路加福音 3章23節 到 3章23節     上一筆  下一筆
 {Jesus Himself} (autos I(8873)ous). 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}
(archomenos). 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
archomenos. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow
archomai, usually the infinitive in the _Koin(825f). It is not
necessary to supply anything ( Ac 1:22 ). {Was about thirty years
of age} ((886e) h(9373)ei et(936e) 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} ((936e)
huios h(9373) enomizeto I(9373)(8870)h tou Helei). For the discussion of the
genealogy of Jesus see on 烘t 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 	ou 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" (h(9373)
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.

重新查詢 專卷研經 路加福音系列
錯誤回報,請聯繫comm[@]fhl.net