01-03A

For most of us, genealogies have to be one of the least favorite parts of the bible. However, when examined carefully, they are a bit more interesting than it might appear they are.

But you have to do some digging.

In the NT we are given two genealogies of Christ. They are in Matthew 1 and in Luke 3.

Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations. And from David until the carrying away into Babylon, fourteen generations. And from the carrying away into Babylon until Christ, fourteen generations.

Actually, the genealogy doesn't really work quite like Matthew says. Creating this symmetry in the genealogies requires a bit of manipulation on Matthew's part. For it to fit like this, it's necessary to leave out some of the known kings, and it requires David to be counted twice. Matthew could hardly have hoped to fool his readers, nor is it likely that he made mistakes. This sets a precedent that it's not necessary to list every single name in a genealogy. He's motive is possibly to make the genealogy easier to memorize, by making it symmetrical. To our minds, this may seem like Matt is playing fast and loose with the details, but apparently he thought it was okay. He doesn't seem afraid of criticisms by his readers, who could easily have demonstrated the technical inaccuracies of this genealogy had they been inclined to do so.

In Genesis, we see that a similar symmetry exists in Abraham's geneaology--10 generations from Adam to Noah and 10 from Noah to Abraham.

So it's possible that Genesis did the same kind of thing that Matthew did here.

Matthew's genealogy has some interesting things in it, particularly when we consider that he's just played a little fast and loose with the details. The genealogy contains many less-than-perfect characters. It's almost as though Matthew is proud of the checkered pedigree of Jesus.

Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, but was his step-father, and his legal father. His dad was Jacob, just like in the OT.

One thing totally different about this genealogy and that completely is without precedent, is that it contains the name of women. A woman's name doesn't carry the bloodline. He mentions four women.

Tamar, was the one who dressed up like a harlot and fooled Judah into coming in to her.

Rahab was a harlot.

Ruth was a Moabite. She has probably the cleanest record, but when she came in a slept at Boaz's feet that was probably a bit scandalous. (Ruth 3)

Bathesheba is often referred to as she who had been the wife of Uriah. This is a continual reminder of what she and David's did. (And it also keeps Uriah's name alive, since he was never able to have a son of his own.)

All of these women are apparently Gentiles. Tamar certainly was, because she pre-dates the Jews. She was the mother of Judah's children. Rahab was a Canaanite, of the cursed race. The only survivor of Jericho, Heb 11 and James 2 both mentioned her faith. Ruth was a Moabite. A Moabite couldn't enter the temple to the 10th generation (Deut), but David was only 3 generations removed. Bathesheba could possibly have been Jewish... but Uriah was a Hittite, and Ahipothel was here grandfather. So three of the four, possible all four were gentiles.

All of them except Ruth, and possibly even Ruth, have a scandal associated with them. Tamar and Rahab had both played the prostitute. Bathesheba committed adultery with David. Ruth seems virtuous, but there may be something scandalous at the way she appeared with Boaz at the foot of his bed.

So not only has Matt has broken tradition by including women, but moreover, he selects gentiles, and, further still, they are associated with scandal.

It seems that his purpose is in showing that Jesus was not in the least embarrassed to be associated with the sinner, with the gentiles, and with the downcast. All of these were looked upon scornfully by the Jews of the day. In that society, Jewish men apparently could divorce their wives for the most trivial reasons. Jewish men, by tradition, would daily give thanks to God that they were not created as a gentile, as a woman, or as a dog. So they equated women and Gentiles with dogs. This illustrates the disrespect these Jews had for women and Gentiles.

John 4: ... his disciples marveled that he spoke to a woman.

Matt 8: ... Jesus recognizes gentiles as more Christian than Jews.

By today’s standard of Jewishness (that is, having a Jewish mother) several of the male members of the genealogy are not Jewish. Obed had a Moabite mother. Boaz had a Canaanite mother.

John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him and said of him, Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile!

Notice that he doesn't say, one in whom is no gentile blood, but one in whom is no deceit. He is an Israelite indeed... which is to say in deed.

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that outwardly in flesh;

Jesus associated with women, gentiles, and sinners in his life. Almost all that we know about these women is associated with their scandals.

The other genealogy is found beginning in Luke 3:23. Luke starts with Jesus and goes back to Adam. Matt, by contrast, starts at Abraham and goes forward to Jesus. So the orders are reversed.

The important thing though is that in Luke’s genealogy the names are different. Even as soon as Jesus' grandfather the names are inconsistent with Matt's genealogy. Was Joseph's father Jacob, or was he Heli? These are entirely different genealogies! They do both cross over in David; Matthew through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. But there's really just no reconciling these two genealogies as the same one.

The problem is in determining who Heli was. One supposed solution is that in Jesus family there was a leberite marriage. Some have felt that Joseph's real father was Jacob, but possibly Heli was Jacob's older brother. This is an elaborate and ingenious solution, but it doesn't work, because it just removes the problem back a generation. This could be the case if you were willing to introduce a textual error in that of Heli's father was Matthat, and Jacob's father Matthan. The names Matthat and Matthan are similar enough to make this tempting. But even this just removes the problem back only one more generation, because how do you explain the difference between Eleazar (Matthan's father) and Levi (Matthat's father). Eleazar and Levi are both levitical names... maybe here's another leberite marriage. Well, maybe, but we're at what point do we quit heaping on this speculation?

Matthew and Luke must have been looking at the same sources, for their genealogies. Surely weren't make them up off the top of their heads. That would be too easy to disprove. If Matt went and got the temple records, and if Luke had done the same thing, they should have gotten the same names.

A simpler solution is that Matthew and Luke are not attempting to trace the same genealogy.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) son of Joseph, son of Heli,

Parenthesis didn't exist in the first manuscripts. These were added later by the editors. It could be that instead of closing the parenthesis after the word "supposed", you could place it after the word "Joseph". And since parentheticals are really only there for clarification they can be omitted without changing the meaning. Moreover, "son of" is not part of the original text, (as the italics indicate), so you can remove them too. This leaves you with:

"And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being of Heli,"

This could still be perfectly accurate if what we have here is a record of Jesus' lineage through Mary. Jesus' closest male ancestor was his Grandfather on his mother's side.

So it may be that the best explanation that we have here, is that in Luke, what's really being traced is Mary's genealogy.