GOD’S WORD FOR YOU
LUKE 3:23-24
23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.
Thirty was the age when Levites began their service (Numbers 4:47) and priests, as well (Num. 4:3; Ezekiel 1:1). It seems to be the age when the Israelites considered a man to be mature. The age of Jesus here fits with the references Luke recorded at the beginning of this chapter: “The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea” (3:1). Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate on September 17, 14 AD. The date of Jesus’ baptism would therefore correspond roughly to about 29 AD, but we should note Luke’s word hosei (ὡσεὶ), which means “about, approximately.” This is Luke’s way of saying, “give or take a year or two.”
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
Jesus was the son (so it was thought) of Joseph. He was the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
Matthew records Jesus’ legal descent through Joseph back to Abraham (Matthew 1:2-16). Luke mentions Joseph, Mary’s husband, but in the carefully phrased “so it was thought” (or assumed). From that point, however, we have a different genealogy. The two are similar in some respects, but this is only to be expected in two genealogies of members of the royal house of Judah.
Matthew names Joseph’s father as Matthan (Ματθάν). Luke says that Jesus’ grandfather was “Heli” (᾽Ηλὶ). Some think that Matthew presents the line of Joseph legally back to Abraham, and that Luke presents the very same lineage (through Joseph) from father to son back to Adam. Another popular opinion, especially among conservative American Lutherans, is that Luke’s genealogy is really Mary’s, and that her father was Heli. Those who think Luke is still working on Joseph’s line speculate that there was a Levirate marriage involved (or more than one) and that Matthan and Heli were brothers or cousins, and when the one died (Matthan, presumably), Heli fathered Joseph.
There are positive and negative things to be said on both sides of this question.
A . In favor of Joseph. Mary’s name is not mentioned. Jewish genealogies were always reckoned from the father, not the mother. Also, Jesus’ descent from David is stressed in Luke 1:27. Finally, Luke could have used a different and more clearly understood phrase here. This has been the view of exegetes since Africanus (c. 230 AD). Many Christians, both liberal and conservative, hold to this view.
B . In favor of Mary (this has been the view of exegetes since Annius of Viterbo, 1490 AD). Jesus’ relationship with Mary is the point of everything Luke says throughout the first two chapters, including 1:27. Although a Jew would not have reckoned the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, Luke is not a Jew, and Mary would have known her father’s genealogy. In addition to this, Luke’s reader, Theophilus, is not a Jew. Any argument about what a Jew might prefer to read does not apply to “most excellent Theophilus” (1:3). The bloodline of Jesus, traced not just to the ancestor cherished by the Jews (Abraham) but to the very first ancestor (Adam) is Luke’s goal with this genealogy. Also, even keeping the Levitate law in mind, would Joseph be named as having two different fathers (Joseph in Matthew 1:16 and Heli in Luke 3:23) without any further explanation? Many conservative Christians, especially Lutherans of the LCMS, WELS, ELS, and CLC, hold to this view.
One final item to note is that the Jewish Talmud (Haggigah 77:4) refers to Mary as “the daughter of Heli.” Since this is not a Scriptural reference but simply from the Jewish traditions, we will notice it and regard it as a curiosity. The fact that Mary was descended from David is given in Scripture in Romans 1:3 (“as to his human nature, [Jesus Christ] was a descendant of David”).
The facts we have are these:
■ Jesus is from the tribe of Judah (Mt 1:2; Lk 3:33).
■ Jesus is descended from King David both legally through Joseph and physically through Mary (Mt 1:6; Lk 3:31; Rom 1:3).
■ The genealogy presented in Matthew is that of Joseph (Mt 1:16).
■ The genealogy presented in Luke is significantly different from the one in Matthew.
■ The genealogy in Matthew goes back to Abraham, perhaps emphasizing the Old Covenant. The one in Luke goes back to Adam, perhaps emphasizing the New Covenant.
■ In Luke’s genealogy, every single name has a Greek article (τοῦ) except Joseph, who is described as Jesus’ father “so it was thought.”
In view of these facts and arguments, there is no definite answer to a question as to whether Luke’s genealogy of Jesus reflects (a) Joseph’s line reckoned differently from Matthew’s perhaps through a Levirate marriage, or (b) Mary’s line. However, I am inclined to accept that we have Mary’s line. Any argument that says that the Jews would not reckon the line of the mother use the word “would” too liberally, without facts, and ignore the indisputable fact that every girl has a father. Mary would have known her father’s genealogy.
However, the comfort of this passage is that it reveals to us the human ancestry of Jesus and it emphasizes the human nature of our Savior. As a man, Jesus of Nazareth was able to live under the Law of Moses as a Jew. He was able to lay down his life and truly die. And he was able to be raised from the dead in the same way we will be, as a human being. These things connect us to our Savior, and connect our Savior to us through our common human blood. The additional fact that Jesus is also truly and fully God means that the life he led without sin is credited by God to our accounts through faith, and his atoning death extends over the sins of all people, for all sins, for all time. Jesus is truly the Savior of all—including you.
In Christ,
Pastor Timothy Smith
Archives by Wisconsin Lutheran Chapel: http://www.wlchapel.org/worship/daily-devotion/
Pastor Smith serves St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, New Ulm, Minnesota