Two Genealogies of Jesus

TWO GENEALOGIES OF JESUS By J. M. Sjodahl The two genealogies of our Lord as recorded in the first and third Gospels in the New Testament, were at one time regarded as one of the great difficulties in the Scriptures, seemingly not capable of a satisfactory solution. Scientific research has long ago found the truth concerning the matter and removed the difficulty, but even now it is sometimes argued that if there is contradiction in the accounts, as there seems to be, one of them, though part of the Bible, must be an historical blunder; or, perhaps both are wrong! But, let the sincere Bible student rest assured that both accounts are correct, and that they do not contain any contradiction. Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, who was in law the father of Jesus, and who in the genealogical public records of that time had the place which the name of the natural father would have had in an ordinary case. Matthew copies the record as he found it. According to that record, Jesus, as the legal son of Joseph, was the legal heir of the royal prerogatives of the house of David, for Joseph was a descendant of David through his son Solomon, who, by appoint- ment, inherited the crown for himself and descendants forever. Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, with the evident object in view of proving to them that Jesus, according to their own records, in his lineage fulfilled the predictions of the prophets of old that the Messiah should be of the seed of Abraham and the son of David. He begins with Abraham and follows the line down to Joseph, "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." He does not, however, give every generation from Abraham to Jesus*, but adjusts the list, so as to make three periods of an even fourteen generations each — one from Abraham to David, another from David to the Babylonian exile, and one from the exile to Jesus. In order to do that, he necessarily leaves out some less known names, but that does not affect the proof in the least, for the chain is unbroken, even if every link in it is not named separately. If it is shown that a man is a grandson of a descendant of Abraham, his blood relationship with the great ancestor is as well established as' if the name of the father had also been inserted in the enumeration. And for the sake of memoriz- ing, the arrangement in three groups of fourteen names in each is more practical than a complete list. Matthew gives less prominence to Mary and more to Joseph. He wrote very early, and it is not to be supposed that the wonderful experiences of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the time while she lived, were the subject of public discourses or writings. They were too sacred. She had hidden them in her own tender heart, and com-

344 IMPROVEMENT ERA municated them only to a few intimate friends. Hence the silence of Matthew concerning some thing9 which later became generally known. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. He wrote for Gentile readers, addressing his treatise to one Theophilus, a noble Roman, no doubt, in order to correct misunderstandings that seem to have arisen on account of numerous records circulated concerning Jesus of Nazareth, but not authentic. Luke says he had a "perfect understanding of all things from the very first," and it is quite evident that he had his information concerning these things "from the very first" from some- one near and dear to Mary, if not from Mary herself, for he could have had it from no one else. Luke, as has been said, wrote for the entire world, and begins his genealogy with Jesus, the son of Mary, and traces the lineage backward to Adam, who, he says, was the son of God. The gen- ealogies agree perfectly between Abraham and David, but from that point Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph through Solomon, and Luke gives the genealogy of Mary through Nathan, another son of David. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house of D\avid, one chrough the royal line, and the other through what has been called the shepherd line. There is no contradiction in the two records. They agree perfectly. But why then does Luke say that Joseph was the son of Heli, while Matthew say9 he was the son of Jacob? Luke uses Joseph's name instead of Mary's, for the simple reason that the Hebrews always wrote the name of the husband as the last link in the genealogical chain of the wife. It is generally accepted that they never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables as one of the main links; consequently, when a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, her husband was named, since he was the son in the eyes of the law — "son-in-law." This explanation applies, no doubt, also to Neri, whom Luke connects with Salathiel. According to Matthew, and also I Chronicles, Jeconiah was the natural father of Salathiel, and Neri was, in Luke, his father-in-law. This explanation is perfectly satisfactory, but mark that Luke does not say that Joseph was "the son" of Heli. The words "the son'" are in the English version printed in Italics, because they are not part of the original text. They are inserted by the translators, as their under- standing of it. They might as well have inserted the words "the son- in-law," or they might have rendered the verse thus: "Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was Heli's," or "belonged to Heli," and thus left the matter with the reader. It is necessary that we should have two genealogical chains of Jesus. We need one to prove that he came of the lineage of the promised Messiah. Matthew furnishes this. We also need another to show that he, as the son of Mary, was the predicted "seed of the

TWO GENEALOGIES OF JESUS 345 woman," who was to overcome the serpent. Luke furnishes this. Both serve a necessary purpose. Luke, besides, expressly states that God is the first link in this genealogical chain. God is the origin — not only the originator — of the entire race. How the Heart Teaches Us a Law of God By Harold L. Snow [The author, on his recent release from the German mission, was stopping in Vienna for a time to see some autopsies in a big Austrian hospital. As one of the doctors was examining a human heart, one of the house surgeons remarked how wonderful it is that, despite its relatively small size, the heart receives a tenth of all the blood pumped to the various parts of the. body. "The remark immediately put me in mind of our tithing system," says the author. The thoughts in the following writing then occurred to him — Editors.] "Lubb-dub, lubb-dub, lubb-dub," beats the faithful heart of every healthy man, woman and child on earth. Little does one think of the consequences which would follow if that dependable, life-sus- staining, muscular "pump" of the body should take a notion to rest, even for a very short time. But the heart labors in an exacting environment. Let us consider the conditions under which it is most efficient. Just what does it expect in return for its services? First of all the heart requires material with which to work: it must have enough blood to pump. Second, it must be free from injury and disease; and third, a condition must obtain which is of most vita"! importance: the heart must have for the use of its own tissues approximately one tenth of all the blood which passes through its chambers. Just as the blood leaves the heart to furnish food and oxygen to every living cell of the body, there are two vessels which receive blood to be carried to the walls of the heart. Sometimes this muscular pump becomes diseased, and the blood-vessels of its walls become narrower than usual, allowing less than a tenth of the blood to flow to the heart muscles. Then the heart weakens, and when the body is called upon to work harder than usual, to run, or even to climb the stairs, the otherwise faithful pump has become too weak to supply the body with an adequate supply of blood to carry on the additional work. Much like the heart, we humans toil day after day and month after month, storing up the necessities of life for ourselves and our loved ones. The Great Giver of all requires that we return to him one tenth of what we harvest. If we do not become so "narrow" as to inhibit the return of this portion of "blood" to the "Heart," then we have the right to look forward to the bounteous blessings which flow daily 'from that "Great Heart," the Source of everything that is really worth having.