Jesus Family Tree
The genealogy of Jesus is traced through Joseph, but Joseph had nothing to
do with Jesus' conception. The following explanation sheds light on what
seems to be a confusing issue.
We have two genealogies of Jesus- Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Because
there are so many substantial differences between these two (for example,
many of the ancestral names don't match), they have given scholars a
headache through the ages. For example: Who was Joseph's father? Was it
Jacob (according to Matthew), or Eli (according to Luke)?
One answer is: both lists are family records, but Matthew is giving us
Joseph's record, and Luke is giving us Mary's. But that answer goes
against the text - Luke makes it clear that he is tracing Jesus' descent
through Joseph. Nor does it fit with what we know of ancient middle
eastern peoples. A genealogy traced through the mother would not have been
normal at that time and place in history.
We have to remember that Israel's origin was tribal. The clan leader was,
of necessity, a dominant male. The individual's survival depended on being
able to claim membership within the tribe. Since in real life many things
could happen to a bloodline, a number of supplementary laws and customs
developed. A person could become a member of a clan without actually being
born into it. One way was by adoption. Another was to be born of a woman
who was married to a man of that clan. Even when the husband was not the
child's biological father, he was still officially the legal father,
simply because he was husband to the child's mother.
In the Bible, genealogies can serve different purposes. Besides
establishing identity, they can also be used to structure history into
epochs and to authenticate a line of office-holders. That's why an
individual can be accorded two or more genealogies according to the
purposes for which they were drawn up. Rarely do ancient biblical
genealogies afford us a list of strictly biological ancestry.
What were Matthew's and Luke's purposes in giving Jesus a genealogy? They
list different ancestors but agree totally on the most important fact:
Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. To see how Matthew made a
strong statement about this, read slowly Matthew 1:1-17. Let the repeated,
rhythmic phrases "A the father of B," "B the father of C,"
and so forth,
almost lull you to sleep. What happens when you get to verse 16? The
lilting, fixed pattern is suddenly altered: "Jacob was the father of
Joseph the husband of Mary. It was of her that Jesus who is called the
Messiah was born." By using his genealogical list in this way, Matthew
was
able to proclaim both that Jesus was virginally conceived and that he was
also legitimately a "son of David, son of Abraham" (1:1). For Matthew's
Jewish Christian audience this was like calling Jesus the Messiah.
Luke proclaims our Lord's virginal conception when he speaks about Jesus
as being - so it was supposed - the son of Joseph in 3:23. He then takes
his genealogy back to Adam and even to God himself. In doing this he is
stating that Jesus is nothing less than the Son of God. Because neither
evangelist was principally concerned with Jesus' biological ancestry, the
lists could differ, and each evangelist could present a different popular
tradition suitable to his own specific purpose.
So we see that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, but he was his
legal father. The two genealogies make that point emphatically. Because of
that, all of us can now proclaim with the Scriptures that Jesus was,
indeed, son of David, son of Abraham, and Son of God.
© Liguori Publications
Excerpt from Advent - A Quality Storecupboard The Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer
|
