Two Common Features

Now let us consider two things common to both Nativity accounts (there are others, of course).

First, they both trace Jesus’ ancestry through the blood of his father, Joseph. Only Steiner has explained to us the great mystery of how Jesus could actually have been born of the earthly seed of Joseph, otherwise so thoroughly hidden by the Gospel accounts, while at the same time having been born of the virgin Mary. And in this respect, we need not understand the term “virgin” to mean merely “a young woman,” as it can be properly interpreted by translation.

Second, both accounts clearly contain what have heretofore been seen to be errors in genealogical listing. But they are erroneous only if understood merely as indicating history. While they clearly intend to show blood descent through Joseph as the natural earthly father, they have a deeper spiritual purpose in mind in their obviously intentional manipulation of the number of generations.

Matthew stresses the number forty-two, while Luke lists seventy-seven. We shall see the immense and respective significance of these. In order to get to his number forty-two, Matthew leaves out of his middle group of fourteen generations three successive Judean kings (Ahaziah, Joash and Amajiah) between Joram and Uzziah. It would have been virtually impossible for one such as Matthew to have missed these, for they were etched deeply into the history of the Hebrew people. Their intentional omission, in order to be able to come to three groupings of fourteen each, must surely be a significant message to later times.

Luke, on the other hand, adds at least one name to his list in order to get a total of seventy-seven. Except for that, both Gospels list fourteen names from Abraham through David. Luke, however, takes the one Matthew calls “Ram” and makes of him the two ancestors called “Arni” and “Admin.” Old Testament accounts (Ruth and Chronicles) support Matthew’s list on this discrepancy.