028. Chapter 7 - The Genealogies

Chapter 7 - The Genealogies Matthew 1:1-17;Luke 3:23-38 Value of theGenealogies

Anyone who has read Justin Martyr’s Dialoguewith Trypho (a series of debates with a Jew, named Trypho, concerning Christ, written about a.d. 140) will realize the very great importance of the genealogies for the early days of Christianity. They trace Jesus’ ancestry back to David and connect Him with the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. How clearly these prophecies were understood is evidenced by the question of Jesus, “What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he?” and the ready answer of the Pharisees: “The son of David” (Matthew 22:41-45). The very first thing in the proclamation of the gospel to a Jew was to convince him that Jesus fulfilled the fundamental line of prophecy in the Old Testament by being born of the line of David. The fact that Matthew furnishes the genealogy as a sort of prologue to his record of the life of Jesus shows how essential this is. Luke gives his genealogical list immediately after his account of the baptism of Jesus, and the fact that he included it in his Gospel intended for publication among the Greeks shows that the genealogies had a universal interest. The early Christian messengers doubtless had these lists (especially Matthew’s) memorized, and could quote them at will in argument. The works of early Christian writers teem with references to them. The only reason we pass them by with such lack of interest is that we consider the case proved. But if we did not possess proof that Jesus was the descendant of David, imagine the difficulties that would immediately arise in attempting to measure Jesus by the light of Old Testament prophecy. The subject is dry and forbidding, but surely its importance justifies a brief study for the careful Bible student.

Difficulties The genealogies are as different as the general records of the nativity in Matthew and Luke, and fairly bristle with difficulty. Matthew’s list is the shorter and more popular. It traces the line from Abraham and records forty-two generations (three groups of fourteen each: 1. From Abraham to David. 2. From David to captivity in Babylon. 3. From captivity to Christ). This arrangement was probably made to aid in memorizing the list, and several familiar names seem to have been omitted in order to make the three fourteens. Matthew 1:8 — “Joram begat Uzziah” — omits three generations — Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. These names were very familiar, and could easily be supplied from the Old Testament. A fourth name was omitted in Matthew 1:11 : “Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren.” This omits Jehoiakim, who was the son of Josiah and father of Jechoniah. Moreover, Jechoniah had no brothers. McGarvey suggests that “brethren” here means kindred; i.e., the three uncles of Jechoniah (Jehoahaz, Zedekiah, and Shallum); and that either David or Jechoniah is to be counted twice in order to make the three fourteens. But which one is to be counted and why one rather than the other?

Solutions

It is very plain that Matthew has arranged his genealogy in three divisions which stand out because of an equal number of names in each (14) and because of the different character of the men in each (1. Patriarchs; 2. Kings; 3. Private Citizens); and because of the periods of history (1. From establishment of the nation with Abraham to the climax of the kingdom under David; 2. To the downfall of the kingdom at the time of the Babylonian captivity; 3. To the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom in the coming of Christ). This makes such a vivid and attractive arrangement and one so easily memorized and used that its very purpose is self-evident. Some hold that Matthew only intended to have forty-one names in the list and that he omitted the name of Jehoiakim deliberately. Since the inclusion of Jehoiakim in the proper place would have made 14 names in the third division and completed the arrangement, it is hard to see why he should have done this.

If a scribal error caused the omission of the name of Jehoiakim, then all the difficulties attached to the omission are solved at once. Zahn, the great German conservative scholar, supposes the scribal error arose in the translation of Matthew from Hebrew to Greek. But it is not necessary to suppose this. The names, Jechoniah and Jehoiakim, are similar in Greek and this may have caused the slip of eye or pen on the part of an early copyist. Some suggest that all four of the names missing from the genealogy were deliberately omitted by Matthew because these were very wicked kings and the omission of the names fulfilled the prediction of Moses “concerning every Jew whose heart turneth away this day from Jehovah our God” and “Jehovah will blot out his name from under heaven.” But the names of these four kings are not “blotted out from under heaven” by their omission from Matthew’s genealogy. Their actual personalities as ancestors of Jesus were not excluded: their names are implied in the list as would be plain to all Jews, for they were well known and the Old Testament genealogical lists familiar to all. Every Jewish student would know where to supply these names. Furthermore, consider some of the names which are included in the list: names of kings much more godless than these four. Take Manasseh for an example (cf. 2 Kings 21:10-12). Surely this was not the reason for the omission of the four names. The arrangement of the three fourteens explains the omission of the three names; a scribal error furnishes the most plausible explanation of the last. Since no conceivable advantage could be gained in argument for the Messianic descent of Jesus by their omission, and since the names are to be readily supplied from the Old Testament, the validity of the list is not impaired by the particular arrangement Matthew has offered.

Added Names

Another puzzling feature of Matthew’s genealogy is the introduction of the names of persons not usually included in such a list: “Jacob begat Judah and his brethren” (Matthew 1:2). Why mention the brethren? Is it because the Old Testament so continually associates the twelve sons of Jacob together? But why mention the brethren of Jehoiakim (Matthew 1:11)? And why mention Zerah and Tamar (Matthew 1:3), Rahab and Ruth (Matthew 1:5) and call attention to Bathsheba (Matthew 1:6)? Certainly Matthew’s purpose is not to clothe Jesus “with the diminishing glories of the first families,” for he stops to emphasize the name of Tamar, who committed incest; and Rahab, who was a harlot; and Bathsheba, who committed adultery; and Ruth, who was a heathen (as also Rahab). Whatever his purpose, he was not trying to cover up the outrageous sins of some of the ancestors of Jesus. It is hard to see just why these names were introduced. They offer no difficulty, however, and had some peculiar interest for the author. Their history in the Old Testament is very striking. Allen suggests that these names were introduced to prepare the reader for the extraordinary experience of the virgin Mary. But this suggestion had no basis in the Gospel and seems to be introduced by Allen to prepare his own readers for his denial of the virgin birth. Perhaps Matthew desired to emphasize that on the human side Jesus’ ancestry was a part of the world, as he then turns to emphasize on the divine side that He was without sin and came to redeem us.

Luke’s Genealogy

Luke’s genealogy runs backward from Jesus to Adam, seventy-six generations, while Matthew runs forward from Abraham, forty-two generations. From Abraham to David the two genealogies agree. But from David to Joseph they are different except the names of Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel. These may be different people bearing the same name, or the two different lines may cross by one giving the natural and the other the legal descent at this point. The chief difficulty is that two genealogies so very different are both presented as the line of Joseph. Matthew says that Jacob was the father of Joseph, while Luke says that Eli was the father of Joseph. McGarvey (Evidences of Christianity, Part III, pp. 52-55) shows at length four ways in which the problem may be solved. But it is most likely that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli, and Luke really traces the line of Mary. (The Sinaitic-Syriac MS has in Luke 2:4 : “They [Joseph and Mary] were of the house and lineage of David.”) Justin Martyr, Ephraim of Cyrus, Irenaeus and Eusebius all affirm that Mary was of the line of David. If this is the genealogy of Mary, then it is in accord with the peculiar interests of Luke in telling of the experiences of Mary. This would help explain general differences between the genealogies. As we study these two lists of names, how they draw the two great Testaments together — the Old and the New! What assurance and profound conviction they bring that “we have found the Christ!” How closely they bring “the Son of man” to us all! The crimson stain of sin that mars this ancestral line is our shame, not His. It sets forth in a moment the very reason — yes, the necessity — for the coming of the Son of God from heaven to be born of the seed of David and redeem the human race.