33 The son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
And Hezron became the father of Ram, and Ram became the father of Amminadab; And Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon became the father of Salmon;
And she was with child again, and gave birth to a son: and she said, This time I will give praise to the Lord: so he was named Judah; after this she had no more children for a time.
And the sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah: but Er and Onan had come to their death in the land of Canaan; and the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.
To you, Judah, will your brothers give praise: your hand will be on the neck of your haters; your father's sons will go down to the earth before you.
And the sons of Judah by their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelahites: of Perez, the family of the Perezites: of Zerah, the family of the Zerahites. And the sons of Perez were: of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.
May your family be like the family of Perez, the son whom Tamar gave to Judah, from the offspring which the Lord may give you by this young woman.
And Tamar, his daughter-in-law, had Perez and Zerah by him. All the sons of Judah were five. The sons of Perez: Hezron and Hamul.
Uthai, the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani, of the sons of Perez, the son of Judah.
The son of Abraham was Isaac; and the son of Isaac was Jacob; and the sons of Jacob were Judah and his brothers; And the sons of Judah were Perez and Zerah by Tamar; and the son of Perez was Hezron; and the son of Hezron was Ram; And the son of Ram was Amminadab; and the son of Amminadab was Nahshon; and the son of Nahshon was Salmon;
Worthy.Bible » Commentaries » Matthew Henry Commentary » Commentary on Luke 3
Commentary on Luke 3 Matthew Henry Commentary
Chapter 3
Nothing is related concerning our Lord Jesus from his twelfth year to his entrance on his thirtieth year. We often think it would have been a pleasure and advantage to us if we had journals, or at least annuls, of occurrences concerning him; but we have as much as Infinite Wisdom thought fit to communicate to us, and, if we improve not that, neither should we have improved more if we had had it. The great intention of the evangelists was to give us an account of the gospel of Christ, which we are to believe, and by which we hope for salvation: now that began in the ministry and baptism of John, and therefore they hasten to give us an account of that. We could wish, perhaps, that Luke had wholly passed by what was related by Matthew and Mark, and had written only what was new, as he has done in his two first chapters. But it was the will of the Spirit that some things should be established out of the mouth, not only of two, but of three witnesses; and we must not reckon it a needless repetition, nor shall we do so if we renew out meditations upon these things, with suitable affections. In this chapter we have,
Luk 3:1-14
John's baptism introducing a new dispensation, it was requisite that we should have a particular account of it. Glorious things were said of John, what a distinguished favourite of Heaven he should be, and what a great blessing to this earth (ch. 1:15, 17); but we lost him in the deserts, and there he remains until the day of his showing unto Israel, ch. 1:80. And now at last that day dawns, and a welcome day it was to them that waited for it more than they that waited for the morning. Observe here,
Luk 3:15-20
We are now drawing near to the appearance of our Lord Jesus publicly; the Sun will not be long after the morning-star. We are here told,
The evangelist concludes his account of John's preaching with an et caetera (v. 18): Many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people, which are not recorded.
Luk 3:21-38
The evangelist mentioned John's imprisonment before Christ's being baptized, though it was nearly a year after it, because he would finish the story of John's ministry, and then introduce that of Christ. Now here we have,
One difficulty occurs between Abraham and Noah, which gives us some perplexity, v. 35, 36. Sala is said to be the son of Cainan, and he the son of Arphaxad, whereas Sala was the son of Arphaxad (Gen. 10:24; 11:12), and there is no such man as Cainan found there. But, as to that, it is sufficient to say that the Seventy Interpreters, who, before our Saviour's time, translated the Old Testament into Greek, for reasons best known to themselves inserted that Cainan; and St. Luke, writing among the Hellenist Jews, was obliged to make use of that translation, and therefore to take it as he found it.
The genealogy concludes with this, who was the son of Adam, the son of God.