Among the 3 Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of Mark starts with the public ministry of Jesus and is silent about the birth and infancy of Jesus, which are dealt with by both Matthew and Luke. Since the events narrated from the time of the public ministry of Jesus by all the 4 Gospels, including that of John, are to be considered as historical any differences in detail are to be considered incidental and of minor importance. More weighty differences are found in the birth and infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke that deserve some explanation. Many of the details there need not be historical like the visit of the Magi to the Infant Jesus in Matthew and the circumstances of the birth of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke. The important points in these instances are the revelation of Jesus as the King of the Jews and the divine intervention in the birth of Jesus. We shall see below that the differences in the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are both historical and suited for communicating the particular theology of both Matthew and Luke. In Matthew, we have Jacob as the father of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. The ancestors of Jesus and therefore of Jacob are traced from king Solomon, son of David. The birth of Jesus is reported to have taken place in Bethlehem as if Joseph and Mary were regular residents there It is Joseph who was informed by the angel in dreams that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and his name should be called Jesus. In his genealogy, Luke mentions Heli as the father of Joseph and his ancestors are descendants of Nathan, another son of king David. The announcement of the birth of Jesus was made to Mary by angel Gabriel who had announced six months before the birth of John the Baptist to Zechariah, the father of John. Being a historian, Luke places the birth of Jesus in a historical context of the decree issued by Emperor Augustus Caesar for the registration of everyone in the Roman world. Since everyone had to register the name in his own town, Joseph being a descendant of David had to go to Bethlehem, the town of David, and Mary who was betrothed to him went with him.
We consider the above discrepancies between Matthew and Luke as complementary to each other and not contradictory. Luke was written after Matthew and in his search for an ordered account of all the events recorded so far Luke could not have failed to notice the particular form of the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. Yet he preferred to give an alternate form of the genealogy with two significant changes from Matthew's. What could be the reason for those changes? Although Luke did not want to contradict the genealogy in Matthew, written from a Jewish perspective, he wanted to complete the picture from a universal perspective as, in his view, Jesus was born for saving not only the Jews but the whole world.Luke himself was a living example of this theology as he was a convert to faith in Jesus, being born of Gentile parents. Besides, Luke was a companion of Paul in his missionary journeys who was the champion of the salvation of the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Thus it was fitting that Luke chose the two devices in the genealogy itself in order to proclaim his belief in the universal salvation of all. The first device was to start the genealogy from Jesus and end it with Adam who is characterized as the son of God under whom the whole human race is encompassed. The second device was to trace the family tree of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, from Nathan, son of David, although Matthew traced it from Solomon, the actual ruler of the Jews after David.Thus in Matthew the father of Joseph is given as Jacob, while it is Heli in Luke. We know from the Jerusalem Talmud (Haggigah, Book 77, 4) that Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph to whom Mary was betrothed.Therefore, Heli was the father of Mary whose genealogy is traced by Luke and by betrothal to her Joseph became the legal father of Jesus and a descendant of David. In those days a son-in-law was considered as son and thus Luke could take the bold step to say that Joseph was the son of Heli. By this change in genealogy Luke brought out his theme of universal salvation by deviating from the official family line of Solomon as well as by projecting Mary, representing all women, the descendant of David.
We consider the above discrepancies between Matthew and Luke as complementary to each other and not contradictory. Luke was written after Matthew and in his search for an ordered account of all the events recorded so far Luke could not have failed to notice the particular form of the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. Yet he preferred to give an alternate form of the genealogy with two significant changes from Matthew's. What could be the reason for those changes? Although Luke did not want to contradict the genealogy in Matthew, written from a Jewish perspective, he wanted to complete the picture from a universal perspective as, in his view, Jesus was born for saving not only the Jews but the whole world.Luke himself was a living example of this theology as he was a convert to faith in Jesus, being born of Gentile parents. Besides, Luke was a companion of Paul in his missionary journeys who was the champion of the salvation of the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Thus it was fitting that Luke chose the two devices in the genealogy itself in order to proclaim his belief in the universal salvation of all. The first device was to start the genealogy from Jesus and end it with Adam who is characterized as the son of God under whom the whole human race is encompassed. The second device was to trace the family tree of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus, from Nathan, son of David, although Matthew traced it from Solomon, the actual ruler of the Jews after David.Thus in Matthew the father of Joseph is given as Jacob, while it is Heli in Luke. We know from the Jerusalem Talmud (Haggigah, Book 77, 4) that Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph to whom Mary was betrothed.Therefore, Heli was the father of Mary whose genealogy is traced by Luke and by betrothal to her Joseph became the legal father of Jesus and a descendant of David. In those days a son-in-law was considered as son and thus Luke could take the bold step to say that Joseph was the son of Heli. By this change in genealogy Luke brought out his theme of universal salvation by deviating from the official family line of Solomon as well as by projecting Mary, representing all women, the descendant of David.
No comments:
Post a Comment