Luke 3:23

King James Version (KJV)

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Adam Clarke
Bible 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 son of Joseph - This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: τουτου παις νομιζεται he was Supposed to be this man's son. Much learned labor has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, Matthew 1:1-17, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of Sons properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc. But Luke, in ascending from the Savior of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was Supposed the son of Joseph - of Heli - of Matthat, etc. This receives considerable support from 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 of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places - Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Matthew 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1 Chronicles 3:17, and Matthew 1:12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter. Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim. Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matthew 1:13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See Luke 3:27. Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon's eldest brother, 1 Chronicles 3:5, this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan's daughter, and that Neri dying, probably, without male issues the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of David. It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity. See the notes on Matthew 1:1, etc.

Was this helpful?

Albert Barnes
Notes on the Whole Bible

Jesus began to 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 subjected to the Levitical law in regard to the priesthood, and it does not appear that prophets and teachers did not commence their work before that age.

As was supposed - As was commonly thought, or perhaps being legally reckoned as his son.

Was this helpful?

Matthew Henry
Concise Bible Commentary

Matthew's list of the forefathers of Jesus showed that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and heir to the throne of David; but Luke shows that Jesus was the Seed of the woman that should break the serpent's head, and traces the line up to Adam, beginning with Eli, or Heli, the father, not of Joseph, but of Mary. The seeming differences between the two evangelists in these lists of names have been removed by learned men. But our salvation does not depend upon our being able to solve these difficulties, nor is the Divine authority of the Gospels at all weakened by them. The list of names ends thus, "Who was the son of Adam, the son of God;" that is, the offspring of God by creation. Christ was both the son of Adam and the Son of God, that he might be a proper Mediator between God and the sons of Adam, and might bring the sons of Adam to be, through him, the sons of God. All flesh, as descended from the first Adam, is as grass, and withers as the flower of the field; but he who partakes of the Holy Spirit of life from the Second Adam, has that eternal happiness, which by the gospel is preached unto us.

Was this helpful?

SDA Bible Commentary (limited)
Volume 1-7

23. Began. Gr. archomai, “to begin.” The verb appears also in Matt. 4:17; Mark 4:1; Luke 3:8; Acts 1:1, 22; 10:37; etc. A problem arises in connection with the form here used, archomenos. Whether archomenos refers to the “beginning” of the 30th year of Jesus’ life, or to the commencement of His ministry, is not clear. Tyndale’s translation of the first part of Luke 3:23 reads: “Jesus was aboute thirty yere of age when he beganne.” The Cranmer Bible of 1539 adopted a new translation, “Jesus him selfe beganne to be aboute thirty yere of age,” and this was followed by the KJV. Inasmuch as the context (vs. 1-22) is concerned with the baptism of Jesus, with which His public ministry began, many have concluded that archomenos must refer to His ministry (see on Mark 1:1; cf. Acts 1:22; 10:37, 38). They consequently add expressions such as “to teach” (RV) or “his ministry” (RSV) after archomenos. See on Luke 1:57; 2:42.

About thirty years. Luke does not commit himself as to the precise age of Jesus at the time of His baptism, but rather emphasizes the fact that He was “about thirty years of age.” So far as Luke’s statement goes, this might be a year or two more or less than precisely 30. Among the Jews the age of 30 was generally considered to be the time when a man arrived at full maturity and was consequently eligible for the responsibilities of public life. See a Synopsis of the Life of Christ, The Chronology of Luke 3:1, 2.

If the birth of Jesus occurred in the autumn of 5 b.c., as seems probable (see on ch. 2:6, 8), His 30th year, by the Jewish method of reckoning (see on ch. 2:42), would have begun in the autumn of a.d. 25 and ended in the autumn of a.d. 26 (see on v. 1). This is fully in harmony with Luke’s more or less general statement that Jesus was “about” 30 years of age, and with all known chronological data pertaining to Christ’s life. It would seem, then, that Luke is not here making a precise chronological statement, but is merely noting that Jesus was of mature age at the time of His baptism and the commencement of His public ministry.

Was supposed. [The Human Ancestry of Jesus, Luke 3:23b-38=Matt. 1:1-17. Major comment: Matthew and Luke.] Jesus was “legally considered” or “popularly believed” to be the son of Joseph (see John 8:41). In the official records in the Temple at Jerusalem, Jesus was registered as the first-born of Mary and Joseph (see Luke 2:21; DA 52). Joseph’s prompt action when directed by the angel to take Mary as his wife no doubt protected both her own and the Child’s good name (see on Matt. 1:24). According to the official records and before the law Jesus was the son of Joseph.

The son. For the importance and value of the ancestral record of Jesus to people of NT times, see on Matt. 1:1. The genealogy as given by Luke differs in several important respects from that given by Matthew, and these differences confront modern readers of the Bible with what is, admittedly, a problem of no small difficulty. This problem consists essentially in the fact that although both genealogical lists purport to give the ancestry of Joseph, they differ between themselves, not only as to the number of ancestors listed within a given period of time, but also as to who most of these ancestors were. The chief points of difference between the two lists may be stated as follows:

1. Luke lists 41 descendants of David who were ancestors of Jesus; Matthew, 26.

2. With the exception of Salathiel, Zerubbabel, and Joseph the husband of Mary, the two lists are altogether different for David’s descendants.

3. The two genealogies converge briefly, with Salathiel and Zerubbabel, but Matthew identifies Salathiel as the son of Jeconiah; Luke lists him as the son of Neri.

4. Matthew identifies Joseph as the son of Jacob; Luke, as the son of Heli.

At first these differences appear to constitute major discrepancies between the lists given by Matthew and Luke. The problem is still further complicated by the fact that nothing whatever is known concerning 60 of the 64 persons named in both lists, and that information concerning the other four is at best meager. This absence of information makes a positive reconciliation of the differences between the two lists practically impossible. Fortunately, however, enough is known of ancient Jewish customs and modes of thought and expression to provide an entirely plausible explanation of each point of difference, and thus to demonstrate that the discrepancies may reasonably be considered apparent rather than real. The various points of difference will be considered in order:

1. As noted, Matthew assigns 26 generations, averaging about 37 years each, to the period of time from the death of David to the birth of Christ; Luke has 41 generations, averaging about 24 years each. According to the tentative chronology followed by this commentary, David died in the year 971 b.c. (see Vol. II, pp. 77, 143) and Christ was born 5 b.c. (see Vol. V, p. 242), an interval of about 966 years. In part, it may be possible to account for the great difference between 26 and 41 generations by assuming that each ancestor of Jesus in the line traced by Luke was, on the average, about 13 years younger at the birth of his successor than the average of Matthew’s line. But the difference is too great to be accounted for altogether on this basis. In view of the fact that Matthew has clearly omitted at least four genealogical links during that part of the 966 years where a comparison with OT lists can be made (see on Matt. 1:8, 11, 17), it is entirely possible that he may have omitted at least 11 from the more obscure period between the Testaments. It may be observed, also, that an average span of 24 years between a man’s own birth and that of his successor is far more probable than 37 years. This observation tends to confirm the 37 generations of Luke and the probability that Matthew arrived at 24 by the intentional omission of about 15 names from his list (see on Matt. 1:8, 11, 17).

2. Except for Salathiel, Zerubbabel, and Joseph the husband of Mary, the genealogical lists given by Matthew and Luke obviously trace the ancestry of Jesus back to David through two entirely different lines of descent. From David to the Captivity, Matthew follows the ruling line of the royal family, and we assume that the same is true of those listed from the Captivity onward (see on Matt. 1:17). Luke apparently follows a nonruling branch of the royal line back to Nathan, another son of David by Bath-sheba (1 Chron. 3:5; see on Luke 3:31). Intermarriage within the limits of the royal family easily accounts for the fact that Christ’s ancestry can be traced back to David through two almost entirely distinct family lines. This does not, however, account for the fact that these two lines are given (see No. 4, below).

3. For a discussion of the problem presented by the convergence of the two lists in Salathiel and Zerubbabel, after whom they again diverge, see on v. 27.

4. See below under “Of Joseph” and “Son of Heli.”

Of Joseph. Like Matthew (see on Matt. 1:16), Luke carefully avoids stating that Jesus was the son of Joseph. The parenthetical expression “as was supposed” not only implies the absence of direct blood relationship, but suggests as well that legally and popularly Jesus was considered the son of Joseph.

Among the Hebrew people the terms for “father” and “son,” “mother” and “daughter,” “brother” and “sister,” etc., were commonly used to include more distant relationship than the words imply in the English (see on Gen. 29:12; Num. 10:29; Deut. 15:2; 1 Chron. 2:7). Hence “son,” for example, as used in the Bible, may denote relationship by natural birth (whether immediate or remote), by adoption, by levirate marriage (see on Deut. 25:5-9), or simply by character (see 2 Tim. 1:2).

Son of Heli. Or, “son of Eli,” Heli being from the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name rendered in English as “Eli.” Obviously Joseph the husband of Mary could not be the literal son of both Heli, as here, and of Jacob, as in Matt. 1:16. Two plausible explanations have been proposed, either of which is fully in harmony with known Jewish customs. According to one explanation, both lists give the ancestry of Joseph, the one by blood descent and the other by adoption or by levirate marriage. According to the other explanation, Matthew gives the ancestry of Joseph, and Luke gives that of Mary, through her father.

Those who consider both lists as representing the lineage of Joseph, explain that one list gives his actual blood descent, and the other, his descent by adoption into a related family line. If Joseph was literally the “son of Jacob,” as in Matthew, he must have become the “son of Heli” in some other than a literal sense. If Heli had no natural heir, he could have adopted Joseph, through whom, according to Jewish custom, both lines might be preserved. According to the second explanation, Mary was the only child of Heli, and by marrying her Joseph became the legal son and heir of Heli in harmony with the provisions of the levirate marriage law as given in the time of Moses (see on Deut. 25:5-9; Matt. 22:24).

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Great Controversy, 410

To accept this conclusion was to renounce the former reckoning of the prophetic periods. The 2300 days had been found to begin when the commandment of Artaxerxes for the restoration and building of Jerusalem went into effect, in the autumn of 457 B.C. Taking this as the starting point, there was perfect harmony in the application of all the events foretold in the explanation of that period in Daniel 9:25-27. Sixty-nine weeks, the first 483 of the 2300 years, were to reach to the Messiah, the Anointed One; and Christ's baptism and anointing by the Holy Spirit, A.D. 27, exactly fulfilled the specification. In the midst of the seventieth week, Messiah was to be cut off. Three and a half years after His baptism, Christ was crucified, in the spring of A.D. 31. The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were to pertain especially to the Jews. At the expiration of this period the nation sealed its rejection of Christ by the persecution of His disciples, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles, A.D. 34. The first 490 years of the 2300 having then ended, 1810 years would remain. From A.D. 34, 1810 years extend to 1844. “Then,” said the angel, “shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” All the preceding specifications of the prophecy had been unquestionably fulfilled at the time appointed. GC 410.1

With this reckoning, all was clear and harmonious, except that it was not seen that any event answering to the cleansing of the sanctuary had taken place in 1844. To deny that the days ended at that time was to involve the whole question in confusion, and to renounce positions which had been established by unmistakable fulfillments of prophecy. GC 410.2

But God had led His people in the great advent movement; His power and glory had attended the work, and He would not permit it to end in darkness and disappointment, to be reproached as a false and fanatical excitement. He would not leave His word involved in doubt and uncertainty. Though many abandoned their former reckoning of the prophetic periods and denied the correctness of the movement based thereon, others were unwilling to renounce points of faith and experience that were sustained by the Scriptures and by the witness of the Spirit of God. They believed that they had adopted sound principles of interpretation in their study of the prophecies, and that it was their duty to hold fast the truths already gained, and to continue the same course of Biblical research. With earnest prayer they reviewed their position and studied the Scriptures to discover their mistake. As they could see no error in their reckoning of the prophetic periods, they were led to examine more closely the subject of the sanctuary. GC 410.3

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
Child Guidance, 359

Jesus, in His thirty years of seclusion at Nazareth, toiled and rested, ate and slept, from week to week and from year to year, the same as His humble contemporaries. He called no attention to Himself as a marked personage; yet He was the world's Redeemer, the adored of angels, doing, all the time, His Father's work, living out a lesson that should remain for humanity to copy to the end of time. CG 359.1

This essential lesson of contented industry in the necessary duties of life, however humble, is yet to be learned by the greater portion of Christ's followers. If there is no human eye to criticize our work, nor voice to praise or blame, it should be done just as well as if the Infinite One Himself were personally to inspect it. We should be as faithful in the minor details of our business as we would in the larger affairs of life.¹² CG 359.2

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Desire of Ages, 66

This act of cruelty was one of the last that darkened the reign of Herod. Soon after the slaughter of the innocents, he was himself compelled to yield to that doom which none can turn aside. He died a fearful death. DA 66.1

Joseph, who was still in Egypt, was now bidden by an angel of God to return to the land of Israel. Regarding Jesus as the heir of David's throne, Joseph desired to make his home in Bethlehem; but learning that Archelaus reigned in Judea in his father's stead, he feared that the father's designs against Christ might be carried out by the son. Of all the sons of Herod, Archelaus most resembled him in character. Already his succession to the government had been marked by a tumult in Jerusalem, and the slaughter of thousands of Jews by the Roman guards. DA 66.2

Again Joseph was directed to a place of safety. He returned to Nazareth, his former home, and here for nearly thirty years Jesus dwelt, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Galilee was under the control of a son of Herod, but it had a much larger admixture of foreign inhabitants than Judea. Thus there was less interest in matters relating especially to the Jews, and the claims of Jesus would be less likely to excite the jealousy of those in power. DA 66.3

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Desire of Ages, 82

Jesus did not ignore His relation to His earthly parents. From Jerusalem He returned home with them, and aided them in their life of toil. He hid in His own heart the mystery of His mission, waiting submissively for the appointed time for Him to enter upon His work. For eighteen years after He had recognized that He was the Son of God, He acknowledged the tie that bound Him to the home at Nazareth, and performed the duties of a son, a brother, a friend, and a citizen. DA 82.1

As His mission had opened to Jesus in the temple, He shrank from contact with the multitude. He wished to return from Jerusalem in quietness, with those who knew the secret of His life. By the paschal service, God was seeking to call His people away from their worldly cares, and to remind them of His wonderful work in their deliverance from Egypt. In this work He desired them to see a promise of deliverance from sin. As the blood of the slain lamb sheltered the homes of Israel, so the blood of Christ was to save their souls; but they could be saved through Christ only as by faith they should make His life their own. There was virtue in the symbolic service only as it directed the worshipers to Christ as their personal Saviour. God desired that they should be led to prayerful study and meditation in regard to Christ's mission. But as the multitudes left Jerusalem, the excitement of travel and social intercourse too often absorbed their attention, and the service they had witnessed was forgotten. The Saviour was not attracted to their company. DA 82.2

As Joseph and Mary should return from Jerusalem alone with Jesus, He hoped to direct their minds to the prophecies of the suffering Saviour. Upon Calvary He sought to lighten His mother's grief. He was thinking of her now. Mary was to witness His last agony, and Jesus desired her to understand His mission, that she might be strengthened to endure, when the sword should pierce through her soul. As Jesus had been separated from her, and she had sought Him sorrowing three days, so when He should be offered up for the sins of the world, He would again be lost to her for three days. And as He should come forth from the tomb, her sorrow would again be turned to joy. But how much better she could have borne the anguish of His death if she had understood the Scriptures to which He was now trying to turn her thoughts! DA 82.3

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

More Comments

Cross References

thirty

being