The first gospel in the Christian scriptures is the gospel of Matthew which begins its account of the life of Jesus by supplying the reader with the genealogy of Jesus. Before the appearance of angels, before the virgin birth, the author wants the reader to know that Jesus came from good stock. The genealogy begins with Abraham, thus legitimizing Jesus’ place as a Jew and a beneficiary of the covenant. The gospel of Matthew was written to appeal to a Jewish audience; therefore, the author stresses that Jesus comes from a long line of notable Jews: Abraham, Jacob, David, Hezekiah, Josiah and others. This genealogy claims that Jesus is a descendant of David, to whom God made a promise. According to the prophecy of Jeremiah, the messiah was to be a descendant of David (Jer. 23:5). Including David in this genealogy provides Jesus with the ancestry necessary to be argued as the messiah, a point the author of Matthew clearly understood and stressed. After David, the line of Jesus is continued through Solomon and a succession of kings. For a Jewish audience that hoped for the re-establishment of an earthly kingdom under the messiah, the connection of Jesus with the kings of Israel would bring an image of Jesus as a rightful king of their nation (Dummelow 623).
Perhaps one reason for the author placing the genealogy at the very beginning of the gospel is so that the story seems continuous with the Hebrew Scriptures. While reading the genealogy, a reader familiar with the Hebrew Scripture would certainly have recognized some of the names in the long list. As the reader’s eyes moved down the list, the narratives and tales that fill the Hebrew scripture were perhaps recounted in the imagination of the reader: Abraham obediently offering Isaac as sacrifice, Rahab hanging a red cord from her window to be spared by the army of Joshua, Ruth gathering grain for Naomi as Boaz watched in admiration, Jesse consulting with David before his battle with Goliath, and Josiah re-establishing God’s law among his wayward people. The Jewish reader would have certainly been familiar with these tales of God’s personal involvement with his followers, thus making the birth of Jesus seem natural as the next chapter in this long succession. A feature unique to Matthew’s genealogy is the inclusion of women in the lineage (i.e. Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba). The reason for this untraditional occurrence may have been to illustrate that God moved through all types of people, even women and adulterers, to fulfill his ultimate will, thus perhaps paving the way for the inclusion of Gentiles (Lewis 956-57).
The structure of Matthew’s genealogy follows a pattern of fourteens. There are three periods of time that form the structure of Matthew’s genealogy: Abraham to David, David to Babylonian exile, and Babylonian exile to Jesus. Fourteen generations are listed within each of the three time periods. This structure makes for a genealogy that is considerably shorter than Luke’s, but this structure is not due to ignorance or apathy on the behalf of the author. The author once again wanted to emphasize the connection between Jesus and David. The name David in Hebrew is composed of fourteen letters from the Hebrew alphabet, thus making Jesus’ relation to David ageless (Lewis 956). The author of Matthew stressed the Davidic prophecy to his Jewish audience through both lineage and form. Without the fulfillment of this criterion, Jesus would have been a tough sell as Messiah to Jewish listeners.
The genealogy found in Matthew also bears strong resemblance to genealogies found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Pieces of Matthew’s genealogy match closely to a ten generation genealogy found in Ruth that begins with Perez and ends with David. This is notable since the genealogy of Matthew includes Ruth, although the matrilineal genealogy was not of much consequence for the author or his audience. The succession of kings from Solomon to post-exilic Jechoniah is found in the book of 1 Chronicles. This seventeen generation list also matches closely to the one found in Matthew. These strong similarities may suggest that Matthew relied upon the Hebrew Scriptures and traditions when composing his gospel, thus making this a gospel that was meant to appeal to the Jews who would have found value in these lineages found elsewhere in scripture (Lewis 957).
The second genealogy of the New Testament can be found in Luke which differs in many respects to the genealogy in Matthew. Luke’s genealogy reflects his audience just as Matthew’s, but these authors wrote to different audiences. While Matthew was meant to appeal to Jews, the gospel of Luke was intended to be heard by Gentiles who lived in a very different context than their Jewish counterparts. Just as Matthew’s structure, data, and placement enriched the narrative and provided a backdrop for the message, Luke provides a genealogy that paints a different portrait of Jesus’ lineage and purpose.
The placement of Luke seems peculiar since the genealogy is provided in Chapter 3 after Jesus’ baptism, presumably “around” thirty years after Jesus’ miraculous birth. Why would the author slip in a longer list of names than Matthew when Jesus is already a grown man ready to begin his ministry? In Luke God makes a pronouncement after the baptism of Jesus.
…and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my son, the Beloved, with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)
The placement of this passage may spark some debate over the nature of Jesus as the Son of God. The adoptionist view would hold that Jesus was not accepted as Son of God until this time, while the antiadoptionist view would say that Jesus was affirmed at this moment but always the Son of God (Ehrman 155-57). The placement of this passage after the baptism and pronouncement gives rise to questions of theology, but the more simple explanation may lie in the literature. The form of Luke’s genealogy starts with Jesus and works backwards, son-to-father, unlike the father-to-son form followed by Matthew. The reason for this form may seem unclear until the climactic finale of the genealogy.
Luke’s genealogy went far beyond Abraham and traced Jesus back to the very first man, Adam. This was rather ambitious of Luke, although the genealogy of Adam to Abraham is recorded in Genesis. Even more ambitious, the author of Luke placed God into his genealogy! The genealogy in Luke ends with God,”…son of Adam, son of God.”(Luke 3:38b). This is probably why Luke’s genealogy begins with the son rather than the father. To have listed God first would have ruined the surprise. The author of Luke took a boring list of men and created an aura of wonder and suspense by flipping the normal order and building suspense as time became more and more ancient. The inclusion of God in this genealogy suggests that Adam was a son of God. If this genealogy were one long sentence, the word “God” would be the exclamation point at the end. This structuring gives the idea that the establishment of Jesus as son of God has been a long process since the fall of the first man (Allen 41). This connects Jesus with all mankind and not only to the Jews. Because of this, Jesus’ connection to the royal line of king was not so important to the audience of Luke who was a Gentile audience. In Luke’s genealogy Nathan is the descendant of David not Solomon, and through Nathan the line is continued. This created for a very different genealogy than Matthew’s.
Biblical scholars throughout the years have attempted to reconcile the differences found between the two genealogies, but these attempts have largely proved unfruitful. The reasons are simple and do not require an exhaustive argument discussing the lineage of Mary (of which there is no record), or other possibilities of why the accounts don not match (Tannehill 86-87). The genealogies differ because although they shared a subject their authors wrote at different times, from different sources, for different purposes, to different audiences. Forms of literature must differ when shared with differing audiences. The incompatibility of the two genealogies should not present a problem for the reader who is able to view the gospels together. An understanding of the context in which these documents were written provides for plenty of explanation.
The individual genealogies of Jesus may seem dull to the reader, but taking a closer look and deeper consideration of these passages provides the reader with a more complete understanding of the story unfolding before him or her. These passages provide historical context for the narrative of Jesus, weave Jesus into the fabric of the timeless covenants between God and his people, and provide the lens through which the author wished the audience to view Jesus and his ministry. When the genealogies are compared the richness and diversity of the Christian Scriptures comes to life. On one hand, an author wished to appeal to the Jews of the time, hence the connection to Abraham and the succession of kings after David. On the other, an author wished to appeal to the Gentiles who were not concerned with the legitimacy of Jesus’ connection to the covenant, hence the emphasis on Jesus’ relation to Adam and ultimately God. The inconsistencies within these passages should not be viewed as problems to be dealt with by creating convoluted theories, but should be seen as indicators that the people, scriptures, and views in the early church were varied. This recognition of variation causes the need to study the scriptures and traditions more closely to gain an understanding of what Jesus meant to the early Christians.
Bilbiography
Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Beind Who Changed the Bible and Why. San Francisco: Harper Collins. 2005.
The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford Universoty Press, 1989.
Eiselen, Frederick Carl et. al., eds The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 1929.
Tannehill, Robert C. ed. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: Luke. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Allen, Clifton J. ed. the Broadman Bible Commentary. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970.
Dummelow, JR. ed. A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers. London: MacMillan. 1970.
No comments:
Post a Comment