Luke 3:23

And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat ...

THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS THROUGH MARY

Thirty years of age ... On the bearing this has with reference to dating the birth of Jesus, see under Luke 3:2.

We shall not undertake any exhaustive "harmonization" of the two separate genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and here. It is now and has been this student's conviction for many years that Luke's genealogy cannot possibly be for Joseph's line at all, since Luke spelled out in the most emphatic manner the fact that Joseph had no physical connection whatever with Jesus; and in this fact disappears any reason why Luke might have written a genealogy of Joseph.

It is incumbent upon us, however, to demonstrate that the interpretation preferred in this commentary is valid.

(1) Many of the most illustrious and competent scholars who ever lived have accepted 'this as Mary's line, not Joseph's. This fact is offered, not for the sake of proving this position by human testimony, because many other great scholars deny it; but it is presented to show that the greatest weight of scholarly evidence tends to the view accepted here. "Among the many modern scholars who accept it are Professor Godet and Dean Plumptre."[13] Robertson affirmed that the theory of this being Mary's line "seems the most plausible," citing the following as concurring in that view: Luther, Bengel, Olshausen, Lightfoot, Wieseler, Robinson, Alexander, Godet, Weiss, Andrews, Broadus, and many recent writers.[14]

(2) The solid evidence that supports this is in the Greek text itself, where the article "the" is omitted before the name of Joseph, and yet is found before all the names in the long list without exception, save for this solitary omission. What does it mean? Godet said: "The omission of the article puts the name (Joseph) outside of the genealogical series."[15] Robertson said, "This would indicate that `Joseph' belongs in the parenthesis ... (it should) read thus, `being son (as supposed of Joseph) of Heli, etc.'"[16] Jesus was thus the grandson of Hell, "grandson" being an absolutely legitimate meaning of "son" as used in Jewish genealogies. As a matter of fact, the word "son" in such tables also had the meaning of "son by creation" (as in Luke 3:38), and sometimes even "son-in-law." It is the context that must determine the meaning. In no case would the name of Mary have appeared in the direct line of such genealogies, being contrary to Jewish custom. This necessitated the listing of Jesus as the "son (grandson) of Hell." It certainly cannot be proved that this interpretation is incorrect.

(3) And was Jesus actually the grandson of Heli? The writers of the Jewish Talmud have a passage concerning the pains of hell with the statement:

Mary, daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering the horrid tortures. (After quoting this Haley said) This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Hell; hence that is her genealogy that we find in Luke.[17]

Those who would make Joseph the son of Hell would thus make him the husband of his own sister, besides denying the truth stated by Matthew that Joseph was "begat" by Jacob!

(4) There are other ways of reconciling the two accounts of the genealogy of Jesus, but this is the most plausible and convincing. This is an extensive question, debated for centuries, and it must be confessed that human knowledge is by no means complete with regard to it. Perhaps the most persuasive fact related to the genealogies is that when the enemies of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, sought to discredit the faith, none of them ever alleged any contradiction in the genealogies. If people who lived when the genealogical tables were still preserved did not dare to allege any contradiction, those who dare to do so nineteen centuries later stand on the most tenuous and uncertain ground.

But what is the point of the genealogy? Surely some attention should be given to that! Once, when this writer was a minister of a great congregation in New York City, a group of students from one of the universities visited him, asking, "But don't you really believe that the whole Jesus story is a myth?" It happened, when this occurred, that this writer had only recently memorized all seventy-seven names in this list, and he quoted it rapidly, and in full, to the astonished group of students; and then he said: "Now, will any of you brilliant young people give the genealogy of Santa Claus, or of Paul Bunyan, or of Beowulf?" The point was dramatically made. Jesus Christ was no myth! His genealogy is the only one ever constructed that reaches all the way back to God himself. Since then, this preacher has quoted the genealogy before assemblies of college students and congregations throughout America, because the central message is devastating to any alleged mythological explanation of Jesus of Nazareth.

Some have asserted that Luke ignored Abraham; but that is not true. Abraham is in the genealogy; the story of Abraham's bosom is found only in Luke (Luke 16:19ff); and one of the strongest statements with reference to that patriarch in the entire New Testament is Luke 13:28. By taking the genealogy back to Adam, Luke stressed the fact of Jesus' being the Saviour of all men, not merely of Jews. Matthew's genealogy through Joseph was given for the purpose of showing that Christ, through his legal father Joseph, was the legitimate heir to the throne of David. In the very nature of the God-Man, it was inherent that two genealogies should be provided, one showing his legal status in the eyes of men, and the other giving his true physical descent. The Messianic title, "Son of David," as applied to Jesus required a dual proof: (1) that he was entitled to the throne, as proved by Matthew's genealogy, and (2) that he was literally descended from David, as proved by Luke's genealogy. The fundamental "rightness" of this approach to the problem will commend itself to any careful student of the Scriptures. Also, Matthew wrote from Joseph's standpoint, Luke from Mary's.

A NOTE ABOUT THE VIRGIN MARY

As this commentary was being written, the writer taught a Bible class each Sunday, the lesson being based on the previous week's studies. Reference was one day made repeatedly to "the Virgin Mary," and, after class, a lady objected to the expression on the grounds that the title thus used tended to support the theory of the virgin's perpetual virginity. However, this is clearly an incorrect view. Matthew referred to "Simon the Leper" (Matthew 26:6) without any implication that he still had leprosy when Jesus was in his house for dinner; in the same manner, a reference to the Virgin Mary implies nothing of her virginity during the period after the birth of our Lord.

[13] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 71.

[14] A. T. Robertson, op. cit., p. 261.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] John W. Haley, Examination of Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1951), p. 326.