Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry

JESUS WAS THIRTY WHEN HE BEGAN HIS MINISTRY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Luke 3:23 23NowJesus himself was aboutthirty years
old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it
was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
BIBLEHUB COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(23) Beganto be about thirty years of age.—Atthis age the Levites entered on
their full work (Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:30; Numbers 4:35), a kind of
probationary period beginning at twenty-five (Numbers 8:24) or even, in later
times, when their work was lighter, at twenty (1Chronicles 23:27). No age was
fixed for the beginning of the priesthood, nor of the prophet’s work;but it
may fairly be inferred that thirty was lookedonas the time when manhood
reachedits completeness, andwe may therefore believe that our Lord waited
in patient humility till that age had been attained before entering on the work
of His public ministry.
Being (as was supposed)the sonof Joseph.—Wehave here to deal with the
many questions which rise out of a comparisonof this genealogywith that in
Matthew 1. It is a subject on which volumes have been written. Here it will be
enough to sum up the results of previous inquiries.

BensonCommentary
Luke 3:23-35. And Jesus — John’s beginning was computed by the years of
princes: our Saviour’s by the years of his own life, as a more augustera: —
beganto be about thirty years of age — The Greek here, και αυτος ην ο
Ιησους ωσει ετων τριακοντα αρχομενος, shouldrather be rendered, (as many
commentators understand it,) And Jesus, beginning, (or, when beginning,)
namely, the public exercise of his ministry, was about thirty years of age. “I
can recollectno sufficient authority,” says Dr. Doddridge, “to justify our
translators in rendering the original words, began to be about thirty years of
age, or, was now entering on his thirtieth year. To express that sense, it should
have been ην αρχομενος ειναι, &c., as Epiphanius, probably by a mistake, has
quoted it.” The author of the Vindication of the beginning of Matthew’s and
Luke’s gospel, [with whom Dr. Campbell agrees,]extremelydissatisfiedwith
all the common versions and explications of these words, would render them,
And Jesus was obedient, or lived in subjection [to his parents] about thirty
years;and produces severalpassages fromapproved Greek writers, in which
αρχομενος signifies subject. But in all those places it is used in some
connectionor opposition, which determines the sense;and therefore none of
them are instances parallelto this. Luke evidently uses αρχομενων, Luke
21:28, in the sense we suppose it to have here: and since he had before
expressedour Lord’s subjectionto his parents by the word υποτασσομενος,
Luke 2:51, there is greatreasonto believe he would have used the same word
here, had he intended to give us the same idea. The meaning of the evangelist,
therefore, evidently is, that Jesus, having receivedthose different testimonies
from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John the Baptist, all given in
presence ofthe multitudes assembledto John’s baptism, beganhis ministry
when he was about thirty years old, the age at which the priests and Levites
entered on their sacredministrations in the temple. Both Jesus and John
deferred entering on their public ministry till they were that age, because the
Jews would not have receivedany doctrines from them if they had begun it
sooner. Our greatMaster, as it seems, attainednot to the conclusionof his
thirty-fourth year. Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplishwithin
those narrow limits of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionate
zeal, despatches the business of life! And so much the more happy, if his sun

go down at noon. Forthe space that is takenfrom the labours of time, shall be
added to the rewards of eternity.
Being (as was supposed)the sonof Joseph, whichwas the sonof Heli — That
is, the son-in-law: for Eli was the father of Mary. So Matthew writes the
genealogyofJoseph, descendedfrom David by Solomon;Luke that of Mary,
descendedfrom David by Nathan. In the genealogyof Joseph(recitedby
Matthew)that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomedto marry into
their own families. The genealogyinsertedhere by Luke will appear with a
beautiful propriety, if the place which it holds in his history be attended to. “It
stands immediately after Jesus is said to have receivedthe testimony of the
Spirit, declaring him the Song of Solomonof God, that is to say, Messiah;and
before he entered on his ministry, the first actof which was, his encountering
with and vanquishing the strongesttemptation of the arch enemy of mankind.
Christ’s genealogyby his mother, who conceivedhim miraculously, placed in
this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seedof the woman, which, in the
first intimation of mercy vouchsafedto mankind after the fall, was predicted
to break the head of the serpent. Accordingly Luke, as became the historian
who related Christ’s miraculous conception, carries his genealogyto Adam,
who, togetherwith Eve, receivedthe fore-mentioned promise concerning the
restitution of mankind by the seedof the woman.” — Macknight.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
3:23-38 Matthew's list of the forefathers of Jesus showedthat 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 Seedof 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 betweenthe two evangelists in these lists of names have
been removed by learnedmen. But our salvation does not depend upon our
being able to solve these difficulties, nor is the Divine authority of the Gospels
at all weakenedby them. The list of names ends thus, Who was the son of
Adam, the sonof God; that is, the offspring of God by creation. Christ was

both the sonof Adam and the Son of God, that he might be a proper Mediator
betweenGod and the sons of Adam, and might bring the sons of Adam to be,
through him, the sons of God. All flesh, as descendedfrom the first Adam, is
as grass, and withers as the flowerof the field; but he who partakes ofthe
Holy Spirit of life from the SecondAdam, has that eternal happiness, which
by the gospel is preachedunto us.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
Jesus beganto be ... - This was the age at which the priests entered on their
office, Numbers 4:3, Numbers 4:47; but it is not evident that Jesus had any
reference to that in delaying his work to his thirtieth year. He was not
subjectedto 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 legally
reckonedas his son.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
Lu 3:23-38. GenealogyofJesus.
23. he began to be about thirty—that is, "was aboutentering on His thirtieth
year." So our translators have takenthe word (and so Calvin, Beza,
Bloomfield, Webster and Wilkinson, &c.):but "was aboutthirty 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 enteredon their office (Nu 4:3).
being, as was supposed, the sonof 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 greatdifference of opinion and much acute
discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural
sense ofthis verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its

supposedimprobability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our
Lord's realdescent. 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
resortto that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then,
though the descentof Mary from David would be liable to no realdoubt, even
though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Lu 1:2-
32, and see on [1562]Lu2:5), still it does seemunlikely—we saynot
incredible—that two genealogiesofour 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 statementabout 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 Jewishcustomin such
tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewestdifficulties, as it certainly is
the bestsupported. Howeverwe decide, it is a satisfactionto know that not a
doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as
to our Lord's realdescentfrom David. On comparing the two genealogies, it
will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemedit
enough to show that the Saviourwas sprung from Abraham and David;
whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descentback
to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be
the promised "Seedof 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
endowedwith a thread by which they could extricate themselves from the
many families into which every tribe and branch was againsubdivided, and
thus hold fast and know the member that was destined to continue the lineage.
This thread was the hope that Messiahwouldbe born of the race of Abraham
and David. The ardent desire to behold Him and be partakers ofHis 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, wheneverdoubtful, became easilydistinguishable, awakening the

hope of a final fulfilment, and keeping it alive until it was consummated"
[Olshausen].
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Here is amongstcritics a little dispute, whether our blessedLord at his
baptism (after which he soonbeganhis public ministry) was full thirty years
of age;wseiand arcomenovin the Greek give occasionto the doubt. Those
who judge that he was thirty complete, conceive that the age before which the
priests and Levites did no service in the tabernacle ofGod. Numbers 4:3
commanded the number of them to be takenfrom thirty years old to fifty, and
it was done accordingly, Luke 3:34,35, &c. David, in the latter end of his life,
so numbered them, 1 Chronicles 23:3, when their number (of that age)was
thirty-eight thousand; yet in that chapter, 1 Chronicles 23:24,27, we find them
numbered from twenty years old and upward; but possibly that was for some
more inferior service. In conformity to this, most think that both John the
Baptist and Christ entered not upon their public ministry till they were of that
age;but whether they were thirty years of age complete, or current, is a
question, but so little a one, as deserves no greatstudy to resolve:the two
qualifying words, wseiand arcomenov, would incline one to think Christ was
but thirty years of age current, which is advantagedby what others tell us,
that the Jews ordinarily calleda child two or three years old as soonas it did
but enter upon its secondor third year. Some think our Saviour was ten
months above twenty-nine years of age when he was baptized, after which he
was tempted of the devil forty days before he enteredthe public ministry; but
these are little things.
Being (as was supposed)the sonof Joseph. Josephwas not his natural father,
though so supposedby the Jews, Josephbeing indeed his legalfather, being
married to the virgin when our Saviour was born, Matthew 1:20.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And Jesus himself beganto be about thirty years of age,....OrJesus, when he
was baptized and beganhis public ministry, was about thirty years of age:an
age at which the priests, under the law, who were typical of Christ, entered on
their work, Numbers 4:23 The word, "began", is left out in the Syriac and
Persic versions:and is often indeed redundant, as in Luke 3:8 and frequently
in Mark's Gospel. The Arabic version renders it, "Jesus beganto enter into
the thirtieth year", which carries the sense the same with our translation:
being, as was supposed, the sonof Joseph;who had espousedMary before she
was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and
brought up her son; so that it was not knownbut that he was the son of
Joseph. Whether or no the Jewishnotion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph(y)
may not take its rise from hence, may be considered:however, Josephmight
very rightly be called, as he was supposedto be, the father of Jesus, by a rule
which obtains with the Jews (z) that he
"that brings up, and not he that begets, is calledthe father,''
or parent; of which they give various instances (a) in Joseph, in Michal, and in
Pharaoh's daughter.
Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Josephwas the sonof Eli; for he
was the son of Jacob, according to Matthew 1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli;
and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as
thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the sonof Melchi,
&c. till you come to Jesus the sonof Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though
it is true indeed that Josephwas the son of Eli, having married his daughter;
Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak ofone Mary, the
daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to designthe mother of our Lord: for
they tell (b) us of one,

"that saw, , "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of
her breasts;and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere(c), the bar of the
gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''
By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however,
this we gain by it, that by their ownconfession, Maryis the daughter of Eli;
which accords with this genealogyof the evangelist, who traces it from Mary,
under her husband Joseph;though she is not mentioned, because ofa rule
with the Jews (d), that
"the family of the mother is not calleda family.''
(y) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1. Jarchi& Aben Ezra in Zechariah12 10. & xiii. 7.
(z) Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1.((a)T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T.
Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1.((b) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3.((c) Ib. Chagiga,
fol. 77. 4. (d) Juchasin, fol. 55. 2.
Geneva Study Bible
{6} And Jesus himself beganto be about thirty years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(6) Christ's lineage, according to the flesh, is tracedback 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
composedof all sorts of men.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary

Luke 3:23. Αὐτός] as Matthew 3:4 : He Himself, to whom this divine σημεῖον,
Luke 3:22, pointed.
ἦν ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος]He was about thirty years of age (comp.
Luke 2:42; Mark 5:42), when He made the beginning,[74]viz. of His
Messianic office. This limitation of the meaning of ἈΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς results from
Luke 3:22, in which Jesus is publicly and solemnly announced by God as the
Messiah. So Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Er. Sehmid, Spanheim,
Calovius, Clericus, Wolf, Bengel, Griesbach(in Velthusen, Comment. I. p.
358), Kuinoel, Anger (Tempor. rat. p. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, andothers. With the receptionof his baptismal
consecration, Jesus enteredonthe commencementof His destined ministry.
Comp. Mark 1:1; Acts 1:21 f., Luke 10:37. The interpretation given by others:
“Incipiebat autem Jesus annorum esse fere triginta,” Castalio (so Luther,
Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, and many more), could only be justified either by
the originalrunning: ἤρξατο εἶναι ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, orἮΝ ὩΣΕῚ
ἜΤΟΥς ΤΡΙΑΚΟΣΤΟῦ ἈΡΧΌΜΕΝΟς.It is true that Grotius endeavours to
fortify himself in this interpretation by including in the clause the following
ὬΝ, so that ἌΡΧΟΜΑΙ ὪΝ ἘΤῶΝ ΤΡΙΆΚΟΝΤΑmight mean: incipio jam
esse tricenarius. But even if ἦν … ὤν be conjoinedin Greek usage (see
Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 13, p. 207, Leipzig), how clumsy would be the
expressionἦν ἀρχόμενος ὤν, incipiebat esse!and, according to the
arrangementof the words, quite intolerable. Even ἐρχόμενος has been
conjectured(Casaubon).
ὤν] belongs to ΥἹῸς ἸΩΣΉΦ, and Ὡς ἘΝΟΜΊΖΕΤΟ, as he was considered
(ὡς ἐδόκει τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις·ὡς γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια εἶχεν, οὐκ ἦν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ,
Euthymius Zigabenus), is a parenthesis. Paulus, who connects ὬΝ with
ἈΡΧΌΜ., explains: according to custom(Jesus did not begin His ministry
sooner). Comp. on Acts 16:13. It is true the connecting of the two participles
ἀρχόμενος ὤν would not in itself be ungrammatical (see Pflugk, ad Hec. 358);
but this way of looking at the matter is altogetherwrong, because,in respect

of the appearance ofthe Messiah, there could be no question of a custom at
all, and the fixing of the age ofthe Levites (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:47),
which, moreover, was not a custom, but a law, has nothing to do with the
appearance ofa prophet, and especiallyofthe Messiah. Comp. further, on ὡς
ἐνομίζ., Dem. 1022. 16 : ΟἹ ΝΟΜΙΖΌΜΕΝΟΙΜῈΝ ΥἹΕῖς, ΜῊ ὌΝΤΕς ΔῈ
ΓΈΝΕΙἘΞ ΑὐΤῶΝ, and the passagesin Wetstein. Others (quoted by Wolf,
and Wolf himself, Rosenmüller, Osiander) refer ὬΝ to ΤΟῦ ἩΛΊ:existens
(cum putaretur filius Josephi)filius, i.e. nepos Eli. So also Schleyerin the
Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 540 ff. Even Wieseler(in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845,
p. 361 ff.) has condescendedin like manner (comp. Lightfoot, p. 750)to the
desperate expedient of exegeticallymaking it out to be a genealogicaltree of
Mary thus: “being a son, as it was thought, of Joseph(but, in fact, of Mary), of
Eli,” etc. Wieselersupports his view by the fact that he reads, with Lachmann
and Tischendorf, ὡς ἐνομίζ. after υἱός (B L ‫,)א‬ and on weakerevidence reads
before ἸΩΣΉΦ the ΤΟῦ which is now againdeleted even by Tischendorf. But
as, in respectof the receivedarrangementof Ὡς ἘΝΟΜ., it is only the ὪΝ
ΥἹῸς ἸΩΣΉΦ, and nothing more (in opposition to Bengel), that is marked
out as coming under the Ὡς ἘΝΟΜΊΖΕΤΟ, so also is it in the arrangement of
Lachmann (only that the latter actually brings into strongerprominence the
supposedfilial relationship to Joseph);and if τοῦ is read before Ἰωσήφ, no
change even in that case arisesin the meaning.[75]Forit is not ΥἹΌς that
would have to be supplied in every following clause, so that Jesus should be
designatedas the sonof eachof the persons named, even up to τοῦ Θεοῦ
inclusively (so Lightfoot, Bengel), but ΥἹΟῦ (after ΤΟῦ), as the nature of the
genealogicaltable in itself presents it,[76]making τοῦ Θεοῦ also dogmatically
indubitable; since, according to Luke’s idea of the divine sonshipof Jesus, it
could not occurto him to represent this divine sonship as having been effected
through Adam. No; if Luke had thought what Wieselerreads betweenthe
lines in Luke 3:23, that, namely, Eli was Mary’s father, he would have known
how to express it, and would have written something like this: ὢν, ὡς μὲν
ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ, ὄντως (Luke 23:47, Luke 24:34)δὲ Μαρίας τοῦ Ἡλί
κ.τ.λ. But he desires to give the genealogyofJesus on the side of His foster-
father Joseph:therefore he writes simply as we read, and as the fact that he
wished to express required. As to the originally Ebionitic point of view of the
genealogiesin Matthew and Luke, see on Matthew 1:17, Remark 3.

[74] So also Paulus, only that, after the example of Calvisius, he further
attaches ὤν to ἀρχόμενος, in which case, however, it would be useless,and the
subsequent genealogywould be without any connecting link. Wieseler,
Chronol. Synops. p. 125, placing ἀρχόμενος before ὡσεί (so Lachmann in the
margin and Tischendorf), explains: “and he was—namely, Jesus whenHe
began—aboutthirty years of age.” Therefore in the most essentialpoint his
view is in agreementwith ours.
[75] This indifferent τοῦ came into the text with extreme facility, in
accordancewith the analogyof all the following clauses.
[76] Instances ofa quite similar kind of stringing on the links of a genealogy
one after the other by τοῦ are found in Herod. iv. 157, vii. 204, viii. 131, and
others in Wetstein. The Vulgate is right in simply reading, “filius Joseph, qui
fait Heli, qui fuit Matthat,” etc.
REMARK.
All attempts to fix the year in which Jesus was born by means of the passage
before us are balked by the ὡσεί of Luke 3:23. Yet the era of Dionysius bases
its date, although incorrectly (754 after the foundation of Rome), on Luke 3:1;
Luke 3:23. Hase, L. J. § 26, follows it, setting aside, because ofits mythical
associations, the accountof Matthew, that the first childhood of Jesus
occurredas early as the time of the reign of Herod the Great. But these
legendary ingredients do not justify our rejecting a date fixed by a simple
reference to the history of the time, for it is rather to be regardedas the
nucleus around which the legendgathered. As, however, Herod died in 750
(Anger, Rat. tempor. p. 5 f.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 50 ff.), the era of
Dionysius is at any rate at leastabout four years in error. If, further, it be

necessary, according to this, to place the birth of Jesus before the death of
Herod, which occurredin the beginning of April, then, even on the
assumption that He was born as early as 750 (according to Wieseler, in
February of that year), it follows that at the time when the Baptist, who was
His senioronly by a few months, appeared—according to Luke 3:1, in the
year from the 19th August 781 to 782
He would be about thirty-one years of age, whichperfectly agrees with the
ὡσεί of Luke 3:23, and the round number τριάκοντα;in which case it must be
assumedas certain (comp. Mark 1:9) that He was baptized very soonafter the
appearance ofJohn, at which precise point His Messianic ἀρχή commenced.
If, however, as according to Matthew 2:7; Matthew 2:16 is extremely
probable, the birth of Jesus must be placedas early as perhaps a year before
the date given above,[77]eventhe age that thus results of about thirty-two
years is sufficiently coveredby the indefinite statement of the passagebefore
us; and the year 749 as the year of Christ’s birth tallies well enough with the
Baptist beginning to preachin the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius.[78]
[77] Not“at leasttwo years, probably even four or more years,” Keim, D.
geschichtl. Christus, p. 140.
[78] From the factthat, according to the evangelists, Jesus afterHis baptism
beganHis public officialministry without the intervention of any private
teaching, the opinion of the younger Bunsen (The Hidden Wisdom of Christ,
etc., London 1865, II. p. 461 ff.)—that the Lord, at the beginning of His
official career, was forty-six years of age—losesallfoundation: It rests upon
the misunderstanding of John 2:20 f., John 8:57, which had already occurred
in the case ofIrenaeus. See, onthe other hand, Röschin the Jahrb. f. Deutsche
Theol. 1866, p. 4 ff. The assumption of the latter, that the year 2 before the era
of Dionysius was the year of Christ’s birth, rests in accordance withancient
tradition, to be sure, yet on the very insecure foundation of the appearance of

the starin the history of the Magi, and on distrust of the chronologyof Herod
and his sons as set forth by Josephus, for which Röschhas not adduced
sufficient reasons.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Luke 3:23-38. The age of Jesus when He began His ministry, and His
genealogy.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
23. beganto be about thirty years of age]Rather, was about thirty years of
age on beginning (His work). So it was understood by Tyndale, but the E. V.
followedCranmer, and the Geneva. The translation of our E.V. is, however,
ungrammatical, and a strange expressionto which no parallel can be adduced.
The word archomenos, standing absolutely for ‘when he beganhis ministry,’
is explained by the extreme prominency of this beginning in the thought of St
Luke (see Acts 1:1; Acts 1:22), and his desire to fix it with accuracy. The age
of 30 was that at which a Levite might enter on his full services (Numbers 4:3;
Numbers 4:47), and the age at which Josephhad stoodbefore Pharaoh
(Genesis 41:46), and at which David had begun to reign (2 Samuel 5:4), and at
which scribes were allowedto teach.
as was supposed] “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” Matthew 13:55;John 6:42.
On the genealogywhichfollows, and its relations to that in the GospelofSt
Matthew, many volumes have been written, but in the Excursus I have
endeavouredto condense allthat is most important on the subject, and to give
those conclusions which are now being acceptedby the most careful scholars.
See Excursus II., The genealogies ofJesus in St Matthew and St Luke.
Bengel's Gnomen
Luke 3:23. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὠσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος, andJesus
was Himself about thirty years, when beginning) The beginning meant in this

passageis not that of His thirtieth year, which neither the cardinal number
XXX. years, nor the particle about admit of, but the beginning of His doing
and teaching in public, or His going in, Acts 1:1; Acts 1:21, [ἐν παντὶ Χρόνῳ ᾧ
εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν, “all the time that the Lord Jesus wentin and out.”] 22
(ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος Ἰωάννου, “Beginning from the baptism of
John;” where also the word beginning, as here, is put absolutely), ch. Luke
13:24 [When John had first preachedbefore His coming the baptism of
repentance]. This beginning Luke implies took place in the very act of
baptism: with this comp. Matthew 3:15. [Neverthelessthat entrance on His
office had various successive steps,ofwhich the First was, the manifestation of
the Christ to Israel which took place in His baptism, Luke 3:22; Luke 3:38;
John 1:31; John 1:34; Matthew 3:15. There followedSecondly, the beginning
of His miracles, John 2:11. And Thirdly, the beginning of His doings in the
house of His Father at Jerusalem, John2:14 (with which comp. Malachi3:1).
And also Fourthly, the beginning of His continued course of preaching in
Galilee after the imprisonment of John, Matthew 4:17; Luke 4:15; Acts 10:37
: and indeed these steps followed one another in so brief a space oftime, that
one may count all of them as one, and combine (connect)that one step or
beginning with the thirtieth year of the Saviour. They therefore are mistaken
who suppose that John commencedthe discharge of his office at an interval of
six months, nay, even of a yearor even more, before his baptism of Christ.—
Harm., p. 71, 72.] Wherefore it is only incidentally in passing that he notices in
this verse that beginning, but what he particularly marks is the age of
Jesus:[36]and this too, in such a wayas to mark the entrance of John on his
ministry, and shortly after, the entrance of Jesus onHis, which took place in
one and the same year [Certainly it was not the objectof Luke to mark exactly
the entrance of the Forerunner, and to touch only incidentally upon the
beginning that was made by our Lord Himself, but what he chiefly caredfor
recording was the latter. Howeverthe joining of John with Him is appropriate
and seasonable;that he may not be supposedto have preceded Jesus by a
longerinterval.—Harm., p. 69]. Luke speaks becomingly;and whereas he had
said, that the word of God came unto the Forerunner, Luke 3:2; with which
comp. John 10:35 : he says that the Lord began, namely, not as a servant, but
as the Son. The name, Jesus, is added, because a new scene and a new series of
events are thrown open. The emphatic pronoun αὐτὸς, Himself, put in the

commencement, forms an antithesis to John: also Johnhas his time of office
noted by external marks, takenfrom Tiberius, etc., but the time of the
beginning made by the Lord is defined by the years of the Lord Himself The
Lord had now attained, after the remarkable advances and progress which
marked His previous life, the regularand lawful age suited for His public
ministry [Numbers 4:3].—ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as He was duly accounted)The
interpretation, As He was supposed[Engl. Vers.], is rather a weakening ofthe
force:νομίζεσθαι has certainly a strongerimport than this: it denotes the
feeling and wonted custom generallyand also justly entertained and received:
Acts 16:13 [ΟὟ ἘΝΟΜΊΖΕΤΟΠΡΟΣΕΥΧῊ ΕἾΝΑΙ, where prayer was
wont to be made]. Furthermore Luke does not say, ὢν, υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ, ὡς
ἐνομίζετο, but ὪΝ, Ὠς ἘΝΟΜΊΖΕΤΟ, ΥἹῸς ἸΩΣΉΦ. Therefore this clause,
Ὡς ἘΝΟΜΊΖΕΤΟ, no less than that one to which it is immediately attached,
ὪΝ ΥἹῸς, extends its force to the whole genealogicalscale;and that too, in
such a way as that the severalsteps are to be understood according to what
the case andrelation of eachrequire and demand. Jesus was, as He was
accounted, sonof Joseph:for not merely the opinion of men regarded Him as
the sonof Joseph, but even Josephrendered to Him all the offices of a father,
although he had not begottenJesus. He was, as He was accounted, Sonof Heli;
and He was so truly. For His mother Mary had Heli for her father: and so also
as to Heli being Song of Solomonof Matthat and of the rest of the fathers. So
in Luke 3:36 it was said, Sala was, as he was accounted, sonof Cainan;
whereas the Hellenistic Jews, following the LXX. interpretation reckonedhim
among the series of fathers after the flood. Therefore as far as concerns
Josephand Cainan, Luke, by the figure πσοθεραπεία [See Append.] or
anticipatory precaution, thus counteracts the popular opinion, as Franc.
Junius long ago saw, with which comp. Usher’s Chronol. Sacr., part i., ch. vi.
f. 34:but in all the other parts of the genealogyhe leaves all things inviolate
and unaltered, inasmuch as agreeing with the Old Testamentand the rest of
the public documents and the truth itself, and as being acknowledged
authentic by all, nay, he even stamps them with approval.—τοῦ Ἡλεὶ, Eli) He
was father of Mary, and father-in-law of Joseph. See note, Matthew 1:16. As
to the article τοῦ here so often repeated, it makes no matter whether you
construe it with eachantecedentproper name or with that which follows it.
For in either construction Jesus is the son of eachmore remote father, the

nearer father intervening. The LXX. interpretation render the Hebrew
corresponding words, which are for the most part equivocal(capable of either
construction), in either of the two ways: Ezra 7:1; Nehemiah 11:4, etc. But it is
more simple to take ΤΟῦ as cohering with eachnoun [proper name]
following: in the way in which, Matthew 1:1, Jesus Christ is said to be the Son
(ὙΙΟ͂Υ) of David, SON (ὙΙΟῦ) of Abraham. And although in the first step of
the series, ὙΙῸς ἸΩΣῊΦ is the expressionused without the article, yet
subsequently the words ὪΝ ὙΙῸς are conveniently construedwith eachof
the fathers immediately and directly [without the intervention of the names
coming between], Comp. LXX. Genesis 36:2.
[36] We may observe in this place, that the thirty years were not full years,
and past, but wanting a little of completion: a fact which is proved in the
Harm. of Beng. pp. 70, 71, and Ord. Temp. p. 222 (Ed. ii. p. 194). Comp.
meine Beleuchtung, etc, p. 126, 127, etc.—E. B.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 23a. - And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age. This was
the age atwhich the Levites entered upon their work; the age, too, at which it
was lawful for scribes to teach. Generallyspeaking, thirty among the Jews
was lookedupon as the time of life when manhood had reachedits full
development.
Vincent's Word Studies
Beganto be about thirty years of age (ἦν ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα)
Peculiarto Luke. A. V. is wrong. It should be as Rev., when he began (to
teach)was about thirty years of age.

STUDYLIGHTRESOURCES
Adam Clarke 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 Numbers 4:3.
Being (as was supposed)the sonof Joseph - This same phrase is used by
Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the sonof a particular
person: τουτου παις νομιζεται he was Supposed to be this man's son. Much
learned labor has been used to reconcile this genealogywith that in St.
Matthew, Matthew 1:1-17, and there are severalways of doing it; the
following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy.
For a more elaborate discussionofthe subject, the readeris referred to the
additional observations atthe end of the chapter. Matthew, in descending
from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse ofthe blessedvirgin, speaks ofSons
properly such, by way of natural generation:Abraham begatIsaac, andIsaac
begatJacob, etc. But Luke, in ascending from the Savior of the world to God
himself, speaks ofsons either properly or improperly such: on this accounthe
uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons
either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself beganto be about thirty
years of age, being, as was Supposedthe sonof Joseph - of Heli - of Matthat,
etc. This receives considerable supportfrom Raphelius's method of reading
the original ων (ὡς ενομιζετο υἱος Ιωσηφ )του Ἡλι, being (when reputed the
son of Joseph)the son of Heli, etc. That St. Luke does not always speak ofsons
properly such, is evident from the first and last personwhich he names: Jesus
Christ was only the supposedson of Joseph, because Josephwas the husband
of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such
only by creation. After this observationit is next necessaryto consider, that,
in the genealogydescribedby 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 genealogicaltables, whenevera family happened to

end with a daughter, insteadof naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her
husband, as the sonof him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This
import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places
- Jesus was consideredaccording to law, or allowedcustom, to be the son of
Joseph, as he was of Heli. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this
genealogyare Josephthe son-in-law of Heli, whose ownfather was Jacob,
Matthew 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose ownfather was
Jechonias:1 Chronicles 3:17, and Matthew 1:12. This remark alone is
sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, sonof
Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St.
Luke. And Salathiel, sonof 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 calledby abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same
in Hebrew with Joachim. Joseph, sonof Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli,
were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Josephfrom Abiud, his
eldestson, Matthew 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Luke 3:27.
Salathieland Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ
to proceed, were themselves descendedfrom Solomon in a direct line: and
though St. Luke says that Salathielwas sonof Neri, who was descendedfrom
Nathan, Solomon's eldestbrother, 1 Chronicles 3:5, this is only to be
understood of his having espousedNathan'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 regalfamily of Solomon, with the
daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears
that Jesus, sonof Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and
rights of the whole family of David; in consequence ofwhich he is
emphatically called, The son of David. It is worthy of being remarkedthat St.
Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogyto
Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiahwas givento the Jews;
but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends
his genealogyto Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemerwas given in
behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See the notes on Matthew 1:1, etc.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". "The Adam Clarke
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/luke-
3.html. 1832.
Return to Jump List return to 'Jump List'
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
Jesus beganto be … - This was the age at which the priests entered on their
office, Numbers 4:3, Numbers 4:47; but it is not evident that Jesus had any
reference to that in delaying his work to his thirtieth year. He was not
subjectedto 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 legally
reckonedas his son.
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age,
being the son(as was supposed)of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat
...
THE GENEALOGYOF JESUS THROUGH MARY

Thirty years of age ... On the bearing this has with reference to dating the
birth of Jesus, see under Luke 3:2.
We shall not undertake any exhaustive "harmonization" of the two separate
genealogiesofJesus in Matthew and here. It is now and has been this
student's conviction for many years that Luke's genealogycannotpossibly be
for Joseph's line at all, since Luke spelled out in the most emphatic manner
the factthat Josephhad no physical connectionwhateverwith Jesus;and in
this factdisappears any reasonwhy Luke might have written a genealogyof
Joseph.
It is incumbent upon us, however, to demonstrate that the interpretation
preferred in this commentary is valid.
(1) Many of the most illustrious and competent scholars who everlived have
accepted'this as Mary's line, not Joseph's. This fact is offered, not for the sake
of proving this position by human testimony, because many other great
scholars deny it; but it is presented to show that the greatestweightof
scholarlyevidence tends to the view acceptedhere. "Among the many modern
scholars who acceptit are ProfessorGodetand DeanPlumptre."[13]
Robertsonaffirmed that the theory of this being Mary's line "seems the most
plausible," citing the following as concurring in that view: Luther, Bengel,
Olshausen, Lightfoot, Wieseler, Robinson, Alexander, Godet, Weiss, Andrews,
Broadus, and many recentwriters.[14]
(2) The solid evidence that supports this is in the Greek text itself, where the
article "the" is omitted before the name of Joseph, and yet is found before all
the names in the long list without exception, save for this solitary omission.
What does it mean? Godetsaid: "The omissionof the article puts the name

(Joseph)outside of the genealogicalseries."[15]Robertsonsaid, "This would
indicate that `Joseph'belongs in the parenthesis ... (it should) read thus,
`being son (as supposedof Joseph)of Heli, etc.'"[16]Jesuswas thus the
grandsonof Hell, "grandson" being an absolutely legitimate meaning of
"son" as used in Jewishgenealogies.As a matter of fact, the word "son" in
such tables also had the meaning of "sonby creation" (as in Luke 3:38), and
sometimes even "son-in-law." It is the contextthat must determine the
meaning. In no case wouldthe name of Mary have appeared in the direct line
of such genealogies, being contrary to Jewishcustom. This necessitatedthe
listing of Jesus as the "son(grandson) of Hell." It certainly cannot be proved
that this interpretation is incorrect.
(3) And was Jesus actuallythe grandsonof Heli? The writers of the Jewish
Talmud have a passageconcerning the pains of hell with the statement:
Mary, daughter of Heli was seenin the infernal regions, suffering the horrid
tortures. (After quoting this Haley said) This statement illustrates, not only
the bitter animosity of the Jews towardthe Christian religion, but also the fact
that, according to receivedJewishtradition, Mary was the daughter of Hell;
hence that is her genealogythat we find in Luke.[17]
Those who would make Josephthe son of Hell would thus make him the
husband of his own sister, besides denying the truth stated by Matthew that
Josephwas "begat" by Jacob!
(4) There are other ways of reconciling the two accounts ofthe genealogyof
Jesus, but this is the most plausible and convincing. This is an extensive
question, debated for centuries, and it must be confessedthat human
knowledge is by no means complete with regard to it. Perhaps the most
persuasive factrelated to the genealogiesis that when the enemies of
Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, soughtto discredit the faith, none
of them ever allegedany contradictionin the genealogies. If people who lived

when the genealogicaltables were still preserved did not dare to allege any
contradiction, those who dare to do so nineteen centuries later stand on the
most tenuous and uncertain ground.
But what is the point of the genealogy? Surelysome attention should be given
to that! Once, when this writer was a minister of a greatcongregationin New
York City, a group of students from one of the universities visited him, asking,
"But don't you really believe that the whole Jesus storyis a myth?" It
happened, when this occurred, that this writer had only recently memorized
all seventy-sevennames in this list, and he quoted it rapidly, and in full, to the
astonishedgroup of students; and then he said: "Now, will any of you brilliant
young people give the genealogyofSanta Claus, or of Paul Bunyan, or of
Beowulf?" The point was dramatically made. Jesus Christwas no myth! His
genealogyis the only one ever constructedthat reaches allthe way back to
God himself. Since then, this preacherhas quoted the genealogybefore
assemblies ofcollege students and congregationsthroughout America, because
the centralmessage is devastating to any allegedmythologicalexplanation of
Jesus ofNazareth.
Some have assertedthat Luke ignored Abraham; but that is not true.
Abraham is in the genealogy;the story of Abraham's bosomis found only in
Luke (Luke 16:19ff); and one of the strongeststatements with reference to
that patriarch in the entire New Testamentis Luke 13:28. By taking the
genealogyback to Adam, Luke stressedthe factof Jesus'being the Saviour of
all men, not merely of Jews. Matthew's genealogythrough Josephwas given
for the purpose of showing that Christ, through his legalfather Joseph, was
the legitimate heir to the throne of David. In the very nature of the God-Man,
it was inherent that two genealogies shouldbe provided, one showing his legal
status in the eyes of men, and the other giving his true physical descent. The
Messianic title, "Sonof David," as applied to Jesus required a dual proof: (1)
that he was entitled to the throne, as proved by Matthew's genealogy, and (2)
that he was literally descendedfrom David, as proved by Luke's genealogy.

The fundamental "rightness" ofthis approach to the problem will commend
itself to any careful student of the Scriptures. Also, Matthew wrote from
Joseph's standpoint, Luke from Mary's.
A NOTE ABOUT THE VIRGIN MARY
As this commentary was being written, the writer taught a Bible class each
Sunday, the lessonbeing basedon the previous week's studies. Referencewas
one day made repeatedlyto "the Virgin Mary," and, after class, a lady
objectedto the expressionon the grounds that the title thus used tended to
support the theory of the virgin's perpetual virginity. However, this is clearly
an incorrect view. Matthew referred to "Simon the Leper" (Matthew 26:6)
without any implication that he still had leprosy when Jesus was in his house
for dinner; in the same manner, a reference to the Virgin Mary implies
nothing of her virginity during the period after the birth of our Lord.
[13] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 71.
[14] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 261.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] John W. Haley, Examination of AllegedDiscrepanciesin the Bible
(Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 326.

Copyright Statement
James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved.
Bibliography
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". "Coffman
Commentaries on the Old and New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/luke-3.html. Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
And Jesus himself beganto be about thirty years of age,....OrJesus, when he
was baptized and beganhis public ministry, was about thirty years of age:an
age at which the priests, under the law, who were typical of Christ, entered on
their work, Numbers 4:23 The word, "began", is left out in the Syriac and
Persic versions:and is often indeed redundant, as in Luke 3:8 and frequently
in Mark's Gospel. The Arabic version renders it, "Jesus beganto enter into
the thirtieth year", which carries the sense the same with our translation:
being, as was supposed, the sonof Joseph;who had espoused Mary before she
was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and
brought up her son; so that it was not knownbut that he was the son of
Joseph. Whether or no the Jewishnotion of the Messiah, the son of JosephF25
may not take its rise from hence, may be considered:however, Josephmight
very rightly be called, as he was supposedto be, the father of Jesus, by a rule
which obtains with the JewsF26that he

"that brings up, and not he that begets, is calledthe father,'
or parent; of which they give various instancesF1 in Joseph, in Michal, and in
Pharaoh's daughter.
Which was the son of Eli; meaning, not that Josephwas the sonof Eli; for he
was the son of Jacob, according to Matthew 1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli;
and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as
thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the sonof Melchi,
&c. till you come to Jesus the sonof Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though
it is true indeed that Josephwas the son of Eli, having married his daughter;
Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak ofone Mary, the
daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to designthe mother of our Lord: for
they tellF2 us of one,
"that saw, ‫םירמ‬ ‫תב‬ ‫,ילע‬ "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by
the fibres of her breasts;and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhereF3,
the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.'
By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however,
this we gain by it, that by their ownconfession, Maryis the daughter of Eli;
which accords with this genealogyof the evangelist, who traces it from Mary,
under her husband Joseph;though she is not mentioned, because ofa rule
with the JewsF4,that
"the family of the mother is not calleda family.'

Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernisedand adapted
for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved,
Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". "The New John Gill Expositionof
the Entire Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/luke-
3.html. 1999.
Geneva Study Bible
6 And Jesus himself beganto be about thirty years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
(6) Christ's lineage, according to the flesh, is tracedback 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
composedof all sorts of men.
Copyright Statement
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography

Beza, Theodore. "Commentaryon Luke 3:23". "The 1599 Geneva Study
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/luke-3.html. 1599-
1645.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Luke 3:23-38. Genealogyof Jesus.
he began to be about thirty — that is, “was aboutentering on His thirtieth
year.” So our translators have takenthe word (and so Calvin, Beza,
Bloomfield, Webster and Wilkinson, etc.):but “was aboutthirty years of age
when He began[His ministry],” makes better Greek, and is probably the true
sense [Bengel, Olshausen, DeuteronomyWette, Meyer, Alford, etc.]. At this
age the priests entered on their office (Numbers 4:3).
being, as was supposed, the sonof Joseph, etc. — Have we in this genealogy,
as well as in Matthew‘s, the line of Joseph? oris this the line of Mary? - a
point on which there has been greatdifference of opinion and much acute
discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural
sense ofthis verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its
supposedimprobability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our
Lord‘s realdescent. 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
resortto that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then,
though the descentof Mary from David would be liable to no realdoubt, even
though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luke 1:2-
32, and see on Luke 2:5), still it does seemunlikely - we saynot incredible -
that two genealogiesofour Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which
gives his realdescent. 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 statementabout 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
1:11, 1:12), and believe that Joseph‘s name is only introduced instead of
Mary‘s, in conformity with the Jewishcustomin such tables. Perhaps this
view is attended with fewestdifficulties, as it certainly is the best supported.
Howeverwe decide, it is a satisfactionto know that not a doubt was thrown
out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord‘s real
descentfrom David. On comparing the two genealogies, itwill be found that
Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemedit enough to show that
the Saviorwas sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing
more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descentback to Adam, the parent
stock ofthe 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 endowedwith a thread by
which they could extricate themselves from the many families into which
every tribe and branch was againsubdivided, and thus hold fast and know the
member that was destined to continue the lineage. This thread was the hope
that Messiahwouldbe 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, wheneverdoubtful,
became easilydistinguishable, awakening the hope of a final fulfillment, and
keeping it alive until it was consummated” [Olshausen].
Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text
scannedby Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-BrownCommentary is in the
public domain and may be freely used and distributed.

Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Luke 3:23". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/luke-3.html. 1871-8.
John Lightfoot's Commentary on the Gospels
23. And Jesus himself beganto be about thirty years of age, being (as was
[Being (as was supposed)the son of Joseph.]"A parable. There was a certain
orphaness brought up by a certain epitropus, or foster-father, an honestgood
man. At length he would place her in marriage. A scribe is calledto write a
bill of her dower: saith he to the girl, 'What is thy name?' 'N.' saith she. 'What
the name of thy father?' She held her peace. To whom her foster-father, 'Why
dost thou not speak?''Because,'saithshe, 'I know no other father but thee.'
He that educateth the child is calleda father, not he that begets it." Note that:
Joseph, having been taught by the angel, and well satisfiedin Mary, whom he
had espoused, had ownedJesus for his son from his first birth; he had
redeemedhim as his first-born, had cherishedhim in his childhood, educated
him in his youth: and therefore, no wonder if Josephbe called his father, and
he was supposedto be his son.
II. Let us considerwhat might have been the judgment of the Sanhedrim in
this case only from this story: "There came a certainwoman to Jerusalem
with a child, brought thither upon shoulders. She brought this child up; and
he afterward had the carnal knowledge ofher. They are brought before the
Sanhedrim, and the Sanhedrim judged them to be stoned to death: not

because he was undoubtedly her son, but because he had wholly adhered to
her."
Now suppose we that the blessedJesus had come to the Sanhedrim upon the
deceaseofJoseph, requiring his stock and goods as his heir; had he not, in all
equity, obtained them as his son? Not that he was, beyond all doubt and
question, his son, but that he had adhered to him wholly from his cradle, was
brought up by him as his son, and always so acknowledged.
III. The doctors speak ofone Josepha carpenter:"Abnimus Gardieus asked
the Rabbins of blessedmemory, whence the earth was first created:they
answerhim, 'There is no one skilled in these matters; but go thou to Joseph
the architect.'He went, and found him standing upon the rafters."
It is equally obscure, who this Josephthe carpenter, and who this Abnimus
was;although, as to this last, he is very frequently mentioned in those authors.
They say, that "Abnimus and Balaamwere two the greatestphilosophers in
the whole world." Only this we read of him, That there was a very great
familiarity betwixt him and R. Meir.
[Which was the son of Heli.] I. There is neither need nor reason, nor indeed
any foundation at all, for us to frame I know not what marriages, and the
taking of brothers' wives, to remove a scruple in this place, wherein there is
really no scruple in the least. For,
1. Josephis not here calledthe son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus
must be understood, and must be always added in the reader's mind to every
race in this genealogy, afterthis manner: "Jesus (as was supposed)the son of
Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of

Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the
evangelisteither to draw Joseph's pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew
that Adam was the sonof God: which not only sounds something harshly, but
in this place very enormously, I may almostadd, blasphemously too. For when
St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was
the Sonof God, do we think the same evangelistwould, in the same breath,
pronounce Adam 'the son of God' too? So that this very thing teachethus
what the evangelistpropounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy;
which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly receivedthat great
testimony from heaven, "This is my Son," was the very same that had been
promised to Adam by the seedof the woman. And for this reasonhath he
drawn his pedigree on the mother's side, who was the daughter of Heli, and
this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close ofthe
genealogy, he teachethin what sense the former part of it should be taken;viz.
that Jesus, notJoseph, should be calledthe sonof Heli, and consequently, that
the same Jesus, notAdam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every
link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat,
Jesus the sonof Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi";and so of the rest...
2. Suppose it could be granted that Josephmight be calledthe sonof Heli
(which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any greatsolecism, that his
son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his owndaughter. He was but
his sonby law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and
generation.
There is a discourse ofa certain personwho in his sleepsaw the punishment
of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall
willingly stand correctedif under a mistake;He saw Mary the daughter of
Heli amongstthe shades. R. Lazar Ben Josahsaith, that she hung by the
glandules of her breasts. R. JosahBarHaninah saith, that the greatbar of
hell's gate hung at her ear.

If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reasonto believe it is,
then thus far, at least, it agrees withour evangelist, that Mary was the
daughter of Heli: and questionless all the rest is added in reproachof the
blessedVirgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere
under the name of Sardah.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Lightfoot, John. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". "John Lightfoot Commentary
on the Gospels".https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jlc/luke-
3.html. 1675.
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
Jesus Himself (αυτος Ιησους — autos Iēsous). Emphatic intensive pronoun
calling attention to the personality of Jesus atthis juncture. When he entered
upon his Messianic work.
When he beganto teach (αρχομενος — archomenos). The words “to teach”
are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version “beganto be about thirty
years of age,” is an impossible translation. The RevisedVersionrightly
supplies “to teach” (διδασκειν — didaskein)after the present participle
αρχομενος — archomenos Eitherthe infinitive or the participle can follow
αρχομαι — archomai usually the infinitive in the Koiné. It is not necessaryto
supply anything (Acts 1:22).

Was about thirty years of age (ην ωσει ετων τριακοντα — ēn hōseietōn
triakonta). Tyndale has it right “Jesus was aboutthirty yere of age when he
beganne.” Luke does not commit himself definitely to preciselythirty years as
the age ofChrist. 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 (ων υιος ως ενομιζετο
Ιωσηπ του ελει — ōn huios hōs enomizeto Iōsēphtou Helei). For the
discussionof the genealogyofJesus, see notes onMatthew 1:1-17. The two
genealogiesdiffer very widely and many theories have been proposedabout
them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam,
the Sonof God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to “Joseph
the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is calledChrist” (Matthew
1:16). Matthew employs the word “begot” eachtime, while Luke has the
article του — tou repeating υιου — huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They
agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “JacobbegatJoseph”
while Luke calls “Josephthe son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this
one makes one pause. Joseph, ofcourse, did not have two fathers. If we
understand Luke to be giving the real genealogyofJesus through Mary, the
matter is simple enough. The two genealogiesdiffer from Josephto David
exceptin the cases ofZorobabeland Salathiel. Luke evidently means to
suggestsomething unusual in his genealogyby the use of the phrase “as was
supposed” (ως ενομιζετο — hōs enomizeto). His ownnarrative in Luke 1:26-
38 has shown that Josephwas not the actualfather of Jesus. Plummer objects
that, if Luke is giving the genealogyof Jesus through Mary, υιος — huios
must be used in two senses here (son as was supposedof 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. Justas 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 legalgenealogythrough
Joseph, though he took pains to show in Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:18-25 that
Josephwas not the actualfather of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a
Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actualgenealogyof

Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer)
that Luke carries the genealogyback to Adam and does not stop with
Abraham. It is not clearwhy Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luke
3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the
sense that Adam is. Possiblyhe wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about
the origin of man and to show that God is the Creatorof the whole human
race, Fatherof all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in
harmony with this conception.
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
And Jesus himself beganto be about thirty years of age, being (as was
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 augustera.
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
Masterattained not, as it seems, to the conclusionof his thirty-fourth year.
Yet what glorious achievements did he accomplishwithin those narrow limits
of time! Happy that servant, who, with any proportionable zeal, despatches
the greatbusiness of life; and so much the more happy, if his sun go down at
noon. Forthe space that is taken from the labours of time, shall be added to
the rewards of eternity.
The sonof Heli — That is, the son-in-law: for Heli was the father of Mary. So
St. Matthew writes the genealogyofJoseph, descendedfrom David by
Solomon;St. Luke that of Mary, descendedfrom David by Nathan. In the

genealogyofJoseph(recitedby St. Matthew)that of Mary is implied, the Jews
being accustomedto marry into their own families.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.
Bibliography
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". "JohnWesley's Explanatory
Notes on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/luke-3.html. 1765.
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
This was also the reasonwhy he delayed his baptism till the thirtieth year of
his age, (Luke 3:23.) Baptism was an appendage to the Gospel:and therefore
it beganat the same time with the preaching of the Gospel. When Christ was
preparing to preachthe Gospel, he was introduced by Baptism into his office;
and at the same time was endued with the Holy Spirit. When John beholds the
Holy Spirit descending upon Christ, it is to remind him, that nothing carnal or
earthly must be expectedin Christ, but that he comes as a godlike man, (297)
descendedfrom heaven, in whom the power of the Holy Spirit reigns. We
know, indeed, that he is Godmanifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16 :) but
even in his characteras a servant, and in his human nature, there is a
heavenly power to be considered.
The secondquestion is, why did the Holy Spirit appear in the shape of a dove,
rather than in that of fire ? The answerdepends on the analogy, or

resemblance betweenthe figure and the thing represented. We know what the
prophet Isaiahascribes to Christ.
“He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A
bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench,”
(Isaiah 42:2.)
On accountof this mildness of Christ, by which he kindly and gently called,
and every day invites, sinners to the hope of salvation, the Holy Spirit
descendedupon him in the appearance of a dove And in this symbol has been
held out to us an eminent token of the sweetestconsolation, that we may not
fear to approachto Christ, who meets us, not in the formidable power of the
Spirit, but clothedwith gentle and lovely grace.
He saw the Spirit of God That is, John saw:for it immediately follows, that
the Spirit descendedon Christ There now arises a third question, how could
John see the Holy Spirit? I reply: As the Spirit of God is everywhere present,
and fills heavenand earth, he is not said, in a literal sense, to descend, and the
same observationmay be made as to his appearance. Thoughhe is in himself
invisible, yet he is spokenof as beheld, when he exhibits any visible sign of his
presence. Johndid not see the essenceofthe Spirit, which cannot be discerned
by the senses ofmen; (298)nor did he see his power, which is not beheld by
human senses, but only by the understanding of faith: but he saw the
appearance ofa dove, under which God showedthe presence ofhis Spirit. It is
a figure of speech, (299)by which the sign is put for the thing signified, the
name of a spiritual objectbeing applied to the visible sign.
While it is foolishand improper to press, as some do, the literal meaning, so as
to include both the signand the thing signified, we must observe, that the
connectionsubsisting betweenthe sign and the thing signified is denoted by

these modes of expression. In this sense, the bread of the Lord’s Supper is
calledthe body of Christ, (1 Corinthians 10:16 :) not because it is so, but
because it assures us, that the body of Christ is truly given to us for food.
Meanwhile, let us bear in mind what I have just mentioned, that we must not
imagine a descentof the thing signified, so as to seek it in the sign, as if it had
a bodily place there, but ought to be abundantly satisfiedwith the assurance,
that God grants, by his secretpower, all that he holds out to us by figures.
Another question more curious than useful has been put. Was this dove a solid
body, or the appearance ofone? Though the words of Luke seemto intimate
that it was not the substance of a body, but only a bodily appearance;yet, lest
I should afford to any man an occasionof wrangling, I leave the matter
unsettled.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Calvin, John. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". "Calvin's Commentary on the
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/luke-3.html. 1840-
57.
Scofield's ReferenceNotes
son of Heli

In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogyof Joseph, we are
told Matthew 1:16, that Josephwas the son of Jacob. In what sense, then,
could he be calledin Luke "the sonof Heli"? He could not be by natural
generationthe son both of Jacoband of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that
Heli begatJoseph, so that the natural explanation is that Josephwas the son-
in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendantof David. That he should in
that case be called"sonof Heli" ("son" is not in the Greek, but rightly
supplied by the translators)would be in accordwith Jewishusage.
(CF) 1 Samuel 24:16 The conclusionis therefore inevitable that in Luke we
have Mary's genealogy;and Josephwas "sonof Heli" because espousedto
Heli's daughter. The genealogyin Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was
descendedfrom David.
Copyright Statement
These files are consideredpublic domain and are a derivative of an electronic
edition that is available in the Online Bible Software Library.
Bibliography
Scofield, C. I. "ScofieldReferenceNoteson Luke 3:23". "Scofield Reference
Notes (1917 Edition)".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/srn/luke-3.html. 1917.
John Trapp Complete Commentary
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was

Ver. 23. Being, as was supposed]But falsely:for Josephwas no more than his
Paterpoliticus, as Postellus callethhim, his foster-father, reputed father.
Which was the son of Eli] That is, his son-in-law. For Eli was Mary’s natural
father; and it is Mary’s genealogythat is here described;but put upon Joseph,
because the Hebrews reckonnot their genealogiesby women, but by men
only. {So Ruth 1:11-13}
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Trapp, John. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". John Trapp Complete
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/luke-3.html.
1865-1868.
Sermon Bible Commentary
Luke 3:23
The Divinity of Christ.

Our discourse will turn upon the words, "As was supposed." Our blessed
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was "supposed" to be the sonof Joseph. But
the words of the text seemto imply that He was not actually the son of Joseph:
they are an indirect testimony to that grand truth which the evangelistSt.
Luke has already recorded, and the taking away of which would be the
overthrow of the Christian religion: "Therefore also thatHoly Thing which
shall be born of thee shall be calledthe Son of God."
I. There is no dispute that Christ is spokenof in the Bible as God, but there is
much dispute as to the sense in which the language oughtto be understood.
There can be no dispute that the name "God" is often used in the Bible, when
it cannot for a moment be supposedthat it is used in its high and
incommunicable sense. Thus it is saidto Moses,"Ihave made thee a god to
Pharaoh,"—where Mosesis so called evidently not as being properly a god,
but as being in that instance or circumstance in the place of God, and doing
that which it is God's office to do. But when you turn to the Bible, in order to
determine whether it canonly be in this secondaryorfigurative way that
Christ is styled God, we are overwhelmedwith proof that it must be in the
same sense, and in as high a sense as the Father Himself is so styled. For
Christ is calledthe Jehovah—a wordof absolute signification, which is never
given to any but the one true God.
II. Not only the titles but the attributes of Deity are ascribedin Scripture to
Christ. The eternity of the Sonis distinctly asserted;for Christ spoke of
Himself as "He which is, and which was, and which is to come"—words
which, like the name Jehovah, canonly be interpreted as denoting
independent and therefore eternal substance. Christ is also declaredto be
immutable, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterdayand today and for ever;"
omniscient, "Lord, Thou knowestallthings;" omnipresent, "Where two or
three are gatheredtogetherin My Name, there am I in the midst of them."
These attributes are all ascribedto Him whom some suppose to have been
only Joseph's son, and regard it as monstrous to look upon Him as God. Who

can God be, if Christ be only man—Christ the eternal, Christ the omniscient,
Christ the omnipresent?
H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2,281.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Nicoll, William R. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". "SermonBible
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/sbc/luke-
3.html.
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
Luke 3:23. And Jesus himself beganto be, &c.— Our Lord having received
these different testimonies from his Father, from the Spirit, and from John
the Baptist, all given in the presence of the multitudes assembledto John's
baptism, beganhis ministry when he was about thirty years old, the age at
which the priests enteredon their sacredministrations in the temple. See the
beginning of the first note on this chapter. To understand St. Luke's account
of our Lord's age athis baptism aright, we must take notice, that his words
stand thus in construction; Και αυτος ο Ιησους αρχομενος, ηνωσει ετων
τριακοντα :and Jesus himself, when he began, was about thirty year of age;
that is to say, when he beganhis ministry,—in opposition to the
commencementof the Baptist's ministry, the history of which is given in the
preceding part of this chapter. In Acts 1:21-22 we read, Wherefore, of these

men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus wentin
and out among us, beginning [ αρξαμενος, ] from the baptism of John unto the
same day that he was takenup from us, &c. Here Christ's ministry is
evidently said to have commencedat the baptism of John,—the time that John
baptized him, and to have ended at the day of his ascension. The author of the
Vindication of the beginning of St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels, would
render the words, and Jesus was obedient(or lived in subjection to his
parents) about thirty years:and he produces severalpassages fromapproved
Greek authors, in which αρχομενος signifies subject;but in all these places it
is used in some connectionor opposition, which determines the sense, and
therefore none of them are instances parallelto this; and since the evangelist
had before expressedour Lord's subjection to his parents by the word
υποτασομενος, Ch. Luke 2:51 there is greatreasonto believe that he would
have used the same word here, had he intended to give us the same idea. With
what amazement should we reflect upon it, that the blessedJesus, thoughso
early ripened for the most extensive services, should live in retirement even till
the thirtieth year! that he deferred his ministry so long, should teachus not to
thrust ourselves forward to public stations, till we plainly discovera divine
call. That he deferred it no longer, should be an engagementto us to avoid
unnecessarydelays, and to give God the prime and vigour of our life. Our
greatMasterattained not, as it seems, to the conclusionof his thirty-fifth year,
if he so much as entered upon it; yet what glorious atchievements did
heaccomplishwithin those narrow limits of time! happy that servant who with
any proportionate zeal dispatches the great business of life!
Being (as was supposed)the sonof Joseph,— I. In the first place, with respect
to the genealogiesofSt. Matthew and St. Luke, we may observe, that St.
Matthew opens his history with our Lord's genealogy, by Josephhis supposed
Father; St. Luke gives us his genealogyon the mother's side. The words before
us, properly pointed and translated, run thus; being (as was supposed)the son
of Joseph, the son of Heli. He was the son of Josephby common report; but in
reality the son of Heli, by his mother who was Heli's daughter. We have a
parallel example, Genesis 36:2 where Aholibamah's pedigree is thus deduced;
Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon; for, since it

appears from Luke 3:24-25 that Anah was the son, not the daughter of
Zibeon, it is undeniable that as Mosescalls Aholibamah the daughter both of
Anah and of Zibeon, because she was the grand-daughter; so Jesus is fitly
calledthe son of Heli, because he was his grandson. However, the common
pointingandconstructionofthepassagemaybe retained, consistentlywith the
present opinion; because though the words the son of Heli should be referred
to Joseph, they may imply no more than that Josephwas Heli's son-in-law, his
son by marriage with his daughter Mary. The ancient Jews andChristians
understood this passagein the one or other of these senses;for the Talmudists
commonly callMary by the name of Heli's daughter. In proof of what we have
advancedabove, we observe that the two genealogiesare entirely different,
from David downward; and that if, as some have supposed, these genealogies
exhibit Joseph's pedigree only, the one by hisnatural, the other by his legal
father, the natural and legalfathers would have been brothers, when it is
plain they were not; Jacob, Joseph's fatherin St. Matthew, being the son of
Matthan, the son of Eleazar;whereas Heli, the father supposedto be assigned
by St. Luke, was the sonof Matthat, a different person from Matthan, because
the sonof Levi. And further, on this supposition we should be altogether
uncertain whether our Lord's mother, from whom alone he sprang, was a
daughter of David; and consequentlycould not prove that he had any other
relation to David, than that his mother was married to one of the descendants
of that prince. Let the reader judge whether this fully comes up to the import
of the passagesofScripture which tell us, he was made of the seedof David.
Romans 1:3. Acts 2:30.
II. Taking it for granted, then, that St. Luke gives our Lord's real pedigree,
and St. Matthew that of his supposedfather, it may reasonablybe asked, why
St. Matthew has done so? To which it may be replied, that he intended to
remove the scruples of those who knew that the Messiahwas to be the heir of
David's crown; a reason, whichappears the stronger, if we suppose with some
learned writers, that St. Matthew wrote posteriorto St. Luke, who has given
the realpedigree. Now, though Josephwas not Christ's realfather, it was
directly for the evangelist's purpose to derive his pedigree from David, and
shew that he was the eldestsurviving branch of the posterity of that prince;

because, thatpoint established, it was well enough understood that Joseph, by
marrying our Lord's mother, after he knew she was with child of him,
adopted him for his son, and raisedhim both to the dignity and the privileges
of David's heir; accordingly, the genealogyconcludes in terms which imply
this; JacobbegatJoseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.
Josephis not called the father of Jesus, but the husband of his mother Mary;
and the privileges following this adoption will appear to be more essentially
connectedwith it, if, as is probable, Josephnever had any child: for thus the
regalline of David's descendants by Solomon, failing in Joseph, his rights
were properly transferred to Jesus, his adopted son, who indeed was of the
same family, though by another branch. St. Matthew therefore has deduced
our Lord's political and royal pedigree, with a view to prove his title to the
kingdom of Israel, by virtue of the rights which he acquired through his
adoption; whereas St. Luke explains his natural descentin the several
successionsofthose from whom he derived his human nature, down to the
Virgin Mary. See the note on Matthew 1:16.
III. Our Lord's genealogygivenby St. Luke, will appear with a beautiful
propriety, if the place which it holds in his history is attended to. It stands
immediately after Jesus is saidto have receivedthe testimony of the Spirit,
declaring him the Son of God (which includes his being the true Messiah), and
before he entered on his ministry, the first actof which was, his encountering
with and vanquishing the strongesttemptations of the arch enemy of
mankind. Christ's genealogyby his mother, who conceivedhim miraculously,
placed in this order, seems to insinuate that he was the seedof the woman,
which, in the first intimation of mercy vouchsafedto mankind after the fall,
was predicted to bruise the serpent's head. Accordingly, St. Luke, as became
the historian who relatedChrist's miraculous conceptionin the womb of his
mother, carries his genealogyup to Adam, who togetherwith Eve receivedthe
before-mentioned promise concerning the restitution of mankind by the seed
of the woman. That the genealogy, not only of our Lord's mother, but of his
reputed father, should have been given by the sacredhistorians, was wisely
ordered; because the two, takentogether, prove him to be descendedfrom
David and Abraham in every respect, and consequently that one of the most

remarkable characters ofthe Messiahwas fulfilled in him; the principal
promises concerning the greatpersonage,in whom all the families of the earth
were to be blessed, having been made to those patriarchs in quality of his
progenitors. See Genesis 22:18.Psalms 132:11-12 andMatthew 1:1.
IV. Bishop Burnet, speaking of the authentic tables which, according to the
custom of the Jewishnation, were preserved with the greatestaccuracy,
observes, that had not the genealogyofChrist been takenexactly according to
the temple registers, the bare shewing of them had servedto have confuted the
whole. For, if any one thing among them was clearand uncontroverted (the
sacredoracles excepted), it was the registerof their genealogies;since these
proved that they were Abraham's seed, and likewise made out their title to the
lands, which from the days of Joshua were to pass down either to immediate
descendants, or, as they failed, to collateraldegrees.Now this shews plainly,
that there was a double office kept of their pedigrees;one was natural, and
might be takenwhen the rolls of circumcisionwere made up; and the other
relative to the division of the land; in which, when the collateralline came
instead of the natural, then the lastwas dropped, as extinct, and the other
remained. It being thus plain from their constitution, that they had these two
orders of tables, we are not at all concernedin the diversity of the two
evangelists onthis head; since both might have copiedthem out from those
two offices atthe temple; and if they had not done it faithfully, the Jews could
have authentically demonstrated their error in ascribing to our Saviour by a
false pedigree, that receivedcharacterofthe Messiah,—thathe was to be the
son of David. Therefore, since no exceptions were made at the time when the
sight of the rolls must have ended the inquiry, it is plain that they were
faithfully copied out; nor are we now bound to answersuch difficulties as
seemto arise out of them, since they were not questionedat the time in which
only an appeal could be made to the public registers themselves.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Coke, Thomas. "Commentaryon Luke 3:23". Thomas Coke Commentary on
the Holy Bible. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/luke-
3.html. 1801-1803.
Expository Notes with PracticalObservations onthe New Testament
At thirty years of age, the priests under the law entered upon their public
office;accordinglyChrist stays the full time prescribed by the law, before he
undertakes his public ministry, and he gives the reasonfor it. That he might
fulfil all righteousness. Matthew 3:15 That is, the righteousness ofthe
ceremoniallaw, which required persons to be of that age, before they entered
upon that office;and also enjoined them to be baptized or washedin water,
when they undertook their office. See Exodus 29:4
Learn hence, that whatever the law required in order to perfectrighteousness,
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 Josephhere: he is called the supposed
father of Christ. Josephwas not his natural father, though so supposed by the
Jews;but he was his legalfather, 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 showedboth his parents, that, if
he pleased, he could live without any dependence upon their care. See Luke
2:49

Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Burkitt, William. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". ExpositoryNotes with
PracticalObservations onthe New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wbc/luke-3.html. 1700-1703.
Greek TestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentary
23.]Jesus was about thirty years old when He began (His ministry); not,
‘began to be about,’ &c., which is ungrammatical, ἀρχόμενος τῆς εἰς τὸν λαὸν
ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ, ἤτοι τῆς διδασκαλίας, Euthym(35), so also Orig(36),
Bengel, Kuin., De Wette, Meyer, Wieseler:see also Acts 1:1.
This ὡσεὶ τρ. admits of considerable latitude, but only in one direction; viz.
over thirty years. He could not well be under, seeing that this was the
appointed age for the commencementof public service of God by the Levites:
see Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:43; Numbers 4:47.
If no other proof were in existence of the total independence of the present
Gospels ofMatthew and Luke, their genealogieswouldfurnish what I
conceive to be an undeniable one. Is it possible that either of these Evangelists
could have set down his genealogywith that of the other before him? Would
no remark have been made on their many and (on such a supposition)

unaccountable variations? It is quite beside the purpose of the present
commentary to attempt to reconcile the two. It has never yet been
accomplished;and every endeavourto do it has violated either ingenuousness
or common sense. I shall, as in similar cases,only indicate the landmarks
which may serve to guide us to all that is possible for us to discover
concerning them. (1) The two genealogiesare both the line of Joseph, and not
of Mary. Whether Mary were an heiress or not, Luke’s words here preclude
the idea of the genealogybeing hers; for the descentof the Lord is transferred
putatively to Josephby the ὡς ἐνομίζετο, before the genealogybegins;and it
would be unnatural to suppose that the reckoning, which beganwith the real
mother, would, after such transference, pass back throughher to her father
again, as it must do, if the genealogybe hers.
The attempts of many, and recently of Wieseler, to make it appear that the
genealogyis that of Mary, reading νἱὸς ( ὡς ἐνομ. τοῦ ἰωσὴφ)τοῦ ἡλί, ‘the son
(as supposed of Joseph, but in reality) of Heli, &c.’are, as Meyer(Comm. in
loc.)has shewn, quite unsuccessful:see Dr. Mill’s vindication of the
Genealogies, p. 180 ff. for the history of this opinion. (2) Luke appears to have
takenthis genealogy entire from some authority before him, in which the
expressionυἱὸς θεοῦ as applied to Christ, was made goodby tracing it up as
here, through a regularascentof progenitors till we come to Adam, who was,
but here againinexactly, the son of God. This seems much more probable
than that Luke should for his gentile readers have gone up to the origin of the
human race insteadof to Abraham. I cannotimagine any such purpose
definitely present in the mind of the Evangelist.
This view is confirmed by the entirely insulated situation of the genealogy
here, betweenLuke 3:23 and ch. Luke 4:1. (3) The points of divergence
betweenthe genealogiesare,—inMatt. the father of Josephis Jacob—in
Luke, Heli; this gives rise to different lists (excepttwo common names,
Zorobabel and Salathiel) up to David, where the accounts coincide again, and
remain nearly identical up to Abraham, where Matt. ceases. (4)Here, as

elsewhere,I believe that the accounts might be reconciled, or at all events
goodreasonmight be assigned for their differing, if we were in possessionof
data on which to proceed;but here as elsewhere,we are not. For who shall
reproduce the endless combinations of elements of confusion, which might
creepinto a genealogyofthis kind? Matthew’s, we know, is squared so as to
form three tesseradecads, by the omission of severalgenerations;how canwe
tell that some similar step unknown to us may not have been takenwith the
one before us? It was common among the Jews for the same man to bear
different names; how do we know how often this may occuramong the
immediate progenitors of Joseph? The levirate marriage (of a brother with a
brother’s wife to raise up seed, which then might be accountedto either
husband) was common; how do we know how often this may have contributed
to produce variations in the terms of a genealogy?
With all these elements of confusion, it is quite as presumptuous to pronounce
the genealogiesdiscrepant, as it is over-curious and uncritical to attempt to
reconcile them. It may suffice us that they are inserted in the Gospels as
authentic documents, and both of them merely to clearthe Davidical descent
of the putative father of the Lord. HIS OWN real Davidicaldescentdoes not
depend on either of them, but must be solelyderived through his mother. See
much interesting investigationof the various solutions and traditions, in Dr.
Mill’s tract referred to above;and in Lord A. Hervey’s work on the
Genealogiesofour Lord.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Alford, Henry. "Commentary on Luke 3:23". Greek TestamentCritical
ExegeticalCommentary.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/luke-3.html. 1863-1878.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
Luke 3:23. αὐτός]as Matthew 3:4 : He Himself, to whom this divine σημεῖον,
Luke 3:22, pointed.
ἦν ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος]He was about thirty years of age (comp.
Luke 2:42; Mark 5:42), when He made the beginning,(74)viz. of His
Messianic office. This limitation of the meaning of ἀρχό΄ενος results from
Luke 3:22, in which Jesus is publicly and solemnly announced by God as the
Messiah. So Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Er. Sehmid, Spanheim,
Calovius, Clericus, Wolf, Bengel, Griesbach(in Velthusen, Comment. I. p.
358), Kuinoel, Anger (Tempor. rat. p. 19), de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Ewald, Hengstenberg, Bleek, andothers. With the receptionof his baptismal
consecration, Jesus enteredonthe commencementof His destined ministry.
Comp. Mark 1:1; Acts 1:21 f., Luke 10:37. The interpretation given by others:
“Incipiebat autem Jesus annorum esse fere triginta,” Castalio (so Luther,
Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, and many more), could only be justified either by
the originalrunning: ἤρξατο εἶναι ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, orἦν ὡσεὶ ἔτους
τριακοστοῦἀρχό΄ενος. It is true that Grotius endeavours to fortify himself in
this interpretation by including in the clause the following ὤν, so that ἄρχο΄αι
ὢν ἐτῶν τριάκοντα might mean: incipio jam esse tricenarius. But even if ἦν …
ὤν be conjoinedin Greek usage (see Bornemann, adXen. Cyr. ii. 3. 13, p. 207,
Leipzig), how clumsy would be the expressionἦν ἀρχόμενος ὤν, incipiebat
esse!and, according to the arrangementof the words, quite intolerable. Even
ἐρχόμενος has been conjectured(Casaubon).

ὤν] belongs to υἱὸς ἰωσήφ, and ὡς ἐνο΄ίζετο, as he was considered( ὡς ἐδόκει
τοῖς ἰουδαίοις·ὡς γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια εἶχεν, οὐκ ἦν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, Euthymius
Zigabenus), is a parenthesis. Paulus, who connects ὤνwith ἀρχό΄., explains:
according to custom(Jesus did not begin His ministry sooner). Comp. on Acts
16:13. It is true the connecting of the two participles ἀρχόμενος ὤνwould not
in itself be ungrammatical (see Pflugk, ad Hec. 358);but this way of looking at
the matter is altogetherwrong, because, in respectof the appearance of the
Messiah, there could be no question of a custom at all, and the fixing of the
age of the Levites (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:47), which, moreover, was not a
custom, but a law, has nothing to do with the appearance ofa prophet, and
especiallyof the Messiah. Comp. further, on ὡς ἐνομίζ., Dem. 1022. 16 : οἱ
νο΄ιζό΄ενοι ΄ὲν υἱεῖς, ΄ὴ ὄντες δὲ γένει ἐξ αὐτῶν, and the passagesin Wetstein.
Others (quoted by Wolf, and Wolf himself, Rosenmüller, Osiander) refer ὤν
to τοῦ ἡλί: existens (cum putaretur filius Josephi)filius, i.e. nepos Eli. So also
Schleyerin the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 540 ff. Even Wieseler(in the Stud.
u. Krit. 1845, p. 361 ff.) has condescendedin like manner (comp. Lightfoot, p.
750)to the desperate expedient of exegeticallymaking it out to be a
genealogicaltree of Mary thus: “being a son, as it was thought, of Joseph(but,
in fact, of Mary), of Eli,” etc. Wieselersupports his view by the factthat he
reads, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, ὡς ἐνομίζ. after υἱός (B L ‫א‬ ), and on
weakerevidence reads before ἰωσήφ the τοῦ which is now again deletedeven
by Tischendorf. But as, in respectof the receivedarrangementof ὡς ἐνο΄., it is
only the ὢν υἱὸς ἰωσήφ, and nothing more (in opposition to Bengel), that is
marked out as coming under the ὡς ἐνο΄ίζετο, so also is it in the arrangement
of Lachmann (only that the latter actually brings into strongerprominence
the supposedfilial relationship to Joseph);and if τοῦ is read before ἰωσήφ, no
change even in that case arisesin the meaning.(75)Forit is not υἱός that
would have to be supplied in every following clause, so that Jesus should be
designatedas the sonof eachof the persons named, even up to τοῦ θεοῦ
inclusively (so Lightfoot, Bengel), but υἱοῦ (after τοῦ), as the nature of the
genealogicaltable in itself presents it,(76)making τοῦ θεοῦ also dogmatically
indubitable; since, according to Luke’s idea of the divine sonshipof Jesus, it
could not occurto him to represent this divine sonship as having been effected
through Adam. No; if Luke had thought what Wieselerreads betweenthe
lines in Luke 3:23, that, namely, Eli was Mary’s father, he would have known

how to express it, and would have written something like this: ὢν, ὡς μὲν
ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς ἰωσὴφ, ὄντως (Luke 23:47, Luke 24:34)δὲ ΄αρίας τοῦ ἡλί κ. τ.
λ. But he desires to give the genealogyof Jesus onthe side of His foster-father
Joseph:therefore he writes simply as we read, and as the factthat he wished
to express required. As to the originally Ebionitic point of view of the
genealogiesin Matthew and Luke, see on Matthew 1:17, Remark 3.
REMARK.
All attempts to fix the year in which Jesus was born by means of the passage
before us are balked by the ὡσεί of Luke 3:23. Yet the era of Dionysius bases
its date, although incorrectly (754 after the foundation of Rome), on Luke 3:1;
Luke 3:23. Hase, L. J. § 26, follows it, setting aside, because ofits mythical
associations, the accountof Matthew, that the first childhood of Jesus
occurredas early as the time of the reign of Herod the Great. But these
legendary ingredients do not justify our rejecting a date fixed by a simple
reference to the history of the time, for it is rather to be regardedas the
nucleus around which the legendgathered. As, however, Herod died in 750
(Anger, Rat. tempor. p. 5 f.; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 50 ff.), the era of
Dionysius is at any rate at leastabout four years in error. If, further, it be
necessary, according to this, to place the birth of Jesus before the death of
Herod, which occurredin the beginning of April, then, even on the
assumption that He was born as early as 750 (according to Wieseler, in
February of that year), it follows that at the time when the Baptist, who was
His senioronly by a few months, appeared—according to Luke 3:1, in the
year from the 19th August 781 to 782
He would be about thirty-one years of age, whichperfectly agrees with the
ὡσεί of Luke 3:23, and the round number τριάκοντα;in which case it must be
assumedas certain (comp. Mark 1:9) that He was baptized very soonafter the
appearance ofJohn, at which precise point His Messianic ἀρχή commenced.

Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry

Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry

Similar to Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry