|
Quotes & Notes on:
Luke 3:23
-
John Wesley's Notes:
And Jesus was-John's beginning was computed by the years of
princes: our Saviour's by the years of his own life, as a more august
era.
About thirty years of age-He did not now enter upon his thirtieth year
(as the common translation would induce one to think) but he now entered
on his public ministry: being of such an age as the Mosaic law required.
Our great Master attained not, as it seems, to the conclusion of his
thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplish
within those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any
proportionable zeal, despatches the great business of life; and so much
the more happy, if his sun go down at noon. For the space that is taken
from the labours of time, shall be added to the rewards of eternity.
The son of Heli-That is, the son-in-law: for Heli was the father of
Mary. So St. Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from
David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan.
In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by St. Matthew) that of Mary is
implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families.
-
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge:
* thirty. Ge 41:46; Nu 4:3,35,39,43,47
* being. Lu 4:22; Mt 13:55; Mr 6:3; Joh 6:42
* which.
The real father of Joseph was Jacob (Mt 1:16); but having married the
daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his
son, and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being
mentioned, because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to
enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of
him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that
Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of
Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the
Jews, to David, and from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob
the father of Joseph, the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that
Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from
Heli, the father of Mary, through the line of Nathan, to David, and from
David to Abraham, and from Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate "son
of God" by creation, and to whom the promise of the Saviour was given in
behalf of himself and all his posterity. The two branches of descent
from David, by Solomon and Nathan, being thus united in the persons of
Mary and Joseph, Jesus the son of Mary re-united in himself all the
blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in
consequence of which he is emphatically called "the Son of David."
-
Adam Clarke's Commentary:
Thirty years of age] This was the age
required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could
be installed in their office: see ACC for Nu 4:3.
Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph] This same phrase is used by
Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a
particular person:
 he was
SUPPOSED to be this man's son.
Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that
in St. Matthew, Mt 1:1-17, and there are several ways of doing it; the
following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple
and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is
referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.
MATTHEW, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed
virgin, speaks of SONS properly such, by way of natural generation:
Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, &c. But Luke, in ascending
from the Saviour of the world to GOD himself, speaks of sons either
properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate
mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or
really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph-of Heli-of Matthat, &c. This
receives considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the
original  ,
being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, &c. That St.
Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the
first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed
son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and
Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After
this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the
genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such:
i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical
tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of
naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of
him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop
Pearce has fully shown,
 bears, in
a variety of places-Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed
custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.
The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph
the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Mt 1:16; and
Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1Ch
3:17, and Mt 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every
difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St.
Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel,
son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri,
according to the latter.
Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by
abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim.
Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same
family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Mt
1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Lu 3:27.
Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ
to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and
though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended
from Nathan, Solomon's eldest brother, 1Ch 3:5, this is only to be
understood of his having espoused Nathan's daughter, and that Neri
dying, probably, without male issues the two branches of the family of
David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the
person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal
family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the
family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in
himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of
David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of
David. It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote
principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom
the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who
wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his
genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in
behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See ACC for Mt 1:1, &c.
-
Family Bible Notes:
Thirty years; the age at which priests entered on their public
duties. Nu 4:3,47.
As was supposed; as was generally thought by those who did not know the
history of his birth. The son of Heli; in Mt 1:16, it is said, "Jacob
begat Joseph, the husband of Mary." Here Joseph is called "the son of
Heli." Various ways have been proposed for reconciling the two
genealogies of Matthew and Luke. One is, that Mary was the daughter of
Heli; and on that account Joseph is called his son. Luke, it is then
supposed, gives the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of
Joseph.
-
1599 Geneva Bible Notes:
Christ's lineage, according to the flesh, is traced back even to Adam,
and so to God, that it might appear that it was only he whom God
promised to Abraham and David, and appointed from everlasting to his
Church, which is composed of all sorts of men.
-
People's New Testament Commentary:
The Genealogy. For a comparison of the genealogies given by
Matthew and Luke, see notes on Mt 1:1-17. In those notes I have followed
Godet, Van Oosterzee, and others in the view that Luke gives the line of
Mary, and therefore the line of Christ. Jesus was only supposed to be
the son of Joseph, but was the son (that is, descendant, grandson) of
Heli, the father of Mary.
-
Robertson's Word Pictures:
Jesus Himself (autos Iêsous). Emphatic intensive
pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture.
When he entered upon his Messianic work. When he began to teach (archomenos).
The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version
"began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation.
The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (didaskein) after the
present participle archomenos. Either the infinitive or the participle
can follow archomai, usually the infinitive in the Koiné. It is not
necessary to supply anything (Ac 1:22). Was about thirty years of age (ên
hôsei etôn triakonta). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere
of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to
precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon
full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's
prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus
may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or
more. Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli (ôn huios
hôs enomizeto Iôsêph tou Helei). For the discussion of the genealogy of
Jesus see on "Mt 1:1"-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and
many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that
Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while
Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of
whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Mt 1:16). Matthew employs the
word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article tou repeating huiou
(Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but
Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son
of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause.
Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be
giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple
enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the
cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest
something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was
supposed" (hôs enomizeto). His own narrative in Lu 1:26-38 has shown
that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if
Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, huios must be used
in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through
Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does
Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat"
for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant.
It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal
genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Mt 1:16,18-25
that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural
for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the
actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline
universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and
does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of
God" after Adam (Lu 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the
Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose
of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the
Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No
mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.
-
Albert Barnes' Commentary:
Jesus began to be, &c. This was the age at which the priests entered
on their office, Nu 4:3,47; but it is not evident that Jesus had any
reference to that in delaying his work to his thirtieth year. He was not
subjected to the Levitical law in regard to the priesthood, and it does
not appear that prophets and teachers did not commence their work before
that age.
As was supposed. As was commonly thought, or perhaps being levitically
reckoned as his son.
{t} "son of Joseph" Mt 13:55; Joh 6:42
-
Jamieson-Faussett Brown:
he began to be about thirty--that is, "was about entering on His
thirtieth year." So our translators have taken the word (and so CALVIN,
BEZA, BLOOMFIELD, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c.): but "was about thirty
years of age when He began [His ministry]," makes better Greek, and is
probably the true sense [BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN, DE WETTE, MEYER, ALFORD,
&c.]. At this age the priests entered on their office (Nu 4:3).
being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, &c.--Have we in this
genealogy, as well as in Matthew's, the line of Joseph? or is this the
line of Mary?--a point on which there has been great difference of
opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion
contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other
would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the
uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord's real descent. But it
is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes
Jacob, while Luke makes "Heli," to be Joseph's father; and though the
same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that
supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though
the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even
though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Lu
1:2-32, and see on JFB for Lu 2:5), still it does seem unlikely--we say
not incredible--that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to
us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter
opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of
Joseph--here His real, there His reputed line--explain the statement
about Joseph, that he was "the son of Hell," to mean that he was his
son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11,12), and
believe that Joseph's name is only introduced instead of Mary's, in
conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is
attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best
supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a
doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of
Christianity as to our Lord's real descent from David. On comparing the
two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately
for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Saviour was sprung from
Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles,
traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human
family, thus showing Him to be the promised "Seed of the woman." "The
possibility of constructing such a table, comprising a period of
thousands of years, in an uninterrupted line from father to son, of a
family that dwelt for a long time in the utmost retirement, would be
inexplicable, had not the members of this line been endowed with a
thread by which they could extricate themselves from the many families
into which every tribe and branch was again subdivided, and thus hold
fast and know the member that was destined to continue the lineage. This
thread was the hope that Messiah would be born of the race of Abraham
and David. The ardent desire to behold Him and be partakers of His mercy
and glory suffered not the attention to be exhausted through a period
embracing thousands of years. Thus the member destined to continue the
lineage, whenever doubtful, became easily distinguishable, awakening the
hope of a final fulfilment, and keeping it alive until it was
consummated" [OLSHAUSEN].
-
Spurgeon Commentary:
(No comment on this verse)
-
William Burkitt's Notes:
At thirty years of age, the priests under
the law entered upon their public office; accordingly Christ stays the
full time prescribed by the law, before he undertakes his public
ministry, and he gives the reason for it. That he might fulfil all
righteousness. Mt 3:15 That is, the righteousness of the ceremonial law,
which required persons to be of that age, before they entered upon that
office; and also enjoined them to be baptized or washed in water, when
they undertook their office. See Ex 29:4
Learn hence, that whatever the law required in order to perfect
righteousness, that Christ fulfilled in most absolute perfection, both
in his own person, and also in the name of all believers.
Observe farther, the title given to Joseph here: he is called the
supposed father of Christ. Joseph was not his natural father, though so
supposed by the Jews; but he was his legal father, being married to the
Virgin when our Saviour was born; and he was his nursing father, that
took care of him, and provided for him, though Christ sometimes showed
both his parents, that, if he pleased, he could live without any
dependence upon their care. See Lu 2:49
-
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:
Matthew's list of the forefathers of Jesus showed that Christ was
the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed,
and heir to the throne of David; but Luke shows that Jesus was the Seed
of the woman that should break the serpent's head, and traces the line
up to Adam, beginning with Eli, or Heli, the father, not of Joseph, but
of Mary. The seeming differences between the two evangelists in these
lists of names have been removed by learned men. But our salvation does
not depend upon our being able to solve these difficulties, nor is the
Divine authority of the Gospels at all weakened by them. The list of
names ends thus, "Who was the son of Adam, the son of God;" that is, the
offspring of God by creation. Christ was both the son of Adam and the
Son of God, that he might be a proper Mediator between God and the sons
of Adam, and might bring the sons of Adam to be, through him, the sons
of God. All flesh, as descended from the first Adam, is as grass, and
withers as the flower of the field; but he who partakes of the Holy
Spirit of life from the Second Adam, has that eternal happiness, which
by the gospel is preached unto us.
-
The Fourfold Gospel:
And Jesus himself. Luke has been speaking about John the Baptist,
he now turns to speak of Jesus himself.
Was about thirty years of age. The age when a Levite entered upon God's
service (Nu 4:3,47); at which Joseph stood before Pharaoh (Ge 41:46);
and at which David began to reign (2Sa 5:4). Canon Cook fixes the date
of Christ's baptism in the spring A.U.C. 780, Wiseler in the summer of
that year, and Ellicott in the winter of that year.
Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli. This may
mean that Jesus was grandson of Heli, or that Joseph was counted as a
son of Heli because he was his son-in-law.
|
