Luke 3:23

‘And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age,'

Note here how the genealogy is connected with the commencement of His teaching ministry. His qualifications for His teaching ministry are being described. He was ‘about' thirty years of age. Luke has a tendency to attach ‘about' to time notices (Luke 1:56; Luke 2:37; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:28; Luke 22:59; Luke 23:44; Acts 5:7; Acts 10:3; Acts 12:1; Acts 13:18; Acts 19:34). This shows a commendable desire for accuracy. It is probably no coincidence that thirty years of age was when Levites entered their full ministry (Numbers 4:47). Jesus was seen as having reached the recognised age of religious maturity, as being in full readiness, and as strong enough physically and mentally for the task that was before Him.

It is very noteworthy that neither He nor His Father had seen His period of carpentry and looking after His family as unimportant. It had been preparing Him for His destiny. It was only in His Father's appointed time that His call came. But the important thing was that He had used His time prior to His call wisely in order to prepare for it. He had learned much of patience and careful treatment of delicate material at His carpenter's bench, and in dealing with His customers. It would be extremely useful to Him in His ministry. None would be able to accuse Him of not understanding what the daily grind, or the problems of family life, were like. We too must learn to be patient, while at the same time being ever responsive to the will of God. While we must certainly ‘make the most of the time', we must also remember that God is not in a hurry. It is a matter of holding the two in balance, the one lest we become lazy, the other lest we become discouraged.

If taken strictly this age would confirm His birth as being in 3-1 BC. 3 BC would tie His birth in with the ‘enrolment' on Augustus' twenty fifth anniversary of his reign. But it causes a problem for the dating of Herod's death. However, in view of Luke's ‘about', and the probable intention of linking His age with the commencement of Levite service, the exact age cannot be stressed, and we would be unwise to use it for arguing about any dates within a few years.

The genealogy demonstrates that Jesus is descended from David, but also that He is descended from Abraham and Adam, He is of royal blood of the house of David, He is of the seed of Abraham, He is a true son of Adam. Thus He is in the royal line, the line of promise, and the line of the human race. The carrying back of His genealogy to Adam may justly be seen as connecting Him with the whole of mankind, and therefore with Gentile as well as Jew. All mankind is seen as summed up in Him.

For purposes which will become apparent we will divide the genealogy into sevens (including Jesus' name in the first seven).

· 3:23b-24a ‘Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai.'

· 3:24b-26a ‘The son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath.'

· 3:26b-27a ‘The son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel.'

· 3:27b-28a ‘The son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er.'

· 3:28b-30a ‘The son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Symeon, the son of Judas.'

· 3:30b -31a ‘The son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan.'

· 3:31b-33a ‘The son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab.'

· 3:33b-34a ‘The son of Admin, son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac.'

· 3:34b-35a ‘The son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber.'

· 3:35b-37a ‘The son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah.'

· 3:37b-38a ‘The son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam.

· 3:38b ‘The son of God.'

It must be agreed that the result of dividing into sevens is remarkable. Jesus heads the list and the first line, David heads the seventh line (the divinely chosen king), Abraham heads the ninth line (the one who received the promises, three times three, total completeness), and God, Who clearly stands alone, the twelfth line (as the God of the twelve tribes). We might also note that Enoch, ‘the seventh from Adam' (Jude 1:14), heads the eleventh line. Apart from these comes Adam at the end of the list as the first man and as the son of God. From Jesus to Adam there are seventy seven names (the number of divine perfection intensified, compare Genesis 4:24).

(If Admin (or any other name) is omitted (with D, 28) then Jesus heads the list, and David heads the seventh line of the list. Zerubbabel, Abraham, and Enoch (‘the seventh from Adam'), all of whom were distinguished in the service of God, each close a group of sevens. There are seventy seven names in the list (divine perfection intensified), and Jesus begins the list and God ends it. The basic idea is the same. If Irenaeus seventy two names were taken we would have the fact that Jesus and God were separated by seventy names, but his list probably resulted from wrong omissions).

It must, however, be stressed that what follows does not mainly depend on the division into sevens, it arises from the genealogy as a whole. The sevens simply give it more emphasis.

By this genealogy the hand of God behind history is declared in a number of ways, for by the ‘divine pattern' lying behind the genealogy the uniqueness of Jesus as the ‘seventy seventh' from Adam is made clear, His descent from David and Abraham, and from Enoch (known as ‘the seventh from Adam') as well as Adam, is stressed, and He is linked directly with God, with Him heading the first and God heading the last line in the table, and with ‘Of God' standing alone in glorious splendour. In view of the words spoken from heaven at Jesus' reception of the Spirit, declaring Him to be both Davidic King and Servant, the connection with David and Abraham is significant. Abraham was the prime example of the Servant of the Lord, for which see Genesis 26:24, and his connection with the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 41:8 as God's friend.

The connection with Adam is especially significant as is evidenced in that the genealogy goes back to him. Yet Luke could have stopped there, so that we have to take into account a significance for ‘of God' which makes it more than just a list of descent. A number of connected lessons come from this connection.

1). The connection with Adam stresses Jesus' perfect humanity. He is the seventy seventh from Adam. If Enoch the seventh from Adam walked with God and was not because God took him, what can be said of the seventy seventh from Adam?

2). It may be that the intention is also to depict Him as ‘the last Adam', the fulfilment of what Adam should have been, and as a contrast with the one with whom God was not well pleased. Jesus was his replacement, the first man born of Adam of whom it could be said ‘in Whom I am well pleased', and Who will pass that on to others. ‘The first Adam became a living being, the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit' --- the first man was from the earth, a man of dust, the second man is from Heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of Heaven, so are those who are of Heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of Heaven' (1 Corinthians 15:45).

3). The genealogy opens with ‘(Jesus) being as was supposed the son of Joseph', the implication being that in fact He was not, He was the true Son of God (Luke 1:35), while it closes with ‘Adam, the (adopted) son of God'. In between comes the whole of history. Thus a new period in history is seen as beginning, receiving its life from a new source. The first ‘son of God' failed. Thus the implication is that a new Son of God has had to enter the world to accomplish what the first one failed to do, the establishment of the everlasting Kingly Rule of God.

4). Finally the term ‘Of God' standing uniquely alone would confirm the words of the angel to Mary that Jesus will be the Son of God. Jesus was ‘of God'. The fact that this immediately precedes the temptation story where the idea of the Son of God is prominent suggests that ‘son of God' here is intended to have more significance than just as a description of Adam.

It will be noted that Adam being seen as the son of God as the last item, parallels Jesus being seen as the son of Joseph as the first item. In both cases it is a sonship not by natural birth but by adoption, In the first case Adam is declared to be ‘Of God', and then in the second case there is a reverse situation where it is the one adopted Who is, as every reader knows, the Son of God announced by the angel (Luke 1:35). Luke says, of Jesus' relationship to Joseph ‘being as was supposed the son of' making clear that the relationship is not a natural one. No one doubted that the relationship between Adam and God was not a natural one. Thus Jesus and God are seen as unique among all in the genealogy, the One as the Son with an adopted father, but really being the Son of God, and the Father as having an ‘adopted son', but with Jesus being His real Son. This links them together in their uniqueness. It brings out too the awfulness of sin. The one who was adopted by the Father sinned against Him. The One Who was adopted by an earthly father was without sin towards him.

Some have argued that the Greek indicates that Jesus is directly and physically connected with Heli (through Mary), with being ‘of Heli' indicated by the definite article, while Joseph is simply brought in because he was Jesus' ‘supposed' father, as depicted by his not having the definite article, the only name in the list apart from Jesus not to have it.

How the reader sees the genealogy will determine how he sees the description ‘Of God' (in the Greek ‘son' is understood). If he sees the genealogy as leading down to Adam as the prototype of Jesus, then he will see Jesus as the perfect Man, ‘the second Man', the last Adam, fully human in the same way as Adam, partaking as he did in the image and likeness of God before the Fall. If he sees it as leading down to ‘Of God' he will interpret it in the light of what has gone before as a reminder that Jesus is the Son of God. Some may see both.

That we may be justified in seeing this arrangement of ‘sevens' as in Luke's mind is clearly brought out by Matthew who deliberately and openly (Matthew 1:17) contrives to divide his genealogy of Jesus into groups of fourteen (whether seven times two or according to the gematra of David). Luke (or his source) may therefore have done something similar with sevens. Such use of numbers was commonplace in the 1st century AD, and would be spotted by the discerning reader, who would be looking for it.

Note On The Differing Genealogies Of Matthew And Luke.

It is often asked why there should be two genealogies of Jesus. A number of possibilities can be considered:

1) That we have here the genealogy of Joseph in Matthew and that of Mary in Luke, in the latter of which, assuming Mary to be an only child, her husband takes her place in the line of descent in order that he might inherit with her (see Numbers 36:1), thus making Joseph the son of Heli by marriage, and preserving the name. If Luke wanted to give the genealogy through Mary it can be argued that this would be the ‘respectable' way of doing it. It can be claimed that this approach was also necessary in view of the uniqueness of the situation. Normally the wife's line might not be seen as important, but in this exceptional case it would be seen as all important if a direct line to Adam were to be proved in order to demonstrate His humanity.

Against this view is the fact that elsewhere in Luke there is no direct indication of the Davidic descent of Mary, and this might be seen as underlined by the fact that in Luke 1:27 we have the stress that it is ‘descent' through Joseph that is important. However it can be noted in reply that in Luke 1:69 Zacharias speaks of Mary's baby as being from the house of David even when he could not be sure that Joseph would go through with the marriage, which suggests that he did see the line of descent as being through Mary. Furthermore chapter 1 does stress that Jesus is to be born of Mary and not through Joseph, and we may therefore argue that Luke would therefore expect that his readers would see the genealogy accordingly. Seen as further confirming this might be the fact that the Jews never challenged Jesus' Davidic descent even when they claimed that He was Mary's illegitimate son, which suggests that they too knew of the Davidic descent of Mary. We therefore have to choose between the alternatives

It should be noted in this regard that it could only be a genealogy through Mary that could demonstrate His humanity, for only she was the living link.

2) That Joseph was begotten by the half-brother of a brother who died, both having different fathers, who raised up seed to his brother's wife according to the custom of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5). Joseph would then effectively be the son of both half-brothers, and have two grandfathers, one by natural birth, the other by custom. This would be by using the custom of levirate marriage whereby a brother was responsible to raise up seed for his deceased brother. This is perfectly possible. Two such genealogies could have been maintained and have been correct and socially acceptable.

3) That the genealogy in Matthew is, from David onwards, the line of legal descent showing the heirs to the throne. In that case when one in the line died sonless the line would then pass to the nearest male heir. This could have resulted in Joseph, who was descended from David through Nathan, having become heir to the throne by default as the nearest eligible male relative, or because his father had been the nearest eligible male relative in such a situation. Thus he would then for that purpose also trace his line of descent back to Solomon, as well as to Nathan. In view of the importance of the fact that Jesus was seen as the heir of David we would expect to find such a genealogy, which would be especially important to the Jews for whom Matthew was initially writing. This would find some support in the fact that Matthew emphasises the kingship of Jesus, with his genealogy pointedly going back to David through Solomon. It then goes back to Abraham because he has Jewish readers in mind.

Luke on the other hand may have wanted to portray the actual line by birth, because he was concerned with the natural descent from Adam in order to stress Jesus' true humanity. His view was that the Gentile Christians would be more interested in a table of actual descent, rather than in a table of legal descent, as long as it demonstrated that Jesus was a son of David.

Supporting the difference between the two lines would be the fact that Isaiah had distinctly stated that the child who was to inherit the throne of David was not to come from the same line as Ahaz, which was why the miraculous birth in Isaiah 7:14 was mentioned as necessary in the first place. This would discount him as coming through Solomon and Ahaz by natural birth. Further to this is the word of the Lord declaring that no direct offspring of Jeconiah will sit on the throne of David and rule again in Judah (Jeremiah 22:30).

As we have no way of finally proving any one of these solutions we must leave each person to decide for themselves which they feel to be the most likely.