Gospels Series: Genealogy of Christ

Gospels Series: Genealogy of Christ

All right, well last week we began into this series on the gospels, the synoptic gospels. We talked about how they are to be viewed together. Although they are from different perspectives, we talked about some of the background of those individual gospel writers. We are going to bring in John, when appropriate. But we did mention that there are longer discourses in John. He includes a lot of the sayings of our Lord that there is not as much of an event-by-event recording like there is with the other gospel writers that give one event after another event in the life of our Lord. So we won't mention him as often.

But I handed out, I guess everybody got one of these tonight. As we are reading through these genealogies this evening, y'all don't get too excited now. I think this is a dawn of a smile back there. But we are going to be looking at these genealogies and some of the significance of them this evening. These genealogies are found in Matthew chapter 1 verses 1 through 17 and Luke 3 verses 23 through 38. I printed off this side-by-side comparison. Now these words, as we are reading through it, you will notice some of them are different from the King James. They were translated a little differently into it. They probably came from a different version, but you will get the idea anyway. Where are these genealogies aligned with each other and where do they diverge?

So without saying any more about that, let's turn our Bibles this evening to Matthew chapter 1. I want to begin reading, I do want to take the time to read these tonight. I think it will be beneficial. Maybe keep that chart there beside you and as we are looking through it. I want you to see if you notice anything, notice some things before I say them after we read through them. I want you to pay attention to those lists over there on that piece of paper as we are reading through.

All right, Matthew chapter 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren. And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Tamar. And Phares begat Esrom and Esrom begat Aram. And Aram begat Aminadab, and Aminadab begat Naasson. And Naasson begat Salmon and Salmon begat Boaz of Rachab. And Boaz begat Obed of Ruth and Obed begat Jesse. And Jesse begat David the King and David the King begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias. And Solomon begat Roboam and Roboam begat Abia and Abia begat Asa and Asa begat Josaphat. And Josaphat begat Joram and Joram begat Ozias and Ozias begat Joatham. And Joatham begat Achaz and Achaz begat Ezekias and Ezekias begat Manasses. And Manasses begat Amon or Ammon. And Ammon begat Josias and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren about the time they were carried away to Babylon. And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel and Salathiel begat Zorobabel. And Zorobabel begat Abiud. And Abiud begat Eliakim and Eliakim begat Azor and Azor begat Sadoc and Sadoc begat Achim and Achim begat Eliud. And Eliud begat Eleazar and Eleazar begat Matthan and Matthan begat Jacob and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary. Of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are 14 generations. And from David until the carrying away into Babylon are 14 generations. And from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are 14 generations.

And then if you look over in Luke 3 with me, Luke 3, verse 23, and Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Shealtiel, which was the son of Neri, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Boaz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, which was the son of Amminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noah, which was the son of Lamech, which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Well, we have read through both genealogies. Everybody's still awake. So maybe you had some thoughts come to your mind as we read through those. First of all, I say Matthew obviously traces it back to Abraham, but Luke traces it back further than that. He goes all the way to Adam, the son of God. So we see there's a difference right there, right? Matthew, we mentioned last week, is writing because of a number of things we pointed out last week. It's very obvious that he's writing with the Jewish mind in mind, he's writing to the Jewish reader primarily, not that it's just for the Jew, but it's with that in mind. Luke is tracing the genealogy from Jesus all the way back to Adam.

We notice that Matthew uses the expression 'begat,' whereas Luke, what does he use? He uses the expression 'son of,' right? 'Begat,' and a lot of that has simply to do with the order in which it's read, right? What do we notice about Matthew? Matthew began with Abraham and went up to Jesus in time. He came forward towards where he was in time, starting back at Abraham, but Luke does the exact opposite. He begins with Jesus and works his way back to Adam. So that in itself explains the difference between 'begat' and 'son of,' you know, the different order, the different direction that we're moving with this. Similarities that we see are, you know, that if you look on your piece of paper here from Abraham to David, they're mirror images, aren't they? They're exactly the same. The genealogies don't differ at all from Abraham up through David. That's something to notice.

Beginning with David, Matthew traces, as pointed out here, the paternal line of descent through Solomon. And Luke is tracing the maternal line through Solomon's brother, David's son, Nathan. We see that Matthew gives Joseph's father—there certainly can quickly become some confusion here. And there's a lot of different theories, there's several different theories, but there's one that most have settled upon as to the discrepancy in some of these accounts. Matthew gives Joseph's father as being Jacob. Look at Matthew 1:16. It says here in Matthew 1:16, and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. Luke says, what does Luke say? Let's read it in Luke 3:23. Let's look back over there. I want to read what it says in Luke 3, verse 23. It says, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. So we have Joseph's father being called Jacob in Matthew 1:16 and then we see Heli in Luke 3:23.

I think you can see how it's been worked out in this little chart that you have over here. The understanding, the common understanding is that it would have been, Joseph would have been the son-in-law to Heli, but he is mentioned here. Well, obviously Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, is he? He's the adoptive father of Jesus. And yet he is recognized as the father of Jesus. Certainly, there was an issue that he had to address with, you know, how can this be, seeing she knows not a man. Well, everybody assumed that it was by Joseph, but from a legal perspective, Joseph was the father, but from an actual biological perspective, the blood, the humanity came through Mary. The humanity came through Mary and Luke is going to emphasize more of Mary's side of it. Whereas Matthew is going to emphasize him being the son of David, but through Solomon, he's going not through Nathan and not through Mary's line.

Now, something else that you'll notice is there's a number more of, there are more names, especially once we get past David, there's more names that are mentioned on Luke's account. There are, Matthew seems to have given us this 14-14-14. I don't profess to know exactly why he did the 14 and the 14 and the 14, but it's interesting. When we look at 'son of someone' in the scriptures, that meant, we can give tons of examples of how when it says the son of someone, it's not automatically talking about the direct son. It could be their grandson. It could be someone down the line. There are certain individuals in scripture that are just picked up because of their significance, not that there weren't other children. Look at Jesus. We don't have a full record of all of his half-brothers and sisters. There are certain people that just aren't mentioned because it's important or they were less human than the other ones were. It's just that they weren't important for the record of what was being communicated in the scriptures, right?

And it's very clear what Matthew is trying to communicate here. He is emphasizing even before he gets into the genealogy. He says, even before he says son of Abraham, he says son of David, son of Abraham, son of David. He is writing to a Jewish audience. He is writing to a Jewish reader with that Jewish reader in mind. He is the son of David. He is the son of Abraham. That's really what's important in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus.

Now we see that these two lines intersect briefly when we come to Shealtiel and Zorobabel, the first governor of Judah once they come back from the captivity, right? And then we notice, well, there are, it ends up obviously with Mary or it says Joseph who was the husband of Mary here. And interestingly enough, along the way are several people that we wouldn't expect to be in this genealogy like Tamar who played the harlot with Judah and Rahab who was a woman of ill repute there in Jericho, right? The house, the spies, who is also mentioned, isn't she mentioned in Hebrews 11 as well in the hall of faith? We have Ruth, the Moabitess, who should not have been, you know, just normally speaking, she should not have been included in this, but we see in this that God is showing us that this is not only for the Jew, He brings in others as well that can be brought into the covenant. We have Bathsheba. This woman was married to a, seems to be a godly, Hittite man, Uriah, who was an honorable man, but he was murdered indirectly by David. And so she comes into the line, I should say, because she gives birth to David's son.

We notice that Joseph came from the Royal Line through Solomon, whereas Jesus came from David through Nathan on Mary's side. But think about with me for a moment, think about Matthew. Matthew was a former tax collector, wasn't he? A publican, and what kind of, we might ask the question, why would the Lord have chosen these two to write these genealogies? These were no uneducated men. I would say that Luke was the more highly educated of the two, but both of them were well-versed in mathematics and in writing and reading in language. They had to be because of their professions. They were a tax collector and a doctor. These men were well equipped to have written these things.

I think about Matthew. He was a tax collector, but I looked it up and I was looking at some details about publicans. They had to know Greek. They often knew Latin, not always, but often they knew Latin. They knew the local language, Aramaic or Hebrew. It's very obvious that Matthew knew Aramaic because he just, he didn't bother to translate terms like 'Raca' in Matthew chapter 5:22, which is Aramaic. He just put it in there. We have Matthew obviously had knowledge of arithmetic, math, because of his profession. He had to be literate. He had to be orderly and organized in his thinking because, aside from the tendency of publicans, you know, like Zacchaeus to cheat or to swindle or to do things like that, they had to know how to handle money and know how to keep an orderly account of things. And so Matthew was such a man, but Luke was also qualified as a doctor.

Luke would have been the more highly educated, he's referred to in Colossians 4:14 by Paul as the beloved physician, the beloved physician. In fact, look back with me in Luke 1, verse 3. It says there in verse 3, Luke 1, verse number 3, it seemed good to me also. He says, having had perfect understanding. What does that mean? It's interesting when you, there's two words here, but the idea of perfect is literally accurate, exact understanding. Having had accurate, exact understanding of all things from the very first, even those things which he was not necessarily witness to every firsthand, not being one of the 12, we see that he was very much acquainted with the 12 and the witness of those men. And he was a very thorough researcher evidently because he said he had a perfect understanding of all the things from the very first to write unto in order most excellent Theophilus. It's very likely that he interviewed extensively the eyewitnesses. You know, and we say it's good to document things while it's fresh, right? Write it down right now before you forget it. And Luke wasn't hearing somebody say about what somebody said. No, he had personal contact with these eyewitnesses. And he's telling Theophilus, I have written an orderly account step by step of what happened. And I have vetted this and I have an accurate understanding of it and I'm writing it to you.

Well, these things were recorded by Matthew and Luke would have been a good one to have systematically put down this information in a very detailed way. It is well known that the Jews were meticulous with how they recorded these genealogies and things. If you know, they're very detailed in this. But Matthew, if you think back with me to the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel chapter 7, it is said over there that when thy days be fulfilled and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, the Lord told him. And I will establish His kingdom. He shall build a house for my name and I will establish the throne of His kingdom forever. I will establish the throne of His kingdom forever. Well, that is a promise. He's going to establish the kingdom, the throne of David forever. But look what we've had. Since the Babylonian captivity, there has not been a king in Israel. There's been no king on the throne. And Matthew is writing with this in mind. He is emphasizing David, David, David. This is the son of David.

This Jesus is the offspring of the one to whom it was promised that He would establish His throne. And there was a man, a Jew by the name of Marvin Rosenthal. I was reading about Marvin Rosenthal. I don't know a whole lot about him other than that he converted to Christianity. I didn't take the time to research. I know he's got some sort of ministry, it sounds like. But the point is that he made the statement that the genealogy in Matthew was the quote, first crack in the wall that made him reconsider everything he thought he knew about Jesus. The first crack in the wall of his unbelief was this genealogy of Jesus. Because the Messiah must be a descendant of Abraham. Abraham is the father of the Jewish race. But he also certainly, most certainly must be the son of David, right? He must, even the scribes knew, well, when the wise men showed up, the Magi were seeing this poor king of the Jews, were come out of the east to worship him. We've seen the star, we're coming to worship him. They said, well, he's supposed to be born in Bethlehem, Judea, Bethlehem Ephratah, right? But they didn't bother themselves enough to even go down and investigate six miles to their south. And yet we see that indeed as was prophesied in Micah 5:2, he was born of the house and the lineage of David. He was born in Bethlehem Ephratah. Though it was little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler of Israel. He was born. And David and Matthew is pointing out that he is indeed of the lineage of David. And Marvin Rosenthal said that this was one of the things that began to get his wheels turning was the crack in the wall, so to speak. He did actually point out that the part about Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba being in the line as well, the inclusion of these unlikely figures.

And John 5:39, let's look there briefly, in John chapter 5 and verse number 39. What does it say here? Jesus says, search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And they are they which testify of me. The scriptures. Well, the scriptures that we just mentioned, Matthew, Micah 5:2, of course. But there are many scriptures that pointed to this. Matthew 1 gives the proof of Jesus being a direct descendant of Abraham and David through his legal father, Joseph. But we noticed that Luke is going to speak of the bloodline through Mary. And it brings in Joseph, the husband of Mary, but it's obviously different than the account given over in Matthew. It's interesting that this Jesus, the son of Mary, the son of Joseph, but by a legal adoption, he was in both lines, the son of David. In both lines, he can be traced back to David.

Luke presents, we might say, what is that passage in Galatians 4? Let's look at Galatians 4, if you will, in verse number 4. It's interesting what we read here in Galatians 4, verse number 4. It says, Paul says, but when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his son. If you send your son forth, that means your son is already in existence, right? God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law. I want you to stop and think about those two phrases right there tonight. Those two phrases made of a woman, made under the law. I think what Matthew and Luke, as I was just meditating on this, those phrases just popped out at me even today, I was just thinking of how, made of a woman, Luke is taking us all the way, all the way back to the first man Adam, right? The son of God, human, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. He became a living soul. He became a human being, a creature that God made flesh, vessel of clay, breath in his lungs, and from him through God, but from that man descended the God-man, Jesus Christ. He was born and made of a woman. He was, he took on flesh, made of a woman. So he's a hundred percent humanity, right? But he's also, he's also a king that did, through the line of David, he's the emphasis upon the king that will establish his throne.

Now, obviously, there are many people throughout Jesus' earthly ministry, and I think this program we did last year, the drama, we pointed out that it was some of the common people that would say, son of David, son of David, they recognize this is son of David, come to save us, but many wanted him to be the ruling king that would liberate them, of course, from Rome, but not the savior that would be saving them from their sins, right? We see that he's son of God, made of, well, he's the son of God, he's made under the law to fulfill all the obligations of that law, only God coming in flesh could perfectly keep the law, right? Only God coming in flesh could fulfill the obligations of the law. He had to be, he was made under the law, but he was also made of a woman as Luke emphasizes. I think it would be appropriate for Luke to present that view as the doctor. Jesus is the son of God, the king of the Jews, but he's fully human and fully divine at the same time.

There's a lot of things, you know, I probably spent more time looking through the different arguments and thoughts and things about this, but at the end of the day, there's some things that we may not have all the answers to about why the genealogies were recorded exactly the same way, it may seem like there's maybe some generations were left out on Matthew's recording of it perhaps, or there's some seeming discrepancies, but we must justify God in all of his sayings. There is this understanding that obviously we're not talking about, let's just put it this way, a huge issue with this for many centuries if as meticulous as the Jews were at keeping genealogies, if there was, it's humanly impossible for Luke and Matthew to have just messed up on the last two-thirds of the genealogies, these are clearly talking about two different lines. Yes, it mentions Joseph because he is the legal father, but it's actually referring to, obviously it seems here the line of Mary, the maternal line that Jesus came through and because the emphasis is that he is the son ultimately going back to Adam, right? He's made flesh, not that Joseph wasn't flesh, but Joseph wasn't his flesh father, he was his legal father, right? Joseph was the legal father, he wasn't the biological father because Jesus didn't have one, he received that flesh through Mary, through the line of Mary and Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli. He was the father of the son legally speaking, but he was Mary's husband, the son, it seems it's son-in-law to Heli.

So let's remember that Jesus was this fully man, but fully God, he fulfilled all the Old Testament requirements to be the Savior. We have testimony of Jews who have said it was the genealogies of Jesus that got me really to thinking about this must be something to be considered here and that Jesus satisfied God's wrath on our behalf being the sinless son of God coming to flesh. He's fully human, yes, but he must be God, the God-man to take our sins on him. No man can take away our sins, no mere man. God sent forth his son made under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Heavenly Father, bless us now, we think on these things, Lord, as we enter this Christmas season, help us to stand in awe at the Christ who, if we could fully put it into words, how can it be? How can it be seeing I know into this world of sin and where meek souls will receive him still the dear Christ enters in. We pray Lord that we would this Christmas, there would be room in our hearts for the Savior. If we've already received Christ, may we be glad and ready to share Him with others. And if there's one that doesn't know Jesus as their personal Savior that they would put their trust in Him, even this Christmas season, we pray and ask these things in Jesus' name. Amen.