The Three Nativities, Pt.2 - Lineages

So this week’s Bible quiz question is “Who was the grandfather of Jesus?”

Raymond E. Brown poses this puzzle as part of his discussion of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus as he compares it with a very different listing of ancestors found in the Gospel of Luke. Brown’s landmark study, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Random House, 1993) is a foundational commentary for anyone wanting to explore the two sets of nativity literature found directly in the New Testament. This Advent study not surprisingly draws heavily on Brown’s work.

As mentioned in my first posting, methodologically we are refraining from the temptation of seeking to prematurely harmonize what are finally two very different tales. Instead, I seek to examine both Gospel accounts as if individually they were all that had come down to us through the ages. I suggested that we speak of the various “blended” accounts as simply a third story.

Alfred North Whitehead’s famous dictum about the creative relationship between the unity and diversity where the Many become the One, and then that One becomes one more of the many is relevant at this point.

I suppose that for those who understand the Bible to be some sort of dictated “Words of God,” the fact that there are found therein contradictory accounts becomes problematic. As I believe that such a suspicious doctrine is essentially idolatrous, I welcome the richness of the meanings and perspectives shared in the material we call sacred scriptures. That there are two remarkably different genealogies found in our Gospel accounts seems to me to give us all permission to move beyond such Biblical literalism and false worship of rigid historicism.

Those who know me well understand that I love footnotes. Yes, footnotes! Ever since Martin Marty allowed me to see that graduate education was essentially participation in an extended conversation held by members of the academy and more importantly our congregations, footnotes that document who is speaking and what they have said in prior conversations have become my friends.

I have been known to buy a new book and spend the first week reading the footnotes, only then to have gotten around to the published text. Yes, I also pore over the obscure details of bibliographies.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend and I were discussing this odd proclivity of mine and he suggested that I must love biblical genealogies as well. Hmm! I’m not so sure, but at least for this post, I am asking you to stay away from that “back” button and join with me in an examination of the two family trees of Jesus.

I

The nativity materials in the Gospel of Matthew involve four separate elements. First, Matthew sets the context for the birth of Jesus with a genealogy.

Second, Matthew speaks very briefly about the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, not so much relating the details of the birth as in Luke’s account, but by reflecting briefly on Joseph’s response to what on face value appears to be the somewhat scandalous circumstances of Mary’s pregnancy.

The third element is the well-known tale of the awkward visit of foreign astrologers who end up worshiping the toddler Jesus as an ascending monarch.

Finally, these materials are summed up with the report of pending violence by Herod’s troops and the holy family’s escape to Egypt and after some time the family’s relocation in the Galilee to Nazareth. Please join me in reading…

An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah,

the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Abraham was the father of Isaac, and

Isaac the father of Jacob, and

Jacob the father of Judah (and his brothers), and

Judah the father of Perez (and Zerah) by Tamar, and

Perez the father of Hezron, and

Hezron the father of Aram, and

Aram the father of Aminadab, and

Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and

Nahshon the father of Salmon, and

Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and

Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and

Obed the father of Jesse, and

Jesse the father of King David.

And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and

Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and

Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and

Abijah the father of Asaph, and

Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and

Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and

Joram the father of Uzziah, and

Uzziah the father of Jotham, and

Jotham the father of Ahaz, and

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and

Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and

Manasseh the father of Amos, and

Amos the father of Josiah, and

Josiah the father of Jechoniah (and his brothers)

at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

And after the deportation to Babylon:

Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and

Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, and

Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and

Abiud the father of Eliakim, and

Eliakim the father of Azor, and

Azor the father of Zadok, and

Zadok the father of Achim, and

Achim the father of Eliud, and

Eliud the father of Eleazar, and

Eleazar the father of Matthan, and

Matthan the father of Jacob, and

Jacob the father of Joseph

(the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.)

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

Brown begins his extended commentary on this passage noting the following, “To the modern reader there are few things in the Bible less meaningful than the frequent lists of descendents or ancestors. Those who read the Bible from cover to cover tend to develop an elastic consciousness when they come to the first nine chapters of I Chronicles.” He goes on to remind his readers of the satirical humor found in Finians Rainbow where after Adam and Eve take bites of the apple, “they began the begat.”

Can we make some quick generalizations? The literary pattern for this composition is much like that found elsewhere in the OT (cf. Ruth 4:18-22, or 1 Chr 3:10ff). - A begat B, and B begat C, and C begat D and so forth. In his research, Matthew apparently discovers (perhaps arranges) three periods each with fourteen generations, the last culminating in the birth of Jesus. Got a minute, we will bracket the question of whether Matthew can count properly for a minute.

He breaks the poetic pattern in two ways and I have noted these burps, if you will, by formatting the text differently. First, on three occasions, he lists additional offspring, brothers if you will. Brown suggests that Matthew may be demonstrating that God (Yahweh) routinely makes choices, although the values underlying these choices are not readily evident.

The second oddity is the inclusion of the names of four women (five, if you count Mary) in what is essentially a patriarchal line of descent. I have underlined these deviations from the pattern, first Tamar, and then Rahab, and then Ruth and finally Bathsheba (who is unnamed and simply listed as the wife of Uriah).

In perhaps a third break with pattern, Joseph is not listed as the father of Jesus, but simply designated the husband of Mary, “of whom, Jesus is born.”

What do these women hold in common? Brown suggests that over the years, there have been at least three answers to that question. First, it might be suggested that each of these women were “sinful.” – Rahab was certainly a prostitute, but Tamar only pretended to be one. Was Bathsheba’s relationship adulterous, or did David use his power and authority to rape her. Ruth’s relationship with Boaz is full of ambiguity, but would not have necessarily been considered an act of sin.

Some scholars have noted that the four women were foreign, perhaps, but what point would that be making. Certainly in the book of Ruth, the fact that Ruth, a Moabite was grandmother of David makes a distinct protest against those campaigning for racial purity and control over inter-religious marriage. How that plays out in this construct though is less clear.

Finally, each coupled with unusual circumstances surrounding their conceiving of heirs, these aggressive women perhaps set the stage for faithfulness in light of the even more scandalous report of a “virgin birth” of Jesus. In that context, they function as forebears of Mary.

Matthew leaves few clues as to why he writes the way he does and therefore, we are unfortunately left to speculate.

II

Luke’s genealogy is not part of his nativity materials, but is instead found sandwiched between the account of Jesus’ baptism by John and the story of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.

In Luke, the tale of Joseph and Mary’s journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Mary’s delivery in a stable and the subsequent visit by shepherds are part of a much longer sequence of childhood scenes relating the pregnancy of Elizabeth, the circumcision of Jesus, his presentation at the temple and then the adolescent visit to Jerusalem where Jesus gets so caught up in the scholarly “rabbinic” discussions that he misses the trip back home much to his parents dismay. Nevertheless, an examination of Luke’s genealogy is informative. We read…

Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work.

He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph

son of Heli,

son of Matthat,

son of Levi,

son of Melchi,

son of Jannai,

son of Joseph,

son of Mattathias,

son of Amos,

son of Nahum,

son of Esli,

[stay with me!]

son of Naggai,

son of Maath,

son of Mattathias,

son of Semein,

son of Josech,

son of Joda,

son of Joanan,

son of Rhesa,

son of Zerubbabel,

son of Shealtiel,

son of Neri,

son of Melchi,

son of Addi,

son of Cosam,

son of Elmadam,

son of Er,

[Are you still there?]

son of Joshua,

son of Eliezer,

son of Jorim,

son of Matthat,

son of Levi,

son of Simeon,

son of Judah,

son of Joseph,

son of Jonam,

son of Eliakim,

son of Melea,

son of Menna,

son of Mattatha,

son of Nathan,

son of David,

son of Jesse,

son of Obed,

son of Boaz,

son of Sala,

son of Nahshon,

son of Amminadab,

[just a little more!]

son of Admin,

son of Arni,

son of Hezron,

son of Perez,

son of Judah,

son of Jacob,

son of Isaac,

son of Abraham,
son of Terah,

son of Nahor,

son of Serug,

son of Reu,

son of Peleg,

son of Eber,

son of Shelah,

son of Cainan,

son of Arphaxad,

son of Shem,

son of Noah,

son of Lamech,

son of Methuselah,

son of Enoch,

son of Jared,

son of Mahalaleel,

son of Cainan,

son of Enos,

son of Seth,

son of Adam, [and finally] son of God.

Of course, Luke’s rehearsal of Joseph’s ancestral line back to Jesus as son of God restates in its particularly tedious way, what was declared in the previous verses where the heavens break open and a voice declares Jesus as beloved son of God.

So who was Jesus’ grandfather?

Luke says Heli,

Matthew says Jacob!

They can’t both be right – perhaps neither is correct?

But, of course that is not the only discrepancy. While Matthew lists 41 names (generations) – yes I know 3 times 14 is 42, but count them! – Luke lists 73. Even when one sets the two lists in a similar timeframe, Matthew has 41 names, but Luke has 56. In fact, Matthew’s epochs widely differ in the years they represent and especially in terms of the names that they list. The pre-monarchial period from Abraham to David historically covers some 750 years. In both accounts of this time frame, there is only one place where discrepancies exist in the names. But when we move to the monarchial period, representing some 400 years, the only name that the two lists agree upon is David! In the third period, some 575 years, only the first two names, Zerubbabel, and Shealtiel and the last two Joseph and Jesus seem to match.

Again, Brown is helpful here. He writes:

The genealogy is generally “artificial” rather than “historical” in its structure, although neither term is really precise if we consider that the primary purpose of a biblical genealogy is rarely involved with purely biological descent. What I mean by “artificial” is that even God did not arrange things so nicely that exactly fourteen biological generations did not separate such crucial moments in salvation history as the call to Abraham, the accession of David, the Babylonian exile, and the coming of the Messiah.

Noting glaring omissions by Matthew from, the historical record, Brown observes that such omissions are a “problem to the Western mind with its quest for biological accuracy and completeness, but [they] are well attested in both ancient and modern tribal genealogies.”

It seems to me that in general these family tree lists essentially serve three functions. First, they establish tribal identity. It is interesting that later in Matthew’s account as he spins the story of the angel visit to Joseph; Joseph is also called “Son of David.” In principle, each name on that list is a “son of David.” For Matthew, what is at stake here is not Jesus’ unique identity, but the fact that Jesus is part of a unique tribal line. Of course, for Matthew this link to David is traced through Solomon; in Luke it is traced through Nathan. But both accounts affirm the importance of the direct Davidic line. It then becomes extremely important that Joseph claim Jesus as his son in order to claim this Davidic heritage. While Mary is also of Davidic ancestry, she doesn’t count.

In similar fashion, this particular family tree legitimates the special vocational role, in this case, the office of the monarch, not just any monarch, but a King grounded in the covenant made between God (Yahweh) and Abraham that will benefit all humankind.

Thirdly, in terms of family tree, there emerges what one might call a “collective personality” and so by rehearsing Jesus’ ancestry back to Abraham, Matthew is laying claim for Jesus to Abraham’s faithfulness.

Two different lists serve two vastly different functions found in two vastly different nativity stories. Luke builds the case for Jesus as son of God, perhaps drawing on Pauline imagery of Jesus as a second Adam whose response of obedience in contrast to Adam’s disobedience offers alternative outcomes and possibilities for human responsibility.

Matthew, who builds a case for Jesus as son of David and son of Abraham, sets the stage for an extended reflection of the question of legitimacy. We should not be surprised that Herod’s name does not appear on the list.

See also: The Three Nativities, Pt.1 - Introduction

This essay is part of a series written in memory of Judy Sparks Montgomery

© John C. Montgomery – All Rights Reserved 2007

Photo used by permission: I-Stock Photo