What's Inside

The theological ramblings of a simple man.


Because God is never cruel, there is a reason for all things. We must know the pain of loss; because if we never knew it, we would have no compassion for others, and we would become monsters of self-regard, creatures of unalloyed self-interest. The terrible pain of loss teaches humility to our prideful kind, has the power to soften uncaring hearts, to make a better person of a good one.

Dean Koontz

"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Jeremiah 29:11

Love God, Love others...
Take time to listen
Ben Folds
The Beatles
Bob Marley
Collective Soul
David Crowder Band
Fold Zandura
Hillsong United
Jars of Clay
Jeremy Camp
Keith Green
Linkin Park
MG! The Visionary
Pearl Jam
Pedro the Lion
Pigeon John
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Steve Taylor
Thousand Foot Krutch
Victor Wooten
The Who
Wyclef Jean
Learn, Live, Love, Laugh
Rob Bell
C.S. Lewis
Erwin McManus
Frank Peretti
Lake City Community Church Coeur d'Alene
Real Life on the Palouse Moscow/Pullman
Time Zone Boise
Agape Christian Worship Center Boise
River of Life Community Church Sioux Falls
Marysville Church of the Nazarene Marysville
Get Involved
Monday, November 26, 2007
The genealogies of Jesus, and the differences between them
Sorry for the poor syntax. This was a quick response to a student confused by the differences between the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Some people view these differences as glaring contradictions that completely invalidate the the gospels. I believe such off handed dismisal of the Bible is completely ignorant. As CS Lewis once wrote "When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all."

Read my response, let me know what you think. Thanks.

* * * * * *

The differences in Jesus’ genealogy begin after David. Matthew follows David’s son Solomon while Luke follows David’s son Nathan. First, understand that Solomon became King after David – not Nathan. Jewish royalty was a passed through birth. If your daddy wasn’t king then you would never be a king. All of Israel’s kings were descendants of David. In fact, when you read through the genealogy in Matthew it follows the list of kings from David until the time of exile into Babylon. (After the exile, there were no more kings. Zerubbabel served as a governor, but Israel was soon conquered and placed under rule of the Roman Empire.)

Why is all of that Jewish history important? It was important to the original audience of the gospels. Matthew was written for a primarily Jewish audience. Prophesy had stated that the messiah would be king. Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting a messiah who would be born into royalty and lead the Jews in a revolution to overthrow the government. They weren’t expecting a goofy looking vagrant born to a poor carpenter. Matthew was using the line of David through Solomon to show Jesus as the legal ancestor to royal lineage.

Why Luke follows the line of David through Nathan isn’t as widely agreed upon. Some say that both lines reflect Joseph’s (Jesus’ dad's) heritage. While Matthew follows Joseph’s royal lineage, Luke follows Joseph’s human lineage. That theory never made sense to me since both halves are human – not to mention Matthew and Luke record different fathers for Joseph. It wasn’t possible for Joseph to have two daddies unless one of them was a father-in-law.

Which brings us to the second theory (more popular and makes the most sense to me). Matthew follows Jesus’ royal heritage through Joseph. Joseph was only Jesus’ adopted father, so his human lineage is traced through his mother, Mary – and that is what is recorded in Luke. Luke doesn’t mention Mary, but in ancient Middle Eastern culture it was not acceptable to mention a woman with out a man present. So, Heli (in Luke) was really Mary’s dad. Since Mary and Joseph were married, they were considered one flesh and that culture considered her to be a part of him. So, it was socially acceptable to refer to Joseph as son of Heli, even though Heli was only Joseph’s father through marriage.

This second reason for the difference makes sense due to understanding Luke’s audience. First, Luke was a highly educated doctor. Due to his background, most scholars believe that Luke was not from Palestine, but from somewhere else in the Roman empire (some believe he was from Alexandra). He wrote his gospel and the book of Acts as a two part series detailing Jesus’ life and the beginnings of the Christian church. The books were addressed to someone named Theophilus. We don’t know who Theophilus was; the name means “friend of God,” so it could be anybody, but many believe that he was a leader in the Roman government due to Luke calling him “most excellent Theophilus.” Most agree that Theophilus (and most of Luke’s intended audience) were Gentiles (non-Jews).

The Jews cared about a messiah born of royal heritage; so Matthew followed Jesus’ royal family tree. But the Gentiles didn’t care if Jesus was heir to the Jewish throne. What they cared about was his human qualities – that he was God born of man. Therefore, Luke followed Jesus’ human lineage through his mother, Mary.
posted by nicholas casey @ 12:21 AM   4 comments
About Me

Name: nicholas casey
About Me: Blogger at The Faithful Geek
See my complete profile
Previous Post
Template by

Free Blogger Templates