Tag: Gaps

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.

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.”