Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 4
In his genealogy example, he rejects the common explanation that Luke gives Mary’s genealogy and calls the “Jewish custom” explanation “totally bogus”; how does his alternative (levirate marriage creating dual lines) illustrate his larger point about explanations that “make sense to a 21st-century mind” but not to ancient readers?
Another way to ask: How does Bercot’s levirate marriage explanation for Luke’s genealogy support his point that some popular answers sound modern but wouldn’t fit the ancient world? Why does that matter for how we interpret the Bible?

Direct Answer Bercot’s levirate-marriage explanation illustrates his larger point by grounding the problem in an ancient practice that early Christians found plausible, instead of using a modern-sounding “custom” with no evidence. He argues that many modern explanations feel intuitive today but were not the way ancient readers thought or reasoned.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says the Mary-genealogy solution is widely repeated: “every commentary is saying this,” so people assume “these people know something.”
  • Yet he found “none of the early Christians say that… They don’t even remotely suggest that.”
  • He mocks the invented defense: “it was the Jewish custom… to put it in the name of her husband… show me an example… There is no example. That’s just totally bogus.”
  • Early Christians instead appealed to “leverate marriage,” where a child could have “two different fathers” (legal vs. biological) and so a genealogy could list either.
  • He stresses ancient mindset: “That’s the explanation that made sense to an ancient mind,” whereas Mary-genealogy “makes sense to a 21st century mind” but is “not very logical” in Luke’s wording.
Discussion Follow-ups When you meet a harmonization that feels “obvious,” do you ask whether ancient Christians ever used it? What other Bible questions might need to be re-asked from a first/second-century perspective rather than our own?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10
Back Questions Next