Author: thebibleword.org

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Joseph Solution

thebibleword.org

Rather than say that different people’s genealogies are being traced from the beginning, some prefer to stick with the most apparent meaning of the texts: that both lines do in fact go through Joseph. Counter to the linguistic concerns of the first argument, proponents of this second view would understand that Joseph is most likely the grammatical focus of both passages. To logically hold this view, one must explain the different names.

One subset of this theory is that the names of both genealogies refer to the same people under different names. As stated in the article about names, many people of this culture had several names. Perhaps one of the writers found a legal documentation of the line of Joseph while the other found the family tradition. Several names do appear to be similar. The legal names may represent family heads and would have to skip two or three generations on occasion.

A second subset could argue that all the names should belong to one single line with some or no names overlapping. Matthew already doctors his generational number, so he could just pick and choose whom to include. Luke feels free to add names from the Greek manuscripts, so he may also have variation on his part. It would be impossible to determine who was who’s son exactly since the line would be so out of order. Joseph’s own father would be either Heli or Jacob.

The third, and most common argument about the Joseph resolution goes back to the same issue in the first solution about legal verses literal lines. Luke may portray the physical lineage of Joseph while Matthew shows the legal inheritance line (often blood relation, but not necessarily. The Legal vs. family name option coincides with this). Joseph may or may not be an actual son of the kings, but has the technical right to the throne through Nathan. Matthew’s term “begat” is just the language of genealogy, and does not have to imply biological imparting (although this argument trends against the focus of the seed promise). This legal heir version of sonship may not have been uncommon in rabbinic thought. Because of this, the Christians of the time would have had no problem with the legality of Jesus’ right to the throne (since it did pass from David either way).

The second name set between Zerubbabal and David may be answered in similar terms as the above. The names that Luke provides may be the birth name of the kings and their actual sons, while Matthew uses the king title. There are more generations to fit into Luke’s time frame. One would have to recognize short generations between kings to keep the years congruent. Otherwise, it may be the same resolution as before: that Neri was a blood father, and Jeconiah was legal family head. The family title passes through Neri and his son.

The strengths and weaknesses of the above theory versions are as follows. The strength of the same persons theory is that both Matthew and Luke can provide factual content at apparent value without really having to stretch anything. The weakness is that the generations don’t line up, and it makes it difficult to synchronize how this actually would play out. It would make the authors pick and choose data at random without stated reason. Similar strengths (though not as strong) applies to the second theory. Little other advantages can be found to this solution. The greatest weakness for all is practicality. For that many generations to fit into one line would either push back the accepted time table of Israelite history, or cram all generations to an average of under twenty years. It also leaves the question of why the authors chose to do it that way and (intentionally?) avoid each other’s material.

The weakness of the last Joseph view is once again assumptions, as well as the context of Luke. The same assumptions about the first solution must be made about this second view (assumptions about who’s father is whom, the specific intention of the authors, and cultural standards). Additionally, Luke’s context, though focused on sonship, is not placed on Joseph, but on Jesus. There would be a major question why Luke would introduce Joseph’s bloodline when Jesus’ sonship is in question. This last version of the Joseph solution is the most common and is the strongest of the Joseph solutions. It makes the conflict of names disappear, and allows for Luke to trace the “exact truth” and for Matthew to trace “the King.”

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Mary Solution

thebibleword.org

One popular resolution to the Matthew-Luke genealogy difference is that Matthew presents the full line of Joseph and Luke presents the full line of Mary. This view can be found as early as Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century AD [1]. We don’t really know how popular this view was before this.  There are several reasons to suggest this view. First, one must consider the genealogical format of the time. Nowhere else in scripture do we read of a genealogy from a woman. This does not mean that women did not have recorded heritage, it just means that in format, they were traced through men. In some cases where a man has only daughters, he will find a son to adopt through a daughter to carry the family name (see 1 Chronicles 2:34-41). Although the genealogy would have the man’s name, the woman was the blood relation. Since a son-in-law is just as legitimately an heir to the family, if the genealogy was through Mary, then Luke might not have used Mary’s name as a link anyway, in keeping with the custom of the day. This is different from Matthew’s use of women. Matthew never took a bloodline through the woman, but rather supplemented the woman onto the male’s line.

Additionally one can argue for a royal vs literal line difference between Matthew and Luke. The royal line is passed on to Jesus through Joseph who was the “husband of Mary” as Matthew states. Luke on his part also separates Jesus from Joseph at the start by called Jesus the “supposed” son of Joseph. This separation from Joseph makes it less likely that a physical genealogy would prove any good. Whats the use of tracing Joseph’s lineage if Jesus wasn’t from him anyway? Rather if Matthew was using a royal heir line, then Jesus receives that title as legally adopted son of Joseph, while Luke can focus on the biological seed promise.

There are some who focus on linguistics. Linguistically, since Joseph’s name is the only name in Luke’s genealogy without the reoccurring article introducing it, some say Joseph’s name should be taken out as a candidate for the genealogy itself. The article in front of Heli’s name would then identify not with “Joseph” but with “the son”. The reference to Joseph in our English format should then be in parentheses. By this reasoning one could try to show that Luke is intending to linguistically bypass Joseph and call Jesus the son of Heli. If Heli is the father of Mary, then Jesus is his son also. This resolves the two lines extending back to David.

As to the problem with Zerubbabel’s father(s), the same supporters of this current train of thought would consistently apply the same to Neri and Jeconiah. If Jeconiah was the legal father of Shealtiel (Royal title, adoption, or association), then Neri could be the actual father, or father in Law (biology still passes through mother while crown through father). Jeremiah did make a point about Jeconiah having no child who would ever sit on the throne. Luke, who may have seen this as a potential problem, decides to trace through another side of the family and still end with David.

There are strengths and flaws with every position. As for this first argument, that Luke presents Mary’s line, the biggest weakness is in the lack of information. There must be an assumption made that cannot be supported through any other scripture. Both texts appear to show that Joseph came from two men. The linguistic points are merely an interpretation of the grammar. Nothing is exclusive in the argument. This being said, similar assumptions must be made to entertain the other solutions as well. The greatest strength with the Mary view of Luke is that it provides the least friction between accounts, and allows for Jesus’ bloodline to extend back to David and Abraham, from whom God said the seed would come from their “very being.”

1 – Hilary of Poitiers, in Angelo Mai ed., Novae Patrum Bibliothecae (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1852), pp. 477-478.

Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Understanding Differences

thebibleword.org

Before examining resolutions, there are a few more subtle differences that can impact the end conclusion. First is the consideration of Matthew and Luke’s individual use of the Old Testament history. Both Matthew and Luke refer to and take a large part of their information from the Old Testament writings. Matthew relies heavily on the Genesis and Chronicles account as it is preserved today to trace Abraham to David. Past David, both Kings and Chronicles agree on the kings of Judah and their succession. One might be surprised, then, to see that Matthew cuts out several figures along the way. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, the three kings following Joram, are all cut from Matthew’s list. In addition to names cut out are unexpected names added. Matthew lists four women in his genealogy, three of whom were certainly not Jewish. Two of the women, Bathsheba and Tamar are listed in OT genealogies. Other women are mentioned in 1 Chronicles in order to differentiate kinsman. Matthew’s mention of Bath-sheba and Tamar was likely to preserve the same reading as in the OT. His use of Rahab and Ruth are quite unexpected. Rahab is well known but her role after Jericho is never identified in the OT. Ruth is famous, and is clearly the ancestor of David as described at the end of her book. The use of these women has been debated, but none question their value to Matthew’s purpose. Matthew, by using Rahab in this way, shows that he had another source outside of the known OT text, though exactly what it is, we can only guess.

Luke also claims many sources at the beginning of his document. He, rather than overtly skipping names, adds two, of whom we know nothing else. It would appear that the most likely option for these variations regards the LXX. The names Luke adds can be found in the Greek manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible but not in the Masoretic texts we are used to reading from today. Does this affect our view of the veracity of the Old Testament Scriptures? In short, as stated in another article, the inclusion or exclusion of names in a genealogy by itself does not determine its credibility. Luke decided to include two names, and Matthew decided to drop many more. Neither made claims to complete lists, and neither did the Old Testament (Masoretic) writings. If the Greek chooses to include names based from contemporary lists, then it has the literary prerogative to do so. Its historicity is not in question, rather its legitimacy as a one to one translation, which is a separate issue.

In addition to Luke’s and Matthew’s different sources, their intentions become important. It must be stated that when comparing Mathew and Luke to each other, they cannot be judged solely by each other, but primarily to themselves. Each document was written to a different audience for a different primary goal. These goals are reflected in their genealogy’s content. Matthew focuses on the kingship of Jesus and his role as the son of David. As such, he uses the figure of 14 generations to show David as the centerpiece by repeating his name as both the last of the first set and the first of the second set. David is labeled as “the King,” which is Matthew’s transition to the second set of names. Because of the focus on kingship, Matthew uses the line of Judah’s kings through Jechoniah and Zerubabbaal on to Joseph. Luke’s purpose, as stated in 1:4, is to present the exact truth of the matter as it was passed down from the beginning. As such, it is not surprising that he uses more names in his genealogy or that he chooses to use an unknown line back to David. Between Matthew and Luke we would expect Matthew to use obscure means to support his point and for Luke to try to be more straightforward and literal in his records. Keep in mind that Matthew’s ‘less literal’ list is not in any way untrue, just utilized more thematically.

The concept of inclusion is key to understanding the resolutions for the two genealogies. For the two genealogies to be contradictory, their factual material must be proven as either false or mutually exclusive. Considering their purpose and literary style allows for different content. As long as this content is not factually false, they present no conflict with each other. The difficulty lies in judging if the content is factually plausible. The answer to resolving these passages is not in comparing them to each other, but examining each within its own context. The possibilities for understanding each account are far and wide and will be considered in following articles. The probability of these options will also be weighed.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Recognizing Differences

thebibleword.org

This discussion is perhaps the peak of all genealogical studies. It directly impacts Christians and has many resolutions with many supporters. It uses many of the concepts and considerations so far studied in other articles.  To deny that Matthew and Luke have different accounts concerning Jesus’ genealogy is to deny one or both of the gospels. There are special considerations to take into account at the start of this discussion. First, it is important to see that Matthew and Luke’s genealogies have grounding in the OT. Second, they both use understood formats and sources. It is also important to recognize that both genealogies were accepted simultaneously by their contemporaries. Since both Matthew and Luke were written within thirty years of each other, it is hard to overlook that devout Christians and Apostles would have been aware of both of these documents, and yet still allowed them to circulate. Their end leads to the same goal. Therefore we can think of them like two doors leading to the same house. The door one takes may depend on which room one wishes to enter first, or which is closest. It may depend on if one is entering or exiting. Using one door does not deny the other exists. So we must not deny that they give different accounts, but look for why. When we discover reasons for each genealogy, our understanding of the text will be enhanced rather than questioned. The first part of examining the discrepancy between their genealogies is to look at context.

Matthew begins his Gospel and his section of names with “The book of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah…” This phrase, “the book of the genealogy,” is used twice in the Old Testament, and only once in an actual genealogy.[1] The corresponding genealogy is Gen 5 which lists Adam to Noah.[2] The second “book of genealogy” reference is in Neh 7:5 where Nehemiah finds the book of official Levite names and then sorts eligible candidates for temple service. Matthew also uses his genealogy to prove that Jesus has the right to begin his rule as Messiah.

Different from any other genealogy is Matthew’s employment of a stated format.[3] Matthew explains his own structure concerning number of generations. This kind of precise outline is unique. The closest connection is the seven generations from Adam to Cain’s Lamech and the seven generations from Seth to his Lamech (Gen 4-5). But the text of Genesis does not note any reason for this. Matthew on the other hand has a clear motive of setting Jesus up as king and Messiah. Matthew utilizes the basics of genealogy language, but feels free to make his own path to reach his goal.

Luke employs the style like the first part of 1 Chron 1, but uses his list closer to the way Exodus 6 does. Luke waits until Jesus begins his ministry before recalling the names of his ancestors. Like 1 Chronicles 1 he does not include any extra material but shows the direct line back to David, Abraham, Adam, and finally to God. Luke’s use of genealogy is to show Jesus’ son-ship of God both in spirit and in body. This prepares the reader for Jesus’ ministry, which begins with his fasting in the desert, much like Moses after his genealogy and exodus. Both Gospel writers use the Old Testament as a basis for structure and content. This gives precedent to apply the same rules and boundaries upon these lists as done on the OT documents.

One of the most glaring differences between any of the Gospels is between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus. The fact that they both list radically different names and drastically different numbers cannot be overlooked. Matthew lists 41 names as compared to Luke’s 76. Much of this is due to where they begin. Matthew only begins at Abraham and Luke extends back to Adam. Even with this acknowledgment Luke lists 58 names from Abraham to Jesus. Most of these additions occur after David. Prior to David they are in tight agreement with the exceptions of Canaan and Admin the father of Aminadab, following the Septuagint reading. As soon as both genealogies reach David they split and change directions. Matthew keeps to the kings as traced through the historical accounts. Luke’s list passes through Nathan, the younger brother of Solomon. Should this be the only change, the explanation would be much simpler. But for reasons unstated, both Matthew and Luke reconverge on Shealtiel and Zerubabbaal and then split once more until ending with Joseph. Matthew makes a bigger deal of Zerubabbaal because he is associated with the Babylonian captivity, which is one of Matthew’s land marks. Luke just passes by like all the other names. Shealtiel is the son of Jeconiah according the Matthew and 1 Chronicles 3. Luke’s Neri has no Old Testament mention. There is no stated reason in the text for the difference in accounts. Both apparently trace to Joseph, the husband of Mary, the supposed father of Jesus. Matthew says Jacob begot Joseph and Luke says that Joseph was of Heli. There is much to be aware of concerning differences between the gospels. The more we factor in, the easier the resolutions actually become.

[1] There is a question as to the purpose of this heading. Some argue that the heading is inclusive of the whole work. If so, the term “genealogy” refers to the Hebrew phraseology of records about someone’s life. Others limit this phrase to the first chapter only. The implications of either interpretation is limited and does not affect the meaning of either the first chapter or the book as a whole.
[2] Notable in this passage is the statement of God creating Adam in His likeness, and therefore Adam creating Seth in his own likeness etc. Matthew keeps his focus on certain characteristics passed down to Jesus. Jesus inherits the seed fulfillment from Abraham. Jesus inherits the leadership role from Judah, and the kingship title from David.
[3] Matthew adopts language more similar to Chronicles than Genesis. Matthew does not repeat a pattern that adds information about every name but rather selects a few exceptions to briefly note. In other words, Matthew continues a straightforward simple pattern of A begot B, and B begot C. This pattern is interrupted by certain statements like: “Jacob begot Judah and his brothers…” or “David begot Solomon by Bathsheba the wife of Uriah…” The total list of variants from names are: Two times “and his brothers”, four women as mothers, and identification of breaks in Matthew’s stated structure. These variations are similar to the way Genesis 5 would remark about Enoch’s life, or how 1 Chronicles would note a family connection to a region (2:53, 4:23, 5:9, 6:65).

Endless Genealogies

thebibleword.org

1 Timothy 1:3-4
“As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.”

This is among the few passages most will associate with Genealogies. Unfortunately, this is in a negative atmosphere. It is my purpose in this study to uphold the proper use of genealogies and to come to an understanding of the warning Paul gives. There are three things that will drive our interpretation of this passage. The first two are the definitions of “endless” and “genealogies.” The third is the context of the warning. The importance of these considerations are crucial in order to properly understand the passage.

First, we should understand the definition of Genealogies. Though it seems strange that this subject be tackled so late in this series of articles, it now makes a doctrinal difference, where previously it may simply have been an interesting fact. By the roots of the word we can come to a basic definition. The root “gen” implies a beginning process. This root is found in the Greek words for “birthed” or “begat.” It is also present in the related words to this study like: generation, generate, or genesis. The parameters of a genealogy ought to be limited to how the text of the Bible uses them. We cannot take Paul’s warning and apply it to something he himself may not apply it to. The term genealogy is used in these places: 1 Chron 4:33; 5:7; 7:5,7,9,40; 9:22; Neh 7:5; Matt 1:1; Heb 7:3,6. In the plural : Gen 10:32; 1 Cron 1:29; 5:17; 9:1; 26:31; 1 Tim 1:5; Tit 3:9. The form “genealogical:” 12 times in Num 1; 2 Chron 12:15; 31:16, 18; Ezra 8:1, 3.

Most of these uses are concentrated and uniform. Common phrases are: “enrolled by genealogy,” “according to their genealogies,” and “the book of the genealogy.” From most usages we can see that proper genealogies are documented records of family line. Not every list of names is a genealogy. There must be an understood relationship extending multiple generations for a list to be considered a genealogy. “The book of the genealogy” can be understood as: “the account of the family line.” The genealogies in which families were enrolled Old Testament were official records. Undocumented Levites and priests were excluded from service. If one could not produce an official genealogy to which one was from, then how did one fit in the social circles of the Jews? This is not what skeptics want to hear. They want to show that all biblical genealogies are oral family traditions that conflict with each other and carry unreliable information. From what we read, proper genealogies are always spoken of in an official, documented, manner. Paul’s criticisms are not of official record, but of unverifiable conjecture.

Second, we must define Paul’s use of “endless.” By the definition of genealogy above, we see they are not truly endless because they all have a limit of names. On the other hand they could appear endless if the generations continue to grow and be written down. Neither of these deal with the problem Paul is addressing. Endless is the word “finish” or “complete” with a negative prefix. Paul is warning against unfinished and uncompleted genealogies. The official genealogies are finished because they are historically sound with no open ends. They have long been approved. The genealogies in the scripture are closed, with little to no room for additions. They are treated as a part of the unchanging scripture and history. The Greek translation of scripture often plays with names. Variants in the Septuagint are just as common as variants on other data. The historicity of the Septuagint records are not in question (perhaps their philosophy of translation). The genealogies that are represented in Matthew and Luke, which are in part based on Greek manuscripts, were publicly kept and trusted, even if not labeled with the same authority as scripture. It is important to realize that the culture accepted some documents as historically sound, yet not on the same table as scripture. Most public records are as reliable as any other source of history. But Paul warns against uncompleted genealogies. These have not been verified nor counted worthy by any authority. I suggest that the implication is that he is not referencing the study of lengthy scriptural data, but unreliable human speculation.

We now turn to the third area of this discussion: context. The genealogies are grouped with: strange doctrine, myths, and speculation. In the mirror passage in Titus 3, Paul adds foolishness, disputes, and worthlessness. Clearly, concrete historical data is not the subject matter Paul is warning against. What, then, would be the use of genealogies in false doctrine? Ironically, answering this question takes speculation. What is sure is that Paul’s doctrine was established on fact. He preached the risen Lord by his own witness and by the testimony of many others. We can be sure that poor uses of genealogies shake the foundation of proper doctrine. They may question Jesus’ authority by attacking his own lineage. Providing false information on who Jesus is and where he came from may undermine faith. They may establish a false authority for the speaker. The speaker may claim authority based on blood relation, which can misguide some. Or the doctrine they teach is in part built on confusing chains of blood relations which give credence in some way to the teaching. We must guard against all of these.

What, then, is the proper use of this passage and of genealogies today? We must continue to study the foundation of scripture. All scripture is profitable for instruction and reproof. Genealogies strengthen our faith in God’s promises and the historical nature of the Bible. Jesus’ genealogy provides insight into His identity and role. Above all, we must not become quarrelsome about matters of which we are ignorant. Paul’s warning has less to do with genealogies and more on brotherly love and proper edification. True teaching does not come from speculation, but from love and truth. We ought not promote as doctrine our own ideas or the ideas of men. We should investigate the validity of doctrinal teaching. Let us teach what is sound and reject what uselessly divides.

Matthew’s King Skips

thebibleword.org

“Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, who fathered Joram. Joram was the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah was the father of Jotham.” Matthew 1:8 has been the cause of much deliberation. For those of us not very familiar with the kingdom age of Judah, there is little to notice. Those that go back and trace the kings of Judah become confused. Let us briefly review the King line from Jehoshaphat.

The end of 1 Kings records Jehoshaphat’s son: Joram (or Jehoram) becoming king over Judah. This is the man that married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. He reigned at the same time as Ahab’s son: Jehoram (also see 2 Kings 8:16). Joram had a son who took his place named Ahaziah. Now the names Ahaziah and Uzziah are often confused with each other, but the name Uzziah is closer associated with the name Azariah instead of Ahaziah. We see from the OT accounts that this is not the same man that Matthew records. Ahaziah was judged by Jehu, and his son, Joash, was spared from murder at the hands of Athaliah, his grandmother. Joash (or Jehoash) became king when he was 7 years old (2 Kings 12:1). When Joash was assassinated, his son Amaziah took over (2 Kings 12:21). Amaziah was also assassinated, and the people made his son Azariah (Uzziah) king of Judah (2 Kings 14:21). 2 Kings 15:7 specifies that Jotham was the son of Uzziah. This brings us back finally to Matthew’s list.

Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah are skipped in Matthew’s account. Why does he skip these kings? Was it a mistake? Did Matthew misread his history and no astute Jew correct him? If we are to believe that Matthew did this on purpose we must attempt to give some reasons why. We cannot dictate on his literary freedom, but we can offer factors that he may have considered.

The first and simplest reason could just be that he left out these three kings solely for the purpose of the number 14. Matthew needed 14 generations to fit together, so he picked these for no other reason. But if it was purely for convenience sake, why remove names from the middle of the kings line instead of the beginning or end, and why not also exclude either Joram or Jotham instead of Jehoiakim (Eliakim) later on?

It is tough to make blanket statements about character, since there doesn’t appear to be much consistency in how it is stated in the text.  Joram and Ahaziah are defined in the OT as “following in the ways of the kings of Israel.” Yet Joram is included and Ahaziah is excluded. Joash and Uzziah both tried to serve God and then defiled the temple, yet Uzziah is included and Joash is excluded. Jeconiah who was mentioned above was the son of Josiah, but is also skipped over by Matthew. We know nothing else about his character other than he was evil. It is hard to think he was any worse than his relatives around that time. By examining character it does not appear that Matthew excluded them for their evil nature.

An explanation for the set of three kings is based on the connection to Jezabel and the unfortunate union between the Northern Kings and southern kings. Matthew’s concern would be the kingly line. Although Jehoshaphat and Joram united with the Northern kings, Joram’s children had claim to Northern thrones and vise versa. How far would one have to skip down the line before the line becomes palatable again? Deuteronomy 5:9 along with other parallel passages stress the punishment of idol worship extending to the third and fourth generations. If Matthew was intending to avoid “bad blood” of the pagan northern kings, then this would be an advantageous way to deal with it.

There are few other correlations between these kings. Yet I am actually doubtful that Matthew put too much thought into it himself. I believe the answer for Matthew’s list comes from possible Jewish tradition. I realize that proposed tradition is not a solid basis for many theories. However with the above statements in place I think we can make a reasonable conclusion. Matthew wasn’t against “bad blood” based on race; many of the names he includes had pagan and gentile backgrounds. Nor does it seem to be based on character, since many of the included names were worse off than a man like Joash. I believe, then, that he is using preserved tradition about the king line. It is not a far fetched theory that the orthodox Jews may have resented the three generations from Ahab and Jezebel. Especially since Jehu wiped out Ahaziah and Athaliah took over the Jewish throne for a time, that entire section of rulers comes across as illegitimate. Matthew is not being un-factual by listing Azariah as the son of Jorum. As described in the skipping generations article, “begetting” can pass to any descendent. If a Jew wanted to ignore the line of Jezebel in the Jewish kings, waiting three generations is a scriptural length of time. Jehoiakim could be in a similar traditional boat. He may be passed over so readily in tradition because he only ruled for three months. He was otherwise completely insignificant.

The explanation is still based on what we know from the OT. No new information is supplied except the conjecture that the formatted skips were already acceptable. The reason I believe Matthew’s reading is because of tradition instead of his own instigation is due to the lack of explanation. He doesn’t make any point about these skips. Since the reasons are mum, it seems reasonable to me that the format was already in place when Matthew decided to look for his fourteen generations.

Women in Genealogies

thebibleword.org

One might tend to glance over women and the use of women throughout Genealogies. One reason might be because they are not very prominent. Another could be due to negligence. One more might be due to the fear that we would find sexist implications in scripture. All these reasons should be overcome in a proper study of scripture. Women are present in Genealogies, and they accomplish a vital purpose.

We must first consider culture. We cannot ignore that ancient cultures routinely overlooked women in family documentation. We also note the cultural standards when it comes to the name of family. Males have been the dominant head and spokesman for the family unit save for matriarchal societies. The Scriptures support that God made man to be the head of the family, and for the woman to be his support.[1] This order has been represented throughout most history. This order has at times been abused, and is the basis for most feminist movements. This article is not going to address the issues at stake with misuse of authority. The cultural standard was well established- that men are the centerpiece of family documentation. Lest we be too hard on them, this mentality is still accepted today. Men pass on the family name, and are still predominantly considered the heads of family.

The second consideration is the literature style that represents that culture. Very rarely is it specifically stated that a genealogy passes through a woman without a man present. We do find some cases that family lines must go through women (1 Chron 7:18). In the cases where a man has only daughters, he searches to find a man to take his family title through a daughter.[2] When it comes to genealogies and official family titles, the name never passes through the woman. Even when a line must pass through a daughter or sister, they are still identified in relation to their brothers or fathers. This is not due to demeaning attitudes, but the culture mentioned above. As a modern parallel, it would be like a man who has no sons, looking for another man who is willing to change his last name to carry on the family title. The blood relation is still equally present passing through daughters.

The third area to study is the individual use of women within the genealogical format. There is a dominant reason for using women in Jewish genealogy. This is best noted in the Genesis 46 account of Israel’s sons and the kingly genealogy in 1 Chronicles. In these accounts women are essential in dividing households. In a culture where multiple wives were permissible (though unadvised), the mothers were the best way to determine house and family rights. The firstborn was entitled to particular rights. The kingly houses appeared to function similarly. Occasionally sisters will be mentioned by name.[3] The reasons for this is hard to say. There was likely a family significance to those women that are not recorded in the official records. The fact that they are recorded at all means that the official records work hard to preserve family tradition more than sexist tradition. The genealogies that include women as mothers often have extended backgrounds. The Biblical authors have no qualms with going against cultural norms to stress important principles. There are three in particular that are worth noting.

The story of Ruth ends with a genealogy, and focuses on Ruth throughout the book. The genealogy itself does not mention Ruth at all. Nor does it trace through Ruth. The stress actually goes to Ruth’s first husband’s family: Naomi. This story is recorded to present a godly story about a woman in a time period of moral decline. The genealogy roots her in history and shows God’s providence as he spares by a hair (heir?) the family of David.

The story of Tamar takes an entire chapter in Genesis to tell.[4] This chapter seams to be horribly out of place. It does not change the blood relation of the children or much about the family houses. Because of the story, Tamar is commonly mentioned in conjunction with Judah’s children. In both of these stories, the stress is not on the gender of the person, but the story and lessons behind it. It should not surprise us when the third prime example does the same.

Matthew uses four/five women in his genealogy. This is a remarkable number in such a consolidated list. Tamar and Bathsheba, who have similar stories, are recorded in OT genealogies, and are likely mention by Matthew to stay consistent with those records. He also mentions two in addition. Ruth is mentioned, even though she was not vital to the bloodline of the family (Boaz could have continued the family line without Ruth), and Rahab is mentioned, even though she is not mentioned in any other family connection. Why does Matthew use women, and Luke stick only to the dominant line? Matthew, by mentioning Ruth and Rahab, is likely intending to remind the reader of their stories. The use of these women have more to do with identification of the stories than cultural standards. I do not believe Matthew includes them to just bring up the subject of women. Nor do I think they are intended to represent the scandalous circumstances of Mary. There is a central theme that all four women share that will foreshadow Jesus and his role as king.

The common theme is salvation. Matthew records the angel saying of Jesus that “He will save his people from their sins.”[5] The four women are not arbitrary. They all have noted stories in scripture of saving their family. Tamar goes to extreme measures (even unethical measures) to preserve the family she has married into. Rahab risks her own life to help the Israelites for the purpose of saving her family from destruction. Ruth obeys her mother in law and pursues a possibly less desirable man in order to carry on her family’s name. And Bathsheba (later in life) begs David to proactively establish her son as king, lest the family be torn apart in a civil war.[6] The stories of these women are about the salvation of their family. Jesus comes as king to save His people too.

Women are not ignored in genealogies. Nor are they stereotyped. We read of mothers, daughters, sisters, and even influential leaders (1 Chron 7:24). When they are present, they are intended to recall special stories and family memories that are important to preserve. Women have a special preserving ability through the bearing of children.[7] No genealogy could be possible without them. Understanding their importance historically and genealogically will strengthen our faith and understanding of God.

___________________________________

[1] Genesis 2:18; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9; 1 Timothy 2:12
[2] Numbers 36:6; 1 Chronicles 2:34
[3] 1 Chronicles 4:3; 7:15
[4] Genesis 38
[5] Matthew 1:21
[6] Genesis 38; Ruth; Joshua 2; 1 Kings 1
[7] 1 Timothy 2:15

Genealogical Gaps

thebibleword.org

Gaps within genealogies is one of the more practical studies among genealogical discussions. The principles in this study affect many other topics. Many references to this topic have already been made in these articles without much specific identification. Let us first define our terms and boundaries. By “gaps” I mean simply that there are missing names in the genealogies that would be present in literal documentation. I do not imply that names are dropped due to inaccuracy, spite, or negligence. We will look at examples in the Biblical text that give us reason to believe that Gaps are part of the acceptable format for genealogies.

Some biblical genealogies intend to be compressed lists of family names. One example of this is the end of Genesis where the names of Israel’s family is given before entering Egypt.[1] Each of Israel’s sons were designated by their mothers. The sons of those sons (grandchildren) are included as children of the first generation. This cultural family connection still exists somewhat today. Our own attachment to former generations grows weaker as we become less familiar with the identity of the persons. The same heritage pride that exists among royals in recent ages existed among Israelites. This shouldn’t surprise us if we believe that man’s life span at one time extended hundreds of years.[2] At the founding of mankind, each generation was known to several successive generations at once. The attachment to the previous generations was more personal and long lasting. God uses this principle in proclaiming the curse to the serpent. He uses the term “seed” to refer to future generations that still have personal connection to the predecessor.[3] It set up the principle that man’s sons extend past one generation and include a number (if not all) the successive generations.

Outside of genealogies, the concept of Sonship impacts the gap mentality. To see a full review of this subject, please read again the first two articles about Genealogy Apologetics. The gist of this argument shows that “sons” include those who retain the same identity as their forerunners. This identity is not impacted at all by distance of years or generations. Action and mentality are included as legitimate means of obtaining sonship. While this view of sonship overflows into the era of Christ, the Jews applied it differently. Jesus informs us that we are sons by nature of whom we follow. The Jews tended to think that biological sonship dictated action (see Ezekiel 18). The context of most if not all biblical genealogies is biological in nature.

Matthew 1:1 portrays a perfect example of a condensed genealogy. Some may say that Matthew 1:1 does not characterize other genealogies. Yet I would argue that the principle does transfer based on Sonship. A similar example is in 1 Chronicles 4:1. There, the author lists successive generations as a template where in other places he spells out specifics. There should be no problem in accepting sonship that skips generations. The problem lies in our terminology. We use “son” and “grandson” and “great –grandson” when they did not. They would describe all those terms as “son.” We also see terms like “begat” or “birthed” and think this must apply to single physical generations. At times we forget that the term “begat” is figurative because the men do not birth, the women do. “Begat” must then be looked at within a genealogical context.[4]

Understanding that Gaps are possible does not address the issue of application. At what point can we claim a genealogical gap, and at what point does it become a “catch-all” argument? One obvious marker is stated or implied time frames. When the children of Israel move to Egypt they are there long enough to grow from 70 to minimum 600,000. Exodus 1 does emphasize the rapid growth rate, however this does not happen over three generations as Exodus 6 would imply. An average of 12 sons per person (forgetting couples, which would imply 24 children per couple) for three generations only allows for 120,000 people. Gaps cannot determine dates and times, however. A generation could extend anywhere between 20 and 100 years (more closer to the time of the flood).

For the generations of Egyptian slavery we find the study of numbers to be the driving force. God promised to Abram that by the fourth generation the nation would be freed from Egypt (Gen 15:13, 16). Four generations covers 400 years in this text. We must remember that while some families may have children starting at 20 years old, they may continue having children through 100 years. In this way one generation may cover the same amount of time as four. The Genealogists consistently report four generations between the tribal patriarchs and the individuals leaving Egypt. Generations and gaps are unable to determine time frames. The unknown cannot accurately fashion a proper time table. It can help supplement boundaries of plausibility. The gaps argument is not intended to be a catch-all answer, but it does emphasize that the unknown should not be over or under estimated.

Gaps and Names can often be mistaken for each other. One will have difficulty determining if the persons under consideration are the same with different names, different with the same names, or separated by generations. We must first consider: is it contextually plausible for the persons to coincide as the text (all the texts!) would first imply? Preference must first be given to the apparent meaning of the text. It is highly doubtful that any author of scripture intended mystic interpretation of their Genealogies. Most misunderstandings we have is located in cultural expectations. Next, other passages must be considered. If a discrepancy exists in either time or name, the next question is: Is a generational gap plausible in the context of another passage? In the event that one passage necessitates interaction between persons, the other passage may provide a gap. When both passages possibly use gaps, there is no theological reason to worry about the difference.

When several names are given in a genealogy where a gap must occur, one may need to determine in which generation the gap occurs. In the lack of information, I have personally made the judgment that the first forefather(s) mentioned is/are the nearest generations and the last forefather may jump back a ways if the passage requires. For example, in 1 Chron 9:4, there are 6 generations between the Judah patriarch and the return from exile nearly a thousand years later. The text itself helps lay out a pattern by listing four generations then saying “from the sons of” Perez and Judah. Perez is a well established direct son of Judah. The first generations are most likely the first four direct generations from the man Uthai, before it skips to Perez. I use this pattern even when the text does not supply the obvious clues.

Gaps must be accepted as legitimate means of recording accurate history. The question lies in when to apply this argument. An ill use of gaps would oppose the natural reading of the text without further evidence. Personal preference cannot be the guide; historical data must be guide. A proper use of the Gap argument would be to resolve two passages that are not mutually exclusive of each other, or a single passage that implies a timetable.

[1] Genesis 46
[2] This discussion does not intend to make specific comments on the Genesis 5 and 11. Longer life spans recorded in Genesis 5 and 11.
[3] Genesis 3:15
[4] Matthew clearly skips three generations of kings and still uses “begat.”

Numbers in Genealogies

thebibleword.org

Numbers play a significant literary role throughout the Bible, so it makes sense that they would find their way into Genealogies. If we can make an argument that not all numbers in the Bible have to be literal, then it is possible to make the same argument for numbers within Genealogies. There are several avenues that numbers can appear within this discussion: Ages of individuals, numbers of children, and numbers of generations.

Of the three, the numbers of Generations appears to be the most malleable of all the number sets. Both Matthew and Luke use this to their advantage in their genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1). Matthew uses three sets of fourteen in the same way that one might use literal numbers. Yet it can be shown from the OT that Matthew clearly and quite intentionally skipped several generations.[2] He uses the number fourteen to accomplish a literary end. This end has few other connections except to the Hebrew designation for 14: which has the same letters as “David.”[3] Luke adds two names that are not found in the Jewish record in order to arrive at the number 77. Jesus is the 77th generation (from Adam if you include Joseph or from God if you exclude Joseph). The same types of patterns can be seen in the Genealogies preceding the flood as well as post Exodus. There are seven generations from Adam to Lamech through Cain, and seven generations from Seth to Lamach of Methuselah. There are eleven generations before the flood and eleven generations after the flood. There are also seven generations from Abram to the Exodus generation (in general). More on this topic is dealt with in a skipping generations discussion. The reason the authors choose these numbers is to drive home their point. Matthew’s point is that Jesus is the perfect successor of David. Luke’s point is that Jesus is the perfect human being both God and man. The points around the Genesis generations (the number 7) probably indicates God’s divine guidance of the events and nations (see Acts 17:26; Eph 3:15).

This leaves Ages and Family numbers as the two next most used number sets in genealogies. Although we would like to think that Family numbers are concrete or absolute figures, it can also be shown that they can be lucid or at least up to interpretation. To establish the principle, we shall note the children of Judah. 1 Chronicles 2:3-4 says that the “sons of Judah were five,” and lists them as: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, Terah. Later in chapter 4:1 it says the “sons of Judah were Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal.” Although five are listed in each, only one name is consistent. Upon investigation we see that the sons listed in chapter four are in consecutive order by generation, whereas chapter two lists a single generation. This principle applies to numbers in the case of the sons of Israel and their sons. In Genesis 46 when listing the numbers who went into Egypt, verses 15, 18, 22, and 25 all compress the sons and their sons into one number set that is applied to each wife. For instance, “These were the sons of Leah… all the persons, his sons and daughters: 33.” Yet even in that account there are no daughters mentioned, nor wives counted. The point is that even numbers of children can include or exclude persons as the author sees fit in order to accomplish his goal. There is no biblical discrepancy about this.

Lastly comes Ages within genealogies. This is limited to Genesis 5 and 11. No other Genealogy list uses ages like these two passages. In the recounting of names in 1 Chron, it does not even repeat the ages, even though it is using Genesis as a pattern. There is something specific, then, to the context of Genesis 5 and 11 that the author thought was worthy of ages. Since the other examples of numbers within genealogies have been shown as not always literal (not be confused with un-real), it is worth considering the possibility that numbers in Gen 5 and 11 could have alternative meanings also. The overall point of the passage is that: Time passes, and Mankind dies due to sin. There is very little correlation we can find to why the numbers are what they are. They follow no apparent pattern one to another,[4] and they are not rounded to any significant number set. When we look of figurative numbers we usually look for patterns and rounded figures. Since the author does not identify nor make a big deal out of the numbers, we should be hesitant to invent that motive for them. The easiest explanation from a literary standpoint is that they represent the accurate ages of the individuals, which are made important by the longevity of the lives yet their unavoidable death, save Enoch who lived the shortest of all.[5]

The argument for these numbers being figurative is based purely on historical grounds. Many historians severely doubt that the times would match with what we find in archeology and historical time frames (not to mention the scientific feat of living that long). The biggest discrepancy is the total time frame. When counted there is roughly one thousand years before the flood, and a thousand years after the flood to get to Abraham. This post flood timeframe leaves the entire eastern civilization only a thousand years to develop before Abraham encounters entire nations.[6] Egypt, being one of archeologist’s prize civilizations, appears to have history that far preexists this timeframe. Yet no scholar who holds to modern historical methods can adequately explain the ages presented in Genesis. Therefore until further historical evidence is found, I conclude that what Genesis indicates is accurate to it’s intended meaning.

I would suggest that using Genesis 5 and 11 for dating the earth is flawed due to context. The purpose of the author is not to date the world. With what we know about the selective nature of the authors toward history, I would assume that the author of Genesis 5 and 11 is not intending to give a full history report. The numbers in Genesis indicate ages, and I argue that these numbers themselves are accurate. Our understanding of how to fit them together I believe takes another study (see articles on Genesis 11 Chronology) This does not mean there can be no other explanation as to how our perception of history fits with this mold. But any time man’s knowledge is pitted against scripture, there is no question which side I will choose.

True history coincides with the Biblical narrative. Our understanding of both sides is growing. We should feel free to re-interpret History based on scripture and understand scripture in light of History. Concerning numbers within Genealogies we must treat them like numbers in the rest of scripture: when there are patterns and rounded numbers we should look for figurative meanings; when there is no pattern or rhyme to the number we simply take it for what it is.

[1] Matthew 1:1
[2] compare Matthew 1:8 to 2 Kings 8:16, 24; 11:2; 12:1; 14:1, 21; 15:7
[3] דוד = 4+6+4= 14. There is no connection to the answer to the universe: 42 as proposed in pop-culture, even though that is the number of generations
[4] Some argue that there is a remarkable correlation between the age of the father at birth and the age of the same father at death, subtracting the abnormal numbers like Noah and Enoch.
[5] Genesis 5:24
[6] This is actually feasible at the rate of population growth expected by God and culture. No mention of size of nations is made in the text. We would expect a significant number from the story of Babel, however. If each generation had ten children each at average beginning with 10 couples the generation after the flood, then by ten generations later you could theoretically have as many as 200 million people. At half that rate of growth to allow for death and gender you would have near 200 thousand, more than enough for empires and nations during the days of Abram.

Overview of Names in Genealogies

thebibleword.org

Names are perhaps the first things most people notice when coming to a genealogy. Most people can’t get past the names and their pronunciations. Perhaps more people would be inclined to study genealogies if all their names were as simple as David and Moses and Joseph. This cultural barrier ought not interfere with our study of the scriptures. The pronunciation is really of little importance. The recognition of the man represented by the name, however, is vital to the Jewish culture, so we shouldn’t breeze past a person due to their name.

Beyond the reading of genealogies, names take a large role in understanding how to fit them together. There are several peculiar contributions that names add to the study of Genealogies. Among these include: multiple names, name repeats, name spellings, and family names and titles.

The first and last points are the easiest to address. The same individual can have more than one name. In our culture we usually designate two to three names for the same person. One is a working title, another is the family name. In the biblical culture, the common way to use the family name was to call someone the “son of” the family patriarch. This could extend back several generations or just one. Other times a person can have a common title that identifies him like “Pharaoh” or “Abimelech.” Another basis for multiple names lies within languages. The same person may have a different name in another language. Note the Jews during captivity who were known by their Babylonian names instead of their Jewish names: Belshazzar/Daniel, Shadrach/Hananiah, Meshach/Mishael, Abednego/Azariah, Esther/Hadassah.[1] Another name addition could come as a name change. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, etc. We still often refer to the man as Jacob instead of Israel even though God renamed him. Other cases can be found with similar situations.[2] The text can pull from any of these names, leading to some confusion at times as to the identity of the person currently being mentioned. Usually, to know how to fit things together we must consult a number of passages.

I will defining name repeats as those same names that belong to multiple individuals. This is extremely common in the genealogies and also in some family lines.  In Luke’s account of Jesus’ line there are five with the Matthat/Matthias name. In the High priest line there are three Azariahs, two Zadok son of Ahitubs, and two Amariahs.[3] Within close generations there are: two Jonathans (one of Saul, one an uncle of David),[4] two Mephibosheths (one the son of Jonathan, one an uncle of Jonathan),[5] three Maacahs (associated with David or Reheboam)[6] and others. The trouble comes with identifying whether the text intends to speak of the same individual. Usually chronology context settles this, but there are occasions where the timeline is confusing.

Let’s take as an example the wives of Esau. In Genesis 26:34 we read about Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. In Genesis 28:9 Esau also marries Mahalath the sister of Nebaioth from Ishmael. In Genesis 36:2-3 we find that the daughter of Elon went by the name Adah and the sister of Nabaioth from Ishmael also went by the name Basemath. We must put all three passages together to see that both Adah and Mahalath also had the name Basemath. So we must be sure not to overlap them incorrectly nor assume error. The significance of this means that Reuel the son of Basemath (Mahalath) was not Hittite but Midianite. This may very well help introduce the family of Midianite Reuels’ in Moses’ day (Num 10:29; Ex 2:21; 3:1; Judges 4:11).

Spellings of names doesn’t make it any easier to solve the issue. The most notable name confusion is with Samuel’s lineage. The names given from the three passages differ (1 Chron 6:25-28; 33-38; and 1 Sam 1:1). The question is if these are the same individuals or men of a different portion of Samuel’s line. I have come to the conclusion that they represent mostly the same people. When you compare the names to each other in their respective generations, a consistency appears that indicates the same basic name with a different spelling. Compare the names:

Zephaniah = Uriel

Uzziah = Azariah

Shaul = Joel

Ahimoth = Nahath

Zophai = Zuph

Nahath = Toah = Tohu

Eliab = Eliel = Elihu

Granted, some of these are harder to match than others, but the consistency provides a foundation to make the proposal that even those names that aren’t similar refer to the same individual. Other cases of this kind of name changing or spelling may occur in other places. The fewer passages there are to compare, the more difficult it is to have certainty on the issue.

Spellings of names is mostly a language and translation issue. The title Messiah in Hebrew becomes Christ in Greek. The name Joshua can be represented as Jesus as well. The name Ichabod can be Jacob or James. The NT translators may pick a name in order to differentiate between those who have very similar names. In that same light it is valuable to note that the Hebrew tongue was subject to change and variation like other languages. These changes may be the reason for those name changes in the OT. Perhaps they were changed to better represent a current dialect. My preference is to keep names as close as possible to the textual representation, the earlier the better. In cases where the person is well known, using their known name helps us be clear.

Names represent people in the same way that a noun represents an object it’s speaking of. Language should not change the message. Names are just pointers to the real persons. Genealogies are stuck with names. As their nature is, they deal with names over many years of language and culture. One cannot be too adamant that a name in a genealogy has exclusive rights to only one person. Though the genealogy intends one person, the name could belong to many. Even the identification of fatherhood can leave several options. Likewise, one must also be careful to not discredit an account due to name only, since the same person could be represented by several names. Context is always key. And where context cannot make a definite answer, then the author did not see it as vital to the importance of the genealogy.

[1] Daniel 1:7; Esther 2:7
[2] Examples: Genesis 17:5; 32:28 (35:10); Judges 6:32; 2 Kings 24:17; Mark 3:36; Acts 4:36
[3] 1 Chron 6:4-15
[4] 2 Samuel 4:4
[5] 2 Samuel 21: 7, 8 
[6] 2 Samuel 3:3; 1 Kings 15:2, 10