Posted by Pastor Steven on January 23, 1999 at 14:08:13:
In Reply to: mountain message posted by lauren on January 21, 1999 at 15:18:19:
: Someone shed a light on my ignorance!!!!!!OK, so Im
: reading in Matthew of the genealogy of Christ. Which
: to me implies bloodline. Anyway as you may know, good
: ol Matthew traces Jesus the Son of David down to Joseph,
: the husband of Mary. BUT, Jesus was born of a virgin
: birth, therefore the blood and lineage of Joseph would
: not be mixed with that of Jesus. Now I post this
: risking embarassment of the upmost degree, for I'm
: sure there is a obvious explanation, and I'm just
: overlooking such. Or, hey jesus is God, He can have any
: blood He chooses coarsing through His veins. I hate to
: get caught up in the details and fail to recognize and
: marvel at the fact that "hey, God has VEINS". Hello,
: God in the flesh, to reconcile me. you. us. How
: caloused I become to the miracle and love.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The proper way to reckon and record a geneology is through the father's bloodline. At this point in Matthew's story, he has not yet explained to the reader that Jesus' birth was miraculous; he is starting with the apparent bloodline of Jesus through his supposed father Joseph.
Luke adds that Jesus was the son "so it was thought" (NIV) or "as it was supposed" (KJV) of Joseph. This makes sense, because Luke has already told the account of the virgin birth before beginning the geneology of Jesus, so it would already be apparent to the reader that Joseph wasn't really the father.
The more difficult problem is in the inconsistencies between Matthew's and Luke's geneologies. Many solutions have been proposed to this problem throughout the centuries. Briefly, the three main explanations I know of being taught today are these:
1. This theory supposes that Matthew is recording Joseph's lineage, while Luke is recording Mary's. This would be a very convenient solution, because it would also show that Jesus was of the Davidic bloodline through Mary, even if Joseph wasn't his father. Nothing like killing two birds with one stone, eh? There is, of course, no historical evidence for this theory. History seems to show that it would have been highly improper to record a bloodline through the mother. And if Luke chooses to do it anyway, why does he not tell us so, and list Mary in the geneology instead of Joseph?
2. This theory supposes that there was a Levirate marriage, and that one author traces the real bloodline while the other author traces the Levirate. This theory is harder for me to accept than the first one. First, one Levirate marriage could not adequately explain the variances, it seems there would have to be a few more. If there actually were multiple Levirate marriages in this bloodline that could explain the variances, it still does not explain why one of the authors would break with centuries of Jewish tradition and purposely refuse to record all of the Levirate fathers (and have access to reliable records of all the "blood" fathers after all the years).
3. This theory proposes that Matthew recorded the kingly lineage of Joseph, while Luke recorded the actual lineage of Jospeh. In other words, Matthew's geneology would record every time the kingship passed to a nephew or a son-in-law, etc. because the king had no son. Eventually the kingship jumps enough family lines to end up leaving Joseph as the rightful heir to the throne (which no longer existed, of course). This at least would show Jesus being born in the right family to be heir to the throne, if it still existed. What a fantastic solution this is! Still, I wonder why Joseph's family received so little respect...
There are a variety of other less attractive solutions as well, and some creative combinations of those above. The possibilities are multitudinous.
Whatever you choose, your solution will also have to explain the obvious contradiction in the recording of Zerubbabel's grandfather, and the misnumbering of Matthew's "fourteen" generations, as well as a few other annoying problems.
My conclusion: It's a mystery. I'll know one day what the truth is. Until then, I'll wonder. I have no need to fully accept any one of these solutions, though. The answer may be something completely different.
I know surely that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God, and not because of any geneology that I've read. These kind of problems don't bother me a bit.
Of course, if any poor soul suggested that one of the authors could have made a little mistake, we fundamentalists would label them a heretic immediately, wouldn't we?
Hmmm...