Untitled article | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, October 29, 1867

Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered. No. 19.

Joseph was the son of Jacob.—And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. Matt. i, 16.

Joseph was not the son of Jacob, but of Heli.—And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, (as was supposed) the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli. Luke iii, 23.

LUKE traces the genealogy of Christ from Mary, Matthew from Joseph. But in Jewish genealogies, the names of females were never permitted to appear. Hence Luke instead of inserting the name of Mary, who was the daughter of Heli, inserts, according to the custom in such cases, the husband of Mary, which was Joseph, calling him the son of Heli, whereas he was only his son-in-law. Concerning the apparent discrepancies between Matthew's and Luke's record of the genealogy of Christ, Dr. Clarke offers the following clear and satisfactory suggestions and explanations.

Perhaps few questions have occasioned more trouble and perplexity to the learned, than that which concerns the genealogy of our blessed Lord, as it is given by the evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Luke. The tables found in these writers are extremely different, or, as some think, contradictory. In later times, the difficulty has certainly excited much discussion; but it is worthy of remark that, while the archives of the Jews remained entire, the accuracy of the evangelists was never called in question. Hence it follows, either that some corruptions have since that time crept into the text, or that the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies, was then better understood. The silence of the enemies of the Gospel, both Heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof, that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If a charge of this nature could have been supported, it unquestionably would have been made. The Jews and Heathens, who agreed in their hostility to the religion of Christ, were equally interested in this subject; and could they have proved that a single flaw existed in these genealogical tables, they might at once have set aside the pretensions of our Lord and his disciples; for, if the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messiah, nor any right to the Jewish throne. If his title, in this respect, were even questionable, it is impossible to suppose that the Jews would have withheld an allegation which must fully vindicate them in denying his Messiahship, and in putting him to death as an impostor. We may confidently assert, therefore, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed, at a time when alone it could have been done successfully, and by those persons who were so deeply interested in the event. The sincere believer may consequently be assured that whatever difficulties appear at present had formerly no existence, and are even now of such a nature as cannot be allowed to shake the faith of any reasonable man. I would not, however, be understood to intimate that these difficulties are now insuperable; on the contrary, I am satisfied that the real difficulties are few, and that these have, for the most part, been satisfactorily explained by most of the evangelical harmonists.

Much learned labor has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, Chap. i, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy.

Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of sons properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, &c. But Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to God himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account, he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph—of Heli—of Matthath, &c. That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons, improperly such: i. e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.

As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places—Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.

The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy, are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Matt. i, 16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1 Chron. iii, 17, and Matt. i, 12. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter.

Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli, so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim.

Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary, daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zorobabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, Matt. i, 13, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. See ver. 27.

Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line; and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon's eldest brother, 1 Chron. iii, 5, this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan's daughter, and that Neri dying, probably, without male issue, the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heiress of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of David. It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham, through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity.