There are two different genealogies of Jesus; one is in the Gospel of Matthew and the other in Luke. Their difference is not of interest for me here, since neither of them was concerned to draw on the family tree of Jesus in precision, rather each of them had a theological treatise, hidden behind the names which had appeared in the history of the Old Testament. Thus, there is a relation between the treatises and the Old Covenant, which implies certain theological meanings associated to the genealogy, and in general are associated with the humanity of Christ. It had not occurred to the early readers of the Gospel to confirm the humanity [of Christ]; however, it had occurred later, as some people had denied the reality of his body, and others had denied his divinity. These two lists had appeared as supportive of the doctrine in this or that time.
The theological difference is clear between Matthew and Luke, because of the difference of the purposes both had. Luke starts with Joseph, who “as was supposed” – these are Luke’s words – was Jesus’ father [see Luke 3:23]. Referring to what was “supposed” at that time, Luke aims at asserting the virginity of Mary, as it was mentioned in the tradition prior to his writing, and was stated clearly in Matthew’s writing. We do not know if Luke had read Matthew, since both, as contemporary scholars assert, had written their gospels between the years eighty to ninety of the first century.
However, Luke had written from the position of the whole humanity, while Matthew [see Matt. 1: 1-17] from the Jewish position. Luke starts with Joseph and closes with Adam, while Matthew starts with Abraham and arrives at Joseph. Matthew’s contention is that Jesus Christ is the anointed one, for whom the prophets had hoped, and who completes the [line of the] descendents of faith, which had started with Abraham. Luke, on the other hand, wanted to show that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world, and thus, he closes the genealogy with Adam. However, after mentioning this, he said about Jesus that he is the Son of God.
In both genealogies Abraham does not belong to Israel. Abraham says about his father: “A wandering Aramean was my father”. (Deut. 26: 5) Thus, Israel had not begun with him. Israel was the name of Jacob, the grandson of Abraham. In the Byzantine Liturgy the day of tomorrow is called the Ancestors’ Sunday [the Sunday of the Holy Genealogy], and Melchizedek is one of them, who was not from Israel and had blessed Abraham. Thus, at least Jesus is associated with two people, who were not Hebrew. He is associated to this Canaanite king, without having a physical bond to him. And here we should search for the Church’s intention, which perceives a kind of affinity for two people who do not belong to Israel. What about this bond [or affinity]?
The Book says about Melchizedek that he was the king of peace, or the king of Jerusalem, before David had made it the capital of his kingdom. Melchizedek is an image or a paradigm of Christ. In today’s language, we say that there is a cultural bond [between the two], not a religious one.
In different terms, Christ is the heir of those with whom He had no blood relationship. By this I do not propose that the Lord has taken over something from the gentiles of Galilee, who used to speak Greek, however, the Church has known Him as open to those who preceded Him, who were outside the Jewish people. This is not limited to those who had preceded Jesus, rather his Church is open to those who were contemporary with her [the Church] after Him, and they are actualized in her, whether they know it or no. Thus, the Gospel puts on itself other religious cultures without betraying itself, and it takes the proper way to express itself whenever it enters different religious and cultural domains.
It is here that Christian mission meets the Greek thought. The Gospel does not include the word ‘essence’ by which we describe divine nature, it also does not include the word ‘hypostases’ [or divine person]. However, this does not mean that Christianity became Greek in the First Ecumenical Council (of Nicaea), which brought about the Creed of Faith, that gathers all Christian churches together. Rather, the Church wanted to enter the Greek civilization in order that it might spread within the Hellenistic educated milieus. The Fathers, who had Greek education, had known that they had not betrayed the Gospel, but they were conveying it through the language of their age.
Is it not possible that the Hellenistic culture becomes a garment for the Gospel, which had put on itself the Hebrew culture, at the times of its writing? It is as well a human culture. In every era Christians were faithful to a Gospel which had put on itself Hebrew robe. Why not, that in a different era, the Gospel puts on itself the garment which it needs?
Why does not the German philosophy, for example, or the philosophies ensuing it, become clothing for the Gospel-revelation, in the sincerity of every generation to the one Revelation?
After the Pentecost, all the apostles had spoken different languages, mentioned in the book of Acts, to tell about whatever had been revealed to them in their own languages. Thus, languages are many but Revelation is one.
Similarly, you have in Christianity different liturgies, however the Church had emerged as one, it had different kinds of worship, yet the core of worship is also one.
We baptize cultures as we baptize the person. Whenever the mature person accepts baptism, he/[she] casts sin off, including all thought that contradicts [the mind of] of Christ, yet, one’s inner nature remains, and also one’s good dispositions, since one discards only the evil dispositions. One does not cast off one’s vocation, languages, national identity, and such a person would not have any proper belonging. In baptism one is not attached to any human identity, rather one is renewed into a new being, though safeguarding the old that is good in him/[her].
Christianity compiles all advantages of cultures and discards only their disadvantages. The human being is renewed in the depth of his/[her] inner soul, and he/[she] is in accordance with the image of God before baptism. The wrongs that one caries were not part of the image of God, by which he/[she] was made. The Christian is renewed by the newness of Christ and is [at the same time] ancient as the ancientness of Adam. He/[she] continues to be the son/[daughter] of Adam, though he/[she] becomes the son/[daughter] of God through faith.
The beauty of the human being is in that which he/[she] has inherited from both his/[her] Lord and Adam. God does not exterminate in us our humanity, and our humanity receives divinity and they unite without division, separation or confusion. In our belief “the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” [St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3] God’s move toward us was a descent, while our move toward God was an ascent, and this is what we mean when we say that He “has seated on the right hand of the Father”, i.e., His humanity, because of His death and resurrection, deserved to be the courtier of the Lord on the throne. This is a continuous move toward God through God’s grace, benevolence and gratification, and we remain creatures, nevertheless, new creatures. God, through God’s Word, continues to descend to the end of the ages, and the human being continues to ascend, through the power of the same Word, and the mystery of this lies in God’s love to the human being.
Once, a friend of mine, who was knowledgeable in music, asked me, do we hear the Ninth Symphony in heaven? I answered him, you glean the essence of the Ninth Symphony, without voice or timbre, i.e., the heart continues to carry all the riches of the mind and we do not return to the ignorance in which we were before we receive knowledge.
Heavenly things do not extinguish earthly realities, in which God’s Spirit has dwelt. History, with all its glory, is inscribed in eternity. We were not given eternity, that is in us, at the moment of our acquiring it, since whatever we have acquired has descended upon us from that who has no beginning, that is why there is no end for the human being, whom God has glorified by resurrection. This implies that we are in heaven here, as we have received it through love, and whatever comes to us through love accompanies us after resurrection, and probably itself is the cause of resurrection.
Thus, we are resurrectionists through whatever we derive from goodness and understanding, since they are of the truth which divine favor has poured upon us.
Christ, in His humanity which has inherited all the beauties of history preceding Him, and has embraced the beauties of the history ensuing Him, is an image of our destiny.
Translated by Sylvie Avakian-Maamarbashi
Original Text: “تحدر يسوع البشري وارتقاؤنا” –An Nahar- 11.12.2010
