with Abraham and traces the family tree in a descending line to Jesus through Joseph. Luke begins with Joseph and traces the family tree in an ascending line to Adam the son of God. Matthew’s genealogy is more provincial; Luke’s more universal. But serious discrepancies appear between the two lists. Matthew’s list is constructed in a symmetrical pattern of three groups of fourteen names. A count demonstrates that a name is missing in group three, which was probably the result of a scribal omission very early in the history of the transmission of the text, since there is no textual evidence for the necessary fourteenth name to complete the symmetry. Matthew’s forty-two names (actually forty-one in our texts) from Jesus to Abraham become fifty-seven in Luke’s list. There are fifteen names, not fourteen, from Abraham to David and forty-two names, not twenty-seven, from David to Jesus in Luke’s family tree.
The internal discrepancies are even more serious, since Matthew traces the descent from David through Solomon and Luke from David through Nathan. From that point there is total disagreement between the two lists except for the two names Zerubbabel and Shealtiel during the period of the Babylonian exile. In fact, the grandfathers of Jesus are different in the two genealogies, Joseph being the son of Jacob in Matthew and the son of Heli in Luke. Every effort to reconcile the two lists has ended in failure and there have been some ingenious proposals. For example, it has been suggested that Matthew traces the physical descent of Jesus and Luke his legal descent. This is a remote possibility, since Jewish Levirate marriage required that a younger brother marry the widow of his deceased elder brother whenever that brother died without an heir. This was to assure in perpetuity the family line and the rights of inheritance. This possibility suggests that Nathan, an elder brother of Solomon, died without an heir; Solomon married the widow, and the son born to this union was physically his son, but legally the son of his deceased brother Nathan. This stretches the limits of credulity, however, since the two lists converge again with Zerubbabel during the exile, separate after Shealtiel, and converge once more with Joseph as the father of Jesus. The only possible explanation is that the two lists represent two different traditions that developed in different Christian communities confronted with the same need to legitimize the person of Jesus and provide him with proper birth credentials. This was necessary in order to carry out the mandate of the Lord to witness to all people, both Jews and Greeks (Matthew 28.19–20), that Jesus the Christ was the Savior of all the world.
Sources for the Genealogies
At the time these authors wrote, about C.E. 80–85, it would have been very difficult to gain accurate information for a genealogical tree. The invasion by the Romans in C.E. 66 to put down the rebellion of the Jews and the subsequent destruction of many cities and villages resulted in the destruction of records that might have supplied information for the evangelists. Since there was a widespread tradition among Jews of the time that the Messiah would descend from David, it is evident that both writers are concerned to link Jesus genealogically with King David and also with the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Matthew’s genealogy for Jesus fulfills this requirement appropriately, since he simply traces the royal line of kings from David to Joseph. He then extends the link back to the patriarchal fathers—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus he has supplied the necessary credentials for Jesus, so that he might be accepted by the Jewish reader as the expected Messiah. The sources for Luke’s genealogy are not nearly so evident, since he has traced the descent from David through Nathan. There is only a passing reference without information about this son in 2 Samuel 5.14 (see also Zechariah 12.12). The extension of this genealogy to Adam links the descent of Jesus to God’s original creation and demonstrates his relationship to all humanity, whereas Matthew typically places the emphasis upon Jesus’ Jewish lineage. The sources for the names in Luke’s genealogy from Heli to Zerubbabel are unknown. He has used genealogical lists from Genesis, Ruth and Chronicles for other portions of Jesus’ family tree.
It may be that the effort to provide Jesus with proper credentials came about through a kind of syllogistic argument. The three parts of a syllogism are: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Accordingly, the thesis with which the Christian community begins is, Jesus is the Messiah; the antithesis, the Messiah descends from David; and the synthesis, since Jesus is Messiah, therefore he descends from David. The genealogical lists are constructed accordingly. Of course, it may be argued that this is true to fact, but the unresolvable problem remains that there are many irreconcilable differences between the two genealogies.
The Importance of the Genealogies
What, if any, is their importance? They are important historically, since they throw light on problems that the Christian community encountered in its proclamation to the Jewish community that Jesus is the Christ. They are important theologically, since they demonstrate the mystery of salvation. Our salvation is not in any way the result of human wisdom or achievement. Salvation is the gift of God, and God’s act of redemption transcends human reason and understanding. The circumstances of Jesus’ birth and lineage do not result in nor are they the cause of our salvation. God alone is Redeemer and Lord. The testimony of our gospel writers was never intended to be a proof that can logically demonstrate to us the mind and purpose of God, nor to give us the security of knowing that this is how it came about. Problems and questions remain, no matter how sincerely and thoroughly we search for answers. And this drives us back to the basic, fundamental principle of our faith as stated so succinctly by Paul, “By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2.8).
The Baptism of Jesus
Matthew 3.13–17; Mark 1.9–11; Luke 3.21–22
¶ The three accounts of the baptism of Jesus in our gospels provide an opportunity for a critical comparison of the intentions and special concerns of each writer and some conclusions as to how we are to read and interpret their “stories about Jesus.”
If we begin with Mark, which according to many critics is the oldest and most primitive account, we have a rather straightforward narration of this event in the experience of Jesus. Let us note first that the time reference is very indefinite—“in those days.” It may surprise some readers to learn that one of the unanswered problems for New Testament students is a meaningful chronology for the events in Jesus’ life. Our calendar, or method of reckoning time for the Christian era, was designed by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century; supposedly he began with the year of Jesus’ birth. But there was obviously an error of some magnitude when he designed our calendar, since Jesus, according to Matthew and Luke, was born when Herod the Great was King of the Jews. Yet Herod died in B.C.E. 4 according to known records. We find that time references throughout the gospels are vague and indefinite. The writers did not have precise information for a chronology of Jesus’ life and deeds. In fact, we do not even know precisely the year of his crucifixion because of contradictory references to the time of that event in our gospels.
The Role of John the Baptist
Mark relates that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. John the Baptist plays an important role in all gospel accounts as the forerunner, the one who announces the Coming One. In fact, John is mentioned more often than any other person in our gospels after Jesus himself. References to Peter, the leading disciple, are sparse by comparison. A peculiar feature of Luke’s account is that he makes no mention of John in the baptismal account. He has already completed his references to John, since the preceding pericope tells of his death. The author of Luke does refer to John in prison in a later passage (7.19), when he sends disciples to Jesus to inquire whether or not he is the Coming One. Mark and Matthew are more consistent at this point, since they narrate the death of John much later during the ministry of Jesus (Mark 6.14–29; Matthew 14.1–12). This discrepancy in Luke’s account should alert us immediately to a peculiar bias on the part of the author of Luke. He, more than the other gospel writes, wants the reader to focus exclusively upon the ministry of Jesus without the intrusion of a ministry by another.
The Markan Account
The baptismal
