Below is the message I presented at our church on Sunday 23/1/2011. It was the first time I have given a full talk and presented my perspective in such depth, but feedback has been fairly good. I am not ordained, merely a lay person with a hunger for Gods word and a desire to explore and share the scriptures with others.
God Bless,
Ross
Introduction
I’m here today because Wayne, and others, have encouraged me to continue exploring my desire to study the Bible in depth and share some of my studies with you. Quite honestly I have been more than a little nervous about how I approach this, and probably so has Wayne. At least last time I got up here, I was given a passage to exegete, this time I was given a little more carte blanch. I literally pondered for weeks on what I could share, but each time I thought of something it didn’t quite feel right. Then I remembered an answer my father in law gave me several years ago when I asked him how he knows what to say in his sermons. He told me that God told him what to say. Now me being more than a little skeptical back then, I just brushed it off as, well, crazy self-justification. But now, well now I know better, so I asked God for help, and waited for it to come. In the mean time, I thought I’d do some blog reading, and listen to some pod-casts, read some books,. Just pass the time while God got back to me.
Well several of those blogs, and books and pod-casts made reference to the genealogies in the Gospels, and the apparent problems of the discrepancies between them. Isn’t this curious I thought, they are all talking about the same thing, now I wonder when Gods going to get back to me.
Oh. Got ya. The Gospel Genealogies.
So, I dug deeper into what was in these blogs and podcasts and books, and in following through these studies, I came to see how the different genealogies demonstrate Gods careful preparation since the beginning of time and the development of his vision for our salvation, and how these discrepancies are not issues of who is right or wrong, but rather a wonderful example of careful planning and forethought, and an absolute necessity for the execution of Gods plan.
Even, up until Thursday I still hadn’t decided quite which verse would fit as a reading, which I must say was very nicely read. All of those names are not the easiest to read.
Well, I listened to a man named Jim Tour talking about studying the Bible and his approach to it, which he learnt from a man named Brother Bakht Singh a great planter of churches in India. And he described how he starts from Genesis 1:1 and reads to Revelation 22:21 straight through, and then starts again, and how he dwells on each passage for as long as God tells him to, and how he reads even the genealogies word by word, name by name. For each word has been put there for us to examine, to learn of Gods vision, to see Gods preparation and to experience his profound love and desire to save us from ourselves.
Now, I am not here to tell you what is right and what is wrong, what each word means exactly or how you are to interpret these mysteries for yourself, that is for you to determine.
What I can do is present for you some of the answers I have found and hopefully inspire you to look a little deeper into the word of God, to discover the revelation of his plan in the scriptures.
As John has recently been encouraging us to prepare ourselves for the year ahead and look for our vision, a key part of that preparation is in reading Gods word, given to us in scripture to explore and understand Gods vision and our purpose, and help lead us in the direction of our own vision.
So lets dig into a little deeper into the Gospel genealogies and explore Gods Vision with the following aims:
- What are the Gospel genealogies
- What are the difficulties with them
- How can we resolve these
- How they reveal Gods vision and preparation
What are the Gospel genealogies
Firstly, what are the Gospel genealogies?
Well there are four Gospels, and three genealogies.
Three you say? Well yes, in addition to the well known verses in Matthew and Luke, there is also one in John.
To understand the third genealogy, and why Mark does not include one, we need to quickly cover off what the Gospels actually are.
The word Gospel in classical literature means the reward given for good tidings. It also indicated the message itself, originally the announcement of victory, but later it was applied to other messages bringing joy.
The use of the plural Gospels to describe the first 4 books of the New Testament is a 2nd century adoption. So in its original meaning, there is one Gospel, the good news that God, in Jesus Christ, has fulfilled his promises to Israel, and that a way of salvation has been opened to all.
What we have in the first 4 books then are 4 different viewpoints of the one Gospel:
Well there are four Gospels, and three genealogies.
Three you say? Well yes, in addition to the well known verses in Matthew and Luke, there is also one in John.
To understand the third genealogy, and why Mark does not include one, we need to quickly cover off what the Gospels actually are.
The word Gospel in classical literature means the reward given for good tidings. It also indicated the message itself, originally the announcement of victory, but later it was applied to other messages bringing joy.
The use of the plural Gospels to describe the first 4 books of the New Testament is a 2nd century adoption. So in its original meaning, there is one Gospel, the good news that God, in Jesus Christ, has fulfilled his promises to Israel, and that a way of salvation has been opened to all.
What we have in the first 4 books then are 4 different viewpoints of the one Gospel:
- Matthew - Gospel showing Christ as the Messiah
- Mark - Gospel of Christ as a Servant
- Luke - Gospel showing Christ as the Son of Man
- John - Gospel showing Christ as the Son of God
Now, taking these viewpoints into account lets look at the genealogies.
We’ll deal with the easy one first, Mark. Why is there no genealogy? Simply put because Mark is describing the life of Jesus from the perspective of Jesus as a servant, and servants had no need of a genealogy, no blood line to claim and no legal rights to enforce.
Next, we’ll quickly deal with John, because this is not universally recognized as a genealogy, but it makes sense to me, and it is one of the most beautiful pieces of prose in the entire NT:
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The first few lines of Johns Gospel are used to establish the preexistence of Christ and his relationship to the Father. While not technically a genealogy as we know them, it does provide the same purpose when we remember that John is focused on the divinity of Christ, and the standard form of genealogy just doesn’t really work in that situation.
Now for the main two.
Lets start with Matthew, the Gospel showing Christ as the Messiah, the Lion of Judah. To establish this claim, Matthew starts at Abraham and works his way through to David, from David to the exile to Babylon and from the exile to Christ, in 14 generation groups, so, you would expect 42 generations in all:
Matt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
As a side note, this focus on 14 could be related to the name David in Hebrew Gematria being summed from the Hebrew letters Dalet (Gematria 4), Vav (Gematria 6) and Dalet (Gematria 4), giving a total Hebrew Gematria of 14. And we have three groups of 14 in the genealogy because there are three letters in Davids name, when spelt in Hebrew.
Finally we have Luke, the Gospel showing Christ as he Son of Man. So we work our way back from Jesus to David, David to Abraham, and then Abraham to Adam, and finally to God. Quite a journey, but it firmly establishes the blood-line of Christ.
What are the differences between Matthew and Luke?
At first glance, it is fairly obvious that the two genealogies are quite different. Apart from the fact that they go in different directions, they also have vastly different numbers of generations between Jesus and David, and have next to no consistency in names.
Next, when we look at these next to each other, we notice something rather strange, Matthew is David to Jesus through Solomon, as you would expect. But Luke is David to Jesus through another of Davids sons, Nathan.
Another aspect that jumps out are the number of generations between David and Jesus. Matthew outlines 28 generations while Luke lists 42. That makes for some consistently late bloomers in Matthews list.
Also, when comparing Matthews list to the books of Kings and Chronicles we also find 4 documented generations are completely missing! Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, between Joram and Uzziah, and Johoiakim between Josiah and Jeconiah.
Matthew also appears to have a problem with maths, stating there are 42 generations, but only providing 41 names.
While in Luke we have two names that only appear in his list, but nowhere else in the Bible, namely Cainan and Admin.
Do any of these pose problems, and what does it all mean in relation to Gods vision.
How do we reconcile these issues?
To understand these New Testament genealogies, we must refer to the Old Testament along with the nature of the writers, so lets remind ourselves again what the Gospels are about. Mathew is presenting Jesus as the Messiah, the King of Jews, the legal heir to Davids throne. Something only achievable through Solomons line to Joseph, his LEGAL father.
Luke is presenting Jesus as the Son of Man, through physical and continuous decent from Adam.
To reaffirm this, we have to go back to Hebrew words translated as genealogies, ‘toledoth’ which always denotes father/son relationships, always works forward, and is always complete in the Old Testament; and ‘yaghash,’ wherever it appears is used to establish legal rights or obligations; in contrast, it always works backwards tracing an individual’s legal right or duty back to its source. It does not always present a complete physical procession, for its purpose is only to establish a legal connection.
On the other hand, every Greek genealogy we have traces physical descent, always through the male line.
Now again we look at who the Gospels were directed at. Matthew was a Jew, talking to Jews, and generally accepted to have originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew, so it is acceptable to expect Hebrew usage. But of which type is Matthews genealogy. The clue to that is in the Opening line of his book:
Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Clearly it is establishing legal rights, skipping generations and working backwards, a yaghash.
Luke on the other hand was a physician, Greek trained and out to establish a blood line claim, so he would use the more accepted Greek form of genealogy. Ancient Greek genealogies traced the father’s lineage not the mother’s—but what do you do with the unique virgin-born Jesus? Certainly, Joseph was not his father, so the only logical male name available was that of Jesus’ maternal grandfather, Heli, for he was the last man involved in the genealogical process which led to Jesus. So Heli was the father of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus
We can also revisit the original Greek of Luke for a further clue. The original Greek is without punctuation, so if the parenthesis in v. 24 is moved to read “Jesus (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Heli …” the whole question resolves itself very accurately and logically.
Now the acceptance of Lukes genealogy being that of Mary is by no means universal, but it does extend back to very early in the church and was revived in the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo (Dominican Friar) and Martin Luther amongst others, and is popular among Bible scholars to this day. I personally find the evidence and arguments for this theory the most appealing and given that time does not allow me to outline the alternatives, I will present this as my conclusion today.
Now, this is where one of my favorite Chuck Missler quotes comes into play.
“The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed”.
Adding further credence to Luke reporting Marys genealogy, there is an interesting prophecy in Jeremiah, where it appears to refer to termination of Davids legal line to the throne from Jeconiah onwards.
Jeremiah 22:30 (ESV) Thus says the Lord: “Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.”
This implies a BLOOD LINE curse on Solomons line. I like the way Dr Chuck Missler puts it: “Again I suspect that when God declared this blood curse there must have been a celebration in the councils of Satan…He has committed Himself to producing the Messiah from the family of David, yet there is now a curse on that line. But then I also imagine God turning to the angels saying, watch this one!”
This separation of the genealogies from David resolves the prophecy. With Mary being of Davids blood line through Nathan, the Messiah is from the House of David yet avoids the curse, whilst still claiming the legal claim through Solomons line, through Joseph his adopted and legal father!
Finally, lets quickly run through the omissions and variances, that whilst not directly related to the vision, are actually a key part of Gods planning.
The missing Kings in Matthew are often used to throw doubt on its veracity, but they are in fact adding to its authenticity.
Also, when comparing Matthews list to the books of Kings and Chronicles we also find 4 documented generations are completely missing! Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, between Joram and Uzziah, and Johoiakim between Josiah and Jeconiah.
Matthew also appears to have a problem with maths, stating there are 42 generations, but only providing 41 names.
While in Luke we have two names that only appear in his list, but nowhere else in the Bible, namely Cainan and Admin.
Do any of these pose problems, and what does it all mean in relation to Gods vision.
How do we reconcile these issues?
To understand these New Testament genealogies, we must refer to the Old Testament along with the nature of the writers, so lets remind ourselves again what the Gospels are about. Mathew is presenting Jesus as the Messiah, the King of Jews, the legal heir to Davids throne. Something only achievable through Solomons line to Joseph, his LEGAL father.
Luke is presenting Jesus as the Son of Man, through physical and continuous decent from Adam.
To reaffirm this, we have to go back to Hebrew words translated as genealogies, ‘toledoth’ which always denotes father/son relationships, always works forward, and is always complete in the Old Testament; and ‘yaghash,’ wherever it appears is used to establish legal rights or obligations; in contrast, it always works backwards tracing an individual’s legal right or duty back to its source. It does not always present a complete physical procession, for its purpose is only to establish a legal connection.
On the other hand, every Greek genealogy we have traces physical descent, always through the male line.
Now again we look at who the Gospels were directed at. Matthew was a Jew, talking to Jews, and generally accepted to have originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew, so it is acceptable to expect Hebrew usage. But of which type is Matthews genealogy. The clue to that is in the Opening line of his book:
Matthew 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Clearly it is establishing legal rights, skipping generations and working backwards, a yaghash.
Luke on the other hand was a physician, Greek trained and out to establish a blood line claim, so he would use the more accepted Greek form of genealogy. Ancient Greek genealogies traced the father’s lineage not the mother’s—but what do you do with the unique virgin-born Jesus? Certainly, Joseph was not his father, so the only logical male name available was that of Jesus’ maternal grandfather, Heli, for he was the last man involved in the genealogical process which led to Jesus. So Heli was the father of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus
We can also revisit the original Greek of Luke for a further clue. The original Greek is without punctuation, so if the parenthesis in v. 24 is moved to read “Jesus (being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph) the son of Heli …” the whole question resolves itself very accurately and logically.
Now the acceptance of Lukes genealogy being that of Mary is by no means universal, but it does extend back to very early in the church and was revived in the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo (Dominican Friar) and Martin Luther amongst others, and is popular among Bible scholars to this day. I personally find the evidence and arguments for this theory the most appealing and given that time does not allow me to outline the alternatives, I will present this as my conclusion today.
Now, this is where one of my favorite Chuck Missler quotes comes into play.
“The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed; the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed”.
Adding further credence to Luke reporting Marys genealogy, there is an interesting prophecy in Jeremiah, where it appears to refer to termination of Davids legal line to the throne from Jeconiah onwards.
Jeremiah 22:30 (ESV) Thus says the Lord: “Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.”
This implies a BLOOD LINE curse on Solomons line. I like the way Dr Chuck Missler puts it: “Again I suspect that when God declared this blood curse there must have been a celebration in the councils of Satan…He has committed Himself to producing the Messiah from the family of David, yet there is now a curse on that line. But then I also imagine God turning to the angels saying, watch this one!”
This separation of the genealogies from David resolves the prophecy. With Mary being of Davids blood line through Nathan, the Messiah is from the House of David yet avoids the curse, whilst still claiming the legal claim through Solomons line, through Joseph his adopted and legal father!
Finally, lets quickly run through the omissions and variances, that whilst not directly related to the vision, are actually a key part of Gods planning.
The missing Kings in Matthew are often used to throw doubt on its veracity, but they are in fact adding to its authenticity.
Jehoiakim’s history provides a clue, for he was placed on David’s throne by Pharaoh Nico (2 Chron 36:4). Now, as Matthew traces Jesus’ legal right to David’s throne, Jehoiakim cannot be included, for he did not come by the throne legally, he was planted onto God’s Davidic throne by a pagan king! With this clue we can now consider the other three kings. Ahaziah was crowned by the people of Jerusalem (2 Chron 22:1), not the populace of the whole country. So this king, too, had defective title to David’s throne, and that means the kings who inherited succession from him likewise had defective title. It is not until Uzziah was installed as king by all the people of Judah (2 Chron 26:1), that proper title to David’s throne was restored. Matthew, then, correctly omits four kings whose defective title would have blemished Jesus’ title, for legal title can never be stronger than that of the one from whom it was acquired.
As for the 42 generations, that is quite easily explained when you review the meaning of Matthews statement as:
- Waiting for the Kingdom, 14 named generations
- The Kingdom operates, 14 named generations
- Waiting for the reestablished Kingdom, 14 named generations
Finally Lukes extra names.
A close study of Genesis, and I do not claim to have completed one. I am quoting Bible scholar Montague Mills and his book Life of Christ for this. A close study, shows Cainan is necessary to the chronology supporting the tower of Babel narrative, and Admin’s name is needed to fulfill Gen 15:16 literally, for, with Admin included, four generations were born in Egypt between Gen 46:12 and the Exodus (Ram, Admin, Amminadab and Nahshon). So Luke 1:4 is literal, the exact truth.
How does this reveal Gods vision
As usual, we have layers of meaning in the word of God. We have the prophecy fulfillment as outlined above showing Gods planning, we have the name of Christ as the culmination of a long line direct from Adam.
But also buried in the genealogy of Luke is the actual vision of God, the end game. And it is straight out of Genesis.
You see the earliest 10 names of Lukes Genealogy are the same names as in Genesis 5, and they all have meaning beyond the transliteration we read in the Bible today.
So, God planned this from the beginning, his vision was our salvation, his plan was detailed from the outset, carefully prepared step by step in advance, and executed flawlessly.
He made promises to present the Messiah from Abrahams line (Gen 12:1-3) of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10) of the house of David (2 Sam 7:12-16). He laid his plan out before all, including those that would have it fail, and they tried to make it fail.
But Gods vision would not be denied, he carefully thought things through, and planned so that all of the prophecies would be fulfilled, but in a manner quite unexpected. He set up false trails through the blood curse, he allowed false Kings to be appointed to divert attention. He encoded his message in the very names of the ancestors of Christ.
And all of this, buried in the Gospel Genealogies, often ignored and skipped over by people as they read Gods word.
I hope and pray that this may show you a new insight into the wonder of the scriptures and the incredible layers of meaning and proof within them. I have a verse, from proverbs that has called out to me on so many levels since I turned to Christ:
Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.
God has revealed his vision and plan for us all, it is up to us to find it, by reading the scripture, by absorbing it, questioning it. Searching for what God has revealed, his glory, his vision. Our salvation.
