Note 1 on Luke 3:1

Tiberius was the stepson of Augustus Caesar and succeeded him in the throne. He was the
second emperor of the Roman Empire and reigned from A.D. 14 to A.D. 37. Herod Antipas (who
beheaded John) renamed the Sea of Galilee after Tiberius (Lake Tiberias) and built a city on the
west side of that sea, which he also named in honor of this emperor (see note 1 at Luke 2:1).

Note 2 on Luke 3:1

Pilate was the Roman governor of Judea from A.D. 26 to A.D. 36. He also had command of the
Roman forces in Judea and used them in the slaughter of the Galileans (see note 1 at Luke 13:1).
He tried Jesus and eventually sentenced Him to be crucified (Luke 23:1-25). Pilate was deposed
by Tiberius Caesar in A.D. 36 and banished to Gaul, where he died in A.D. 41.

Note 3 on Luke 3:1

This Herod was known as Herod Antipas, was the son of Herod the Great (see note 1 at Luke
1:5), and ruled over Galilee. His brother, Herod Archelaus, ruled Judea and Samaria (Matthew
2:22). Another brother, Philip, who is mentioned in this verse, had a wife named Herodias (Luke
3:19) who was the daughter of yet another son of Herod the Great, Aristobulus, who is not
mentioned in the New Testament. Herodias left her husband (and uncle), Philip, and married
Herod Antipas for which they were rebuked by John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-20). Herodias finally
prevailed over Antipas’ objections and had John the Baptist beheaded. Herod Antipas’ nephew,
Herod Agrippa I, is mentioned in Acts 12 as being smitten by the angel of the Lord and eaten
with worms. The grandnephew of Herod Antipas was Herod Agrippa II and was almost
persuaded by Paul to become a Christian (Acts 26:28).

Note 4 on Luke 3:2

The Mosaic Law called for only one high priest, and yet both Caiaphas and Annas are referred to
as high priest (John 18:24 and Acts 4:6). This may be explained by the fact that Annas had been
appointed high priest in A.D. 6 but was forced by the Roman government to resign in A.D. 15.
Apparently, the Jews continued to regard Annas as the genuine high priest. Caiaphas was the
second to succeed Annas in the office of high priest, an office that was appointed by the whims
of the Roman government. The fact that Caiaphas was son-in-law to Annas would further
suggest Annas’ continued influence and thereby explain him being referred to as high priest.
Note 5 on Luke 3:16
Only Luke and Matthew mentioned this fire in association with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It
isn’t made clear in Scripture what this fire is, but from the fact that in both Matthew and Luke,
mention of this fire is followed by statements of the Lord burning up the chaff with
unquenchable fire, it’s possibly speaking of judgment. Some have referred to it as a fire for
purifying (Malachi 3:2-3). Another possibility is that it was prophetic of the “cloven tongues like
as of fire” that appeared at the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:3).

Note 6 on Luke 3:17

The Greek word used here for “fan” is “PTUON,” and it denotes “a winnowing shovel” (Vine’s
Expository Dictionary). These were three-pronged wooden pitchforks that were used to throw
the grain up into the air where the wind would blow the chaff away, and the grain would fall
back down to the ground. As with many Old Testament prophecies (ex. Joel 2:28-32), this
prophecy of end-time judgment is combined with prophecies of Jesus’ first advent. There was
not the clear distinction between our Lord’s first and second coming then as there is now. John
3:17-18 shows Jesus’ mission of mercy at His first coming, while scriptures such as Matthew
25:31-34; Acts 17:31; 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 6:15-17, and 17:14 show Jesus coming with
wrath and judgment upon His enemies at His second appearing. Old Testament prophecies
combined the two (Malachi 3:1-3).

Note 1 on Luke 3:23

The genealogy in Matthew is from Abraham to Jesus, while the book of Luke traces Jesus’
ancestry from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The genealogies are the same from Abraham to
David, but from David to Jesus, they are totally different. Both these genealogies were accepted
by the early church despite their differences, which is proof enough of their accuracy.

It appears that Matthew traced David’s line through Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traced
the royal lineage through Nathan (Luke 3:31), another son of David (2 Samuel 5:14). This would
bypass the curse on Jechonias’ seed (Jeremiah 22:24-30).

The justification for two genealogies is that Matthew recorded Joseph’s line, while Luke
recorded Mary’s line. Luke did say Joseph was the son of Heli, making it appear that Luke was
also tracing Joseph’s lineage, but that would not have to be the case. There is scriptural precedent
for a man’s son-in-law to be reckoned to the daughter’s genealogy if her father had no sons
(Numbers 27:1-11 and 36:1-12 with Ruth 4:6). This could explain the substitution of Joseph’s
name for Mary’s in Luke’s account. This is especially appropriate, since Jesus was the seed of
the woman (Genesis 3:15) and not the seed of man.
Note 2 on Luke 3:36
Cainan is not listed in the genealogy recorded in Genesis. Rather, Genesis 11:12 shows Sala
(Salah) being the son of Arphaxad. The genealogy-conscious Jews of the first century would, no
doubt, have contested this if it had been inaccurate. Therefore, this account is to be considered
correct.