Lange Commentary - Luke 3:23

Lange Commentary - Luke 3:23 - 3:38

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Luke 3:23 - 3:38

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

B. Testimony of the Genealogy. Luk_3:23-38

²³And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age [Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age when He began (His ministry)]; being (as was supposed) the son²⁴of Joseph, which [who] was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which ²⁵was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, ²⁶Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of ²⁷Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son ²⁸of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son ²⁹of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of ³⁰Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of ³¹Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the ³²son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the³³son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which ³⁴was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which ³⁵was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, ³⁶Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of³⁷Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son ³⁸of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Luk_3:23. When He began, ἀñ÷üìåíïò (His ministry).—The rendering, And Jesus was, when He began (i.e., to preach), about thirty years of age, is not free from difficulties, but is recommended by its connection with the context. For, in the preceding verses, the Evangelist has been describing the dedication of the Lord to His work as Messiah; and what more natural than that he should now speak of His entrance thereupon? Besides, it is entirely according to his custom to specify dates: he has already mentioned that of the ministry of John, and those of the birth, circumcision, presentation in the temple, and first Passover of Jesus; and he now indicates to his readers the date of the things ἃ ἤñîáôï Ἰçóïῦò ðïéåῖí ôå êáὶ äéäÜóêåéí , Act_1:1. In any case this construction is preferable to the exposition: “incipiebat antem Jesus annorum esse fere triginta,” Jesus began to be about thirty years of age. If Luke had meant to say this, he would certainly have expressed himself very obscurely.

About thirty years of age.—All attempts at fixing an exact chronology of our Lord’s life, from this indication of Luke, have split upon this word “about” ( ὡóåß ). We are only informed by it, that when Jesus began His public ministry, He was not much under, or much above, thirty years of age. This was, according to Num_4:3; Num_4:47, the age at which the Levitical services were entered upon, though undoubtedly there was no need of applying such a law to the Lord’s entrance upon His work as Messiah. On the other hand, however, it was at the age of thirty that the Jewish scribes were accustomed to enter upon their office as teachers; and John the Baptist also commenced his ministry at this age. Perhaps the contemporaries of Jesus might not have been disposed to recognize the authority of a teacher who had not attained the age appointed to the Levites.

Luk_3:23-38. Being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Eli, etc.—We prefer including íἱὸò ̓ ÉùóÞö also in the parenthesis. The passage then stands, ὢí … ôïῦ Ἡëß , being the son of Eli, i.e., though supposed to be the son of Joseph. This manner of introducing the parenthesis will show at once that we agree with those who consider that, while Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, Luke gives that of Mary. Compare the important remarks of Lange on Matt. i. [vol. i. p. 48 ff.]. The difficulties of this view are not unappreciated by us, but still greater difficulties attend every other hypothesis; whether that of the Levirate marriage, or that of the total irreconcilability of the two genealogies. Considered in itself, it was far more likely that Luke would give the genealogy of Mary than that of her husband. She is the principal figure throughout his early chapters; while Joseph occupies a far more subordinate position than in Matthew. He is very explicit in narrating that Mary became the mother of the Holy Child, through the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit; why then should he, who was not writing for Jews, give the descent of His foster-father, when he is intent upon asserting, that the Lord was not related to Joseph according to the flesh? He is expressly contrasting His true descent from Eli, the father of Mary, with His supposed descent from Joseph; and Mary is simply passed over, because it was not customary among the Jews to insert the names of females in their genealogies. We find it then here stated, that Jesus was the descendant of Eli, viz., through Mary, his daughter. It is true that the word ôïῦ is used throughout to denote the relation of father and son, not of grandson and grandfather; but Luke was obliged, this once, to use this word in another sense, since through the miraculous birth, which he had himself described, one member in this line of male ancestors was missing. The ἈäÜì ôïῦ Èåïῦ , too, at the end, shows that ôïῦ need not, in this passage, be invariably supposed to apply to physical descent. If Mary became the mother of our Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit, He could have no male ancestors but hers, and the name of Eli, His grandfather, must stand immediately, before that of Jesus, in His genealogy, since the introduction of the mother’s name was not customary, and that of the father impossible in this instance.

The difficulties raised against this view are easily met. Is it urged, 1. that the Jews did not keep genealogies of women?—the answer is, that this is the genealogy of Eli, the father of Mary, and grandfather of Jesus. 2. That Mary, being a cousin of Elisabeth, must have been a daughter of Aaron, and not of the tribe of Judah? But her mother might have been of the house of Aaron, and related to Elisabeth, while her father was descended from the royal line. 3. That, according to an ancient Jewish tradition, one Joachim was the father of Mary? But this tradition is quite unworthy of belief, and is also contradicted by another, which asserts that Mary, the daughter of Eli, suffered martyrdom in Gehenna (see Lightfoot ad Luc. iii. 23). 4. That while the genealogies of Luke and Matthew have nothing else in common, they both contain the names of Salathiel and Zerubbabel? We answer, that both Mary and Joseph seem to have descended from Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel. The fact, that this latter is called by Luke the son of Neri, and by Matthew the son of Jeconiah, may be explained by supposing a Levirate marriage, the name of the natural father being given by Luke, and that of the father according to the law, by Matthew. Besides, why might not both lines meet at least once, during a period of so many centuries? Jeconiah was carried captive to Babylon at the age of eighteen, and remained there a prisoner thirty-seven years; Neri, his brother (Mat_1:11), would then, in his place, “raise up seed unto his brother,” and become the natural father of Salathiel, whose son Zerubbabel had several children, from one of whom (Abiud) descended Joseph, and from another (Rhesa), Eli, the father of Mary. (For the defence of this hypothesis, compare also the treatise of Wieseler, in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, ii. 1845, and the article, Genealogy of Jesus, in the Bibl. Dictionaries.)

On comparing the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, we are immediately struck with the differences between them. The former is written in the descending, the latter in the ascending line: the former extends to Abraham, the common ancestor of the Jewish nation; the latter to Adam, the common parent of mankind: the former is divided into three parts, each of fourteen generations, and thus exhibits a more artificial arrangement, while it wants the completeness which we discover in the latter. Both tables give fourteen names from Abraham to David; while from David to the Babylonian captivity, Matthew gives fourteen, and Luke twenty-one names. Symmetrical arrangement causes Matthew to omit certain names; while a desire for historical completeness is more strongly manifested in Luke, who, during his stay with Paul at Jerusalem (Act_21:17), might easily have found opportunities of obtaining important particulars concerning Mary and her genealogy. The universal character of his genealogy is explained by the fact, that his Gospel was not written, as that of Matthew, for the Christians of Palestine. It presents no other difficulties, except the mention that Zerubbabel was the son of Rhesa, while 1Ch_3:19-21 gives very different names. It has been, however, supposed, that the last-named statement is less accurate, and that the original text has been corrupted in this place.

The historical authority of this genealogy has been vainly contested, on the ground of a statement of Eusebius (H. E. i. 7), that the genealogies of the distinguished Jews were burnt in the time of Herod. This statement bears on its very surface marks of internal improbability; while the authority of J. Africanus, which is cited in its support, is highly problematical. Josephus, too, says nothing of his measure, and publishes his own genealogy, as it existed in the public registries. Besides, in this case, the “taxing” (Luk_2:2) would have been impracticable; while the same informant (J. Africanus) states, that some few, among whom he expressly mentions the family of our Lord, prepared genealogical tables from copies, or from memory. The apocryphal Gospel of James also speaks of the existence of the genealogies, as a thing publicly known. See Thilo, Cod. Apocryph. N. T. 1, p. 166.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The often contested descent of Mary from David is raised above all possibility of refutation by the genealogy of Luke. The Lord Jesus was therefore naturally, as well as legally, descended from David; and this descent is with perfect justice made prominent by both Peter and Paul (Act_2:30; Act_13:23; Rom_1:3; 2Ti_2:8); while Jesus designates Himself the Son of David, Mar_12:35-37. This descent from David was important to the Jews of those days, as one of the legitimate proofs of His Messiahship, and is still of the highest significance. It is a fresh proof of the faithfulness of Him who performed the promises which He had sworn to David and His seed, and a specimen of His divine arrangement, which may well fill us with adoring admiration. As the Christ could only be born in Israel, the nation which alone worshipped the true God, so was it also necessary that He, in whom the ideal of the old theocracy was to be realized, should be a descendant of the man after God’s own heart, under whose sceptre the theocratic nation had reached the climax of its prosperity. This royal origin of our Lord is the key to the psychological explanation of the royal and exalted character, continually impressed upon His words, deeds, and silence. It makes us understand also, with what perfect right He could, even in His glorified state, declare that He was not only the bright and morning star, but also the root and offspring of David. (Rev_22:16; comp. Luk_5:5.)

2. The genealogy of Jesus stands here immediately after His baptism. As soon as Luke has related how He was acknowledged by His heavenly Father as His Son, he proceeds to narrate who He really was related to, according to the flesh.—Starke.

3. The genealogy of Luke offers complete proof that the Lord was “very man,” the promised seed of David; and also, by human descent, the Son of God, as the first Adam is therein said to have been.

4. The second Adam, like the first, sprang immediately from a creative act of Omnipotence. The Messiah belongs not to Israel alone, but to the whole world of sinners. The prophetic word (Mic_5:2), that His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” applies, in a certain sense, even to His human origin.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The genealogical tree of Christ: 1. The root; 2. the branch; 3. the crown; 4. the fruit of His race.—The genealogy in connection with the work of redemption: It presents us: 1. with the image of humanity, which needs redemption; 2. with the greatness of Christ, who undertakes redemption; 3. with the glory of God, who ordains redemption.—The first and the second Adam: 1. Their natural relationship; 2. the infinite difference in their relations, (a) to God, (b) to man, (c) to each other.—The wonderful difference between the apparent and the actual in the person of the Redeemer. Luke gives us a glimpse of it in His descent; but it strikes us also when we consider the lowly outward appearance and exalted dignity: (a) Of His person; (b) of His work; (c) of His kingdom; (d) of His future.—The great importance of the Bible genealogies.—Christ the aim and end of the Bible genealogies.—God’s faithfulness in the performance of His ancient promises.—Jesus, the son of Adam: 1. The Son of God became a son of Adam; 2. the Son of Adam truly the Son of God, the promised Redeemer.—Concealment of the true descent of Jesus, even at the beginning of His public ministry.—The miraculously begotten Son of Mary suffers Himself to be supposed to be the son of Joseph.—For further ideas, see Lange on Mat_1:17 [vol. i. pp. 50, 51]. Consult also Köppen: Die Bibel, ein Werk göttlicher Weisheit, i. 26–40; ii. 199, etc., on the value of these, and the other genealogies.

Arndt:—The significance of the genealogy of Jesus: 1. For His person; 2. for His work. “This remarkable genealogical tree stands forth, a unique memorial of the faith and expectation of the Old Testament saints. To our imaginations, its boughs and branches had been vocal for centuries with the words: ‘Oh that Thou wouldest rend the heavens,’ etc., while tears of thankfulness and ecstasy water its root, and these names, which brighten, like stars of heaven, the history of Israel, seem moistened with the dew-drops of joy and ardent desire. Oh, not one single word of Holy Scripture was written in vain!” etc.

Footnotes:

Luk_3:23.— Êáὶ áὐôὸò ἦí Ἰçóïῦò ὡóåὶ ἐôῶí ôñéÜêïíôá ἀñ÷üìåíïò , And Jesus Himself was about thirty years old (or of age) when He began (His ministry). So Tyndale, Wesley, Norton, Whiting, de Wette, Meyer, Alford, etc. The rendering of Cranmer, the Genevan and the Authorized Versions is ungrammatical and makes ὡóåß unmeaning. We may say ἄñ÷åóèáé åἶíáé ἐôῶí ôñéÜêïíôá ,or ἔôïõò éáêïóôïῦ , to enter into the thirtieth year, but not ἄñ÷ . ἐôῶí ôñéÜêïíôá . Ἀñ÷üìåíïò adds an explanation, and hence is put last. We must supply to preach, or to teach, or His ministry, comp. Act_1:1; Act_1:22. So Euthymius: ἀñ÷ . ôῆò åἰò ôὸí ëáὸí ἀíáäåßîåùò áὐôïῦ , ἤôïé ôῆò äéäáóêáëßáò .

Luk_3:23 ff.—The insertion which (who) was of the E. V., in this verse and throughout this section, is heavy and unnecessary, and hence properly omitted in the translations of Wesley, Campbell, Sharpe, Kendrick, Whiting, the Revised N. T. of the Am. B. U., etc. If it be retained, it should be italicized rather than the son.

Luk_3:23 ff.—The son. This is implied in the Greek genitive ôïῦ Ἡëὶ , etc., and need not be italicized.

Luk_3:23 ff.—In the spelling of these proper names there is considerable variation in the MSS. and ancient transl., but not of sufficient account to justify a deviation from the Received Text. In a popular revision of the English Version, the spelling of Hebrew names here, as in the genealogy of Matthew, should be conformed to the Hebrew spelling, as in the E. V. of the O. T. Hence Eli for Heli, Naggai for Nagge, Shimei for Semei, Judah for Juda, Johanah for Joanna, Zerubbabel for Zorobabel, etc. See the Crit. Note on Matthew 1 vol. i. p. 48.—P. S.]

[So Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and the authorized Engl. Version. Comp. my Critical Note 1 on Luk_3:23; also Meyer in loc.—P. S.]

[For a full discussion of the date of Christ’s baptism, the reader is referred to Andrews: The Life of our Lord, etc., pp. 22–35.—P. S.]