document, extracted from the public records, and compiled with a view to the person with whom the genealogy commences." However this may be, we are convinced that, whether the genealogy be that of Mary (and therefore of Jesus) or of Joseph (therefore not of Jesus, except in a legal sense), the pride of ancestry seems to the writer of the Third Gospel an alien feeling; the family in which Jesus had His origin is undoubtedly placed on the level of every human being's, and is ultimately resolved into Adam's sonship to God. In fine, the pedigree as given by Luke seems, as Keim says, "to be put to shame by the low estate to which the house had sunk;" and adds emphasis to the unknown mother's song of exultation at the downfall of the rich and the mighty. Mary herself lets no hint drop that she is of the house of David: she is told that her child shall be called "holy, the Son of God," and as such Luke proves Him to be by descent from Adam, as well as by special recognition at His baptism.

Thus the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, indicates, according to Luke, the universal nature of the coming salvation from sin; and its main feature is the levelling down of all family pretensions to the common basis of humanity. The two final links in the chain, God and Joseph,-the Eternal, the Highest, and the lowly carpenter, are thus, at this point in Luke's narrative, fitly brought together in a

Gospel which beyond all others preaches "good tidings to the poor." We need seek for no other reason than this to account for the position of the genealogy in Luke's narrative, where he represents Jesus as about "to make His beginning."1

THE PROGRAMME OF THE MINISTRY.

(LUKE alone, iv. 17-21.)

In the passage which Jesus reads from Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth, almost the first words are, "Because he anointed me to preach good tidings To THE POOR." The clause is identical with the LXX. (Isa. lxi. 1). It is the key-note of the teaching of this Gospel with regard to the "things of the world.” Of course, it is contended by some 2 that "the poor" here are the same as "" the poor in spirit" in Matt. v. 3. The corresponding beatitude in Luke (vi. 20) will be noticed in its proper place. Reference has already been made (p. 182) to Hatch's judgment as to the use of the word here standing for "poor," and translated TTWXós both in the LXX. and in the N. T., and therefore all that need be said here is, that we are content to accept the meaning as he defines it. The new

1 This seems to be the force of the original-not, as in the R. V., "when he began to teach." The work of Jesus was more than teaching.

2 Farrar, for instance, who refers also to Matt. xi. 28-Bible for Schools.

spiritual power, with which Jesus expressly identifies Himself (Luke iv. 21), “To-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears," proclaims His allegiance with the poor and the oppressed. This interpretation will alone unify all the numerous references to the poor and the rich to be found in the Gospel of Luke. Good tidings to the poor implies the condemnation of riches, and, in some instances, bad tidings to the rich. As we have seen that Luke, to a greater extent than any other Evangelist, surrounds the early life of Jesus with the tokens of poverty, so here, on the very threshold of His work, Jesus is reported as announcing that His first care, in virtue of His possession of the Spirit of the Lord, is to announce good tidings to the poor. Of these "words of grace" (iv. 22) the Third Evangelist affords ample illustration in the course of his work.

The significance of the passage lies in this, that whether we regard it as referring to the same incident as Matthew deals with at a later period in the ministry (xiii. 53-58; cf. Mark vi. 1-6), or as a totally independent event, it is placed by Luke in the forefront of the Gospel, and is the first considerable discourse of Jesus on His position and aims. The Evangelist knows of other appearances of Jesus as a teacher in the synagogues of Galilee after the Temptation (iv. 15), but this one alone is selected by him as appropriate to his purpose.

THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES, AND CALL OF SIMON, JAMES, AND JOHN.

(LUKE v. 1-11; cf. MATTHEW iv. 18-22; MARK i. 16-20.)

The next incident which claims our attention is the miraculous draught of fishes. Critics are substantially agreed that the call of Simon, Andrew, James, and John, narrated by Matthew and Mark as the first active step1 taken by Jesus in the establishment of the kingdom of heaven, is identical with the event here recorded by Luke. If so, several important differences emerge on comparison of the three accounts. First, Luke does not seek to associate disciples with Jesus in His work until he has demonstrated the ability of Jesus Himself to establish the kingdom of God by word and deed. Consequently, he represents Jesus as teaching in synagogues (iv. 15), and proclaiming, especially in the synagogue of Nazareth, the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy in Himself (iv. 16-21); he reports the testimony of the people as to the effect of His teaching (iv. 22), and the subsequent discourse of Jesus regarding the precedents of Elijah and Elisha for His own behaviour (iv. 23-27), together with His rejection. There is more teaching again, at iv. 31, at Capernaum, where He is better received,—

1 Except the mere declaration at iv. 17: "From that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Cf. Mark i. 15.

followed by the record of His first miracle, the cure of a demoniac (iv. 33-37), of Peter's mother-in-law, of many sick and demoniacs at sunset (iv. 40, 41), and of the astonishing results of all these words and works on the multitudes that "sought after him." It is at this point, after such a full record of activity, that Luke, for the first time, introduces the phrase “the kingdom of God," in the lips of Jesus-iv. 43: "But he said unto them, I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God1 to the other cities also; for therefore was I sent." The kingdom, in virtue therefore of the activity of Jesus alone, was presumably inaugurated in Capernaum at least, if not also in Nazareth. It is also while Jesus is addressing the multitudes from a boat on the lake that the miracle is performed, and in consequence of it, Simon, James, and John are called. The causal connection of events is quite different in Matthew and Mark,-Simon and Andrew, James and John being called before there is any but the most meagre record of preaching, and none of healing, given. Second, Andrew is not named in Luke's account as having been called: he is included, however, in the list of the Twelve at vi. 14. Third, Matthew and Mark agree that Simon and Andrew were still pursuing their calling when Jesus addressed them: Luke

1 Luke adheres throughout his work to this phrase. He never employs Matthew's extremely common term, "the kingdom of heaven." Mark invariably follows Luke's practice.