PQ@The plan of GodLuke 3:23-38
T In search of a clue
@I remember some journalist wrote once, "The reading which is not most interesting all over the world is the stock column of newspaper, expectation of horse racing and this part of genealogy of Matthew Gospel."; but the first of the Gospel of Matthew is a genealogy of Jesus. However, the genealogy of Matthew is full of changes when we compare it with a thing of Luke, but the genealogy of Luke is enumeration of a simple name, and intention of Luke who wrote this down does not see readily. However, anyway, I decide to go on reading it because there is not a way even if at a loss. It may become a little complicated, but please forgive me.
@By the way, the name that Luke gave is 76 people in all, but Matthew is 40 people, and it is not mentioned before Abraham, so it is not possible for simple comparison. Because they are 13 people from Abraham to king David, and after David they are 4 people (Joshua, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Matthan), when it adds it up, it is 17 people, but there are few common people. Besides, after Zorro Babel, they are only 10 people in Matthew, whereas names of 18 people come out to Luke. Because the difference was big between these two, it has been said by some people that the genealogy of Luke would be a thing of Mary and the genealogy of Matthew would be a thing of Joseph. As for this, the greatest grounds is in "being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli", and it is based on a guess that Joseph is the daughter's husband of Eli. However, it does not have evidence either, and, by the way, the genealogy of the wife cannot be announced in Jewish society. In addition, Nathan, the brother of Solomon, comes out to Verse 31, but probably it is in the grounds that he is a family of Mary. However, the names after David that Matthew nominated would be a succession to the throne, therefore it becomes Solomon, but it can nod that Luke gave a name of Nathan, when think from a blood relative of Joseph. And, strangely, names that continue at two generations, Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, are common to both Luke and Matthew. Even if it was a thing of Mary, it is quite unnatural that the thing which has begun to follow the separate history after Nathan appears to this genealogy two people successively. Perhaps we had better regard both as a genealogy of Joseph. As for this difference, it will be more natural to think that there was each editing method.
U As new David
@However, in this time that Jesus began to be going to be right active as the Messiah, what would Luke mention this genealogy for? The one of it will be that Luke adopted a custom of then (perhaps Greek) authors. And one more thing, it is that Luke is going to show Jesus is a One who belongs to David king families, by working it into a genealogy of Joseph, above all. The Messiah will appear from a family of King David, and it was known widely to not only the Jew but also the then foreigner society. Therefore, this genealogy does not begin from "the son of Joseph, the son of Eli", but it begins from "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age" (23); and it will be consciousness of Luke. And, judging from a thought method of Luke, a genealogy beginning with Joseph does not need to turn into the thing of Mary all too soon, I think.
@By the way, Luke adds here the age of Jesus expressly; "and when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age". Because there is it "about", the true age of Jesus is unidentified, but Luke is still particular about 30 years old. Because this accords with the age when David succeeded to the throne to King (2 Samuel 5:4). In other words, this will be the message that Jesus does not only link His name to a genealogy of King David, but appeared as new David. Is not there Luke's intention, who wrote down a genealogy of David tracing it from Joseph, in here?
@Luke wrote "when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age". Perhaps this will say the time when Jesus received Baptism. There is it in Matthew, when He returned to Galilee after He rejected the temptation of devil; "From that Jesus began to preach and say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (4:17). It seems that Matthew makes it the point in time as the opening of public life of Jesus. However, Luke does not have that part. Because Matthew was written earlier than Luke, it seems that naturally Luke knew the Matthew Gospel, however, by rather deleting that part, Luke impressed that Baptism and the start of public life of Jesus are simultaneous. Will not it be a thing to ask about the meaning of Baptism of Jesus? I come back before a little, but, in fact, there is different transcript in that part, "Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased." (3:22); however, he adopted as it is that "Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee." (Psalms 2:7). "Thou art My beloved Son" is that meaning. If it is said more concretely, it is that "You will become One taking my full power from today". It is a meaning of Baptism of Jesus. "His ministry" is not to teach something of God but to show His character of Jesus full in power of God; and it will be concerning of our salvation. Now, Jesus started the activity to save us with inclining His all character.
V The plan of God
@There is another characteristic that Luke wished us to know in this genealogy. It is the last place. "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (38)@Perhaps it will seem Luke's real intention that he sailed up the genealogy from Abraham to Adam and wrote it down, will be seen by investigating that characteristic. By the way, I deviate to the sideway a little, but I compared the names of 21 people from Adam to Abraham with Genesis. However, there is not a name of Cainan. Luke used the Old Testament of Greek called 70 translation. There was the name of Cainan there. And when we read the Gospel of Luke in Greek; there is not the sentence of that "this Adam is Son of God (this is a problem of Japanese translation).". In the Greek, all is condition like that, from Joseph to God; "Joseph of Eli, Eli of Mttathias, ccand Adam of God". Does it mean "it depends on"? This words, "the son", only come out to the place "being supposedly the son of Joseph," (23). This is a characteristic of the native language Greek of Luke. It is very concise. When we read it here like that, God becomes same as a name of somebody like Adam and Noah. In fact, even if I translate "Adam of God", it doesn't consist as Japanese. So, "this Adam is Son of God", so, it will be proper translation. The thing which follows below is introduction of two Japanese translation (Nagai translation, Iwanami translation), but I omits translation of English because it is difficult.
@We seem to become too eager in supporting the Trinity, "Jesus is God own". However, Luke seems to say extremely naturally that Jesus is a Son of God and has glory of God. Luke will be saying that Jesus reaches God when we trace this genealogy, by making the best use of characteristic of Greek naturally. The genealogy of Jesus reaches to God; it is the center subject of Luke that Jesus is a Messiah who came from God, undoubtedly. In those days, such rumor that Jesus is one of the self-styled Messiah who disappeared has spread. Because, even in Judea, it was so, besides, such cool reputation must have ruled in the foreigner world where Luke was. Will not this genealogy be more than enough to deny such a rumor? From this genealogy, God's plan that He is going to add us to His own people, seems to rise.