John Chrysostom connects the first two questions together, although we have to move to Homily IV to find it. He considers that the missing generation[1] is the Babylonian captivity itself, heading the third section: thus demonstrating that neither under an ‘aristocracy’ (Abraham, the first group), nor under a King (David, the second group), nor under an ‘oligarchy’ (the Babylonians, the third group) does Israel escape its need for a Saviour, and the Saviour is born at last – the last of the generations. Green does not consider the question of the missing generation at all, instead focusing on the three names: Abraham, David, Jesus, and especially on the latter two. He points out that the number 14 is taken from the Hebrew number read from the letters of David’s name, and sees the genealogy as a move from the beginning of the chosen people (Abraham) to the height of their history (David) and the depth (Babylon) culminating in Jesus “great David’s greater Son” (p58). Thus for Green, the construction is an aid to memorization, and therefore a selective, rather than full, genealogy; hence, the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s. It is undeniable that the system is based around Abraham-David-Babylon and culminating in Christ, and that it says much more than may at first meet the eye if one views it as a straightforward ‘family tree’.

Green’s theory as to the difference between Matthew and Luke, that Luke is tracing Mary’s rather than Joseph’s line, is not entirely convincing, perhaps being born more out of the evangelical Christian’s need to eliminate all contradiction than from a straightforward analysis of the text. It is not impossible, but that Luke, having (unlike Matthew) not mentioned any women in the genealogy, should actually be compiling the genealogy of a woman without even mentioning that he was doing so is surely unlikely at a time when even Matthew’s inclusion of women would raise eyebrows. (John Chrysostom tries to argue that Matthew traces the genealogy of Joseph so as to protect Mary against stoning as an adulteress by not revealing the virgin birth, an argument which could support Green in Luke’s Gospel, if it weren’t for the fact that both Matthew and Luke proclaim the virgin birth clearly.) Having already pointed out that Matthew’s genealogy is selective rather than exhaustive, Green probably does not need to argue the point further. Instead, the differences between the genealogies are rather covered by John Chrysostom’s contention (I pp3-4, echoed by Green, p63) that the minor differences between the Gospel writers are evidence for their truthfulness: in bearing witness to genuine traditions rather than colluding to fabricate a story, they repeat what they know.

Chrysostom also suggests that there was a rule that one married within the same tribe and even house, and that proving Joseph is of the house of David is therefore the same as proving that Mary (and therefore Jesus) is of that line. One could alternatively argue that it demonstrates adopted sonship is equal in all ways to biological (as we are adopted sons of God, grafted on to the tree of Israel, as St Paul says).

Some may be surprised that it is Matthew who names women in the genealogy rather than Luke. Both Green and Chrysostom note the kind of women who are represented here: those who started off as women of ill-repute one way or another (although probably by Jesus’s time they may have been remembered more as Biblical heroines). Green uses this to make the point that the genealogy shows that Christ brings together all the old divisions between man/woman, Jew/gentile, even righteous/sinner.

There are so many other interesting topics in these chapters and the discussions by Green and Chrysostom: the star and its possible provenance, the great parallelism between Moses and Christ based around the flight into and calling out from Egypt, the meaning of the gifts, the Christological titles. One other interesting point that I would like to pick out is the one John Chrysostom makes about the apparent foolishness of the Magi (VI pp36-7). These supposedly ‘wise’ men, having seen a star, embark on a long and dangerous journey in order to arrive in a country with an existing king only to tell him that a new king has been born in his land, a king of such importance that a great sign has been sent to announce his birth. Messengers with such a message would be lucky to escape with their lives, and it was only through angelic intervention in the end that they did. Nonetheless, when there must have been other magi who saw the sign, these, the fearless before Herod, were the ones who actually heard God’s call and followed (VI p39). Green makes the point that even from the very beginning, the incarnation divided people into those who welcomed Christ and those who hated him (p65). The Magi fall into the first category: those who are ready to respond to God even though in doing so they are foolish in the eyes of the world. Herod, falling into the latter category and living in accord with the world’s wisdom, hated instinctively any threat to his worldly power. As Green says in reference to Herod and his slaughter of the innocents (p72), “If we are determined to go our way at all costs, we will go to any lengths to eliminate all trace of Jesus and his claims on our lives.”

[1] In fact, he initially sees only 12, since he does not count Jesus as one of the ‘generations’, but in adding both the Babylonian captivity and Jesus, he comes to the requisite 14.