from the Alexandrian version, was passed on early on, through a copyist, into the list in St. Luke. See also the commentaries on Genesis, lc – Methuselah verse 37 is the Hebrew form of the name Methuselah (Methuselach). – son of Adam, son of God. The Jews readily applied to Adam the title of Son of God, which suited him so well, since he came directly from the hands of the Creator. A title, moreover, so glorious for all humanity. (cf. Acts 17:28) «What could have happened that was more beautiful than a holy generation that begins with the Son of God and leads to the Son of God?» (Saint Ambrose). Here, then, is the abridged history of forty centuries.

[2023: J. Masson, Jesus, son of David, in the genealogies of Saint Matthew and Saint Luke (Paris, Téqui 1982, 589 p.) thoroughly studied the historical value of these two genealogies and their relationship. Father René Laurentin, The Gospels of the Infancy of Christ. The Truth of Christmas Beyond Myths, Exegesis and Semiotics – Historicity and Theology, Paris-Tournai, Desclée and Desclée de Brouwer, 1982, p. 309-311, offers a synthesis in three pages, cf. The Christian Bible, The Four Gospels, II* Commentaries, Anne Sigier, 1990, §26, p.154].

We now have to study the genealogical list of St. Luke in its relation to that of St. Matthew. For a long time, unbelievers of every stripe have taken advantage of the obscurity surrounding it to try to undermine the veracity and authenticity of the Holy Gospels. The pagan Celsus and the Manichean Faustus (cf. Augustine, against Faustus 3, 1) were among the first to raise this objection. But for a long time also, believing apologists and exegetes have been clarifying it. See the letter of Julius Africanus, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1, 7 (cf. A. Mai, Script. vet. nov. Collect. t. 1, p. 21 ff.); St. Augustine, on Consensu Evangel. 2, 2 and 3 (cf. Sermon 51; Quaest. Evang. 2, 5). See: D. Calmet, Dissertation to reconcile St. Matthew with St. Luke on the genealogy of Jesus Christ; H. Wallon, On Belief Due to the Gospel, Paris 1858, pp. 160 ff.; Glaire, The Holy Books Avenged, Paris 1845, vol. 2, pp. 273 ff.; Dehaut, The Gospel Explained, Defended, vol. 1, pp. 248 ff. of the 5th edition; Le Camus, Exegetical Preparation for the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Paris 1869, pp. 318 ff., etc. Certainly, it would be an exaggeration to say that the various solutions offered to the problem are capable of fully satisfying the mind. «The final word on the difficulty has not been spoken, and probably never will be» (Le Camus, 11, p. 342); we lack the necessary information. Nor is it necessary for us to reach that degree of clarity. «Our position is far better than that of our adversaries. They strive to highlight the contradictions in the two genealogical trees; but until they have established an absolute impossibility of reconciling them, they have advanced nothing against us. A simple hypothesis that the apologist demonstrates to be possible and acceptable overturns all their arguments. They shatter, as Theodore Beza said, against an anvil that has worn out other hammers.» Ibid., p. 333.

As we observed in our commentary on St. Matthew, p. 40, the genealogy of Our Lord according to St. Luke differs in both form and substance from that found in the first Gospel. Here are the principal differences in form: 1. St. Matthew follows a descending order: he starts from the root and goes from branch to branch down to Jesus, the last descendant. St. Luke, on the contrary, traces the lineage back through the generations. The order followed by St. Matthew is the most natural: it is that of the public records. The order followed by St. Luke seems to have been preferred by the Greeks. Moreover, there is no doubt that both evangelists conformed to the documents before them. 2. St. Matthew divided the ancestors of Christ into three symmetrical groups that correspond to three distinct periods of Jewish history; thus, to achieve this regular division, he omitted several less well-known names. Furthermore, he interweaves historical and chronological details into his list. St. Luke, like a strict reporter, simply mentions the figures one after another: his list is therefore not subjective, but very complete. 3. The first genealogical tree establishes the lineage of Our Lord Jesus Christ only from Abraham, while the second traces it back to Adam, to God. This difference stems from the diversity of the two evangelists' aims. St. Matthew wrote for Jews; and for Jews, it was sufficient to prove that Jesus descended from David and Abraham. St. Luke addressed himself to converted Gentiles; It was therefore important for him to show that Jesus was the Redeemer of all men, and that he did not belong only to a special race, but to the great human race, entirely descended from Adam.

The names of the characters common to both lists are: Jesus, Joseph, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Aram, Esron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham.

The comparison between the two lists shows: 1° that the ancestors of Our Lord are noticeably more numerous in the second list than in the first, 2° that between David and St. Joseph we find only different names, apart from those of Salathiel and Zerubbabel.

The difficulty arising from the discrepancy in numbers is still quite easily resolved. It is surprising, first of all, that there are only 41 names on one side, while on the other there are up to 77 (eleven times 7, the sacred number, as the mystical authors observe; St. Irenaeus, who reduces this figure to 72, by some unknown method, draws a parallel between the 72 ancestors of Christ and the 72 subdivisions of the Table of Nations, Genesis 10), since the starting point is not the same. If we compare the partial periods, we arrive at the following result: from Abraham to David, 14 generations on each side; from David to the captivity, 14 generations according to St. Matthew, 20 according to St. Luke; from the captivity to Jesus Christ, 14 and 21 generations. Or again: from David to St. Joseph, there are 41 names in St. Luke, only 27 in St. Matthew; which makes an average of 25 years on one side and 40 on the other for a generation. But it must be remembered that St. Matthew omitted several names. Moreover, similar phenomena frequently occur in the various branches of the same family. The real crux of the difficulty lies in the difference in the names cited by the evangelists. St. Matthew and St. Luke both claim to present us with the authentic genealogical tree of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and yet the former links Jesus to David through Solomon, while the latter traces him back to David through Nathan. The former gives Neri, the latter Jeconiah as Shealtiel's father. According to the former, St. Joseph is the son of Jacob; according to the latter, he is the son of Eli. How can all of this be true at the same time? The solutions of the exegetes to establish harmony between the two sacred writers can be reduced to four systems.

1. The first system is based on what the Jews called the Law of Levirate Marriage. According to this law, when a man died without leaving offspring after his marriage, his brother, or even his closest relative, was obligated to marry the widow, if she was still of childbearing age. Children born of these second marriages were considered to belong to the deceased, of whom they were like legal descendants. (See Deuteronomy 25:6.) Now, it is assumed that Jacob and Eli were half-brothers, that is, they shared the same mother but had different fathers (Mathan and Mathat). Furthermore, Eli is said to have died childless. Jacob, having then married his brother's widow, would have had a son by her, named Joseph. The same hypothesis applies to Jeconais (the biological father), Neri his half-brother (the legal father), and his son Shealtiel. This being the case, it is understandable that the genealogies are so dissimilar, since one of them, that of St. Matthew, cites the natural fathers, while the other, that of St. Luke, mentions the fathers according to the Law. The series must necessarily have diverged significantly, even though they appear twice. It is entirely possible that the law of Levirate marriage was thus applied twice within the same family during a thousand-year interval (between David and St. Joseph). – This is the opinion adopted in substance by most of the Fathers and commentators, from Julius Africanus, who first formulated it, until around the end of the 15th century («This ruling is common. It derives its authority from the tradition of the Church, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and the approval of the most erudite theologians.» Sylveira). St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine (he speaks, it is true, of an adoption and not of a levirate marriage; but it amounts to almost the same thing), St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Maldonatus, Dr. Hug are among its most illustrious defenders.

2. Both genealogies are still those of St. Joseph, but their discrepancies are explained by another method. The first Gospel indicates the right of succession to the throne, the third the actual lineage. Here are some details. The senior branch, descended from David through Solomon, having died out after Jeconiah, a collateral branch, that of Nathan, inherited (perhaps by adoption) the royal succession in the person of Shealtiel. Later still, the senior branch (or Abiud) became extinct again in the person of Jacob, and the royal rights were again transmitted to the junior branch (or Resa) through Joseph, son of Eli.

According to this view, whose principal defenders are Grotius, Possinus, Dr. Mill, Lord Hervey, Mr. Schegg, etc., we would therefore have in St. Luke the private genealogy of St. Joseph, the series of his natural and real ancestors, and in St. Matthew his genealogy as the legal and official heir to the throne, that is to say, the series of the legitimate kings of the theocracy. For example, as Mr. Trollope wittily states, *The Gospel according to St. Luke*, Cambridge 1877, p. 144, if one wanted to trace the complete genealogy of the Queen of England, it would be necessary, 1° to establish her rights to the throne of the United Kingdom, to go through George I, the Stuarts, the Tudors and go back to William the Conqueror, 2° to give her natural descendants, to go again through George I but immediately leave the line of English monarchs and follow that of the Dukes of Brunswick.

3. According to Corneille de Lapierre, our two lists contain the genealogical tree not of St. Joseph, as in the preceding systems, but of the Blessed Virgin Mary. However, the ancestors of Married They would be mentioned on the maternal side in the nomenclature of St. Matthew, and on the paternal side in that of St. Luke. Things would have happened as follows: Saint Anne, wife of Heli, and mother of Married, was the sister of Jacob, the daughter of Mathan; thus, Joseph, son of Jacob, turns out to have been the nephew of Saint Anne, and consequently the first cousin of the Holy Virgin at the same time as her husband.

Fr. Luc of Bruges also accepts this hypothesis with some modifications. Perhaps one might wonder how it can be reconciled with the Church's belief, according to which the father of Married He would have been called Joachim and not Heli. But there is a very strong similarity between these two names, and they are found used interchangeably in the Bible, for example in the Judith's book, where the same high priest, first called Eliachim (4:5:11), later appears (15:9) under the name Joachim. Eli is indeed an abbreviation of Eliachim; now, Eliachim and Joachim have an almost identical meaning ("God sustains"). Moreover, even according to Jewish tradition, Married would have had a Heli as her father. “Miriam daughter of Heli,” we read in the Talmud, Hieros. Chagigah, fol. 77, 4.

4. Of the two genealogical lists, one (St. Matthew) relates to St. Joseph, the other (St. Luke) to the Blessed Virgin. This system, like the first, is based on Mosaic law, but in a different way. It assumes that Married She was an only child, and consequently the heir, which, according to Numbers 36:5-8, obliged her to marry within her own tribe. In this case, the husband, being a single legal entity with his wife, inherited all her titles: he had, in a sense, two fathers, his natural father and his legal father (his father-in-law). This is why St. Joseph is called, on the one hand, the son of Jacob, and on the other, the son of Eli. Undoubtedly, it would have been clearer to name Mary directly; but it was contrary to ancient custom to establish a woman's genealogy explicitly ("The lineage of the father is called lineage; the lineage of the mother is not called lineage," Baba Bathra, fol. 110, 1); St. Luke therefore established it indirectly, by substituting St. Joseph for the Blessed Virgin. It is proven that Married was the heir apparent, either according to tradition, which has frequently affirmed this, or through the very account in St. Luke, 2:4 ff. Why does the Mother of Jesus go to Bethlehem with St. Joseph, on the occasion of the census ordered by Augustus, if not because she was required to appear in person before the imperial officers? Now, she could only have been subject to this obligation because she represented a branch of the family of David. The branch of Nathan ended with her, just as that of Solomon ended with St. Joseph. This hypothesis is adopted by most exegetes (Surenhusius, Lightfoot, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Wieseler, Messrs. Von Burger, Behrmann, Arnoldi, Godet, Bisping, van Oosterzee, Le Camus, Arnoldi, Plumptre, Ewald, J.P. Lange, Riggenbach, etc.): it is as popular as the first was in antiquity, and we are inclined to give it our preference as well, because it seems to us to resolve the problem of the Gospel genealogies in the simplest and most natural way. Indeed, 1) if both lists refer to St. Joseph, that is, to a putative father, Jesus was only David's heir by adoption, in other words, by a kind of legal fiction. Supposing that this was sufficient for the Jewish readers of St. Matthew, since it conformed to theocratic principles, the pagan readers of St. Luke might well have been more than satisfied: they needed proof of actual lineage, and the genealogy of Jesus by Married contained this demonstration alone in an absolute manner. – 2° From the beginning of his narrative, St. Luke has always placed St. Joseph in the background: Married has been constantly the main character for him. He never tired of showing that, if Jesus had deigned to take a mother here below, no man could claim him as a son in the proper sense of the expression. Moreover, at the very beginning of his nomenclature, he contrasts historical reality with common opinion (“as was believed, son of Joseph”). Would he be consistent with himself if he were to identify, immediately after this reflection, the ancestors of Jesus with those of Joseph? – 3° The Greek text of St. Luke (v. 23) can be reduced without too much difficulty to our interpretation; for, firstly, if the words “who was of God” designate an improperly stated lineage, why would it not be the same when it comes to the relationship between St. Joseph and Eli? Secondly, quite a few exegetes believe they can translate v. 23 in the following manner: “Jesus was the son of Heli, Mattath, etc.,” that is to say, they connect all the genitives in the list to Jesus, so as to place St. Joseph entirely outside the genealogical tree. – 4° Several Fathers, without directly stating that the genealogy given by St. Luke is that of Married, seem to assume it in an indirect way, for example St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 29, Tertullian, De Carne Christi, c. 21 and 22, St. Athanasius, contra. Apollin. 1, 4.

The first system also has great value, either because of its antiquity and the serious authorities on which it relies, or because the evangelists, if we take all their expressions literally, seem to be saying that they both intend to give the genealogy of St. Joseph. But it multiplies hypotheses, and it can be criticized for being rather complicated. The second and third systems offer, in our opinion, fewer guarantees; the former because it takes the verb "engendered" in a figurative sense that cannot be applied to it, the latter because one of the two lists, that of St. Matthew, clearly refers to St. Joseph. Moreover, as Married, as well as her holy husband, belonged to the family of David (see St. Matthew), in any case her genealogy is at least implicitly contained in that of Joseph. 

Let us summarize and conclude. Two evangelists preserved the genealogy of the Savior, and it so happens that their lists vary. However, even setting aside inspiration, it is not conceivable that they were mistaken or intended to deceive. Genealogical documents abounded among the Jews, as can be seen from the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the writer Flavius Josephus (cf. Vita, ch. 1; cf. App. 1, 7), and it was easy to consult them. Would sensible writers have inserted erroneous pieces into their narratives, which would have been easy to attack and refute? Since they left us such distinct catalogs, St. Matthew and St. Luke must have had some reason to diverge from one another. We have suggested several, which are perfectly plausible; that suffices. Presumably, we find a table of kings in the first Gospel and a table of ancestors in the third: here Jesus appears to us as the offspring of the woman, there we hail him as heir to the theocratic throne. In any case, both lists culminate gloriously in the Messiah, in whom the line of David lives forever, as the Lord had promised. See Derenbourg, *Essay on the History and Geography of Palestine*, Paris 1867, p. 349, for an important confirmation of the Savior's royal lineage by the Talmud. 

Christian art has long been concerned with the "Tree of Jesse," or the genealogy of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is found represented everywhere, especially in the Middle Ages: stained-glass windows in churches, vignettes in manuscripts, tapestries, paintings, and sculptures all reproduce it with a great blend of grace and originality. See also a beautiful poem by Lowth, included in the French translation of his *Lessons on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews*.