Category: Understanding

Samuel’s Genealogy

thebibleword.org

As you read through your Old Testament, you will come across a rather curious genealogy at the beginning of 1 Samuel. We are well familiar with Samuel as God’s prophet and pupil of Eli the high priest. 1 Samuel opens by tracing a man named “Zuph the Ephraimite.” It appears difficult to explain that an Ephraimite could have such place in the Tabernacle service. There are several elements to this discussion. When pieced together, I believe it shows an excellent literary commentary on that period of time, a masterful display of God’s providence and mercy, and a subtle but powerful anticipation of the Messiah himself.

Compare the lists:

We must first notice the records of Samuel’s forefathers. There are three accounts of Samuel’s line. Let’s see them compared:

1- The name Nahath is admittedly different from either Tohu or Toah, but shares similar Hebrew characters in reverse.
2- Uriel and Zephaniah are quite different. I do not see any spelling variances. It’s just a different name. Perhaps still the same person.
3- Exodus 6 sheds light on understanding successive verses concurrent generations. We learn that Assir and Elkanah were most likely concurrent children of Korah, and the line of 1 Chron 6:33-38 agrees and traces the lineage through Ebiasaph directly back to Korah.
4- Amminadab is the name of Aaron’s father-in-law recorded in Exodus 6:23. It’s a different branch of the family, so I am less inclined to think it is a text corruption. It is more likely that Amminadab is another name for Izhar or was another name for Amram (Amram is a different branch of the family, but still a son of Kohath).

Surely, several of these lines have room for explanation in other settings. The focus, here, is upon the latter stages of the genealogies. Although there are several spelling changes (and some rather hard to explain alternative names) these three lines agree on the latter stages. There is a certain level of ambiguity in the Hebrew genealogies where generations are skipped, whether a list of children should be in the same generation of successive generations, and whether name repeats are back-tracking or unique individuals. We are actually lucky, in this case, to have three different tellings (four if we go back to Exodus 6) by which to compare these details. Our focus is going to be on 1 Samuel 1:1.

A note on the words:

You may notice some translation variances. Some translations (KJV, ESV) use the term “Zuph an Ephrathite” while others (NASB, NIV) say “Zuph an Ephraimite.” It comes down to interpretation. Some passages are rather clear that the word “Ephrati” should intend the tribe of Ephraim (Judges 12:5; 1 Kings 11:26). Other times it is used to describe those from Ephrathah (Bethlehem) (1 Samuel 17:12; Ruth 1:2). The confusion stems from the name “Ephrath” who was a prominent wife of Caleb son of Hezron. 2 Chronicles 2:24 even combines Caleb-Ephrathah as the name of a location in which Hezron died. Later on (vs 50-51; and 4:4) we discover that Bethlehem was a grandson of Ephrathah. Thus, the Israelites sometimes referred to Bethlehem as Ephrathah (Genesis 35:19; Ruth 4:11; Micah 5:2). To be called an Ephrathite identifies one with the region of Bethlehem, not from the bloodline of Ephrathah. In the case of Ruth, her family was from Bethlehem (1:22), thus Elimelech’s family were called Ephrathites (1:2). Jesse is called a “Bethlehemite” in 1 Samuel 16:1, which is synonymous with “Ephrathite of Bethlehem” in 17:12.

The two designations of “Ephrathite” are linguistic coincidence rather than family association. Even though Hebrew “Ephrati” looks identical, they are two different words because they stem from two different linguistic sources. All other references to Ephraimites bear the contruction “of Ephraim.” Context must tell us whether “Ephrati” denotes the region of Ephrathah or the region of Ephraim. In the case of Ruth and Jesse, the passages are overtly clear about their ties to Bethlehem. In the case here in 1 Samuel 1:1, I believe the text is equally clear that Ephraim is in mind. Therefore, I believe the translation “Ephrathite” in this verse to be incorrect, and “Ephraimite” to be accurate.

Although the following does not change our interpretation, I also want to quickly point out the phrase “man from Ramathaim-zophim” (NASB) to be confusing. Elkanah is from the city of Ramah, and the area is associated with Zuph. Therefore I believe the NIV to have the best understanding with “man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite from the hill country of Ephraim.” I believe this properly identifies Zuph as coming from the hill-country of Ephraim, rather than implying that Ramah was in the hill country of Ephraim (it is not, and is clearly established as being Benjamite territory). Therefore Elkanah himself was born and raised in Ramah, and was not himself from the hill country. The designations to Ephraim are redundant to distinguish the Zuphite family from the native Benjamites (we will explore this more later).

Literary explanations:

Every genealogy is given for a reason. Each of these genealogies accomplish a different nuance to the purpose of the authors. You may readily notice that some genealogies trace downwards toward a certain son. Other genealogies trace upwards towards a certain ancestor. Most genealogists perceive the downward genealogies as tracing qualities or characteristics. The forefather is passing on something to his children. The upward genealogies are perceived to trace pedigree or authority. The child inherits a title or serves in a role which has authority based on the ancestor. Applying this to our three lists gives one kind of explanation. 1 Chronicles 6:33ff is tracing from Heman upwards. Heman is the patriarch for a very important Levitical family whom God authorizes to prophecy in song and instrumentation at the temple. Heman’s pedigree here affirms his authority as a prominent Levite and Prophet. 1 Chronicles 6:22ff is passing on the leadership baton of Kohath’s family. The sub-tribe of the Kohathites were charged with taking care of the ark, the holy place furniture, the service utensils, and the Holy of Holies veil (Numbers 3:27-32) This gives Samuel direct right to serve in the tabernacle and care for the logistics of service.

The head-scratcher is 1 Samuel 1:1. Why, if Samuel was about to be introduced as dedicated to the house of God, would he be given a pedigree from Ephraim? The literary explanation regards the phrase “from the hill country of Ephraim.” Since the reader has just finished the awful stories of the Judges, this phrase should be familiar (used over a dozen times). Close at hand, Judges 17 attaches this phrase to Micah and his hired Levite (Judges 17:1, 8). The hill country of Ephraim is where the Danites passed through and robbed Micah (18:2, 13). This story describes blatant violations of the tribal duties, violations of the priesthood, and violations of the worship process. At the end of that story (18:31), the house of God was at Shiloh (where they were supposed to be going to worship). The un-named Levite in Judges 19:1 was also from the hill country of Ephraim. Not only did he act despicably, but he incited civil war and near extermination of the Benjamites. To replenish the family of Benjamin, they plotted to kidnap women from Shiloh to be their wives (21:19). So when 1 Samuel opens, we have a few points of correlation.

The introduction to Elkanah from the hill country of Ephraim going to Shiloh takes an unexpected turn. Rather than this being a repeat of the problems at the end of Judges, this story is beginning to reverse the problems. The ultimate goal being the delivery of a King and the eventual grounding of God’s worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. Elkanah is attempting honorable worship at the proper site, as opposed to the others from the hill country of Ephraim. Samuel shall honor and respect roles rather than invent his own or disrespect God’s (like Micah and co. or like Eli and sons). This introduction to Elkanah from a literary standpoint is about transitioning the reader out of the nebulous “everybody do what they want and pretend to speak for God” into a God-given kingship and prophet.

Logistics:

So how can it be that Samuel is called an Ephraimite? I believe it more fitting to call Samuel a Levite who’s family is identified as Ephraimite, rather than call Samuel an Ephraimite who is labeled a Levite later on. Some would rather see the 1 Chronicles 6 genealogies as taking liberties in order to fit Ephraimic Samuel into the Levite line in order to invent some credentials for him and his grandson Heman. Instead, I think that 1 Samuel 1:1 is the anomaly, and that the Levite genealogies are the more dependable historical fixtures. The audience and author of 1 Samuel would have been well familiar with both Samuel and Heman’s legacies. Therefore the introduction as “an Ephraimite” would have been shocking. Therefore this is the passage that needs explained moreso than 1 Chronicles 6.

First, the identification as “an Ephraimite” in 1 Samuel 1:1 may be likened to Judges 17:7. The Levite there was from “Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite and he was staying there.” The Levites who were given portions from each of the tribes could have such close ties to their kinsmen that they might even identify as one of them. This Levite was “of the family of Judah” by means of living amongst them, perhaps even intermarrying with them. The Priestly family was given cities from among Judah (Joshua 21:4), therefore it is more likely that this Levite was of a priestly background (this was the assumption of Micah). Zuph, on the other hand, has integrated with the Ephraimites because Ephraim sponsored the Kohathites (Joshua 21:5).

Second, cities from Ephraim were given to the Kohathites as their inheritance (Joshua 21:5). Specifically mentioned is Shechem “in the hill country of Ephraim” (Joshua 21:21). Now, Samuel was said to be from Ramah, which is listed as a inheritance to Benjamin (Joshua 18:25). The most likely geographic placement of Ramah would be close to Gibeah, another Benjamite city where Saul was from (Joshua 18:28). But we know that the tribal allotments were not always honored (as in the case with the Danites in Judges 18). Judges 19:13-16 feels the need to point out that the Ephraimite was different from the Benjamites who owned Gibeah. The point is that the Levites appeared mobile at the end of Judges, and it should not surprise us if a Levite family from Kohath gravitates away from the original Ephraimite city allotments. Therefore if an Ephraimic Levite family gravitated to Ramah (owned by Benjamin) it would make sense to distinguish them as Ephramites in opposition to the native Benjamites. In fact, Zuph’s family became so influential that the area was known as “the land of Zuph” (1 Samuel 9:4-5, which indicates that Ramah, indeed was not in the normal Ephraimite territory, but in Benjamite regions). Indicating Zuph’s Ephramic association makes sense on a geopolitical basis.

Third, although the Priestly families were charged to keep their lines “of his own people,” (Leviticus 21:14) the rest of the Levite families were not given that restriction. If interpreted strictly, the Priests were to keep the family line within the tribe of Levi. But no such restrictions apply to the rest of the Levites, letting them remain free to intermarry with the other tribes. The responsibilities for the Levitical duties pass down through the sons. The inheritance of the land primarily passed through sons as well, although daughters could inherit land when sons are not part of the picture (Numbers 36). Dual tribal-ship was never a thing. A person was from one tribe only and had the responsibilities of that tribal family (Numbers 36:6-9). Since the Levites were taken care of through goodwill sharing of the people, a time of spiritual degradation is a time of destitution for a Levite. It would not be surprising at all that a destitute Levite family (Zuph, lets propose for a moment) intermarries with a neighboring Ephraimite family and chooses to identify as Ephraimite. This would fit Samuel’s situation from a story telling point of view. Hannah’s dedication of her firstborn was not just a firstfruits offering, but a way of correcting generations of role-abdication. Samuel would have become the first in the family in many generations to actually fulfill their true obligations as a Kohathite: caring for the tabernacle items. Correcting roles is a theme of the Samuel story (the line of Eli is another study in the same vein).

Fourth, it might be advantageous to distance Samuel from the priestly line. As mentioned before, Benjamin, Judah, and Simeon were given the priestly families to care for. Ephraim, Dan, and Mannasseh were given the Kohathites (Joshua 21). Therefore, by distinguishing Samuel as an Ephramic Levite (as I am interpreting here), the author is placing barriers to Samuel serving as priest. Didn’t Samuel act as a priest? No. He did not. Samuel’s ministry to Eli was ministry to Eli personally and the logistics of the house of God, not training to be an ordained priest. Samuel does not serve as priest in the tabernacle, nor do his sons. Samuel’s role was chosen by God to be a prophet. Samuel leaves Shiloh, and does not accompany the journey to Nob. Instead, he returns home to Ramah (“High place”) where there was a reputation of prophecy (Judges 4:5; 1 Samuel 19:18-24). The sacrifices which Samuel is in the habit of offering (1 Samuel 7:17; 9:13; 13:8-13; 16:2-3) were prophetic, like those of Noah (Genesis 8:20), Abraham (Genesis 15:9), Balaam (Numbers 23:4), and Elijah (1 Kings 18:38). Atonement or dedication sacrifices according the the regulations of the Law were strictly to be done by the priests at the tent of meeting (tabernacle) (Leviticus 17:8-9). Therefore these sacrifices were of another type. Saul’s error in 1 Samuel 13:8ff was not his lineage, but his presumption and disobedience. He was trying to take the role of a prophet without authority, and was directly overlooking something God had told him to do (presumably to wait for Samuel). Samuel takes steps to distance himself from the priesthood (and indeed, Eli’s cursed family line) by moving to a different city, engaging in different sacrifices, and (in 1 Samuel 1:1) identifying with Ephraim rather than Benjamin. By doing these things, Samuel honors his role and does not tempt the people nor his own family to fill the role of High-Priest, even though he would have done very well in that role. It’s not where God placed him. We see this theme throughout the Samuel books as Saul, David, Jonathan, and even David’s children continually grapple with retaining or rejecting their given role.

Literary Review:

Samuel’s genealogy is very consistent in all its tellings (once you weed out variances in name spellings and format). Samuel is clearly from the line of Kohath. His designation in 1 Samuel 1:1 is an anomaly which serves literary and thematic purposes. It is not a designation which intends to denote lineage, but region and role. Just as Elimelech and Jesse were called Ephrathites for living at Ephrathah (but were not descended from Ephrathah), Zuph is called Ephraimite for regional purposes. It contrasts the earlier stories of Levites and Ephraimites and their failures with Samuel’s righteousness. It distinguishes the Zuphite clan from the local Benjamites. It distinguishes the Ephramic Levites from the Benjamic Levites and marks Samuel’s role as that of a Kohathite, not an Aaronic priest.

Theological Lessons:

God’s mercy knows no limits. Even in the whole mess through the period of Judges, God still gives chances to undeserving families. No matter how you read it, Elkanah’s family did not deserve to be heard and blessed. God chooses Samuel, a child from a wandering family to be a prophet, while Eli continued to disrespect his High Priestly role. Samuel’s attention to obedience and roles becomes a type for what God wanted all along. How amazing is it that one of the descendants of Korah (the infamous rebeller from Numbers 16) would have the chance to seize the high priesthood for himself, but instead walked away from the temptation. No matter who we are or where we are from, God has given us a role and we must seek to fill it in obedience, trust, and respect. This also anticipates Jesus’ messianic coming. The messiah was from David, the son of an Ephrathite. Samuel was also a son of an Ephra*imite. Samuel was somehow both an Ephraimite and a Levite. Jesus is somehow the Son of Man and the Son of God. Samuel appears to be from a different family than we would expect for his role. Jesus was from Nazareth, and his birth in Ephrathah was not common knowledge. Samuel honored both the family role and the prophetic role God had given him. Jesus does the same, filling shoes as the son of David and Son of God. Samuel offered different sacrifices than the Temple atonement. which were in accordance with obedience (1 Samuel 15:22; Matthew 12:7). Jesus offers the better sacrifice of His own blood, in full obedience to the Father, and surpasses all forms of sacrifice before Him. Samuel was rejected by the people as leader, symbolizing the people’s rejection of God’s kingship (1 Samuel 8). Jesus was rejected as king, crowned with thorns and anointed with spit. Samuel died alone and in sorrow, weeping over the people’s rejection of God’s true king. He came back from the dead in spirit to issue a proclamation of judgment to Saul. Jesus rose from the dead in both spirit and body and becomes both judge of the wicked but also savior for those who commit themselves to obedience. We live in a place where we don’t really belong. We identify with our culture insofar as our humanity is concerned, but we must identify ourselves by the role: children of God. Only by full commitment to this role will we honor God’s plan for us and mirror the life of Jesus the Messiah.

Featured Image Credit:
John Heseltine / Pam Masco / FreeBibleimages.org

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

Literary Purpose of Genealogies

thebibleword.org

If the purpose of genealogies was solely religious or social, then why do we find them recorded for us? There are other sources that include this kind of historical data that likely have a more specific focus on every generation.[1] Why, then, did God include the known genealogies into the scriptures, and leave others out? This brings in the second major function of genealogies: literature.

By ‘literary purpose’ I mean that there are a series of questions to be answered regarding its writing: Why was this written by this author, why did the author include this information here, does this information impact or change the surrounding material, and are there any patterns which may effect interpretation. We will begin this review by consulting the last question first.

Some of the more obvious patterns of Biblical genealogies include the use of phrases such as: “and he died”, “and he begat”, “the son of”, and “[his] sons were…”[2] These phrases are usually consistent throughout each genealogy. These repeating phrases are often critical in identifying them as genealogy as opposed to a list of names. They help establish a series of successive generations that might otherwise be seen as a roster or registry.[3] Interruptions to the flow of pattern do occur, but lengthy interruptions lead the style away from a true genealogy.[4] These patterns (and the purposeful interruptions) provide a basis for reading the genealogies in a different manner than normal prose or even poetry. It is commonly agreed that oral cultures who use genealogies format them in ways that aid in memory. Some cases of this exist within the OT text,[5] but the formal genealogies were likely in written, rather than oral, format for scriptural and national purposes. Formal vs informal genealogies are the difference between the Jewish mindset and the mindset of other oral cultures. Jewish families may have relied on oral tradition and informal genealogies, but the formal genealogies (likely informal before written down) claim the stamp of divine authority when placed in scripture.[6] This allows for the literary format of genealogies to express themselves within the text, while still having the historicity required for scripture.

The first literary question is: why did the author write this? This question by itself can easily damage the answer due to speculation. The specific case for each genealogy is easier to study under the second question: “Why here?” The most obvious answer has to do with the inspiration from the holy Spirit: it’s here because God said so. However, this has often been used as a cop-out answer because it begs the question: why did the holy Spirit have it written? Certainly where other answers fail, we can put confidence in God’s plan, but there are almost always further answers to tough questions. From a larger viewpoint of scripture we can see the usefulness of Genealogies as they establish the fulfillment of the promises of God with his people and the Messiah. A great example of this is the record of Judah’s sons. The firstborn Er was slain by God and required a son to pass on the family name. The second son Onan refused this responsibility, and the third son Shelah was too young to marry Er’s widow Tamar. The story of Judah’s children through Tamar was scandalous. Most families would have wanted this story buried and forgotten. We find that Shelah’s oldest is, in fact, Er’s rightful heir. We should expect for Shelah’s son Er to be the primary family of the tribe of Judah, but we know nothing about them. Instead Perez, the illegitimate son of Judah and Tamar becomes the line which brings the kings of Israel. Unless the Holy Spirit guide these stories in Genesis, Moses would have had no reason to write about them. But when the Chronicler writes he pulls from the line of Perez because he sees the greater context of history. Each genealogy has similar lessons and uses. The specific use of each individual genealogy has to be studied with its own context. To know why the author formatted the genealogy the way he did might be answered by going to the source from which he got his information.[7]

From the author’s viewpoint, the Genealogies pertain to the characters, audiences, or situations the author is currently writing about. No genealogy is abstract or without proper context. I will give three examples of three uses of Genealogies from a literary standpoint. One is for time reference: Genesis 5, and 12. The time reference doesn’t have to be in years, but rather emphasis on passing generations. The key term in these genealogies is “and he died.” This phrase notes a passing of time in which every successive generation is dealing with the problem of sin. The purpose is to get the reader from the beginning of time to Abram, who will be instrumental in solving this problem. Another use for genealogies is to establish relational context: 1 Chronicles 1-9, Ruth 4:16-22, 1 Chronicles 23, Matthew 1:1-17. These Genealogies are intended to establish the validity or association of the current characters. 1 Chronicles 1-9 ends with Benjamin’s line, which culminates in Saul’s family (who begins the narrative). Ruth is a foremother of David, making her story valuable to the story of Israel. The author of 1 Chronicles uses his abbreviated family list to show the Levite’s responsibilities for their duties. Matthew shows Jesus as the heir and rightful King after David. A third use for genealogies is to propel a story foreword: Exodus 6:14-27, Luke 3:23-38. These lists are brought in the middle of a narrative, and are used to show the background of the character, or a significant quality about them. Exodus had been talking about Moses for several chapters, so there is no need to introduce him or his background. The same goes for Luke’s account of Jesus. Instead, the focus with Moses is on his new leadership role and his next challenge. To prove that Moses had a right to be heard, the author uses the genealogy to establish his identity as an Israelite and later as a Levite (which is important for the Hebrews to remember while he leads and intercedes for them). Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy to show that his ultimate heritage went back to God himself, and that he fulfills all of mankind’s intent. This is important for the reader to understand as Jesus is tempted in the wilderness and then begins his ministry.

The third question: ‘does the genealogy impact the surrounding information?’ has been touched on already. The Genesis 5 and 12 genealogies do impact the surrounding narrative by adding a sense of urgency and natural deprivation for the human race. Without it the problem of sin doesn’t seem as universal or urgent for Abram. The genealogy at the end of Ruth is actually the climax of the book. The whole book uses otherwise unknown characters to the point that it may read like a fiction story. The genealogy roots it in history and compels the readers to study the book once more to see the foreshadowing of David. Luke 3 also drives home the fact that Jesus is not from men but from God, and therefore has divine qualities. Most if not all genealogies impact the surrounding material. It is a mistake to overlook them completely.

The literary purpose of genealogies is to accompany the text with information that makes the characters credible, or makes the situation applicable. They are neither pointless nor uncredible. God used important religious and social documentation to help the reader further understand the stories they read. For those of us outside that culture, it is very beneficial to use these details to help us understand the minds and identity of the OT and NT characters.

[1] 1 Kings 11:41; 14:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; Esther 10:2; Additionally Matthew 1:5, 13-16 and Luke 3:23-31, 33, 36 mention names that are either not connected or found in the OT.
[2] Examples: Genesis 5; Matthew 1; Luke 3; 1 Chronicles 2
[3] Name lists that are not genealogies include: 1 Chronicles 27; Nehemiah 12:1-26
[4] Example of interruptions: Matthew 1 – “by Rahab,” “by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah,” “at the time of the deporting to Babylon.”
[5] Genesis 4-5- names and generations parallel each other 46:8-27- the phrase “all” seems accommodative.
[6] 2 Timothy 3:16- All scripture is inspired.
[7] Compare: 1 Chron 1 to Genesis 5, 12, 36, and Luke 3:32-38 to the LXX.

Religious Purpose of Genealogies

thebibleword.org

The purpose of Genealogies in the Bible may not be (and I argue that they are not) the same as either modern genealogies or many other ancient genealogies. Today, genealogies or brief heritage records serve the function of proving nationality, cultural minority, or family pride. Ancient genealogies also placed emphasis on nationality and family titles. The nationality may entitle an individual to certain rights (Like Paul, as he used his Roman citizenship to resolve conflicts [1]), or may work against them if their nation was subservient to another.[2] The Family rights may give certain levels of authority in society from kings to politicians to household heads.[3] I suggest that the Biblical genealogies occasionally served these functions, but primarily focused on other objectives. There are two major functions that play a role in this study. This article will focus on the first: the religious function.

The OT does not present a history of the world. It focuses on a single relatively tiny nation called Israel. Even within Israel’s history, the text picks and chooses certain points and leaves the rest for other record keepers.[4] With this in mind, we recognize that OT genealogies do not intend to replicate the entire history of every Israelite.[5] What the text does portray, however, is vital and important to the Jewish religion and way of life. To the Jew, there was no separation of secular government from religion.[6] Their genealogies impacted the way they perceived their religious duties as well as their political responsibilities.

The connection between family line and religion for the Jew dates back to Abram and God’s promise to him. God promised that Abram would have a blood son through Sarah, and that his descendents would number like sand on the sea shore and would inhabit ‘the land.’[7] As a marker of this covenant God required that every male born to this family of promise be circumcised.[8] Circumcision becomes the linking action and symbol between nationality and religion.[9] The primary goal for their geneialogies was to show family links from the current generation back to this forefather, so that their identity as people of God could be confirmed. Second to that, Genealogies served as agents to distinguish households and tribes into their duties and responsibilities.

This primary goal (the family links) is easiest to see in Matthew and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus.[10] They both trace from one end to the other in a straight line to show Jesus’ relationship to Abram and David. The subject of skipping generations could easily be discussed here, but will wait for another article. The emphasis of that discussion is to establish generic family ties without having to name every person in the line. This appears to be a common feature found most prominently in the period of Egyptian captivity. The family connection was also important when establishing legitimacy as true Israelites. This would have been very important upon entering the promised land and coming back from Babylonian captivity. The first period (effected by Numbers)[11] needs the least detail since their objective was to completely remove all previous inhabitants.[12] The pollution of the Israelite line was a constant problem throughout their history. By the time of the exile the Jewish line was in danger of being lost completely.[13]This brought about the necessity for the largest genealogy in the Bible, found in 1 Chronicles 1-9.[14] Ezra (potential author for the Chronicles) lists many family heads of those who returned.[15] He also implimented purity requirements for the priests before they could reenter their duties.[16] Those that could not produce sufficient genealogies were turned away.

This brings us the second religious goal: family duties. The most important family to keep track of was Levi. This tribe was set aside by God for the purpose of serving within the Temple.[17] The priesthood was the specific responsibility of Aaron’s family, and no other. The other Levite familes had spelled out duties in Numbers 4. Further responsibilities are mentioned in Chronicles upon establishing and reestablishing the Temple.[18] The other families are less important from a religious standpoint. The line of Judah stands out because of the leadership duties culminating in David.[19] The royal family is important for tracing the Messiah. Before the kings, the nation relied on tribal leadership.

We see represented in 1 Chronicles 1-9 a focus on patriarchal heads and leaders within the tribes. (Remember that the Chronicles were written upon the return from exile for the returning Jews to remind them the errors of their fathers.) These families and chiefs were supposed to guide the people politically and spiritually. As we read in Judges, they failed to uphold this responsibility. After this failure God allowed the introduction of a king. Once the king line failed as well, the leadership was given back to the family heads, which is why 1 Chronicles 1-9 is so important to those returning Jews.

The majority of genealogy information is provided for the spiritual integrity of the people in order to trace the line of the Messiah, and for the designation of leadership duties within the tribes. This information can seem dull and pointless to the modern reader, but looking at it through the eyes of the primary audience may change your interest. Also, being able to see things from a post-messianic perspective can reveal the foreknowledge and providence of God. The technical and tedious accuracy (as well as the seemingly generic and vague approaches) can show historical confidence and reliability.

______________________________________________________

[1] Acts 22:25
[2] Esther 8:11
[3] 1 Kings 11:35-38
[4] 1 Kings 11:41; 14:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; Esther 10:2
[5] Matthew 1:1 – The summary is typical of genealogy mindset.
[6] Deuteronomy 6:6-9
[7] Genesis 17:8, 15-19; 22:17
[8] Genesis 17:9-10
[9] Galatians 5:3
[10] Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38
[11] Exodus 6:14-25; Numbers 1-4 – These were the generations leaving Egypt, but specially noted in Numbers are the tribal leaders and families.
[12] Deuteronomy 7:2-3
[13] Ezra 9:14
[14] Note especially 1 Chronicles 9
[15] Ezra 2; 8:1-20
[16] Nehimiah 7:6-65 – noting verses 61-65
[17] Exodus 27:21; Numbers 3:5-10
[18] 1 Chronicles 9; 23-26
[19] 1 Chronicles 2-4