christian@topaz.UUCP (01/30/87)
[ran@ho95e.UUCP (Robert Neinast) asked about the two different sets of ancestors for Jesus, one given in Mat 1:1ff and the other in Lk 3:23 ff. The following responds to that, and then makes a general comment on what it means to take the Bible "literally" --clh] The most agreeable solution I have found to the different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke goes back to the time of the early church fathers. Jerome, Eusebius and others point out the difference in Hebrew culture between NATURAL lineage and LEGAL lineage. A person's natural lineage can be traced through normal father/son relationships. A person has only one father who has only one father, etc. A person's legal lineage goes back through the line of legal inheritance. We know in Jewish culture that if a man died and was childless an unmarried brother was obliged to marry the man's wife and bear progeny for the dead man. In this way lines of inheritance were established and traced apart from the natural lineage involved. An example of this is found in Num 32:39,40 where it is said that Moses gave the land of Gilead to Makir, son of Manasseh. It continues on in verse 41 to say that Jair, the descendent of Manasseh, captured the settlements. The settlements, an inheritance, belonged to the tribe of Manasseh. But if you compare I Chron 2:21,22 you will see that Jair was of the tribe of Judah. The rest of the story is filled in from there. It tells us that Hezron, of the tribe of Judah, married the daughter of Makir, of Manasseh and she became the father of Segub, the father of Jair. So Jair traces his natural lineage through Hezron to Judah, but his legal lineage through Makir to Manasseh. This is why he can be called a descendent of Manasseh and a descendent of Judah. This same reasoning can be applied to Jesus Christ. The traditional explanation is that Matthew gives His legal lineage while Luke traces His natural lineage. Since Jesus claimed to be the rightful heir to the throne of David, He must be able to show a legal right to that claim. This is what Matthew sets out to do. It must be pointed out, however, that in the absence of certain information that the gospel writers may have had access to it is impossible to claim absolute certainty for this hypothesis. It has been widely accepted from post-apostolic times on. Hopefully an example from the genealogies will illustrate. The Matthew account says that Jeconiah was the father of Sheatiel, but according to Luke, Sheatiel was the son of Neri. An examination of Jeremiah 22:30,36:30 along with Numbers 27:8-10 yields some information on this situation. Numbers lays down the order by which an inheritance was to be passed on in the event that a man died and left no sons. First it would go to daugthers, then to brothers if there were no daughters, then to father's brothers if there were no brothers, etc. In this way the inheritance would be maintained. Now, according to Jer. 22:30, Jehoiakim (Jeconiah) was condemned to be childless. This would mean that his inherit- ance, in this case the throne of David, would fall to the nearest heir, Sheatiel, the son of Neri. The other differences also yield to this type of examination. Also, as we see from this example, individuals are sometimes given more thatn one name in the Bible. Jeconiah is also known as Jehoiakim in the OT. Scholars are uncertain whether Matthat=Matthan in the accounts. That the numbers are different could possibly be due to the fact that Matthew seems to be ordered in such a fashion as to be a mnemonic device. Three sets of fourteen generations helps the reader remember the succession of Christ. Granted, these explanations don't solve all the problems, but it goes a long way toward understanding the texts and their purposes. -- Tom Albrecht "Reformata, semper reformanda" >Before flames climb too high, let me clarify that my gripe is with >taking a literal interpretation of the bible. Given this contradiction, >it seems to me that insisting upon a literal interpretation borders on >intellectual dishonesty. When you talk about "literal interpretation", what exactly do you mean? When I say I read the Bible literally, I mean simply this: that I read it as literature, taking history as history, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy, etc. I don't read history as poetry, and I don't read prophecy as history. Applying different rules of interpretation to the different types of writing in scripture makes the results much more honest and beneficial. Believe it or not, God is very creative. :-)