THE LINEAGE OF CHRIST PT 2

[Philip daniel]

apologetics
the Christian life
Bible prophecy
Bible doctrine
how to be saved
lesson 1
The Lineage of Christ
Lesson 2
New Testament Fulfillment

Consensus of the Early Church
The royal pedigree of Jesus is affirmed throughout the New Testament.
The Gospels furnish two genealogies of Jesus, one in Matthew (Matt.
1:1-17) and one in Luke (Luke 3:23-38), and both trace His ancestry to
David. Throughout His ministry, Jesus allowed others to call Him the son
of David (Mark 10:47 et al.). Paul said that Jesus sprang from David's
line (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). In the Book of Acts, which chronicles the
early expansion of the church, the first reference to Jesus as the son
of David occurs in an excerpt from one of Paul's sermons during his
first missionary journey (Acts 13:23). The kingly descent of Jesus must
therefore have been a teaching of the church from the very beginning.
Extrabiblical Evidence
According to the critics, the two genealogies of Jesus are merely
fabrications to satisfy early believers that Jesus was a son of David in
keeping with prophecy. Yet, the critics can hold this view only by
ignoring the evidence that the Jews knew their lineages.
The historian Josephus, member of a priestly family, said that he
obtained his own genealogy from public records (1). He said also that
catalogs of priestly marriages were kept in Jerusalem and other
principal cities (2). If the ancestry of priestly families was so fully
documented, perhaps genealogical tables existed for other Jewish
families as well. Without such tables, the Jews would have had nothing
to sustain their keen, even fanatical, interest in genealogies (1 Tim.
1:4; Tit. 3:9). Because of its importance to the nation, the nonpriestly
family most likely to possess records of descent was the family of
David. The Gospel writers surely would not have falsely represented
Jesus as David's descendant if opponents of the church had ready access
to records proving otherwise.
Even the Babylonian Talmud, an ancient source unfriendly to
Christianity, acknowledges that Jesus belonged to the family of David.
On the authority of Ulla, a rabbi from the late third century, the
Talmud says that the Sanhedrin took pains to give Jesus a fair trial
because He was "near to the kingship" (3). This is F. F. Bruce's
translation (4). In the standard Jewish edition, the same passage reads,
"connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential]" (5). The
translation and the bracketed interpretation supplied by the editor are
outrageously inaccurate and biased, as well as being impossible both
historically and contextually. The Talmud elsewhere is wholly
sympathetic to the Sanhedrin. Here, it is hardly suggesting that the
Sanhedrin was pliable to undue political pressure. Moreover, the
Sanhedrin in Jesus' day was not under any king but Caesar. The
immediately superior authority was Pilate, a Roman governor. The only
king in the area was Herod of Galilee, who was no friend of Jesus (Luke
13:31-32). When Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, Herod mocked Him and
returned Him to Pilate for execution (Luke 23:7-12).
Just before citing Ulla, the Talmud says that for forty days a herald
went out and cried: "'Any one who can say anything in his [Jesus']
favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing
was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover"
(6). If Jesus had powerful allies in the government, why was it so
difficult to find either honest or suborned testimony on His behalf?
Reconciliation of the Two Genealogies
Nevertheless, critics counter with two arguments that the two
genealogies of Jesus cannot be genuine.
Although the two genealogies agree that Jesus descended from David, they
differ otherwise. The explanation for the difference between them
recognizes that prophecy lays out two requirements for the lineage of
Christ. He must be both a physical descendant of David and a legitimate
successor to David, for the promise of perpetual endurance applies to
both David's "seed" and David's "throne" (Psa. 89:36). Jesus fulfilled
the two requirements. That is, He was not only in the blood line of
David; He was actually the rightful king. His proper claim upon the
throne of Israel explains why He was so readily applauded at His
Triumphal Entry, why the people hailed Him as "the son of David" (Matt.
21:9), why the authorities felt so threatened by Him, why Pilate
questioned Him so closely as to whether He was the king of the Jews
(John 18:33), and why the inscription on the cross read, "Jesus of
Nazareth, the king of the Jews" (John 19:19).
To show that Jesus fulfilled both requirements of prophecy concerning
the lineage of Christ, Matthew gives Jesus' place in the royal
succession, and Luke gives His physical ancestry (7). Jesus' only parent
was Mary, since He was miraculously conceived in His mother when she was
still a virgin betrothed to Joseph. Joseph was His legal father only
(Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38). Therefore, the genealogy in Luke traces
His ancestry through Mary's side of the family.
Our interpretation of Matthew's genealogy—that it presents the royal
succession culminating in Jesus—squares with two important
considerations.
His genealogy follows the line of actual Jewish kings.
The Gospel of Matthew is peculiarly the Gospel of the Kingdom. In
reporting Jesus' ministry, he emphasizes Jesus' intention to set up a
kingdom in fulfillment of Jewish hopes (Matt. 4:17; 5:17-19 et al.). He
presents the Transfiguration as Jesus "coming in his kingdom" (Matt.
16:28). His purpose throughout is to spotlight Jesus in His kingly role.
Matthew links names in his genealogy with the term "begat." This seems
to exclude any shifts in the blood line, such as we would expect in a
line of kings. But the Greek term gennao cannot be narrowly construed
to mean only biological conception (8). It has many abstract meanings,
including "bring forth" and "produce" (9).
Our interpretation of Luke's genealogy—that it presents Jesus' blood
line through Mary—also has two important considerations in its favor.
Luke elsewhere intimates that Mary herself was of Davidic descent. In
the genealogy, he speaks of Joseph as Jesus' "supposed," or "nominal,"
father (Luke 3:23). But in his account of the angel's announcement to
Mary that she had conceived a child without the aid of a man, Luke
remembers the angel saying, "The Lord God shall give unto him [Jesus]
the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:32). The implication is that
whereas Joseph was His supposed father, David was His real father—that
is, His real grandfather on His mother's side.
The elaborate genealogy in Luke seems pointless if it is merely the
genealogy of Jesus' supposed father. Some have argued that Luke gives
Joseph's genealogy to illustrate the claim, twice stated, that Joseph
belonged to the house of David (Luke 1:27; 2:4). But Luke carries the
ancestry of Christ far beyond David all the way to Adam, father of the
human race (Luke 3:38). Evidently, he wishes to show that Jesus was the
fulfillment of God's promise to Adam and Eve in the Protevangelium—the
promise that their posterity would produce a conqueror of Satan. The
genealogy in Luke succeeds in showing that Jesus derived from Adam and
Eve only if it gives His biological descent. In other words, the
genealogy must be the blood line of Mary.
The probable source of the birth narrative in each Gospel is another
circumstance supporting our interpretation of the two genealogies.
Matthew's account, stressing Joseph's part in the events attending the
birth of Jesus, must come from Joseph or his side of the family. The
motherly perspective that informs Luke's account (Luke 2:19, 51)
indicates that the source is Mary.
Yet, our assertion that Luke gives Mary's blood line stumbles on a
serious difficulty. The parent of Jesus that he explicitly places in the
line of descent is not Mary, but Joseph (Luke 3:23). Neither custom nor
any other constraint prohibited Luke from including Mary in the
genealogy. Matthew mentions Mary as well as several other female
ancestors of Jesus (Matt. 1:3, 5, 5, 6, 16). Moreover, a reader coming
to the genealogy in Luke without any preconception that it was Mary's
would naturally take it to be Joseph's. The plain sense of the words is
that Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, who was the actual son of
Heli, and so on. In the list of ancestors during the postexilic period,
we find further evidence they belong to Joseph's line. It was the custom
to name a male child after one of his forefathers (10). For example, in
this same postexilic list we find "Mattathias" twice (vv. 25-26). Also,
we find two Josephs preceding the Joseph who was the legal father of
Jesus (vv. 24, 26). Thus, the third Joseph seems a proper member of the
genealogy.
How can we reconcile the conflicting evidence? Is the genealogy in Luke
that of Joseph or Mary? A possible answer, which we offer with full
recognition that our present state of knowledge does not permit a
certain resolution of the problem, is that the genealogy is
substantially that of both. Although the law forbade marriage to a
sister, niece, or aunt, a man could marry a near or distant cousin (Lev.
18). We infer that one of the names early in the listing represents
Mary's grandfather as well as Joseph's.
Since the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ radically from each
other, we conclude that most of Joseph's ancestors did not fall in the
royal succession. The succession passed into his line at the time of
Salathiel and Zorobabel (compare Luke 3:27 with Matt. 1:12), but passed
out again for several centuries. If Matthan in Matthew's list (v. 15) is
the same as Matthat in Luke's (v. 24), the succession apparently
returned to Joseph's blood line only a generation or two before he was
born.
The two genealogies of Jesus seem to contradict each other. The
following are the three most serious discrepancies.
     1) The two lines converge in the names Salathiel and
Zorobabel, but diverge in the name of Salathiel's predecessor (Matt.
1:12-13; Luke 3:27). Matthew calls him Jechonias (Jeconiah). Luke calls
him Neri. The Old Testament states that Salathiel (that is, Shealtiel)
was the son of Jeconiah.
15 And the sons of Josiah were Johanan the first-born, and the second
was Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
16 And the sons of Jehoiakim were Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
17 And the sons of Jeconiah, the prisoner, were Shealtiel his son,
18 and Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.
19 And the sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei. And the sons of
Zerubbabel were Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister;
20 And Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed, five.
1 Chronicles 3:15-20 (11)
Shealtiel's place at the head of Jeconiah's sons clearly indicates that
he was the principal heir—indeed, that he was the legitimate successor
to the throne (v. 17). The expression "his son" after Shealtiel's name
does not necessarily signify physical descent, however. The double
occurrence of Zedekiah's name (vv. 15-16) shows that the expression can
designate merely an appointed heir. Although Zedekiah is called
Jehoiakim's son (v. 16), he was not the natural son of Jehoiakim. He was
actually Jehoiakim's brother (v. 15; 2 Kings 24:17). Thus, the meaning
of the record is that Jehoiakim had two successors with the legal status
of sons. The first was his natural son Jeconiah. The second was
Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar placed on the throne in Jeconiah's place.
In conformity with the official genealogy stated here, the chronicler
elsewhere identifies Zedekiah as Jeconiah's brother (2 Chron. 36:10).
After listing the sons of Jehoiakim, the record goes on to indicate that
after Zedekiah was removed from the throne, the throne rights reverted
to Jeconiah, who was still alive, a prisoner in Babylon (v. 17). The
right of succession then passed to Shealtiel, who, like Zedekiah, need
not have been Jeconiah's natural son. Indeed, he was the son of Neri
(Luke 3:27).
The circumstances leading Jeconiah or his Babylonian overlords to bestow
kingly honors on Shealtiel cannot now be imagined. Yet a break in the
royal succession had been predicted by Jeremiah.
28 Is this man Coniah [Jeconiah] a despised broken idol? is he a vessel
wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed,
and are cast into a land which they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.
30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall
not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting
upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
Jeremiah 22:28-30
Jeremiah had declared that no physical descendant of Jeconiah would ever
sit on the throne of David. If his prophecy was true, and if Jesus was
the Christ who would sit on the throne of David forever, Jeconiah
obviously could not have been an ancestor of Jesus. We have already
shown why the inclusion of Jeconiah's name in Matthew's genealogy (Matt.
1:12-13) offers no great difficulty. Matthew gives a roster of kings and
legitimate pretenders, not a roster of ancestors. Salathiel, the next
person after Jeconiah in Matthew's list, was an ancestor of Jesus, but
not a descendant of Jeconiah. He was, in fact, the son of Neri. Jesus
was descended from David through Nathan and Neri rather than through
Solomon and Jeconiah. The curse on Jeconiah did not touch the blood
lineage of Jesus.
     2) Both genealogies state that Zorobabel (Zerubbabel) was
the son of Salathiel (Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:27). But the Old Testament
chronicler identifies Zerubbabel as the son of Pedaiah (1 Chron. 3:19).
Though present knowledge does not permit an easy solution, the
discrepancy does not undermine our confidence in the two genealogies of
Jesus, since, in their assertion that He descended from Salathiel
(Shealtiel), they agree with each other and with several Old Testament
texts (Ezra 3:8; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1). If we grant that Luke states
the blood line of Christ, we must conclude that Salathiel was indeed
Zorobabel's father or grandfather. Pedaiah and the others listed in 1
Chronicles 3:18 may be the sons of Shealtiel rather than Jeconiah.
     3) After Zorobabel, the two Gospel genealogies proceed
along different lines. Matthew notices the descent through Abiud (Matt.
1:13), whereas Luke focuses on the heirs of Rhesa (Luke 3:27). The
difficulty is that neither name appears as a son of Zerubbabel in the
chronicler's official genealogy (1 Chron. 3:17-20). Nevertheless, it is
likely that Rhesa was another name of Zerubbabel's principal son,
Hananiah. Many Jewish captives assumed two names, one Hebrew, one in the
language of their captors. Whereas Hananiah is a Hebrew name, Rhesa is
the Persian word for "prince," a most suitable title for a man who stood
in the succession of Jewish kings (12). Abiud's absence from the
chronicler's genealogy may mean only that Matthew skipped one or more
generations between Zorobabel and Abiud. The many gaps in his list of
kings—between Joram (Jehoram) and Ozias (Uzziah), for example, he
omits Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (Matt. 1:8)—demonstrate that he did
not intend to furnish a complete genealogy.
Footnotes
Josephus Life 1.
Josephus Against Apion 1.7.
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New
Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1974; repr., Grand Rapids,
Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 56.
Jacob Shachter, trans., Sanhedrin, in The Babylonian Talmud, ed.
Isidore Epstein, 18 vols. (London: Soncino Press, 1961), 282.
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (n.p.: Harper & Row,
Publishers, 1930; repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1965),
203-209. Robert G. Gromacki, The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of
Deity (repr., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1981), 153-155.
Machen, 205.
William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1957), 155.
William L. Coleman, Today's Handbook of Bible Times and
Customs (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 73.
NASB.
Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. Luke, 5th ed., The International Critical
Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 104.