Who Were Mary & Joseph, part 1

 

Joseph also went up...to be registered

with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.

Luke 1:4-5, NKJV

In an earlier post, I covered the genealogy of Joseph presented in Matthew. In a later post, I will cover the genealogy presented in Luke. I've made several references recently to the royal lineage of Joseph and the noble priestly lineage of Mary. So I thought at this juncture, it might be prudent to present a few explanations about the who, what, where, when, why and how of the Christmas story. I'm not making any of this up on my own; you can research it yourself if you don't believe me...

As we saw in Matthew 1, Joseph could trace his family tree all the way back to the beginning of the Jewish people (actually, all the way back to creation, but Matthew stopped the list at Abraham). Abraham was the one called out from among his people to be the father of a new nation. Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brethren (the 12 patriarchs of the Jewish people). And for 42 generations, Matthew traces the ancestors of Joseph through the patriarchs to David, through the kings to Zerubbabel, and then through a list of names about which the Bible is completely silent, ending with...

And Matthan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph, who was the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ.

Luke 3:23-24 says that Jesus (as was supposed) was the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat...and presents an entirely different genealogy that traces the family back through the noble descendants of David's son Nathan rather than through the royal line of kings that descend from David's son Solomon. I'll save the real discussion for when I get to Luke 3, but for now, let me deal with those first couple of verses.

Those same critics who think Luke was mistaken when he wrote about Quirinius also like to point to the two genealogies--both of which purport to be Joseph's lineage--and say, "The gospels contradict themselves about Jesus' grandparents. They can't possibly be believed!" Once again, they speak from ignorance, focusing on the words rather than on the meaning and truth behind them.

One oft used explanation of the difference between the two genealogies is that Matthew recorded Joseph's ancestors, while Luke recorded Mary's. I heard it growing up, believed it, and actually taught it that way for a while, until I started researching rather than repeating. Luke was always so precise in his language; if he had intended to record Mary's genealogy, he would have done so. In fact, he is the one who actually gives us the clues to her lineage, but not in Chapter 3. Mary's family is revealed in Chapter 1. Luke, like Matthew, is giving the lineage of Joseph.

So how can two gospels give different ancestors--even different fathers--for Joseph, and both of them be true? I'll tell you how. One is the legal lineage of Joseph; the other is biological. For all intents and purposes, Joseph was adopted.

A 4th Century church historian named Eusebius quotes from the writings of an earlier church father, Julius Africanus, on the matter, revealing what the early church knew and believed about the ancestry of Jesus. These were people who knew the family and descendants of Jesus' brothers, who would have known the truth and been able to explain the discrepancies. So here's the truth about Joseph.

In the early 1st Century BC, there were two closely related men from the tribe of Judah living in Bethlehem. Both were descendants of King David, one through Solomon, one through Nathan. Both were also descendants of Zerubbabel the governor. The descendant of Solomon was Matthan. The descendant of Nathan was Matthat. Matthan married a woman named Estha, fathered a son named Jacob, and then died. The widow Estha then married Matthat, who fathered a son named Heli.

When Heli grew up, he married a woman but died before he could father any children. His brother Jacob, following the ancient customs of his people, took his brother's widow as wife. It was called a Leviratic Marriage, and the firstborn son of this union was actually considered the son and heir of his dead brother. That son was Joseph--called by Matthew the son of Jacob (which was biologically true), but in Luke said to be the son of Heli (which was legallytrue).

And once again, we find that a supposed contradiction is not really a contradiction after all.