A family from high society had their family tree drawn up. However, one ancestor stood out among the rest. A confident man, Uncle John murdered his wife under the influence of alcohol and was subsequently sentenced to death in the electric chair.
The family pointed the matter out to the family tree compiler and asked him to be very diplomatic. He then made an entry in the family tree: “Uncle John got an important position in the field of applied electronics in an important government institution. His death came as a real shock.” This technique is also a way to embellish your family tree.
This story comes up almost every time we get to the obligatory Christmas readings in our liturgical readings—the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Many struggle with the temptation to skip it and jump straight to the “more exciting” part: “Now, the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise…” (Matthew 1:18)
However, there are also opposing voices who claim that the genealogy of Jesus Christ hides the entire theology of the Old and New Testaments—an intriguing statement. In any case, the genealogy was critical to the Jews, as evidenced by their appearance in the Old Testament, where we locate about 50 of them. If someone wanted to embark on a spiritual or political career, they had to have a proper “purebred” genealogy.
Contradictions in the Bible?
It is common knowledge that the genealogy of Jesus Christ is a favorite weapon of critics as a “clear” example of inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible. These are supposed to result from the very comparison of the two genealogies in the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke. The reason? Although both looked at the same fact, each examined it from their perspective and placed their emphasis on it.
Saint Matthew begins with Abraham and ends with Jesus, while Luke begins with Jesus and continues all the way back to Adam and God. Matthew follows the line of Joseph, while Luke traces the line of the Mother of God. Luke emphasizes Jesus as a man, while Matthew seeks to prove that Jesus is a descendant of King David and therefore the legitimate Messiah.
Weak at math?
A common objection is that Matthew was apparently not very good at math. At the end of the genealogy, he says that there were 14 generations in three stages, but this does not fit. Since the author is a former tax official, counting was his passion. One explanation is that ancient writers took a specific literary liberty in rounding numbers to emphasize the intended point. What did the evangelist Matthew want to say?
The world-famous biblical scholar NT Wright sees the passage as a “play” with the number seven in the Bible. He assumes that the Jews observed a sabbatical year every seventh year, and every forty-ninth year, which is seven times seven years, they celebrated a jubilee year, a year of grace—this year marked the resolution of all unresolved issues: the release of slaves, the return of land, and the forgiveness of debts. According to Wright, the evangelist Matthew, by counting all the generations 3×14, i.e., 6×7, wants to arrive at a message that every Jew of that time could read: Jesus is the 7×7 generation, i.e., the living Year of Grace, when God puts everything in order in the most profound sense of the word.
Even women of questionable morals
Jesus’ genealogy is also surprising in its content. Five women are included in the list of male names: Tamar, Rehab, Ruth, Uriah’s wife, and the Virgin Mary. This instance was very unusual in a patriarchal society dominated by men. Why are other wives of the patriarchs not mentioned here—Sarah, Rachel, Rebekah, and Esther?
But Tamar? In the Book of Genesis, we read that Tamar was the bride of Judah. She was married to two of his sons in succession, but both died. According to Jewish custom, another brother was supposed to marry her, but Judah, the father, did not want to allow that. So Tamar disguised herself as a “woman of ease,” seduced her father-in-law, and had twins. Shall we say that it was a one-time failure?
The same cannot be said of another woman in the genealogy. Rehab was an immoral woman by profession in Jericho. But at a crucial moment, she received the Israelite spies from Joshua and was saved.
The third wife, Ruth, was pious and self-sacrificing and accompanied her mother-in-law even after her husband’s death. She expressed this admirable feat in her own words: “For where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge: your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” (Ruth 1:16) But she still had one flaw in her beauty: she was a Moabite and therefore an enemy of Israel.
The fourth woman is identified by the epithet “Uriah.” From Holy Scripture, we know that she is Bathsheba.
From a purely human perspective, we will say that none of these women had the necessary qualifications to be in the family tree of the King of kings, Jesus Christ. And yet they are there. Why? Perhaps they serve to emphasize the grace that God bestows upon us. What does this episode mean for us? It is not of primary importance what qualifications we have for God. What is much more important is what we become in God’s presence.
Are our ancestors to blame?
Not all the men in Jesus’ family tree are morally upright. Yes, there are some bright spots, like King David and Josiah. But there are also kings we could safely call disasters for Israel: Ahaz and Amon.
Another important lesson that the family tree teaches us is that evil is not always inherited. When children misbehave, we parents argue about which of us they probably got it from. However, in Israel’s history, we see that good kings alternated with wicked ones. The almost brutal Manasseh followed the noble King Hezekiah. The evil King Amon was followed by the beneficial King Josiah, of whom the Scriptures say that he turned to God with all his heart, soul, and strength.
The family tree, therefore, reminds us that we are responsible for our decisions. The acceptance of God’s grace varies for each individual, depending on how they choose to receive it. Excuses based on nature, ancestors, genes, or time are not always appropriate. Everyone freely decides for themselves.
God’s “timing.”