Читать книгу Reflections on Biblical Themes by an Octogenarian - Reuben J. Swanson - Страница 7

¶ The genealogies in our two gospels, Matthew and Luke, may seem to be uninteresting topics for discussion. We are mostly bored by a long list of names, many of which are unfamiliar and never referred to in another Biblical passage. Numerous genealogical tables in the Old Testament are never listed as favorite passages for our devotional reading. But these tables are of high importance because they provide the background for an understanding of the need for and the purpose of the genealogical tables in our gospels.

There are numerous examples in the Old Testament of historical crises in the life story of God’s people, Israel, when their future, both physically and spiritually, was in jeopardy. One of the most serious of these was the exile to Babylon in B.C.E. 587. The land of Judah was devastated, Jerusalem and the temple in shambles, and their religious heritage threatened by exposure to a superior religious culture. The people of God survived this threat largely because of the devotion and commitment of their religious leaders, the prophets and priests. A new chapter began in their religious development in B.C.E. 540 with the rise to power of the Persian king, Cyrus the Great. He gave them a choice—remain in the land of Babylon or return to Jerusalem. Many chose the second option. Their problems did not abate, however, since they had to rebuild their homes and restore the land to productivity. A first option was the rebuilding of the temple, a very important option since the Mosaic law required worship and sacrificial rituals that could not be observed apart from the temple. There were threats from the inhabitants of the land, especially the descendants of the northern Israelites, whose capital had been Samaria. There had been rivalry and strife between the northern Israelites (Ephraim) and the southern Israelites (Judah) ever since the breakup of David’s kingdom after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom came to an end in B.C.E. 721 when Samaria was destroyed by the Assyrians and the people deported and scattered throughout that vast kingdom. The Assyrians imported exiles into Samaria from many parts of their kingdom and eventually religious practices and ideals changed radically as a result of their influence upon the Samarians. Intermarriage resulted in ethnic differences as well.

Upon their return from Babylon, the Judahites were confronted by the problem of relationships with the inhabitants of the land—Samarians to the north and descendants of their own people who had not gone into exile. The latter had belonged to a lower class of society and the lack of spiritual leadership had resulted in a degeneration of their faithfulness to the Mosaic religion. Intermarriage with Samarians and with people brought into the land by the Assyrians had also weakened their religious loyalties. Their desire to share in the rebuilding of the temple and in the worship of the new community founded by those who came from Babylon led to conflict. Those who had returned from Babylon did not consider the inhabitants of the land to be true Israelites. They excluded them from the congregation of God’s people and rejected their overtures for help in rebuilding the temple.

Conditions for Membership in the Community of Israel

When Nehemiah came from Persia to become the head of the new community in Jerusalem, he enacted a number of conditions for membership in Israel. Two of the more important were faithfulness to the Mosaic religion and second, proper birth credentials. Genealogical tables came to be highly important because intermarriages with the inhabitants of the land now made it incumbent upon the member of the community to document his lineage to meet the second of the above criteria. Nehemiah even enacted legislation to forcibly separate intermarriages, since they did not meet the requirements for membership in the community. This episode in history accounts for the preparation and inclusion of genealogical tables in the Old Testament and throws light upon the reason for the preparation of a genealogy for Jesus, two of which are included in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Difficult questions were raised for the Christian community by the Jews of the time about the legitimacy of Jesus. They rejected the use of their scripture by the Christians to prove that Jesus was the Messiah and counterattacked by questioning his legitimacy. Jewish sources from the time respond to Christian propaganda by stating that Jesus was born from an illicit union between Mary and a Roman soldier. It was necessary, therefore, for the Christians to refute this slander by demonstrating that Jesus was a true Jew of proper birth and that he was faithful to the Mosaic tradition in his teaching and in his deeds. Since the gospels of Matthew and Luke speak to this issue specifically by presenting a genealogy of Jesus, it is apparent that it was a very live question at the time of their writing.

A Comparison of the Two Genealogies

A comparison of the two genealogies raises new problems, however. Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and traces the family tree in a descending line to Jesus through Joseph. Luke begins with Joseph and traces the family tree in an ascending line to Adam the son of God. Matthew’s genealogy is more provincial; Luke’s more universal. But serious discrepancies appear between the two lists. Matthew’s list is constructed in a symmetrical pattern of three groups of fourteen names. A count demonstrates that a name is missing in group three, which was probably the result of a scribal omission very early in the history of the transmission of the text, since there is no textual evidence for the necessary fourteenth name to complete the symmetry. Matthew’s forty-two names (actually forty-one in our texts) from Jesus to Abraham become fifty-seven in Luke’s list. There are fifteen names, not fourteen, from Abraham to David and forty-two names, not twenty-seven, from David to Jesus in Luke’s family tree.

The internal discrepancies are even more serious, since Matthew traces the descent from David through Solomon and Luke from David through Nathan. From that point there is total disagreement between the two lists except for the two names Zerubbabel and Shealtiel during the period of the Babylonian exile. In fact, the grandfathers of Jesus are different in the two genealogies, Joseph being the son of Jacob in Matthew and the son of Heli in Luke. Every effort to reconcile the two lists has ended in failure and there have been some ingenious proposals. For example, it has been suggested that Matthew traces the physical descent of Jesus and Luke his legal descent. This is a remote possibility, since Jewish Levirate marriage required that a younger brother marry the widow of his deceased elder brother whenever that brother died without an heir. This was to assure in perpetuity the family line and the rights of inheritance. This possibility suggests that Nathan, an elder brother of Solomon, died without an heir; Solomon married the widow, and the son born to this union was physically his son, but legally the son of his deceased brother Nathan. This stretches the limits of credulity, however, since the two lists converge again with Zerubbabel during the exile, separate after Shealtiel, and converge once more with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The only possible explanation is that the two lists represent two different traditions that developed in different Christian communities confronted with the same need to legitimize the person of Jesus and provide him with proper birth credentials. This was necessary in order to carry out the mandate of the Lord to witness to all people, both Jews and Greeks (Matthew 28.19–20), that Jesus the Christ was the Savior of all the world.

Sources for the Genealogies

At the time these authors wrote, about C.E. 80–85, it would have been very difficult to gain accurate information for a genealogical tree. The invasion by the Romans in C.E. 66 to put down the rebellion of the Jews and the subsequent destruction of many cities and villages resulted in the destruction of records that might have supplied information for the evangelists. Since there was a widespread tradition among Jews of the time that the Messiah would descend from David, it is evident that both writers are concerned to link Jesus genealogically with King David and also with the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Matthew’s genealogy for Jesus fulfills this requirement appropriately, since he simply traces the royal line of kings from David to Joseph. He then extends the link back to the patriarchal fathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus he has supplied the necessary credentials for Jesus, so that he might be accepted by the Jewish reader as the expected Messiah. The sources for Luke’s genealogy are not nearly so evident, since he has traced the descent from David through Nathan. There is only a passing reference without information about this son in 2 Samuel 5.14 (see also Zechariah 12.12). The extension of this genealogy to Adam links the descent of Jesus to God’s original creation and demonstrates his relationship to all humanity, whereas Matthew typically places the emphasis upon Jesus’ Jewish lineage. The sources for the names in Luke’s genealogy from Heli to Zerubbabel are unknown. He has used genealogical lists from Genesis, Ruth and Chronicles for other portions of Jesus’ family tree.

It may be that the effort to provide Jesus with proper credentials came about through a kind of syllogistic argument. The three parts of a syllogism are: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Accordingly, the thesis with which the Christian community begins is, Jesus is the Messiah; the antithesis, the Messiah descends from David; and the synthesis, since Jesus is Messiah, therefore he descends from David. The genealogical lists are constructed accordingly. Of course, it may be argued that this is true to fact, but the unresolvable problem remains that there are many irreconcilable differences between the two genealogies.

The Importance of the Genealogies

What, if any, is their importance? They are important historically, since they throw light on problems that the Christian community encountered in its proclamation to the Jewish community that Jesus is the Christ. They are important theologically, since they demonstrate the mystery of salvation. Our salvation is not in any way the result of human wisdom or achievement. Salvation is the gift of God, and God’s act of redemption transcends human reason and understanding. The circumstances of Jesus’ birth and lineage do not result in nor are they the cause of our salvation. God alone is Redeemer and Lord. The testimony of our gospel writers was never intended to be a proof that can logically demonstrate to us the mind and purpose of God, nor to give us the security of knowing that this is how it came about. Problems and questions remain, no matter how sincerely and thoroughly we search for answers. And this drives us back to the basic, fundamental principle of our faith as stated so succinctly by Paul, “By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2.8).