Church Fathers Commentary Luke 3:23-38

"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 [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Jannai, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, the [son] of Arni, the [son] of Hezron, the [son] of Perez, the [son] of Judah, the [son] of Jacob, the [son] of Isaac, 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, 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, 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, the [son] of God." — Luke 3:23-38 (ASV)

Origen of Alexandria: After relating our Lord’s baptism, Luke next discusses the Lord’s lineage. He does not trace it down from the higher to the lower but, beginning with Christ, carries it up to God Himself. Thus, he says, "And Jesus Himself began."

For when He was baptized and had undergone the mystery of the second birth, then He is said to have "begun," so that you also might destroy this first birth and be born in the second.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus: We must therefore consider who was baptized, by whom, and when. Since He was pure, He was baptized by John at a time when His miracles had already begun. From this, we should derive the lesson to purify ourselves beforehand, to embrace humility, and not to begin preaching until we have reached maturity in our spiritual and natural life.

The first of these lessons is for the sake of those receiving baptism; for although the gift of baptism brings remission of sins, we must fear returning to our own vomit. The second is directed at those who exalt themselves above the stewards of the mysteries, whom they may excel in rank. The third was stated for those who trust in their youth and imagine that any age is fit for promotion and teaching.

Jesus is cleansed—and do you despise purification? He is baptized by John—and do you say anything against your teacher? He begins at thirty years old—and do you, in your teaching, precede your elders? But the example of Daniel and others like him are ready on your lips, for every guilty person is ready with an answer. However, what happens rarely is not the law of the Church, just as a single swallow does not make the spring.

St. John Chrysostom: Alternatively, He waited to accomplish the whole law until He reached that age which is capable of every sin, so that no one might say that He abrogated the law because He was unable to fulfill it.

Greek Expositors: For this reason also, He came to be baptized at thirty years of age, to show that spiritual regeneration makes people perfect regarding their spiritual life.

The Venerable Bede: The thirty years which our Savior had completed when He was baptized might also suggest the mystery of our own baptism, pointing to faith in the Trinity and obedience to the Ten Commandments.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus: Still, a child must be baptized if necessity demands it, for it is better to be sanctified without being aware of it than to pass from this life unsealed. But you will say, "Christ was baptized at thirty years old, and He was God, yet you tell us to hasten our baptism." In that you said, "He was God," the objection is nullified. He needed no cleansing, nor was any danger hanging over Him while He delayed His baptism.

With you, however, it is no small calamity if you pass from this life born in corruption, rather than having put on the robe of incorruption. And truly, it is a blessed thing to keep the clean robe of baptism unstained, but it is better at times to be slightly stained than to be altogether devoid of grace.

St. Cyril of Alexandria: Although in truth Christ had no father according to the flesh, some supposed He did. Hence, the scripture says, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.

St. Ambrose of Milan: The phrase as was supposed is correct, since in reality He was not Joseph's son, but was thought to be so because Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, was His mother. We might wonder why the lineage of Joseph is described rather than Mary’s, since Mary brought forth Christ by the Holy Spirit, while Joseph seemed to be outside the line of our Lord’s descent. However, we are informed of the custom of Holy Scripture, which always traces the lineage through the husband.

This is especially true in this case, since in Joseph’s lineage we also find Mary’s. For Joseph, being a just man, took a wife from his own tribe and family. Thus, at the time of the census, Joseph went up from the family and town of David to be registered with Mary his wife. Since she is registered as being from the same family and town, this shows that she is also of that lineage.

Therefore, Luke continues with the lineage of Joseph, adding, who was the son of Heli. But let us consider the fact that Matthew makes Jacob the father of Joseph, while Luke says that Joseph (to whom Mary was betrothed) was the son of Heli. How, then, could one man have two fathers, namely, Heli and Jacob?

St. Gregory of Nazianzus: Some say that there is only one lineage from David to Joseph, which each Evangelist relates using different names. But this is absurd, since near the beginning of the genealogies, two different sons of David appear—Nathan and Solomon—from whom the lines diverge.

Eusebius of Caesarea: Let us more carefully explain the meaning of the words themselves. If, when Matthew affirmed Joseph to be the son of Jacob, Luke had similarly affirmed that Joseph was the son of Heli, there would be a dispute. But since Matthew gives his own account, while Luke repeats the common opinion of many—not his own—by saying, as was supposed, I do not think there is any room for doubt.

There were different opinions among the Jews about the genealogy of Christ, yet all traced Him to David, because the promises were made to him. Many affirmed that Christ would come through Solomon and the other kings. Others, however, avoided this view because of the many crimes recorded of those kings, and because Jeremiah said of Jeconiah that a man should not rise of his seed to sit on the throne of David. Luke takes this latter view, though aware that Matthew gives the true genealogy. This is the first reason.

The next reason is a deeper one. Matthew, writing about the events before Mary's conception and the birth of Jesus in the flesh, fittingly begins his history with the physical ancestry, tracing the lineage downward from those who came before. For when the Word of God became flesh, He descended. But Luke moves quickly to the regeneration that takes place in baptism. He then gives another lineage, rising from the lowest to the highest, and omits the sinners whom Matthew mentions. This is because he who is born again in God is separated from his guilty parents and made a son of God. Luke relates those who have led a virtuous life in the sight of God.

For it was said to Abraham, You shall go to your fathers—not fathers in the flesh, but fathers in God, on account of their likeness in virtue. Therefore, to him who is born in God, Luke ascribes parents who are "according to God" because of this resemblance in character.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Alternatively, Matthew descends from David through Solomon to Joseph. Luke, however, beginning from Heli, who was in our Savior's line, ascends through the line of Nathan, the son of David. He joins the families of Heli and Joseph, showing that they are both of the same family and, in this way, that the Savior was the son not only of Joseph but also of Heli. For by the same reasoning that the Savior is called the son of Joseph, He is also the son of Heli and of all the others who are of the same tribe. This relates to what the Apostle says: Of whom are the fathers, and from whom Christ came according to the flesh.

There are three possible reasons that could have guided the Evangelists. First, one Evangelist may have mentioned the father by whom Joseph was begotten, while the other mentioned his maternal grandfather or another ancestor. Second, one of the fathers mentioned was Joseph's natural father, and the other was his adoptive father. Third, according to Jewish custom, when a man died without children, his next of kin would marry his widow and ascribe to the dead kinsman the son whom he himself had begotten.

St. Ambrose of Milan: For it is related that Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begot Jacob as his son. When Matthan died, he left his wife living, whom Melchi took as his wife, and from her Heli was born. Then, when Heli's brother Jacob died without children, Heli married his brother’s wife and begot a son, Joseph. According to the law, Joseph is called the son of Jacob, since Heli raised up offspring for his deceased brother, according to the order of the ancient law.

The Venerable Bede: Alternatively, Jacob, taking the wife of his brother Heli who had died without children, begot Joseph according to the command of the law. Thus, Joseph was Jacob's son by natural parentage but Heli's son by the ordinance of the law.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It is most probable that Luke traced the lineage through adoption, as he was not willing to say that Joseph was begotten by the man he stated to be his father. For it is more natural to say a man is the son of the one who adopted him than to say he was begotten by someone from whose flesh he was not born. But Matthew, by saying, Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and continuing with the word "begat" until he finally says, Jacob begat Joseph, has made it sufficiently clear that he has traced the lineage of fathers to the one by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten.

Even if Luke were to say that Joseph was "begotten" by Heli, that word should not perplex us either, for it is not absurd to say that a man has "begotten" in love the son whom he has adopted, not in the flesh. But Luke rightly traced the lineage through adoption, for it is by adoption that we are made sons of God when we believe in the Son of God. Conversely, by His birth in the flesh, the Son of God, for our sake, became the Son of Man.

St. John Chrysostom: Because this part of the Gospel consists of a series of names, people often think there is nothing valuable to be derived from it. So that we do not feel this way, let us try to examine every step. From a mere name we can extract an abundant treasure, for names are indicative of many things. They speak of divine mercy and the thanksgiving offered by women who, when they received sons, gave them a name that signified the gift.

Glossa Ordinaria: By interpretation, then, Heli means "My God" or "climbing." He was the son of Matthat, that is, "forgiving sins." He was the son of Levi, that is, "being added."

St. Ambrose of Milan: Luke rightly thought that the ancient names of the Patriarchs—Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and Levi—should not be omitted, even though they occur in others much later. He did this since he could not include more of the sons of Jacob, so that he would not seem to be wandering from the line of descent in an unnecessary detour. For in these four we recognize four kinds of virtue: in Judah, the mystery of our Lord’s Passion prophesied in type; in Joseph, an example of chastity as a forerunner; in Simeon, the punishment for injured modesty; and in Levi, the priestly office.

Hence it follows: Who was the son of Melchi, that is, "my King." Who was the son of Janna, that is, "a right hand." Who was the son of Joseph, that is, "growing up" (but this was a different Joseph). Who was the son of Mattathias, that is, "the gift of God." Who was the son of Amos, that is, "loading." Who was the son of Naum, that is, "help me." Who was the son of Matthat, that is, "desire." Who was the son of Mattathias, as above. Who was the son of Semei, that is, "obedient." Who was the son of Joseph, that is, "increase." Who was the son of Judah, that is, "confessing."

Joanna means "the Lord, his grace." Rhesa, "merciful." Zerubbabel, "chief of Babylon." Shealtiel, "God my petition." Neri, "my lantern." Melchi, "my kingdom." Addi, "strong." Cosam, "divining." Er, "watching." Who was the son of Joshua, that is, "Savior." Eliezer, that is, "God my helper." Jorim, that is, "God is exalting." Matthat, as above. Levi, as above. Simeon, that is, "He has heard the sadness." Judah, as above. Joseph, as above. Jonam, "a dove." Eliakim, that is, "the resurrection of God." Melea, that is, "his king." Menna, that is, "my bowels." Mattatha, that is, "gift." Nathan, that is, "He gave."

But in Nathan we perceive the dignity of Prophecy expressed, so that, just as Christ Jesus alone fulfilled all things, different kinds of virtue might precede Him in each of His ancestors. It follows: Who was the son of David.

Origen of Alexandria: The Lord, descending into the world, identified with all sinners and was willing to be born of the line of Solomon (as Matthew relates), whose sins have been recorded, and of others, many of whom did evil in the sight of God. But when He ascended and is described as being born a second time in baptism (as Luke relates), He is not born through Solomon, but through Nathan, who reproved David for the death of Uriah and the subsequent birth of Solomon.

St. Augustine of Hippo: It must be admitted that a prophet of this same name, Nathan, reproves David, so that he might be thought to be the same man as David's son, whereas he was a different person.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus: From David upward, according to each Evangelist, there is an unbroken lineage, as it follows: Who was the son of Jesse.

Glossa Ordinaria: David is interpreted as "with a mighty arm, strong in fight." Obed, that is, "slavery." Boaz, that is, "strong." Salmon, that is, "capable of feeling" or "peacemaking." Nahshon, that is, "augury" or "belonging to serpents." Amminadab, "the people being willing." Aram, that is, "upright" or "lofty." Hezron, that is, "an arrow." Perez, that is, "division." Judah, that is, "confessing." Who was the son of Jacob, that is, "supplanted." Isaac, that is, "laughing" or "joy." Abraham, that is, "the father of many nations."

St. John Chrysostom: Matthew, who wrote primarily for the Jews, aimed to show that Christ descended from Abraham and David, for this was most important to them. Luke, however, speaking to all people, carried his account further back, even to Adam. Hence it follows: Who was the son of Terah.

Glossa Ordinaria: Terah is interpreted as "finding out" or "wickedness." Nahor, that is, "the light rested." Serug, that is, "correction" or "perfection." Reu, that is, "sick" or "feeding." Peleg, that is, "dividing" or "divided." Eber, that is, "passing over." Shelah, that is, "taking away." Cainan, that is, "lamentation" or "their possession."

The Venerable Bede: The name and lineage of Cainan, according to the Hebrew text, is found neither in Genesis nor in Chronicles; instead, Arphaxad is stated to have begotten Shelah his son, with no one in between. Know, then, that Luke borrowed this part of the genealogy from the Septuagint, where it is written that Arphaxad, at one hundred and thirty-five years old, begot Cainan, and that Cainan, at one hundred and thirty years old, begot Shelah. It follows: Who was the son of Arphaxad.

Glossa Ordinaria: Arphaxad means "healing the devastation." Shem, that is, "a name" or "named." Who was the son of Noah, that is, "rest."

St. Ambrose of Milan: The mention of the just man Noah ought not to be omitted among our Lord’s ancestors. So that, just as our Lord was born the builder of His Church, He might be seen to have sent Noah beforehand—the founder of His line—who had previously established the Church under the type of an ark. Who was the son of Lamech.

Glossa Ordinaria: Lamech means "humility," "striking," or "humble." Who was the son of Methuselah, that is, "the sending forth of death," or "he died and he asked."

St. Ambrose of Milan: Methuselah's years are numbered as extending beyond the flood, so that, since Christ is the only one who is ageless, He might seem, in His ancestor, to have not experienced the flood. Who was the son of Enoch. And here is a clear declaration of our Lord’s piety and divinity. Our Lord did not experience death but returned to heaven, and the founder of His line, Enoch, was taken up into heaven.

From this it is plain that Christ could not die, but was willing for His death to benefit us. Enoch was taken so that his heart might not be changed by wickedness, but the Lord—whom the wickedness of the world could not change—returned to that place from where He had come by the greatness of His own nature.

The Venerable Bede: Rightly ascending from the baptized Son of God to God the Father, Luke places Enoch at the seventy-seventh step. Enoch, having put off death, was translated to Paradise to signify that those who are born again of water and the Holy Spirit by the grace of adoption as sons are, in the meantime after death, to be received into eternal rest. For the number seventy-seven, because of the Sabbath's number seven, signifies the rest of those who, with God's assisting grace, have fulfilled the Ten Commandments.

Glossa Ordinaria: Enoch is interpreted as "dedication." Jared means "descending" or "holding together." Mahalalel, that is, "the praised of God" or "praising God." Cainan, as above. Enos, that is, "man," "despairing," or "violent." Seth, that is, "placing," "settling," or "he has placed." Seth, the last son of Adam, is not omitted, so that, since there were two generations of people, it might be signified in a figure that Christ was to be reckoned in the last rather than the first.

It follows: Who was the son of Adam, which means "man," "of the earth," or "needy." Who was the son of God.

St. Ambrose of Milan: What could be more fitting than for the holy lineage to begin from the Son of God and be traced all the way up to the Son of God? It is fitting that the one who was created (Adam) should precede in a figure, so that the one who was born (Christ) might follow in substance. Thus, he who was made in the image of God would precede the one for whose sake the image of God was to descend.

Luke thought that the origin of Christ should be traced to God, because God is the true progenitor of Christ—the Father by true birth, and the Author of the mystical gift by baptism and regeneration. Therefore, Luke did not begin by describing His lineage, but waited until after he had described His baptism, so that he might declare Him to be the Son of God by both nature and grace. What more evident sign of His divine generation could there be than this: when about to speak of it, Luke first introduces the Father, saying, You are my beloved Son?

St. Augustine of Hippo: By this, Luke made it sufficiently clear that he did not call Joseph the son of Heli because he was begotten by him, but rather because he was adopted by him. For he also called Adam himself a son, since, though created by God, he was placed as a son in paradise by grace—a grace he forfeited through sin.

Theophylact of Ohrid: For this reason, Luke closes the genealogy with God: so that we may learn that Christ will raise up to God all the fathers listed in between and make them sons of God. It is also so that we might believe that the birth of Christ was without seed. It is as if he said, "If you do not believe that the second Adam was made without seed, you must go back to the first Adam, and you will find that he was made by God without seed."

St. Augustine of Hippo: Matthew wished to show God descending to our mortality; accordingly, at the beginning of his Gospel, he recounted the genealogy from Abraham down to the birth of Christ. But Luke, not at the beginning but after Christ's baptism, relates the genealogy not in a descending but an ascending line, as if highlighting the high priest in the atonement for sins, to whom John bore testimony, saying, Behold, who takes away the sins of the world. By ascending, the genealogy comes to God, to whom we are reconciled, having been cleansed and atoned for.

St. Ambrose of Milan: The Evangelists, who have followed the ancient order, do not seem to differ so much. You should not wonder that there are more generations from Abraham down to Christ according to Luke and fewer according to Matthew, since you must admit the line was traced through different people. It could be that some men lived a very long life, while the men of the next generation died at an early age. We see how many old men live to see their grandchildren, while others pass away as soon as they have sons.

St. Augustine of Hippo: Most fittingly, regarding our baptized Lord, Luke reckons the genealogy through seventy-seven persons. This expresses the ascent to God, to whom we are reconciled by the abolition of sins. Furthermore, baptism brings to humanity the remission of all sins, which is signified by that number. For seven times eleven is seventy-seven. The number ten signifies perfect happiness. Therefore, it is plain that exceeding the number ten (that is, eleven) marks the sin of pride, of one who covets more.

This is multiplied by seven to signify that the transgression was caused by human action. For the number three represents the immortal part of man, while the number four represents the body. But motion is not expressed in cardinal numbers (like one, two, three) but in adverbial numbers (like once, twice, thrice). And so, seven times eleven signifies a transgression brought about by human action.