SEV Biblia, Chapter 3:23
Y el mismo Jess comenzaba a ser como de treinta aos, hijo de Jos, como se creía; que fue hijo de Elí,
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Luke 3:23
Verse 23. 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 Num. iv. 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: touton paiv nomizetai he was SUPPOSED to be this man's son. Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, Matt. i. 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 elabourate 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, &c. But Luke, in ascending from the saviour 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, &c.
This receives considerable support from Raphelius's method of reading the original wn (wv enomizeto uiov iwshf) tou hli, being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, &c. 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, nomizesqai 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, Matt. i. 16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1 Chron. iii. 17, and Matthew i. 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 ZerubbHebel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matt. i. 13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See ver. 27. Salathiel and ZorobHebel, 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 Chron. iii. 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 ZerubbHebel, 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 Matt. i. 1, &c.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age , etc.] Or Jesus, when he was baptized and began his 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 1 Chronicles 23:3) 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 began to enter into the thirtieth year, which carries the sense the same with our translation: being, as was supposed, the son of 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 known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews that he that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father, or parent; of which they give various instances in Joseph, in Michal, and in Pharaoh's daughter. Which was the son of Eli ; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of 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 son of Melchi, etc. till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell us of one, that saw, yl[ tb yrm , 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 f195 , 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 own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews f196 , that the family of the mother is not called a family.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 23-38 - 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, an 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 u to Adam, beginning with Eli, or Heli, the father, not of Joseph, but of Mary. The seeming differences between the two evangelists in thes lists of names have been removed by learned men. But our salvation doe 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 an 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, whic by the gospel is preached unto us __________________________________________________________________
Greek Textus Receptus
και 2532 CONJ αυτος 846 P-NSM ην 2258 5713 V-IXI-3S ο 3588 T-NSM ιησους 2424 N-NSM ωσει 5616 ADV ετων 2094 N-GPN τριακοντα 5144 A-NUI αρχομενος 756 5734 V-PMP-NSM ων 5607 5752 V-PXP-NSM ως 5613 ADV ενομιζετο 3543 5712 V-IPI-3S υιος 5207 N-NSM ιωσηφ 2501 N-PRI του 3588 T-GSM ηλι 2242 N-PRI
Vincent's NT Word Studies
23. Began to be about thirty years of age (hn arcomenov wsei etwn triakonta). Peculiar to Luke. A.V. is wrong. It should be as Rev., when he began (to teach) was about thirty years of age.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
3:23 {Jesus Himself} (autos iesous). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (arcomenos). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (didaskein) after the present participle arcomenos. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow arcomai, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (#Ac 1:22). {Was about thirty years of age} (en hwsei etwn triakonta). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. 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} (wn huios hws enomizeto iwsef tou helei). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on Mt 1:1-17. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (#Mt 1:16). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article tou repeating huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (hws enomizeto). His own narrative in #Lu 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of 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. Just as 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 legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in #Mt 1:16,18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (#3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.
