Tracing the Genealogy of Jesus (Protestant/Evangelical Devotional & Caucus)

At first glance, the beginning of Matthew is a less-than-exciting literary starting point of the New Testament. It is a list of â€œbegatsâ€ tracing Jesusâ€™ lineage back to Abraham.

What this beginning lacks in literary punch it makes up for in theological significance. Among other things, the genealogical tables of the New Testament place the gospel squarely on the plane of history. Jesus was born â€œin the fullness of timeâ€â€”His ministry is defined and interpreted against the background of Old Testament history.

The New Testament provides two genealogical tables for Jesus, one by Matthew and one by Luke. These tables differ at significant points. Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience and Luke for a Gentile audience. Matthew was concerned to show that Jesus legally descended from David and was therefore a descendant of Judah to whom the messianic kingship was promised. Matthew treats the legal descent of Jesus and limits the lists to three groupings of fourteen generations, allowing himself to make omissions.

Luke follows the natural descent with greater detail. He takes the list back to Adam, as it was a central theme in his Gospel to set forth the universality of the gospel. Jesus is indeed the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, but He is also the new Adam who comes to redeem not only Israel but men and women from every tribe and nation.

Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

I hope that despite my being Catholic, you take no offense here, because I don’t mean to quarrel, nor do I expect my statements to be contrary to Protestant’s/Evangelical’s beliefs as a whole (even if there are bound to be people in such a broad category who disagree with me).

The important thing to consider as one compares the geneaologies is that the differences between Matthew’s gospel and Luke’s are neither “mistakes,” not attempts to deceive, as many atheists and historical skeptics would have people believe.

The notion that either gospel comes from a long history of oral traditions after the deaths of the people identified as the authors simply does not stand up to modern evidence.

At least some form of Matthew was written in Aramaic by A.D. 50. Luke was written before the death of St. Paul, some time before the A.D. 65., certainly BEFORE the fall of the Temple. Luke nearly certainly had read an early form of Matthew as he wrote his gospel; and the final Greek form of Matthew was probably created after Luke’s gospel had been written, so there’s even the odd circumstance that BOTH gospels had been written with the other in hand.

Two things need to be considered when looking at the apparent contradictions:

Firstly, one gospel writer was concerned with legal inheritance, establishing the earthly legitimacy of the Jesus as heir to the throne, despite his unlikely seeming origin. The other was concerned with the Jesus’ actual parentage. When dealing with inheritances as significant as the claim to a royal throne, it shouldn’t be at all surprising that there is a variation between biological parentage and inheritance.

Secondly, we can compare the geneaologies with the Old Testament geneaologies, and know for a certainty that “begat” doesn’t necessarily literally mean “was the biological father of,” and that “of” does not necessarily literally mean “was the son of.” (Yes, the gospel doesn’t ever say, “was the son of.” It just says, “of.”)

Again, these aren’t mistakes. It would be ridiculous to suppose that the New Testament authors created Jesus’ lineage for thousands of years without resource to the Old Testament. And it would be equally ridiculous to suppose that they expected that their audience would not have access to the Old Testament to catch and deceit.

Mathew traces the linage from Joseph back to Solomon and David. Amongst those listed are Jechonias..

Jer. 22:24, 30, “As I live, declares the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on my right hand, yet I would tear you off...Thus says the Lord: ‘Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah’” (ESV).

So Joseph could not be the earthly father of Jesus.

Luke traces the line back to another son of David, Nathan, and that is considered Mary’s line.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.