[See comments on Lu 3:32]<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Which was the son of Jacob,” <\/strong>(tou lakob) “The heir-son of Jacob,” whose name means “a supplanter” or trickster.<\/p>\n 2) “Which was the son of Isaac,” <\/strong>(tou Isasak) “The heir-son of Isaac,” whose name means “laughter.”<\/p>\n 3) “Which was the son of Abraham,” <\/strong>(tou Abraam) “The heir-son of Abraham,” which means “a high”, or a father, of many nations, or a great multitude. Gen 12:2<\/span>; Gen 17:4-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Which was the son of Thara,” <\/strong>(tou Thara) “The heir-son of Thara,” Gk. form of Terah, which means “a station,” Gen 11:24<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “Which was the son of Nachor,” <\/strong>(tou Nachor) “The heir-son of Nachor” which means “snorting”, or to snort.<\/p>\n Luk 3:34-38<\/span> . From Abraham to Adam<\/em> . Peculiar to Lk., taken from Gen 11:12-26<\/span> ; Gen 5:7-32<\/span> , as given in the Sept [41] , whence Canaan in Luk 3:36<\/span> (instead of in Gen 11:12<\/span> , in Heb.). It is probable that this part of the genealogy has been added by Lk., and that his interest in it is twofold: (1) universalistic<\/em> : revealed by running back the genealogy of Jesus to Adam<\/em> , the father of the human race<\/em> ; (2) the desire to give emphasis to the Divine origin of Jesus, revealed by the final link in the chain: Adam (son) of God. Adam’s sonship is conceived of as something unique, inasmuch as, like Jesus, he owed his being, not to a human parent, but to the immediate causality of God. By this extension of the genealogy beyond Abraham, and even beyond Adam up to God, the evangelist has deprived it of all vital significance for the original purpose of such tables: to vindicate the Messianic claims of Jesus by showing Him to be the son of David. The Davidic sonship, it is true, remains, but it cannot be vital to the Messiahship of One who is, in the sense of the Gospel, Son of God. It becomes like the moon when the sun is shining. Lk. was probably aware of this.<\/p>\n [41] Septuagint.<\/p>\n This genealogy contains none of those features (references to women, etc. which lend ethical interest to Mt.’s.<\/p>\n Thara = O.T. Torah. <\/p>\n Nachor = O.T. Nahor. <\/p>\n which was the son of Isaac: Gen 21:3, Gen 25:26, 1Ch 1:34, Mat 1:2, Act 7:8 <\/p>\n Thara: Gen 11:24-32, Jos 24:2, 1Ch 1:24-28, Terah, Nahor, Reu, Serug, Peleg, Eber, Shelah <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 11:10 – General Gen 25:19 – Abraham 1Ch 1:26 – Nahor<\/p>\n Luk 3:34, ff. etc. From Abraham to Adam, comp. Gen 11:10-26. The only variation is the insertion here of Cainan (Luk 3:36), between Salah (1Ch 1:18 : Shelah) and Arphaxad. This agrees with the LXX. (Genesis), but with no other Old Testament record. Explanations: 1. That the Jews corrupted the Hebrew in these chronological passages; 2. That the LXX. is incorrect, though followed here; 3. Less probably that the transcriber inserted it here by mistake, and from this passage it got into the LXX. Whether (1.) or (2.) be adopted must depend upon the view taken of the whole chronological difference between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek version. (The latter gives a period before Christ of more than five thousand years.)<\/p>\n Which was [the son] of Jacob, which was [the son] of Isaac, which was [the son] of Abraham, which was [the son] of Terah, which was [the son] of Nahor, [See comments on Lu 3:32] Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible 1) “Which was the son of Jacob,” (tou lakob) “The heir-son of … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 3:34”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"