|
No. 2.
Mr. Editor:—
I trust you did not suppose
that I had finished this reply without touching the
great difficulty that Luke gives a genealogy for the
most part different from Matthew’s. At an early day
in the Christian church, it was contended by some
learned men that <<402>>Joseph must have had a legal father, different from
his natural father; that he was the natural son of a
brother who, according to the Jewish law, raised up
seed to his deceased brother. It was farther
necessary to assume that these two successive
husbands of the same wife were not full brothers,
that they had not one father, and therefore give two
genealogies. The simpler explanation is in all
probability the true one, that Matthew gives the
genealogy of Joseph, and Luke that of Mary. There is
no objection to this theory that may not be easily
answered. Luke introduces his register so: “And
Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,
being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, of Heli,
of Matthat.” Let us lay an emphasis on the words
“being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.” It
is a very natural interpretation that Jesus was only
supposed to be the son of Joseph, that he was
called so in accordance with the custom, but that so
far as he had any natural, real father on earth, he
was the son of Heli, the father of Mary. Or, if Mary
was an heiress, Joseph must, in the transmission of
the estate, have been considered as the son of her
father, according to the law given in the history
the daughters of Zelophehad.
It
has been asserted that a man among the Jews never
takes the name of his wife’s father. What, then,
does the following passage mean (Ezra ii. 60? “And
of the children of the priests: the children of
Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of
Barzillai, which took a wife of the daughters of
Barzillai, the Gileadite, and was called after their
name.” If we interpret this passage correctly, it
teaches that a priest and his children took the name
of his father-in-law, and so lost their register
among the priests.
It
was in many points of view important that the
genealogy of Mary should be given, as well as that
of Joseph. The angel had said to Mary, in relation
to the promised son: “He shall be great, and shall
be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God
shall give unto him the throne of his father David.”
Hence the obvious propriety in proving his mother a
daughter of David. A distinguishing prominence is
given to woman in the prophecies of the Messiah. The
first promise was that the seed of the woman should
bruise the serpent’s head. Luke, therefore, traces
the descent of the mother of Jesus back through
thousands of <<403>>years to the first mother who
received the promise of this seed. Isaiah prophesied
that a virgin should have a son, whose name should
be Immanuel. Another prophet looked forward to the
time when “she which travaileth hath brought
forth.” (Micah v. 3.) These facts strove the
circumstances of the mother of the Messiah so
peculiar, that we feel as much interest in her
descent as in that of the real father. It is,
Moreover, worthy of mention that the Mahometans
always call Jesus, the son of Mary, and that,
according to Horne’s Introduction, the Jewish
tradition calls Mary the daughter of Heli.
There does appear to be one serious difficulty in
the genealogy of Luke: this is the introduction of
Cainan between Arphaxad and Sala, while the Old
Testament has no such name in its register. We know
not how Cainan has been introduced into Luke, nor
how it comes to stand in the Septuagint, which is a
translation centuries older than the New Testament.
It may have been transferred from the Septuagint to
Luke. In every other respect Luke’s genealogy bears
every mark of the most exact exhibition of natural
descent. It gives us forty-one names between David
and Christ, which gives about twenty-four years to
each generation. This furnishes strong probable
evidence that Luke,
In
giving the real descent of Jesus from David, was
very careful to follow the line of natural descent
from father to son without any omission. Matthew, on
the contrary, tracing the regal line, left out some
names from the natural line. No genealogy furnishes
on its face a greater probability of truth than this
genealogy of Luke.
I
once heard a believer in the Old Testament assert
that Mary could not possibly be of the descent of
David. Why, said he, Mary was the cousin of
Elizabeth, and Elizabeth was of the daughters of
Aaron; therefore Mary must have been of the tribe of
Levi, and not of the tribe of Judah, and descent of
David. You remember, I replied, that Jehoshabeath
was the daughter of King Jehoram, and became the
wife of the priest Jehoiada. Now, her children, who
would be reckoned of the tribe of Levi, would be,
nevertheless, the full cousins of her royal
brother’s children, who would be of the tribe of
Judah and descent of David. What a poor argument
against Christianity!
Jesus then, indeed, that Branch from the roots of
Jesse of which Isaiah spoke? Is he, at the same
time, the Branch of the <<404>>Lord; and has he,
according to several prophecies which we have
mentioned, God for his father? I am afraid, Mr.
Editor, that your impressions are very different;
but I feel upon the review of this whole subject,
deeply impressed with the evidence which these
genealogies afford, that my faith in Jesus as the
promised son of David is not an error.
Yours, most respectfully,
M.
R. Miller. |
