The Joy of the Lord (Nehemiah 8:10)

Who said, “the joy of the Lord is your strength”? Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:10)

The book of Nehemiah is largely a first person memoir recounting the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s city walls during the 5th century BCE. After the wall is completed (Nehemiah 6:15) and guards are installed (Nehemiah 7:1-3), the people are assembled and Ezra reads “the book of the law of Moses” (Nehemiah 7:73-8:8).

Lester L. Grabbe (b. 1945) recaps:

The people, both men and women, are gathered on the 1st day of the 7th month (the Festival of Trumpets according to Leviticus 23:23-25) in the space before the Water Gate, which was probably the main open square of the city (Nehemiah 8:1-2). Ezra reads from early morning to midday, with various individuals standing on both sides of him (Ezra 8:3-4)...Ezra begins by pronouncing a blessing on Yhwh, to which the people respond (Nehemiah 8:5-6). Then various individuals (presumably priests) and Levites clarify the reading to the people (Nehemiah 8:7-8). (Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 51)

The reading triggers an emotional roller coaster. Initially, the people weep (Nehemiah 8:9) before Nehemiah reorients them (Nehemiah 8:9-10).

Then he said to them, “Go, eat of the fat, drink of the sweet, and send portions to him who has nothing prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.” (Nehemiah 8:10 NASB)

The priests affirm Nehemiah’s summons, dismissing the congregation with reassuring words (Nehemiah 8:11). The people then disburse to celebrate (Nehemiah 8:11-12).

J.I. Packer (b. 1926) assesses:

The course of action that the leaders pressed on them was better from every point of view. “The joy of the Lord is your strength,” said Nehemiah (one imagines him shouting it from the platform); so rejoice!—feast in joyful generosity, rather than fast in sad self-absorption! “Go and enjoy...Do not grieve.” Thus he brought the meeting to an end. (Packer, A Passion for Faithfulness: Wisdom from the Book of Nehemiah, 158)

Penance will come soon, in fact in the next chapter (Nehemiah 9:1-37). Now, however, is the time to celebrate as God is renewing the covenant.

Mark A. Throntveit (b. 1949) understands:

This...scene, together with the next...functions as the first part of the covenant renewal that these chapters present: proclamation. The “joy of the LORD” (Nehemiah 8:10), freshly renewed through the teaching of Ezra and the Levites, will strengthen the people for the soul-searching that lies ahead in chapters 9 and 10. (Throntveit, Ezra–Nehemiah (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 97)

Stan Purdum (b. 1945) concurs:

Both Ezra and Nehemiah told them to rejoice...because “the joy from the LORD is your strength!” (Nehemiah 8:10). In other words, God was calling them to be the current community in covenant with him. God was giving them the teaching that make for a wholesome and holy life, which is a source of joy. (Purdum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Immersion Bible Studies), 44)

Nehemiah 8-10 is distinct from the rest of the book. Rather than being narrated by the titular character these chapters are composed in the third person. This portion is about Nehemiah not by him. Further, Nehemiah 8 focuses on the figure of Ezra (Nehemiah 8:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13). This chapter represents one of the few instances that Ezra and Nehemiah appear together.

Lester L. Grabbe (b. 1945) critiques:

In this chapter the attention suddenly turns from Nehemiah to Ezra. In the combined writing Ezra-Nehemiah this would cause no problem for the reader since Ezra was already the subject of an extensive section of the book a few chapters earlier; nevertheless the appearance of Ezra without warning or separation, with the almost non-mention of Nehemiah, still looks rather abrupt. The subject of the chapter is the reading of the law. Again, the focus on this makes some sense in the context since the completion of the wall allows the people to gather together and the wall was finished on the 25th of Elul (Nehemiah 6:15), the 6th month while this chapter begins on the 1st day of the 7th month (Nehemiah 8:2). In the context, one might expect that the people would gather, the law be read, and then the wall be dedicated in a mainly religious celebration. This is not what happens, however, for the dedication does not come until much later (Nehemiah 12:27-43, though no date is given), after the question of mixed marriages is dealt with. This is difficult to explain from a purely literary analysis...as is the thirteen-year wait from the time of Ezra’s first coming during which time he supposedly did nothing about the law. (Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 50)

Ezra’s having been in possession of the law without utilizing it has generated speculation (Ezra 7:10). Kyung-Jin Min asserts:

In the case of Nehemiah 8, few doubt that it originally belonged with Ezra 7-10. The dating system in Nehemiah 8 fits with Ezra 7-10, and Ezra is one of the central figures in Nehemiah 8 even though it is located in the middle of the Nehemiah narrative, whereas the single reference to Nehemiah (Nehemiah 8:9) is normally treated as a later insertion. (Min, The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah, 106)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) construes:

As the singular verb in Nehemiah 8:9 and Nehemiah 8:10 suggests, the admonition was delivered by Ezra alone in the earlier form of the narrative. Nehemiah the governor and the Levites were added at a later stage. (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 288)

It is Ezra who reads “the book of the law of Moses” (Nehemiah 8:1-5). The text does not record which passage is read but instead emphasizes the people’s response.

Gordon F. Davies (b. 1954) notes:

The important point here is not the stipulations of the Law as read: these details are omitted in this telling of the event. The first question is its reception—how the Law, designed as a constitution for a sovereign realm, can be observed afresh in a subject province of a pagan empire. How can it be proclaimed in a way that is current and engaging but at the same time free from the vicissitudes of Israel’s political fortune?...The people’s reception of the Law becomes the paradigm for Israel’s faith. Although not politically powerful, Israel can have an autonomous faith that is sincere about conversion and structured within tradition. (Davies, Ezra & Nehemiah (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 112)

The people instinctively weep upon hearing the law. Mark A. Throntveit (b. 1949) exclaims:

What a shock to the reader...when the people’s response to the law, reverently read, painstakingly interpreted, and worshipfully received, issues in weeping (Nehemiah 8:9)! Not that grief over their laxity with regard to the law was inappropriate. Under similar circumstances in Josiah’s time, their ancestors had also responded with mourning and weeping in repentance (II Kings 22:11; II Chronicles 34:19, 27). But this day, New Year’s Day (Leviticus 23:24), was “holy to the LORD” (Nehemiah 8:9, 10, 11), set aside for another purpose, namely rejoicing and the blowing of trumpets (Leviticus 23:24; Numbers 29:1). Lest the reader miss this emphasis, the final verses of the text employ a narrative “double strike” to drive the lesson home. In parallel proclamations both Ezra and the Levites prohibit grief and enjoin rejoicing. (Throntveit, Ezra–Nehemiah (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 97)

Presumably, the law serves it purpose by revealing transgression (Romans 7:1). Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) argues:

It is remarkable how often Ezra-Nehemiah, generally thought to be gloomy and jejune, reports demonstrations of anger, grief, and joy. The reason for the weeping and mourning in this instance is the sense of inadequacy and failure vis-à-vis the law and the threat posed by the curses appended to it. (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 288-89)

Mark Roberts (b. 1957) discusses:

When the people heard and understood the Law, they began to weep (Nehemiah 8:9). We can only imagine why. Perhaps they were convicted of sin, or perhaps they realized that their suffering could have been prevented if only they and their ancestors had obeyed God precepts. Whatever their reason, although it seems an appropriate response to the Law, the leaders (including Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites) rebuked the people for their tears: This day is holy to the LORD your God; do not mourn nor weep” (Nehemiah 8:9)...Weeping in response to the Law will be encouraged later, in chapter 9, but rejoicing comes first. (Roberts, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester (Mastering the Old Testament), 239)

While it seems a shame to waste the rare occurrence of an uncontrived wellspring of contrition, here it is inappropriate. There is a time to mourn (Ecclesiastes 3:4) but this is not it. Forlorn tears during festival days are as inappropriate as laughing in the midst of tragedy. Nehemiah reminds the people not to rain on God’s parade: There’s no crying in holidays!

Lester L. Grabbe (b. 1945) apprises:

The day is made into a festival day for eating, drinking, and rejoicing (Nehemiah 8:9-12)...Although the people have been read the Torah, nothing is said about this day as the Day of Trumpets. It is said to be a holy day but not because of the instructions given to Moses; on the contrary, the day is apparently declared holy because ‘they made them understand all the words which they taught them’ (Nehemiah 8:12). (Grabbe, Ezra-Nehemiah, 52)

Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) informs:

There is a triple refrain in Nehemiah 8:9-11 concerning the holiness of This day as a festival day and the obligation not to grieve. The monthly New Moon festival and the longer festivals were to be days of rejoicing, according to Numbers 10:10, while Deuteronomy stipulates that joyful celebration was to be a regular feature of the festivals (Deuteronomy 12:7, 12, 18, 14:26, 16:11, 14). The tension between the people’s weeping and the leaders’ exhortation to rejoice is reminiscent of Ezra 3:12-13, where official rejoicing mingled with lamenting dissatisfaction. Here, however, the grief was evidently due to the content of the reading, which prompted a healthy recognition of falling short of its standards...Yet the sacred duty of the day as devoted to the joyful worship of God made tears inappropriate. Rejoicing over the Lord is described as a source of protection, the people’s “strong-hold” (NJB). Such a positive attitude supplied a stimulus to comply with the moral will of God in the future, and so gave protection against the divine wrath for disobedience that had loomed in Ezra 9. The special, party-like fare that expressed their joy and generous sharing with those who had no food are both reminiscent of Deuteronomy 12:18-19 and Deuteronomy 14:26-27. The end of Nehemiah 8:12 resumes Nehemiah 8:8: it was not simply the holiday that sparked communal joy, but the appreciation of the reading and the exposition of the Torah. (Allen and Timothy S. Laniak [b. 1958], Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series))

Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos (b. 1940) accuses the Israelites of selective hearing:

The people have heard and understood, but even with understanding one may hear all too selectively. This is a time, so the leaders say, to rejoice, for the people’s strength is located in their joy rather than in their grief. Three times the motivation for abstaining from tears is provided with the statement that this is a holy day...To declare a day “holy to the Lord,” means for the community to set it aside, to dedicate it to God in joyful remembering of who they are and who God is. (Wijk-BosEzra, Nehemiah, and Esther (Westminster Bible Companion), 75-76)

The people are assured that the joy of the Lord is their strength (Nehemiah 8:10). As is often the case, joy succeeds sorrow.

Edwin M. Yamauchi (b. 1937) analyzes:

“The joy” (hedwá) occurs only here and in I Chronicles 16:27 (cf. Aram in Ezra 6:16). Most commentators interpret this joy as having the Lord as its object. In other words, our joy in the Lord as we eat and labor before him will sustain us (Deuteronomy 12:7, 12, 18, 14:26, 17:11, 14). However, arguing from the fact that “strength” (mā‘ōz) means “stronghold, fortress” (cf. Psalm 27:1, 37:39; Jeremiah 16:19), Gordon C.I. Wong [b. 1961] has argued for “the joy of the LORD” as a subjective genitive, that is, the Lord’s joy in us, as that makes more sense. He suggests, “In other words, it is Yahweh’s joy over his people that is the basis for the hope that they will be saved or protected from his anger.” (John H. Walton [b. 1952], 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 441)

The joy of the Lord will be the people’s “strength” (ASV, ESV, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “stronghold” (HCSB). The mighty fortress that is the joy of the Lord will protect the people.

H.G.M. Williamson (b. 1947) comments:

In this context “protection” must be against the judgments of God, it follows that on occasions when God’s earlier acts of salvation were recalled it was appreciated that grace was an overriding characteristic of his nature. “The joy of the Lord” was the joy each Israelite felt at these festivals as he identified himself afresh with the community of God’s people and so appropriated in his own generation the salvation once bestowed upon his ancestors. In this act of identification—which took the form of joyful celebration and worship—lay his protection from the judgment that might otherwise fall on those outside of the covenant. Naturally, the sacred recital of the original event formed a vital part of this process. Ezra, therefore encouraged the people to regard his reading of Scripture in this light. Though it might challenge their consciences, it was to be regarded first and foremost as a declaration of God’s grace to his people. (Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (Word Biblical Commentary), 292)

Instead of mourning the people are to do just the opposite; they are to party. Keith Schoville (b. 1928) details:

Rather than fasting and mourning, this was a day for joyous feasting. The people were encouraged to eat delicacies not a part of their normal diets. Special days call for special foods in all cultures. Choice food is literally “of the fat,” as in the KJV and RSV, that is, the choicest portions. Sweet drinks may have been sweet wine; the Vulgate indicates wine mixed with honey. The instruction to send some to those who have nothing prepared is taken by a Jewish commentator to refer to the poor. The day was holy to the Lord and all of the people should share in the joy of it. All are to receive renewed strength by rejoicing in the Lord. The Levites must have helped the people to understand the grace of God so that they could celebrate with great joy. H.G.M. Williamson [b. 1947] points to the importance of Ezra’s interpretation of the Torah to the people: “In this late period, when circumstances had changed so much from the time of the original law-giving, there had arisen the danger that the Law would slip into being a document of only antiquarian interest. It was Ezra’s hermeneutic that brought it to life again for the community. Although in theory the text of Scripture alone was normative, in practice it could only be that text as it came to be interpreted that would shape the future bold of Judaism.” Every generation needs to be confronted afresh with the meaning of God’s word and will for that generation. (Schoville, Ezra-Nehemiah (The College Press NIV Commentary), 217)

Joseph Blenkinsopp (b. 1927) remarks:

The admonition is to put aside sadness and enjoy the good fare and fellowship associated with festal sacrifices (cf. Numbers 29:2-6). The theme of rejoicing, closely associated with worship in Deuteronomic-Chronistic preaching (e.g., Deuteronomy 12:12, 14:26; II Chronicles 29:36, 30:25), is rounded off with a psalmlike asseveration: joy in YHVH is your strength...The passage ends, therefore, on a note which calls into question the indictment—so often repeated in the modern period—of early Judaism as fearful and joyless. (Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 289)

Knute Larson (b. 1941) and Kathy Dahlen (b. 1952) reason:

Ezra concluded, Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength. The emphasis was on God’s grace. Although they had sinned and had not fulfilled the law, God was celebrated as the gracious Sovereign who “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him” (Psalm 103:10-11). Their protection came from God’s grace. (Larson and Dahlen, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 219)

The festivities should continue into the present day. Michael Frost (b. 1961) affirms:

I believe that celebration is a core practice of those who live in a world under God’s reign, but I’m not sure whether a rip-roaring “contemporary worship service” is going to quite to do it. I’d prefer a celebration similar to that which Nehemiah commends: “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is sacred to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the LORD is your strength” (Nehemiah 8:10). Celebration, beauty, and generosity are a godly combination. (Hirsch, The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church, 144)

Though Nehemiah’s command not to grieve could prove difficult for some, God’s grace always gives cause to celebrate and be thankful. Pleasing God produces joy and a heart infused with joy is strong. The joy of the Lord will sustain the Israelites just as the wall that is built will stabilize the city itself.

Does Nehemiah instruct the Israelites to compartmentalize their emotions? Why is it so important that the nation celebrate in this instance? When have you misheard the intent of a speaker? How is celebrating different when building as opposed to rebuilding? Which is more unifying, corporate celebration or mourning? Should tears ever be rebuked? When have you responded inappropriately at a public event? Have you ever attended a party where you did not feel like celebrating? What should you be celebrating today? Which Scripture do you think that Ezra read? What is typically your response to the reading of Scripture; have you ever wept? Should reading Scripture always produce joy? From what source(s) do you draw strength? Is the joy of the Lord your strength?

The joy of the Lord empowers believers. It strengthens us to endure hardship. John Piper (b. 1946) cites:

From the beginning of his Christian life in 1785 until he died in 1833, William Wilberforce [1759-1833] lived off the “great doctrines of the gospel,” especially the doctrine of justification by faith alone based on the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. This is where he fed his joy. Because of these truths, “when all around him is dark and stormy, he can lift up an eye of Heaven, radiant with hope and glistening with gratitude.” The joy of the Lord became his strength (Nehemiah 8:10). And in this strength he pressed on in the cause of abolishing the slave trade until he had the victory. (Piper, The Roots of Endurance: Invincible Perseverance in the Lives of John Newton [1725-1807], Charles Simeon [1759-1836], and William Wilberforce [1759-1833], 160)

Andrew Murray (1828-1917) endorses:

There is no proof of the reality of God’s love and the blessing He bestows, which people so quickly feel the strength of, as when the joy of God overcomes all the trials of life. And for the Christian’s own welfare, joy is just as indispensable; the joy of the Lord is his strength (see Nehemiah 8:10), and confidence, courage, and patience find their inspiration in joy. With a heart full of joy no work can make us weary and no burden can depress us; God himself is our strength and song. (Murray, Abiding in Christ, 152)

Joy is a cardinal Christian virtue. Leonard Sweet (b. 1947) distinguishes:

Nehemiah declared, “The joy of the LORD is your strength.” Followers remain mindful of their joy quotient while guarding against an addictive dependence on happiness. Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann [1921-1983] contends, “It is only as joy that the Church was victorious in the world, and it lost the world when it lost the joy, when it ceased to be the witness of it. Of all accusations against Christians, the most terrible was uttered by Friedrich Nietzsche [1844-1900] when he said that Christians had no joy...‘For behold I bring you good tidings of great joy [Luke 2:10]’—thus begins the Gospel, and its end is: ‘And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy [Luke 24:52].’” (Sweet, I Am a Follower: The Way, Truth, and Life of Following Jesus, 114)

How does your enjoyment of God give you strength for living? How does this fortitude translate to your family and friends? How essential is being joyful to the Christian life? Is your church joyful? Are you?

“Joy as a moral quality is a Christian invention.” - Dean William Ralph Inge (1860-1954), “St. Paul,” Outspoken Essays, p. 226

Note: The painting featured in this post, “The Joy Of The Lord Is Your Strength”, was rendered by Kathy Clark (b. 1953).

In the Cool of the Day (Genesis 3:8)

Who walked in the garden in the cool of the day? God (Genesis 3:8)

After God implants him in the Garden of Eden, Adam is given one (and only one) prohibition: “From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die (Genesis 2:17 NASB).” It takes Adam and his newly created helpmate, Eve, all of 14 verses to violate this edict (Genesis 3:6).

“The Fall” is one of the best known stories in all of Scripture: Adam and Eve fall for the serpent’s sales pitch, partake of the forbidden fruit and have their eyes opened to their own nakedness (Genesis 3:1-7). Fear replaces innocense resulting in Adam and Eve making the dubious decision to hide from Yahweh in the very garden the deity created for them (Genesis 3:8).

In the aftermath, they answer for their actions (Genesis 3:8-13). The transition from transgression to accountability begins with the first walk in the Bible. Yahweh reenters the scene, walking in the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8 NASB).

They [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8 NASB)

God walking with people normally signifies intimacy. Kenneth A. Mathews (b. 1950) relates:

“Walked with God” is a favorite expression in Genesis, depicting the righteous conduct of Israel’s heroes, including Enoch [Genesis 5:22, 24], Noah [Genesis 6:9], and Abraham [Genesis 17:1, 24:40, 48:15). Yet now the man and the woman are hiding from God in fear. God’s presence is also noted by his “walking” in the camp and sanctuary of Israel [Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 23:14; II Samuel 7:6-7]. Later Israel recognized that God demanded holiness and obedience if he were to continue to “walk” among his people. It was part of the sad deception that the man and woman who wanted so much to be “like God,” rather than obtaining the stature of deity, are afraid even to commune with him. (Mathews, Genesis 1- 11:26 (New American Commentary), 239)

Genesis paints a serene picture. God is strolling through the garden on a pleasant afternoon (Genesis 3:8). Though the Bible never specifies how frequently God visits the garden after creation many have presumed that walking the garden was part of God’s routine.

Gordon J. Wenham (b. 1943) rationalizes:

“They heard the sound of the LORD God walking to and fro in the garden in the breeze of the day.” [Genesis 3:8] The description of Eden with its trees, rivers, gold, and so on emphasized God’s presence there. Therefore it seems likely that it was not unusual for him to be heard walking in the garden “in the breeze of the day,” i.e., in the afternoon when cool breezes spring up and the sun is not so scorching. Maybe a daily chat between the Almighty and his creatures was customary. The term “walking” (hithpael participle of הלך) is subsequently used of God’s presence in the Israelite tent sanctuary (Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 23:14; II Samuel 7:6-7) again emphasizing the relationship between the garden and the later shrines. It is not God’s walking in the garden that was unusual, but the reaction of man and his wife. (Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary), 76)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) adds:

Toward sundown the man and the woman heard Yahweh walking in the garden. The verb used here to describe the divine movement—mithallēk—is a type of Hithpael that suggests iterative and habitual aspects. Such walks would take place in the early evening (the cooler time of day) rather than “in the heat of the day” (cf. Genesis 18:1). (Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series), 192)

The Garden of Eden is never explicitly called the garden of God, but it is implied (Genesis 3:8). R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) suspects:

Because God was present in the garden, we must not imagine that the opening line, “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8a), indicates that God came down to the garden. He was already there. It was his earthly palace, his garden-temple. What the couple heard was “the rustle of God’s step” (Gerhard Von Rad [1901-1971]). It was the sacred sound that they had heard before and that had so filled them with joy but now brought dread. (Hughes, Genesis: Beginning and Blessing (Preaching the Word), 77)

Contextually, it makes sense that God’s presence in Eden is commonplace. Adam and Eve are hiding from someone and as presumably the only people on earth, by default, that someone must be Yahweh. It would also be odd for God to appear in the garden only after Adam and Eve have sinned.

God walking in the cool of the day is not the anomaly. The aberration is the humans’ fear of their creator. Though they could be attempting to evade the mandated death sentence (Genesis 2:17), it does not appear that they hide out of fear but rather shame (Genesis 3:8).

Nothing in the text lends itself to the setting being any more than an ordinary day in the Garden of Eden. The implication is that prior to the Fall, humanity enjoyed open communion with God. Afterwards, the stewards of the garden become fugitives from it owner. Fellowship has been broken.

Normative or not, this encounter represents a Biblical milestone. Leon R. Kass (b. 1939) observes:

This is the first explicit mention that any human being really attended to or even noticed the divine presence. Only in recognizing our lowliness can we also discover what is truly high. The turn toward the divine is founded on our discovery of our own lack of divinity. (Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, 91)

The image of Yahweh in this passage is highly anthropomorphic; the divine is personified with human characteristics. This depiction is a major departure for God from the initial two chapters of Genesis where his omnipotence and transcendence are on full display.

Martin Kessler (b. 1927) and Karel Deurloo (b. 1936) envision:

The event is described anthropomorphically. The lord of the garden took a walk in the pleasant afternoon when a breeze began to blow. As if he were naively relaxed, he took a stroll with the expectation to meet the man, appearing totally unconscious of what had just transpired. (Kessler and Deurloo, A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, 53)

This anthropomorphic imagery may sound bizarre to the modern reader but it is not uncommon in the text. Richard Nelson (b. 1945) acknowledges:

Modern readers will probably be uncomfortable with the depiction of God strolling about in the breezy cool of the day, but we have already run into God’s direct physical interaction with earthly things in Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:21-22. (Nelson, From Eden to Babel: An Adventure in Bible Study, 49)

Anthropomorphism is especially prominent in the J or Yahwistic material in Genesis. Gerhard Von Rad (1901-1971) examines:

The Yahwistic narrative is full of the boldest anthropomorphisms. Yahweh walks in the garden in the cool of the evening [Genesis 3:8]; he himself closes the ark [Genesis 7:16]; he descends to inspect the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:5], etc. This is anything but the bluntness and naïveté of an archaic narrator. It is, rather, the candor and lack of hesitation which is only the mark of a lofty and mature way of thinking. This glasslike, transparent, and fragile way of thinking in the Yahwisic narrative makes of every exposition, which inevitably coarsens the original text, a difficult and almost insoluble task. (Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 26)

Donald E. Gowan (b. 1929) resolves:

Many have commented on the strong anthropomorphism of this verse, which speaks of the sound or voice of the LORD God walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, like any human garden-owner; but this may be seen as one of J’s typically subtle ways of making a point. These few words make it possible for us to conceive of a divine-human community where God intends to be seen face-to-face; J tells us that such a community is God’s intention, but it has been thwarted by our declaration of independence. (Gowan, Genesis 1-11: From Eden to Babel (International Theological Commentary), 55)

Many religions affirm an ancient period in which a god or gods walked alongside humans. Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) critiques:

The old view that Yahweh dwelt in this Garden can still be heard here, if only dimly...a childish view of God. Ra, too, strolled “every day” among humans in the primeval period, “for his heart wished to see what he had created” (Adolf Erman [1854-1937], Die Äegyptische Religion, 154-55). (Gunkel [translated by Mark E. Biddle (b. 1957)], Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies), 18)

The anthropomorphism has long troubled interpreters. John L. Thompson (b. 1952) chronicles:

There remained an abiding concern to understand what it meant to “walk in the garden in the cool of the day”—a description that long ago offended Origen [184-253] for its crass anthropomorphism and drove him to deny the historicity of such accounts and to credit only figurative readings as authentic. The reformers, of course, bristled over Origen’s exegesis, yet Martin Luther [1483-1546] and John Calvin [1509-1564] had different takes on the ancient heresy of Anthropomorphites, who ascribed a literal body to God. (Thompson, Genesis 1-11 (Reformation Commentary on Scripture), 136)

Ronald H. Nash (1936-2006) recounts:

Augustine [354-430] once complained to Ambrose [337-397] that the God of the Bible had a body. When Ambrose asked where Augustine read such a thing, Augustine referred to Genesis 3:8 and its claim that the Lord God “was walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Ambrose responded that he was amazed to be standing in the presence of a teacher of rhetoric who could not recognize nonliteral language. The simple recognition that the Bible sometimes uses figures of speech and nonliteral language eliminated many of Augustine’s misconceptions about Scripture. (Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy), 142)

Yahweh is described as walking in the garden in the “cool of the day” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV) or during an “evening (or ‘late...afternoon’) breeze” (Robert Alter [b. 1935], CEV, HCSB, MSG, NLT, NRSV). The traditional translation, “in the cool of the day”, became commonplace in the 16th century. The expression is rendered as such in the Great Bible (1540), the Bishop’s Bible (1558), the Geneva Bible (1560) and most notably the King James Version (1611).

Bruce K. Waltke (b. 1930) and Cathi J. Fredricks advise:

Cool of the day...is literally the “wind” or “spirit” of the day. The wind/spirit is the symbol of God’s presence (see Genesis 1:2). (Waltke with Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, 92)

Joseph Coleson (b. 1947) discusses:

The narrative includes the detail that God was walking in the cool of the day (lěrûah hayyôm); Hebrew rûah usually is taken as a substantive, meaning here, “wind,” or “breeze.” The phrase, “at the wind/the breeze of the day,” then, indicates midafternoon or a bit later, when the sun’s heat upon the earth had begun to abate and a pleasant breeze had sprung up. (Coleson, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 126)

The poet John Milton (1608-1674) pictures:

To fan the earth now walked, and under in
The evening cool; when he, from wrath more cool,
Came the mild Judge, and the Intercessor both,
To sentence Man: The voice of God they heard
Now walking in the garden, by softwinds (Milton, Paradise Lose, Book X)

The scene is peaceful; there is a sense that the disunity that follows is neither necessary nor does it comply with God’s original intent (Genesis 3:8-13).

Traditionally the phrase “in the cool of the day” has been interpreted as denoting time. The Septuagint takes this tact, incorporating the Greek word for “afternoon” (το δειλινον).

E. A. Speiser (1902-1965) declares:

At the breezy time of day. The Hebrew preposition le may be used of time (cf. Genesis 8:11), but not temperature; hence the memorable “in the cool of the day” lacks linguistic support. The time involved is toward sundown, when fresh breezes bring welcome relief from heat. (Speiser, Genesis (The Anchor Bible), 24)

The Bible often provides time stamps. Kenneth D. Mulzac (1963-2008) surveys:

While Nehemiah denotes “fourths” of a day, the Old Testament makes no other such divisions. It speaks of the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8); cf. Song of Solomon 2:17), “heat of the day” (Genesis 18:1; I Samuel 11:11), “high day” (Genesis 29:7), “midday” (Nehemiah 8:3), “broad daylight” (Amos 8:9), and “full day” (Proverbs 4:18). (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 324)

John Goldingay (b. 1942) interprets:

It’s late afternoon. In the Middle East this can be when you get an ocean breeze, and after the heat of the day it becomes more pleasant to be outside. (Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone, Part 1, 49)

W. Sibley Towner (b.1933) deduces:

The climatological perspective here is Palestinian, not Mesopotamian. Anyone who has lived in an area with a Mediterranean climate knows how pleasant it is when the sea breeze flows in to replace the hot air rising off the land at the end of the day. Yahweh apparently found it so as well. The delightful anthropomorphic description of God’s stroll fits well with the humanistic flavor of the entire story. (Towner, Genesis (Westminster Bible Companion), 46)

Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932) places the “cool of the day” in the morning:

הום לרוח is usually interpreted as the evening breeze. It does not begin, however, until “a few fours after sundown”...(Wilhelm Nowack [1850-1928], Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie 1:51) and thus can hardly be called the “wind of the day.” It is better understood (so Peter Jensen [1861-1936], Kosmologie der Babylonier VI/1:573) as the cool sea breeze which arises in the early morning (Nowack, Archäologie 1:51) and reaches the mountain heights, e.g. Jerusalem, around 2:00-3:00 (Julius von Hann [1839-1921], Handbuch der Klimatologie III: 102-03; cf. Song of Solomon 2:17, 4:6 according to which the lovers remain together [in the night] “until the day breathes and the shadows flee”; cf. Karl Budde [1850-1935] on this passage). The transgression occurred at night; The new day brings remorse. This interpretation seems especially likely because the account concerns sexual sin. In Babylonia an exquisite light breeze blows from the northwest before sunrise (Hann, Klimatologie III: 106). The notion that the deity strolls in the Garden in the early morning is originally a myth from this period: when the treetops rustle and sway in the “day wind, the beloved Lord walks through the wood.” The assumption seems to be that his palace is in the Garden. An example of a gazebo located in a garden has now been found in Asshur (Mitteil. der. Deutsch. Or. Ges. 33 [1907]). (Gunkel [translated by Mark E. Biddle (b. 1957)], Genesis (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies), 18-19)

The Hebrew phrasing is problematic. John H. Walton (b. 1952) introduces:

This traditional translation is problematic. No precedent exists for interpreting the word for “wind” (rûah) as “cool.” An alternative using comparative information is that the phrase should be translated “wind of the storm.” (Walton, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 35)

John H. Sailhamer (b. 1946) offers:

The phrase “wind of the day” (Genesis 3:8, literal translation) is often taken as an indication of the time of the Lord’s visit, that is, in “the cool of the day” or “the time of the evening.” The text says only “at/in the wind of the day” (cf. Jeremiah 13:24: “I will scatter them like chaff in the wind of the wilderness”). There is nothing in the context to suggest this expression refers to a time of day. In light of the general context of the picture of God’s coming in judgment and power, the “Wind” (rûah) envisioned by the author is more likely intended to resemble that “great and powerful wind”...that blew on the “mountain...of the LORD” in I Kings 19:11. Thus the viewpoint of the narrative is much the same as that of Job 38:1, where the Lord answered Job “out of the storm.” (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Genesis-Leviticus (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 87)

Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) deciphers:

Numerous attempts have been made to explain this expression, which is found nowhere else in the Bible. The rabbinic expositions...do not reflect the actual sense of the verse. The interpretation of Nahmanides [1194-1270], and also of Benno Jacob [1862-1945] in modern times, that the man and his wife heard the voice of the Lord God in the wind...blowing in the garden, does not accord with the text. Many other explanations have been advanced, but they are unsatisfactory; equally unacceptable are the emendations that have been proposed, for example, that of Karl Budde [1850-1935]...lirwōah hayyōm [‘when the day became breezy’]...The view commonly held to-day is...the phrase signifies: at the time when the wind springs up towards evening (or, at dawn). This interpretation is open to a number of objections. In the first place, it is difficult to understand the prepositional Lāmedh as one of time, unless it is linked to an expression having a temporal meaning...It is possible, for instance, to say...lebhōqer [‘at morning’]...le‘erebh [‘at evening’]...liphnōth bōqer [‘at the approach of morning’]...le‘ēth ‘erebh [‘at the time of evening’], and so forth; but it is impossible to say...lesē’th baššō’ ăbhōth [literally, ‘at (or, to) women going out to draw water’]; the Bible writes le‘ēth sē’th haššō’ăbhōth [‘at the time when women go out to draw water]’] (Genesis 24:11). In order, therefore, to express the thought ‘at the time when the wind of the day blows’, it would have been necessary to write...le’ēth rūah hayyōm or its equivalent. Furthermore, even if we concede that this difficulty can be explained by reference to such doubtful examples as, when he knew...how to refuse the evil and choose the good (Isaiah 7:15), we must surely realize that the expression...rūah hayyōm cannot possibly indicate a wind blowing at a specific time of the day. This apart, seeing that the verse expressly comes to fix the time, there must doubtless be a reason for this, and it is inconceivable that this time should have no relation to the actual narrative; but the usual interpretation fails to establish such a connection. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: from Adam to Noah, 152-53)

If the expression does designate a time, this still leaves the question of why the time would be significant enough to chronicle. Many have seen symbolic meaning in the timing of the divine appointment viewing the prosaic scene as indicative of the relationship between Yahweh and creation prior to the Fall.

Jerome (347-420) preaches:

We read in Genesis that when Adam transgressed, when he paid heed to the serpent rather than to God, when he hid himself from the face of God, then God came into the garden and was walking about in the cool of day. Now listen to what Scripture says. God sought out Adam, not at midday but in the evening. Adam had already lost the sunlight for his high noon was over. Homilies 1. (Andrew Louth [b. 1944], Genesis 1-11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 82)

Ignatius Jesudasan (b. 1939) remarks:

The cool of the evening, when God appears in the garden calling Adam to reckoning, signifies the time when Israel’s love for its royalty also had gone cold and lukewarm, and it was historically judged unworthy of God’s trusted gift, and hence exiled from the garden, through the instrumentality of foreign mercenary armies, represented in the myth by the so-called cherub angel, bearing a sword of fire, which swirls in all directions, guarding the access to the garden land [Genesis 3:24]. The death penalty imposed on Adam is the negation of the inclusive blessing of a prosperous life in the land promised to Abraham and his posterity, because that posterity had wilfully violated that blessing by human sacrifice to idols. (Jesudasan, Genesis Myth of Manifold Meanings, 80)

Others have taken a more literal approach. Michael E. Wittmer (b. 1967) documents:

P. Wayne Townsend [b. 1958] observes that the rules governing unclean things are the likely reason that God waited to confront Adam and Eve until the “cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8). According to Leviticus 11:25ff, an unclean person remained that way until evening. (Wittmer, Heaven Is a Place on Earth: Why Everything You Do Matters to God, 232)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) speculates:

After eating the forbidden fruit, humankind is not only on the earth; it is in trouble—taking cover from fig-leaves and hiding in the middle of the trees (Genesis 3:7-8). Yhwh God correspondingly walks in the breeze or cool of the day, away, so it is implied, from the noonday heat (Genesis 3:8)—not only an anthropomorphism but a suggestion of vulnerability. Vulnerable humankind seeks one form of shelter, God another: they, behind leaves and trees of the Garden: Yhwh God, in the cool of the day in the Garden. Like them, God knows what it is to want shelter. (Brodie, Genesis As Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, 156)

The timing could just as easily demonstrate Yahweh’s consideration for Adam and Eve as any self interest on the part of the divine. Either way, it was certainly not the weather that caused Adam and Eve to retreat.

The timing could also be associated with the initial prohibition. Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) connects:

It seems to me that the word...rūah is not to be understood as a substantive but as a verb in the infinitive, like...hōm [‘become hot’] in the phrase...kehōm hayyōm [literally, ‘as the day grew hot’ that is, at noon] (Genesis 18:1), and that it signifies: to be in the period after midday. Not only in Arabic does this stem...(rāha yarūhu) denote an action taking place in the afternoon—that is, from the time when the sun begins to decline from the meridian till evening—but it is also found in this sense in Ugatiric...Since the verb occurs in the ancient Canaanite language, we may surmise that we have here a Canaanite expression that survived also in the poetic idiom of the people of Israel. Apparently the ancient epic poem on the story of the garden of Eden contained the words...lerūah hayyōm, that is, at the time when the day...rāh—is in its second stage, namely, the afternoon. The Torah uses this phrase just as it uses other poetic expressions that occurred in the poem...ēdh [‘waters of the deep’] [Genesis 1:2]; pleasant to the sight and good for food [Genesis 2:9]; the flaming sword which turned every way [Genesis 3:24]; and other phrases...The purpose of fixing time in this verse is readily explicable in the light of that statement (Genesis 2:17): for IN THE DAY that you eat of it you will surely die. Although it is possible...to understand the words in the day in a general sense, that is, at the time, nevertheless Scripture wished to emphasize that the word of the Lord God was wholly fulfilled, even in its literal meaning. The man was told that in the day that he ate from the tree of life he would surely die, and lo! on the very day that he ate, in the afternoon of the selfsame day, the Lord God appeared and decreed that he should be banished from the garden of Eden, so that he might no longer be able to approach the tree of life and eat of it and be liberated thereby from the power of death. (Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: from Adam to Noah, 153-54)

Recent scholarship has considered an alternate reading which replaces the anthropomorphic God strolling through the garden with a dramatic theophany. Paul J. Kissling (b. 1957) relays:

Jeffrey Niehaus [b. 1946] has argued that by using another homonymous Hebrew root for the Hebrew word translated “day” (ם’, yōm) this word should be translated as “storm.” He also suggests using rarer, although well-attested meanings, for the Hebrew words translated “cool of” and “voice” as “wind” and “thunder.” This verse should then be translated, “Then the man and his wife heard the thunder of Yahweh God as he was going back and forth in the garden in the wind of the storm, and they hid from Yahweh.” What is being described according to Niehaus is a theophany. The fear recalls the reaction of Israel at Sinai (Exodus 20:18) and the accounts of the theophanies in Ezekiel 1:13 and Psalm 77:17-19...While this is possible, it seems more likely...that the fearsomeness of a theophany is a result of the Fall and its punishment. At this point the LORD is still seeking the intimate fellowship with the man and the woman that he always enjoyed. (Kissling, Genesis, Volume 1 (The College Press NIV Commentary), 198-99)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) expounds:

The word ruah can mean “wind” and “spirit” and yom means “day.” These two words do not occur together like this anywhere else in the Old Testament, so we find ourselves without sufficient synchronic evidence to arrive at a confident interpretation. It is certainly interpretive to deduce that “wind of the day” refers to “cool of the day” and therefore refers to cool evening breezes. But what else could “wind of the day” mean”? The words ruah and qol do occur together elsewhere, but only in the context of a storm (Jeremiah 10:13, 51:16) as a reference to “wind” and “thunder” respectively. If that is the appropriate understanding, what is the word “day” there for?...Akkadian terminology has demonstrated that the word translated “day” also has the meaning “storm.” This meaning can be seen also for this Hebrew word (yom) in Isaiah 27:8 and Zephaniah 2:2...The Akkadian term is used in connection to the deity coming in a storm of judgment. If this is the correct rendering of the word here in Genesis 3, we can translate Genesis 3:8 in this way: “They heard the roar of the LORD moving about in the garden in the wind of the storm.” If this rendering is correct, it is understandable why Adam and Eve are hiding. I do not offer this as the right translation. The major objection is that the word yom only rarely carries the meaning “storm.” The appearance with the other two words here and the logic of the context make this new rendering a possibility, but one that can only be held tentatively. (Walton, Genesis (The NIV Application Commentary), 224)

Meredith G. Kline (1922-2007) offers a different slant on the judgment theophany. In deference to Genesis 1:2, Kline contends that rûach should be translated “Spirit” which he connects to the “Spirit of God”. Further, he advances that the lamed preposition indicates “in the capacity of”, as it does elsewhere (Numbers 22:22, 32; II Chronicles 18:21; Isaiah 4:6; 11:10). Hence, Kline translates Genesis 3:8: “They heard the sound of Yahweh God traversing the garden as the Spirit of the Day.” Kline associates “Spirit” and “day” with both God’s unique creative activity (Genesis 1:2) and the divine eschatological judgment. (Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, 128–31)

In selecting an interpretation, the stakes are exceedingly high as the choice one makes speaks directly to one’s image of God, which is ultimately what the text is about. God is either a deity who cleans house with no questions asked or a relational entity seeking communion with creation. God is either primarily concerned with rules and their enforcement or with the redemption of sinners, going so far as to personally seek offenders out to restore them to community. The traditional interpretation best fits the text as read through the lens of Jesus (John 3:16). The newer readings have linguistic support but neglect theology.

The traditional understanding allows for a calm before the storm. The storm still comes but the ephemeral calm makes all the difference.

Why is Yahweh walking in the garden? What does the phrase “in the cool of the day” add to the story (Genesis 3:8)? Why does God choose this particular time to appear? If you were in a parental role as is God in this scene, how would you have handled the disobedient Adam and Eve? How did Adam and Eve’s transgression affect their relationship with Yahweh? With whom do you go on pleasant evening walks? What does this story say about God? How do you imagine this scene? How do you picture God? Does Genesis’ anthropomorphic presentation bother you?

Yahweh is a hands on God who takes a great risk in interacting with creation. W. Lee Humphreys (b. 1939) assesses:

The lines between creator and creation seem initially clear in Genesis 2...But Yahweh God does not only establish his creation. He gets into it—allowing, prohibiting, adjusting, augmenting, and modifying what is judged not good. And depending on ha’adam’s response to the prohibition, the need for adjustment and modification may grow. Yahweh God of Genesis 2 is, like God of Genesis 1, neither sexed nor paired. But in entering the garden (even regularly “walking about” in it according to Genesis 3:8), in engaging and interacting with ha’adam, Yahweh God finds/forms an other to himself and becomes an other to ha’adam. In their interactions lies the potential for further development of each as characters, as they define themselves in relation to each other. Each character it seems has interests and a stake in their relationship. And it is possible these interests and stakes make conflict. Thus, by directly engaging one of those he formed, Yahweh God takes a risk that sets in motion a genuine story, a risk and potential for story not found in all the general grandeur and wonder of God’s creating and creation in Genesis 1. (Humphreys, The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal, 42)

God takes the risk of intertwining the fates of creator and creation and in this instance, there are tragic consequences. Robin Darling Young (b. 1951) laments:

Not only are relations between Adam and Eve different, relations between Adam and Eve and God are different. It’s not just that Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden, but God is, too. No longer will He be walking among His human beings in the cool of the day. (Bill D. Moyers [b. 1934], Genesis: A Living Conversation, 58)

What does Adam and Eve’s rebellion cost God? Who suffers greater consequences, God or humanity? Is the chasm between creator and creation permanent? When and where do contemporary believers go to hear God; where is the modern equivalent to in the cool of the day in the Garden of Eden?

“What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” A.W. Tozer (1897-1963), The Knowledge of the Holy, p. 1

The Timing of Jesus (Matthew 1:17)

How many generations are there between Abraham and Jesus? 42 (Matthew 1:17)

The Gospel of Matthew, and consequently the New Testament as whole, begins with a genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17). It is one of two messianic lineages preserved in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). Georg Strecker (1929-2004) proposed that the genealogy predates Matthew’s gospel (Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 138ff) though most now believe the material is entirely the evangelist’s.

From its opening verse Matthew’s “origins story” stresses that Jesus is “the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1 NASB) and validates this claim by tracing Jesus’ ancestry through David to Abraham (Matthew 1:1-17). In doing so, Matthew makes the Old Testament Jesus’ back story and places him firmly into the history of Israel.

The genealogy is carefully constructed. M. Eugene Boring (b. 1935) notes:

Matthew follows the biblical pattern of incorporating genealogical material into the narrative as a constituent element of the story, adopting the pattern found in Ruth 4:18-22: “A begot B.” ...Thus the genealogy in Matthew is not a list, but a series of short sentences leading from Abraham to Jesus, the narrative unit of the larger story that follows. (Leander E. Keck [b. 1928], Matthew - Mark (The New Interpreter’s Bible), 129)

The passages’s concluding summary statement further reveals its meticulous alignment (Matthew 1:17). Matthew trisects the data into three fourteen generation epochs.

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:17 NASB)

The breakdown is not as simple as the summary statement makes it appear; the list has been deliberately edited to elicit literary symmetry (Matthew 1:17). Ulrich Luz (b. 1938) details:

The genealogy consists of a long series of monotonous, short main clauses. Its organization is decoded by Matthew 1:17: it consists of 3 × 14 generations. However, these cannot be found exactly like this in the text: If one follows Matthew 1:17 literally then David must be counted twice, and the second series of 14 goes from him until Josiah. If one counts Josiah also twice, then one gets a second series of 14 until Jesus. Matthew 1:17, however, accentuates the exile as a break, which is clearly marked also in the genealogy. If one does not begin the third series until Matthew 1:12, then one has only 13 generations for it. The structure given in Matthew 1:17 is not patently clear. It can only be explained by literary criticism. (Luz, Matthew 1-7 (A Continental Commentary), 117)

The genealogy is not exhaustive, clearly omitting generations to meets its trifold pattern. This is especially true of the last series of fourteen (Matthew 1:12-16).

R.T. France (1938-2012) recognizes:

In order to keep the number of generations between David and Jehoichin to fourteen, Matthew has had to omit five of the actual kings recorded in Old Testament history: he goes straight from Joram to Uzziah, omitting the three generations of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (together with the usurping queen-mother Athaliah), and the brothers Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim are omitted between Josiah and Jehoiachin. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 30)

This strained calculation is purposeful. Michael J. Wilkins (b. 1949) assures:

Matthew skips some generations in Jesus’ family tree so that the structure can be made uniform for memorization, while other members are given prominence to make a particular point. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 10)

This is not atypical for genealogies. Robert R. Wilson (b. 1942) observes that though omissions occur for various reasons, they are not typically found at the outset of lists where founders are important nor at the end where living memory prevails but rather in the middle of the document (Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World). This impression fits Matthew’s lineage.

Due to the neglected names, the genealogy is unbalanced chronologically. Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) approximates:

The spans of time covered by the three sections of genealogy are too great to have contained only fourteen generations each, since some 750 years separated Abraham from David, some 400 years separated David from the Babylonian Exile, and some 600 years separated the Babylonian Exile from Jesus’ birth. (Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, 74-75)

In Matthew’s genealogy theology trumps historical precision. William D. Shiell (b. 1972) informs:

As with any other genealogy in the ancient world, Matthew does not include everyone related biologically to Jesus. His is a theological list rather than a family tree, so the list contains the significant names for Matthew’s purposes that reflect a certain picture of Jesus. (Shiell, Sessions with Matthew: Becoming a Family of Faith, 5)

In spite of the summary statement’s assertion (Matthew 1:17), not all of the divisions encompass precisely fourteen names. Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) argues that this too is not abnormal to the genre:

The actual number of generations in the three parts of the genealogy are thirteen, fourteen, and thirteen respectively, but ancient counting often alternated between inclusive and exclusive reckoning. Such variation was thus well within standard literary convention of the day (for a good rabbinic parallel, see m. ‘Abot 5:1-6). When once compares the genealogy with Luke’s account and with various Old Testament narratives, it is clear that Matthew has omitted several names to achieve this literary symmetry. But the verb consistently translated...“was the father of” (more literally begat) could also mean was the ancestor of. (Blomberg, Matthew (New American Commentary), 53)

This pliable enumeration is particularly noticeable in the last sequence. As such, many explanations have been offered to explain the purported discrepancy. One of the most common theories is conflation.

Michael J. Wilkins (b. 1949) typifies:

The third group of fourteen generations, from the deportation to Jesus, begins again by counting Jeconiah and ends with Jesus’ name...The name “Jeconiah” may serve as a double entendre to indicate both Jehoiakim and the end of the second group of generations, and also to indicate Jehoiachin and the beginning of the third group of generations after the deportation. On this supposition, the name “Jeconiah” is counted twice to indicate the two different rulers and eras in Matthew’s genealogy. (Wilkins, Matthew (The NIV Application Commentary), 64)

Others, including Krister Stendahl (1921-2008), have conjectured that Jesus and Christ should be tallied as two different generations, with the latter representing the returning Christ (Matthew 1:16).

Though it defies Matthew’s established literary pattern, Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) suggests that Matthew counts Joseph and Mary as separate generations:

To get this third fourteen Matthew probably counts Mary as well as Joseph; i.e. the one chronological generation carries two other kinds of generations within it, a legal (Joseph’s) and a physical (Mary’s)...The counting of Mary harmonizes with Matthew’s distinction between the royal lineage of Jesus through Joseph (cf. Joseph’s being addressed as “son of David” in Matthew 1:20) and the divine generation of Jesus through Mary. (Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 19)

Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) postulates:

The last group has only thirteen generations because the church that Jesus calls into existence constitutes the fourteenth generation. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 31)

Regardless of how the names are calculated, it can be assumed that the oversight is intentional. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) asserts:

Matthew knows that some of his audience can read, that they can check his kings with the Old Testament. Matthew is not trying to put something over on us; with the sovereign freedom appropriate to the Messiah’s evangelist, Matthew is simply helping history preach doctrine. He drops about four chapters and four kings from his Old Testament genealogy in order to have a smoother, more memorable chronology — in order to get fourteen....This was John Calvin [1509-1564]’s solution too...Matthew does not falsify, he simplifies — Uzziah was the son of Jothan according to the rabbinic rule that “the sons of sons are also sons.” In obedience to the point of Scripture — Jesus the Christ — Matthew sharpened the pointers to him — the roughly comparable number of generations between Abraham, David the Exile, and Christ — because Matthew believes that this rough comparability best “makes the point” of God’s ordering and gracious providence. (Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 1-12, 17)

Stanley P. Saunders (b. 1953) concurs:

When Matthew repeatedly names “fourteen generations,” he issues an engraved invitation to go back and count. When one does so, however, it becomes clear that the last segment, which runs from Sheatiel to Jesus [Matthew 1:13-16] is defective, yielding but thirteen generations...Did Matthew make a mistake? If so, it likely an intentional “mistake.” Throughout the genealogy Matthew has included surprises, incongruities, and broken patterns. Matthew is training us to attend to the details. Here he creates a puzzle for us to grapple with. Is Jesus to be counted twice, once as Jesus and again as the Christ? Or does Matthew understand Jesus as the one who simultaneously stands as the sole survivor of his generation (cf. Matthew 2:16-18) and again as the firstfruits of the time of resurrection (cf. Matthew 27:51-54). Is he both the “Son of Humanity” (or “the human one” or “Son of Man”) and Son of God, the representative of both God and humankind? Does the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 1:20) represent the thirteenth generation, and Jesus the fourteenth? Matthew does not resolve the puzzle, but compels us to become active interpreters who, in the light of the larger story, must sort out for ourselves who Jesus is. By the end of the genealogy we already know that we should expect the unexpected, look for God’s agents among the vulnerable and powerless, and learn how Jesus fulfills Israel’s history while radically disrupting it. (Saunders, Preaching the Gospel of Matthew: Proclaiming God’s Presence, 4)

While the specifics can be debated, the overarching theme cannot. Donald Senior (b. 1940) determines:

If some of the details remain enigmatic, the overall intent of Matthew’s genealogy is clear. His distillation of Israel’s history brings attention successively to Abraham and patriarchal history, to the image of David the king, to the shattering experience of exile, and to the renewal of hope through the Messiah. (Senior, Matthew (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 37)

David L. Turner (b. 1949) professes:

However one handles this problem, D.A. Carson [b. 1946]’s point (1984: 68) is noteworthy: “The symbolic value of the fourteens is of more significance than their precise breakdown.” Matthew certainly knew basic arithmetic as well as modern scholars do, but Matthew’s literary conventions are ancient, not modern. By modern standards, Matthew’s linear genealogy is artificial because it not exhaustive...It is not that Matthew has erred, since he did not intend to work exhaustively and precisely. (Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 27)

Whereas Luke’s genealogy is organized around the number seven (Luke 3:23-38), Matthew goes to great lengths to structure Jesus’ ancestry with the integer fourteen (Matthew 1:17). Leon Morris (1914-2006) interjects:

Clearly the number is significant for him, but unfortunately he does not explain why. But the note of fulfillment is strong, and perhaps Marshall D. Johnson (1935-2011) gives us the answer: “The function of the genealogy — the note of fulfillment — explains the lack of a precise and exact parallel with contemporary sources: the two genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament are the only extant Messianic genealogies which are written to prove that the Messiah has come.” We should perhaps bear in mind also the point made by Louis Finkelstein [1895-1991] that the number fourteen was regarded as significant in contemporary Judaism. He says, “The number, ‘fourteen, is not accidental. It corresponds to the number of high priests from the establishment of Solomon’s Temple; the number of high priests from the establishment of the Temple until Jaddua, the last high priest mentioned in Scripture. It is clear that a mystic significance attached to this number, in both the Sadducean and the Pharisaic traditions.” Matthew would have been aware of this and may be producing an argument that would impress Jews. (Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 25)

Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) further chronicles the precedent:

The number fourteen was conventional in genealogies. In I Chronicles 1-2 are fourteen generations from Abraham to David; in 2 Baruch 53-74 world history is divided into fourteen periods from Adam to the messiah; in m. Avot 1.1-12 are fourteen links in the chain of tradition between Moses and the last of the pairs of teachers. So Matthew’s auditors would have experienced nothing out of the ordinary in this opening of his narrative. (Talbert, Matthew (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 33)

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) considers:

Perhaps fourteen was simply Matthew’s average estimate of the generations from one period in Israel’s history to the next, Matthew preferred a round number for each set of generations, perhaps for ease of memorization (cf. II Maccabees 2:25); some argue that occasional Talmudic lists also edited lists to fourteen elements (Shulamit Valler 1995). But he probably did so especially to imply that, as in the case of the new Elijah of Matthew 3:4, Israel was due for its Messiah to come when Jesus was born (cf. Donald A. Hagner [b. 1936] 1993:7). (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 74)

Numerous justifications have been given for the use of the number. Some have seen a connection to the cycle of the moon. W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) trace:

The cycle of the moon covers twenty-eight days, fourteen of waning, fourteen of waxing. Perhaps, then, the idea behind Matthew 1:2-17 is this: the time between Abraham and David was one of waxing, with David being the climax; next the period after David was one of waning, the captivity being the low point; finally, there followed a time of waxing, the zenith coming with the birth of Jesus. In his Gnomon of the New Testament, Johann Albrecht Bengel [1687-1752] already mentioned this interpretation and ascribed it to...James Rhenford [1653-1712]. In more recent times it has been championed by Chaim Kaplan [1880-1942]. Just such a scheme does, in fact, lie behind Exodus Rabbah on 12.2. There, however, the cycles of the moon, given as 15 + 15 = 30, are explicitly cited. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7 (International Critical Commentary), 161-62)

Herbert Basser (b. 1942) expounds:

Just as the lunar cycle has twenty-eight nights (the cycle ends at dusk on the twenty-ninth day), so the night of the fourteenth-fifteen signals the moon at midmonth. We can construe that Matthew’s genealogy rises to the height, or fulness, with David in the fourteenth generation, after which, starting with Solomon, the genealogy descends through fourteen generations to the lowest point, or the darkness of moonless nights, that is the Exile. And fourteen generations after the darkness of the Exile, like the moon in its nightly waxing, the genealogy rises again to the height, or fullness, which is Jesus. According to this scenario, both David and Jesus are at “full moon” positions in a complete fourteen/fifteen generation repeating cycle. (Basser, The Mind Behind the Gospels: A Commentary to Matthew 1-14, 26)

Many have found a connection to the number seven, as 14÷2=7. Seven is found often in the Bible, commonly representing wholeness. Suzanne de Diétrich (1891-1981) communicates fourteen as “the symbol of plenitude of something complete.” (Diétrich, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, 16)

Others have taken the connection with seven a step further and interpreted the genealogy as a period of six weeks with Jesus inaugurating a seventh week, an eschatological Sabbath. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) concedes:

His three periods of fourteen generations may well be intended to hint at six periods of seven generations so that Jesus starts the seventh seven, the climactic moment of the series. (Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 385)

Others adopting this stance include John P. Meier [b. 1942] 1980: 3-4; Fabrizio Foresti 1984; Herman Hendrickx [1933-2002] 1984, The Infancy Narratives: 23-24 and Ben Witherington III [b. 1951] 2006: 41.

W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) explain:

Because seven but not fourteen is a prominent number in the Bible, Matthew’s three fourteens can be regarded as the equivalent of six sevens (3 × 14 = 6 × 7), in which case Jesus would stand at the head of the seventh seven, the seventh day of history, the dawn of the eternal sabbath. A parallel to this could be found in the ‘Apocalypse of Weeks’ (I Enoch 93:1-10; 91:12-17)...Yet it must be said that Matthew expressly writes of three fourteens, not six sevens. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7 (International Critical Commentary), 162)

Mervyn Eloff (b. 1957) also expresses incredulity (Eloff, “Exile, Restoration and Matthew’s genealogy,” 84).

George F. Moore (1851-1931) proposes that if one measures a generation as 35 years, Matthew’s fourteen generations would span 490 years (35×14= 490 years) thus duplicating Daniel’s seventy weeks of years (490 years; cf. Daniel 9:24-27). This reckoning has Jesus’ coming corresponding to the fulfillment of prophecy (Moore, “Fourteen Generations – 490 years,” Harvard Theological Review (1921) 97-103). The difficulty with Moore’s theory is that assigning 35 years to a generation is arbitrary.

The most widespread theory regarding the genealogy’s structure is that the number fourteen is affixed to King David. Though Matthew’s genealogy prominently features Abraham (Matthew 1:1, 2, 17), it accentuates Jesus’ connection to David (Matthew 1:1, 6, 17). Before Arabic numerals, letters and consequently words carried a numeric value known as gematia. As Hebrew was scripted with no vowels there are three letters in David’s Hebrew name. August Friedrich Gfrörer (1803-1861) recognized that the sum of these three letters totals fourteen.

David L. Turner (b. 1949) computes:

Matthew has evidently chosen fourteen generations to structure his genealogy because David is the fourtheenth name in the genealogy and fourteen is the numerical value of “David” in Hebrew. Consonantally, דןד (dwd) is 4 (d) + 6 (w) + 4 (d) when the places of the consonants in the numerical order of the Hebrew alphabet are added together. This gematria, which assigns numerical values to letters, stresses the centrality of David in Jesus’s background as well as the centrality of great David’s greater son, Jesus, for Matthew’s readers. (Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 58)

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) acknowledges:

Interpreting the numerical value of the letters that make up a name (called gematria in Hebrew) may strike us today as very strange, but it held significance for the ancients and was practiced by Jewish interpreters of Scripture (e.g. b. Shabbat 70a, in reference to Exodus 35:1) and Greek interpreters of oracles and various traditions. (Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 37)

W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) add:

Gematria was practised in both Jewish and Christian circles close to Matthew’s time; and the numerical interpretation of David’s name can account for both the number three and the number fourteen. Still, objections have been raised. First, the use of gematria in Greek documents is customarily accompanied by an explicit statement indicating such. Reference need be made only to Revelation 13:18 and Sibylline Oracles 5.12-51. And even when, as in rabbinic sources, gematria is not explicit, it is only because its presence is unmistakable, as in Numbers Rabbah on 5.18 and 16.1. Secondly, the list of fourteen names in Matthew 1:2-6a was surely traditional and therefore ought not to be regarded as the product of a numerical play on David’s name. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7 (International Critical Commentary), 163-64)

Further criticism reminds that the nuance would likely have been lost on Matthew’s original audience. Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) rejects:

The Book of Matthew, it should be remembered, is written in Greek, and the numerology of the Hebrew name would not be at all evident to Greek readers without explanation. That David’s name in Hebrew is equal to fourteen may well be only a coincidence; in any event, it can hardly be determinative in a Greek text. (Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (Word Biblical Commentary), 7)

The use of gematria is not commonly found in the New Testament. R.T. France (1938-2012) discerns:

Revelation 13:17-18 is the only clear New Testament parallel to this sort of calculation, known as Gematria (but see also Epistle of Barnabas 9:8, a very early Christian work), but it is well attested in Rabbinc circles, and the clear emphasis on David through genealogy suggests it may be in Matthew’s mind. If he did not do it deliberately, he would probably have been delighted to have it pointed out to him! (France, Matthew (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 75)

There can be little doubt that a connection to David is being accentuated. David’s name pervades the list. It appears five times, more than any other name and is situated at the beginning, middle, end and (Matthew 1:1, 6, 17 [twice in Matthew 1:6, 17]). David is further emphasized as, despite being featured in a list replete with kings, he is the only character designated as such (Matthew 1:6).

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957), L. Scott Kellum (b. 1964) and Charles L. Quarles (b. 1965) note:

Although the genealogy of Jesus contained the names of many kings ranging from David to Jechoniah, only David was specifically identified as a king. This implies that Matthew stressed Jesus’ Davidic lineage in order to demonstrate that Jesus was qualified to reign as king. Old Testament prophecies foretold that the Messiah, the eternal King of Gods people, would be a descendent of David. In II Samuel 7:11-16, the prophet Nathan prophesied that God would raise up a descendant of David and establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (Köstenberger, Keller, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament, 219)

W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) resolve:

We suspect gematria because David’s name has the value of fourteen and because in Matthew 1:2-16 there are 3 × 14 generations. But there is an additional observation to be made. David’s name is fourteenth on the list. This is telling. In a genealogy of 3 × 14 generations, the one name with three consonants and a value of fourteen is also placed in the fourteenth spot. When one adds that this name is mentioned immediately before the genealogy (Matthew 1:1) and twice at its conclusion (Matthew 1:17), and that it is honoured by the title, king, coincidence becomes effectively ruled out. The name, David, is the key to the pattern of Matthew’s genealogy. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7 (International Critical Commentary), 165)

The blatant connection to David paints Jesus as the long awaited Davidic Messiah. Rudolf Schnackenburg (1914-2002) deduces:

The point is to establish Jesus’ authentic descent from “King David” (Matthew 1:6), from whose line Nathan promised David that the Messiah would come (II Samuel 7:13-14). This descent is by way of Jesus’ putative father Joseph, of the same line. (Schnackenberg, The Gospel of Matthew, 16)

Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) concurs:

By structuring the Davidic posterity in this way, Matthew announces that Jesus is not just a son of David (as is said of Joseph, Matthew 1:20) but is the long-awaited Messiah, David’s ultimate successor. (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 6)

Part of the human experience is being rooted in a past. Like all of us, Jesus’ destiny is shaped in part by his roots. Matthew’s genealogy stresses that Jesus is the rightful king of Israel.

Why does Matthew’s summary statement enumerate the genealogy differently than its most natural reading (Matthew 1:17)? How important is knowing the Old Testament background to understanding Jesus? Do you attach any significance to the number 14? How would you begin telling the story of Jesus? What does Jesus’ genealogy tell you about him? How far back can you track your family tree? How has your lineage shaped you?

In beginning the gospel with a genealogy, Matthew places Jesus squarely within an historical framework, more specifically Israel’s. J. Andrew Overman (b. 1955) remarks:

Unmistakably, in Matthew Jesus is ensconced within the history of Israel’s divinely driven story. He is Jesus the messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. These two heroes of Israel’s story are signaled out...as touchstones of the genealogy in Matthew 1:17...By Matthew’s peculiar reckoning, at the birth of Jesus Israel was due another anointed agent. Jesus is in the same family and in the same league with these two great figures and reformers in Israel’s story. This sets a tone for Matthew’s own story about Jesus and sets a series of expectations for the informed reader. (Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to Matthew, 31)

Matthew’s genealogy not only places Jesus in a specific time and place, it frames history (Matthew 1:1-17). As could only be determined after the fact, Matthew generates neat divisions from otherwise seemingly messy data. Matthew’s gospel is not the first to make this attempt.

Herbert Basser (b. 1942) researches:

Although Matthew does not give explicit meaning to the pattern he develops, attention to Jewish texts helps ascribe some meaning to it. Babylonian Talmud tractate ‘Abodah Zarah 9a also divides Jewish history into three equal periods, though this text focuses on years rather than generations, and it understands history to be 6000 years in duration. (Basser, The Mind Behind the Gospels: A Commentary to Matthew 1-14, 19)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) inserts:

When the biblical historians schematized generations they declared their faith that “history is the sphere in which God works out his purpose” (Helen Milton [1916-1994], “The Structure of the Prologue to Matthew,” JBL 81[1962]: 176). Apocalyptic writers, however, arranged history into epochs to assess the present age and the future (see 2 [Syriac] Apocalypse of Baruch 53-74). The question in 4 Ezra 6:7 is typical of apocalyptic writings: “When will the end of the first age and the beginning of the second age be?” Matthew knows the answer to that question after the fact and fashions the table of genealogy to demonstrate that Jesus inaugurates the new age. At the appointed time (see Galatians 4:4), God has stepped in with the birth of his son. W.D. Davies [1911-2001] concludes: “The genealogy is an impressive witness to Matthew’s conviction that the birth of Jesus was no unpremeditated accident but occurred in the fulness of time and in the providence of God, who overruled the generations to this end, to inaugurate in Jesus a new order, the time of fulfillment” (Setting, 73). The genealogy is not the record of one birth after another. It discloses that God has been working within history to achieve foreordained purposes and that Jesus, the last person of the last epoch, is the fulfillment of God’s plan for Israel and the beginning of the new messianic age. (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 20)

The structure of the genealogy arranges history as a whole. Joel Kennedy (b. 1970) advances:

Matthew 1:17 emphasizes there has been a structural order to the genealogy as well as an order to the history of Israel that it recapitulates...Matthew 1:17 makes explicit the thrust implicit in Matthew 1:2-16. Christ stands dramatically and climactically at the end of Matthew’s teleological genealogy. For Matthew, the order of history through the providence of God has led to this point. Consequently, Matthew 1:17 intends that as one adds up the meaning of Israel’s history, the only appropriate sum will be Jesus Christ. (Kennedy, The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1 - 4:11, 74-75)

Maris McCrabb (b. 1951) reviews Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) characterization of Matthew’s epochs:

The message of the first fourteen on the list is mercy; the message of the second fourteen is justice or judgment; and the message of the final fourteen is faith, especially God’s faith: he promised and he fulfills his promise. “Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Old Testament is trying to say.” (Matthew: A Commentary, 15). (McCrabb, Reflections on the Gospel of Matthew)

The underlying current of the genealogy is God’s guidance of history. Richard A. Jensen (b. 1934) informs:

The genealogy...lays out Matthew’s view of history...History has a plan. God is in charge of that plan. All of history comes to fruition and fulfillment in the birth of a baby boy. The name of the baby is Jesus. The destiny of history is bound up in this child. (Jensen, Preaching Matthew’s Gospel, 33)

God’s sovereigny is on display. Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) upholds:

The strongest explanation for the pattern of fourteens in the genealogy is that Matthew is following a Jewish literary technique of dividing epochs into equal parts, thereby making the theological claim that history is not haphazard, but under the control of God. Jesus’ appearance in history, Matthew wants us to know, was no mere accident, no random birth. Other human births may be the result of a spin of the biological wheel of fortune, but not Jesus’ birth. It was orderly, arranged, the result of God’s careful plan and providence. What might appear to be the uncontrolled flood of generations can now, in retrospect, be seen for what it truly is—a mighty river whose channel was carved out by the guiding and arranging hand of God, causing all of Israel’s history to flow in orderly fashion toward this critical moment of passion. (Long, Matthew (Westminster Bible Companion), 10)

John P. Meier (b. 1942) concludes:

The basic affirmation of the genealogy is two-fold: (1) Jesus’ origins lie in the old people of God, Israel; and (2) Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s history, a history carefully guided by God to its goal. (Meier, Matthew (New Testament Message), 3)

Though to those who had long awaited the Messiah, Jesus’ coming likely seemed delayed, Matthew convinces that Christ arrives at the proper interval. He appears in time to die for all and in doing so, redeems both his ancestors and descendants.

Do you find Matthew’s ordering of history to be contrived? How would you divide the past into epochs? How does Jesus disrupt history? How predetermined do you feel life is? Why was Jesus born at this specific time and place; how did it benefit him, the rest of humanity? When have you waited for something only to have later benefitted from its delay?

“Right time, right place, right people equals success.
Wrong time, wrong place, wrong people equals most of the real human history.”
- Idries Shah (1924-1996), Reflections, p. 82

Jesus: Late Bloomer? (Luke 3:23)

How old was Jesus when he began His public ministry? Thirty years old (Luke 3:23)

Though the first four books of the New Testament are devoted to his biography, Jesus’ age is seldom mentioned in Scripture. With the gospel’s customary interest in chronology (Luke 1:5, 2:1-2, 3:1-2), Luke alone specifies Jesus’ age (Luke 2:42, 3:23). In a preface to Jesus’ genealogy, Luke records that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry (Luke 3:23).

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, (Luke 3:23 NASB)

This passage marks one of only two gospel allusions to Jesus’ age as an adult (Luke 3:23; John 8:57). Harold W. Hoehner (1935-2009) compares:

In John 8:57 the Jews said to Jesus, “You are not yet fifty years old.” Irenaeus [130-202] held that Jesus was in His forties, for if Jesus were in His thirties they would have said, “You are not yet forty years old.” George Ogg [b. 1890] takes this chronological note in John 8:57 and doubts that Luke 3:23 can serve any chronological purpose. But certainly the opposite is more likely. Luke 3:23 indicates a precise statement whereas John 8:57 indicates that the Jews were emphasizing Jesus’ youth in contrast to His claim that He existed before Abraham. Therefore, John 8:57 is not helpful in trying to establish the commencement of Christ’s ministry. (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 43)

The last time that Luke mentions Jesus’ age, he is twelve years old consulting with teachers in the temple (Luke 2:42). Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) notes:

Since we were told Jesus’ age when we last heard about him (twelve years old), we now find out how much time has passed. Jesus is a thirty-year-old man, more or less at mid-life, given the life expectancy of that place and time. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 56)

Like a movie that moves from depicting a child to the same adult years later, Luke leaves eighteen “missing” years in Jesus’ life. Not surprisingly this gap has generated curiosity. (How many wish that their awkward teen years went undocumented?) It has been assumed that these years are relatively uneventful.

Beth Moore (b. 1957) observes:

Luke 2:42 tells us Jesus was twelve at the recorded visit to the temple. Luke 3:23 says He was thirty at the beginning of His ministry. The Gospel writer supplies only two verses spanning the eighteen years in between. During these years, Christ Jesus went from boy to mature man. Luke 2:52 appears brief and to the point but actually broadens dramatically our concept of Christ. It tells us our Lord “grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” (Moore, Jesus, the One and Only, 51)

Little can be said with any certainty regarding Jesus’ formative years. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) imagines:

For thirty years the Son had lived in humble circumstances in the seclusion of Nazareth...For thirty years his inner devotional life transcended the understanding and imagination of men...During these silent years the shaping of the second Adam was accomplished. (Hughes, Luke, Volume One: That You May Know the Truth (Preaching the Word), 127)

Though the gospel writers evidently knew nothing worth documenting from these years in Jesus’ life, they were formative and presumably laid the foundation for his later ministry.

Luke is clear that his calculation is an approximation (Luke 3:23). All modern translations include that Jesus is “about” (Greek: hōseí) thirty (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). He may have been several years younger or older (e.g., The Testament of Levi 2:2, 12:5).

Approximation is customary in Luke. Mikeal C. Parsons (b. 1957) recognizes:

Luke often cites numbers less precisely, with an approximating modifier: Jesus was “about thirty years old” when he began his public ministry (Luke 3:23); there were “about five thousand men” present at the feeding in the desert near Bethsaida (Luke 9:14); the number present at the election of Matthias to the circle of Twelve was “about one hundred twenty persons” (Acts 1:15); the number of converts baptized on the day of Pentecost was “about three thousand” (Acts 2:41); the number of John’s disciples encountered by Paul in Acts “altogether...were about twelve” (Acts 19:7). (Parsons, Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity, 90)

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) explains:

Like a good Greek historian, Luke says “about thirty” (Luke 3:23 rather than stating an estimate as a definite number, as was more common in traditional Jewish historiography. (Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 197-98)

Many have used this time stamp to construct a chronology of Jesus. Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) determines:

If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1-19) who died in 4 B.C., and if Jesus was born ca. 6 B.C. and began his ministry ca. 28...Jesus would indeed have been in his early thirties...Luke may simply not have been able to be more specific about Jesus’ age. (Stein, Luke (The New American Commentary), 142)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) cautions:

The use of the adverb hōsei indicates that the figure is to be taken as a round number; in the context of chapter 3 it means that Jesus’ thirtieth birthday was not far removed from Tiberius’ fifteen regnal year [Luke 3:1]. But despite Luke’s desire to anchor “events” by reference to Roman and Palestinian history, this indication of Jesus’ age should not be pressed too much in conjunction with Luke 1:5, 2:2 or 3:1, since it is clearly an approximation. Dionysius Exiguus [470-544] pressed it and miscalculated the beginning of the Christian era and we have had to live with it ever since. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (The Anchor Bible), 499)

John Nolland (b. 1947) concurs:

Luke uses the language of approximation for Jesus’ age. The most that can be suggested is that such an age denotes an adequate measure of maturity (cf. Numbers 4:3). Since we do not know at what stage of John’s ministry Jesus was baptized and began his own independent career, and because the information itself here is imprecise, no firm birth year can be established for Jesus by the juxtaposition of Luke 3:23 and Luke 3:1. (Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary), 171)

Much has been made of Jesus inaugurating his public ministry at the age of thirty. Perhaps not coincidentally, thirty was as the age which priests and Levites began their service (Numbers 4:3, 35, 39, 43, 47; I Chronicles 23:3).

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) suggests:

Such a detail is not added without meaning, and, when reviewing the Mosaic Law, it is discovered that the male child who would enter the priesthood was not eligible to so until he was thirty years of age (cf. Numbers 4:3), and from the added fact that there was no other public ministry to be entered which prescribed its age limits it is reasonable to conclude that the baptism of Christ had to do with His consecration to the priestly office. (Chafer, Systematic Theology: Vols. 5 & 6, 62)

Jesus begins his public ministry at an age that would have been deemed seemly. Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) surveys:

Thirty was viewed in both Jewish and Greco-Roman society as an appropriate age to enter public service. At thirty priests began their duties (Numbers 4:3), Joseph entered Pharaoh’s service (Genesis 41:26), and Ezekiel was called to his prophetic ministry (Ezekiel 1:1). Most significantly, David’s reign as king began at the age of thirty (II Samuel 5:4). Jesus, the Davidic Messiah, follows in the steps of his father David. (Strauss, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 42)

As Strauss alludes, many prominent biblical figures also experience milestones at the age of thirty. David E. Garland (b. 1947) interprets:

Thirty years old marks a “threshold age” in the ancient sources. Joseph was thirty when he entered the service of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:46), and David was thirty years old when he began to reign (II Samuel 5:4). The age signals to the reader that Jesus is now a mature, responsible man ready for his public career. After the extraordinary events surrounding his conception and birth, Jesus had apparently lived for thirty years as an ordinary, anonymous man. Luke has no interest in fantasies of Jesus’ youth that appear in some apocryphal gospels. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 170)

The recurrence of the age of thirty is also prevalent at Qumran. Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) documents:

According to one of the sectarian scrolls from Qumran, when a man “is thirty years old, he may begin to take part in legal disputes” (1QSa 1:13). According to another Scroll, those who may hold the responsibility of preparing the provisions for war “shall be from twenty-five to thirty years old,” in contrast to youths and women, who are not permitted to “enter their encampments” (1QM 7:3). But Qumran’s strictures hardly go beyond the principles of the law itself (cf. Numbers 4:3: “from thirty years and upward, even to fifty years old, who all enter the service to do the work in the tent of meeting”). Luke’s reference to age may therefore mean no more than that Jesus began his age as a mature adult, ready to assume important social and religious responsibilities. (Evans, Matthew-Luke (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 45)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) adds:

That Jesus was thirty years old at the time of his baptism is not without a natural significance since it is the normative Mediterranean age of majority. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 61)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) finds it fitting that Jesus begins his public ministry at the age of thirty:

When he began his ministry Jesus was the ‘right’ age for his work, just as he could lay claim to the ‘right’ descent...The age of thirty...corresponds with that of David when he began to reign (II Samuel 5:4; cf. Joseph, Genesis 41:46; the sons of Kohath, Numbers 4:3; Ezekiel, Ezekiel 1:1), and hence may suggest that David is here seen as a type of Jesus...Rabbinic tradition gave Jesus an age of 33-34 years (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 106b). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 162)

William Barclay (1907-1978) identifies three practical advantages to Jesus delaying his public ministry:

(1) It was essential that Jesus should carry out with the utmost fidelity the more limited tasks of family duty before he could take up the universal task of saving the world...(2) It gave him the opportunity to live out his own teaching...(3) If Jesus was to help people he had to know how they lived. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible), 47-48)

In addition to Jesus acquiring the requisite life experience to be the Messiah, Jesus is at a respectable age of maturity when he begins his ministry. He is in the prime of his life. Thirty is an optimum age to begin an important task.

Why does Jesus wait until he is thirty to begin his public ministry? Why now; why is the timing right? Should contemporary pastors wait until the age of thirty to begin their ministries? (John the Baptist evidently begins his ministry at an earlier age.) When do you feel that a person reaches maturity? At what age did you start your career? How do you think Jesus occupied his first thirty years? Is Jesus’ public ministry more important than these “missing” years?

John W. Miller (b. 1926) summarizes:

At the beginning of the fourth decade of his life (Luke 3:23), soon after his baptism and temptations, the Gospels tell us, he became a prophet-evangelist with an intense concern for the welfare of a certain group of people: “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” as they are referred to in Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24. It was at this time, in the midst of this specific evangelistic mission, that he “came into his own,” so to speak. (Miller, Jesus at Thirty: A Psychological and Historical Portrait, 78)

In an age where adults transition frequently, get later starts and struggle to “find themselves”, it is worth remembering that this is another way in which Jesus can relate (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus too might have been considered a “late bloomer”.

What were you doing at age 30? If you have not yet reached this milestone, what do you hope to be doing? Would Jesus’ friends have perceived him as having a mid-life crisis when his public ministry began? (Mid-life Christ-is?) Is it fair to call Jesus a late bloomer? Is it ever too late to begin anew?

“It is never too late to be what you might have been.” - attributed to George Eliot (1819-1880)