The Greater Son of David
The Gospel of Matthew sought to evangelise the Jews and to prove that Jesus Christ was truly the Messiah promised to the nation of Israel. The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew shows Jesus coming from the line of Abraham and David in fulfilment of the Abrahamic (Gen 13:15) and the Davidic (2 Sam 7:12) covenants. For mnemonic reasons, Matthew presented Jesus’ genealogy in three periods of 14 generations each: (1) Patriarchal Period (Abraham to David), (2) Monarchial Period (Solomon to the Babylonian Captivity), and (3) Post-Exilic Period (the Persian Release to Joseph). Matthew traced the line of Jesus through Joseph back to David, and to Abraham.
It is significant to note the mentioning of two women in Matthew’s genealogy (Matt 1:5). Usually only the men are mentioned, but here we find two women—Rahab (Josh 2) and Ruth (Ruth 1-4). What is more significant is that both were Gentiles, not Jews. Rahab was a prostitute from Jericho, and Ruth was from Moab. Why were they given such a place of honour? It is to teach the important lesson that God’s grace is showered not only upon Jews but also upon Gentiles (Gal 3:28-29). By grace through faith, Rahab was saved and later married Salmon, the “great grandson” of Judah. They gave birth to Boaz who married Ruth who bore Obed, the father of Jesse, and grandfather of David, king of Israel. How we thank God that He did not count us, Gentiles, out of His grace and favour!
It is also important to note the difference between Matthew’s genealogy and Luke’s. Both genealogies go back to David (Matt 1:6-7, Luke 3:31), but right after David, the genealogies diverge. In Matthew, the line carries on through Solomon. In Luke, it is through Nathan. Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David through Bathsheba (2 Sam 5:14, 12:24). Since Joseph cannot possibly have two paternal genealogies, Matthew’s genealogy must necessarily be Joseph’s (Matt 1:16) and Luke’s genealogy Mary’s.
If this is the case, then how does one explain that Joseph is called the son of Heli in Luke 3:23 when in Matthew 1:16 he is the son of Jacob? There is really no problem when we realise that Heli was actually Mary’s father. Note that Luke was careful not to say that Heli “begat” Joseph (cf Matt 1:16). The word “son” here can thus mean “son-in-law.” This is supported by the Talmud which calls Mary “the daughter of Heli” (Haghigha 77:4).
Now, God had promised that the Messiah would come from David’s line, and would sit on David’s throne (2 Sam 7:12, Isa 9:7). However, in Jeremiah 36:30 (cf Jer 22:30), God pronounced a curse on Jehoiakim: “He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David.” In Matthew 1:11, we find Joseph coming from the line of Jeconiah (or Coniah, aka Jehoiachin)—the son of Jehoiakim (Jer 22:24), the cursed king. The question is: How could Jesus belong to Joseph’s lineage and yet not contradict God’s curse on Jehoiakim? The answer lies in the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ. God did not contradict His curse of Jehoiakim because Jesus was not born to Joseph, but to Mary. He was from “her seed” (Gen 3:15), and not “his seed” (Jer 22:30). The genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph, while the one in Luke is Mary’s. God thus kept His Word on both counts: (1) the promise to David was fulfilled because Jesus was born Son of David in Mary’s genealogy which goes back to Nathan; and at the same time (2) the curse of Jehoiakim stood because Jesus was not a physical or natural descendent of Jeconiah by virtue of His virgin birth.
The genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and Luke show very clearly the fulfilment of God’s covenant and promises to His chosen nation Israel and to His New Testament Church as prophesied in the Old Testament. JK
“Forever Infallible & Inerrant” DVD-ROM
11/28/11
Dear Jeffrey,
I received your DVD on FOREVER INFALLIBLE & INERRANT. It is tremendous!
Though obviously I did not view or listen to every writing completely or every audio or video completely, but I did sample all the major divisions. You have done a job here that I have not seen in the USA. Of special importance are the M.Div and Ph.D. theses and dissertations by some of your FEBC students. The Hebrew text, the Greek text, the parsing of the N.T., the KJB/Greek Lexicon—all of these are not found anywhere else in the world (that I know about at least). Keep up your good work and the good work of your many students. Greet them for me.
In Christ,
Pastor D A Waite
[Ed: Dr Waite has asked for 50 copies of the DVD Bible Resource for distribution in the USA. We thank Dr Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, for his contribution to the collection of resources found in the DVD.]
Another Addition to the Modern Versions Confusion
“A new version of the Bible is aiming to bridge the divide between religious conservatives and liberals while simultaneously providing an ‘everyday language’ translation of Scripture.
Introduced this summer, the newest edition of the Common English Bible is the latest inclusive language Bible to hit the market. Associate publisher Paul Franklyn said the goal of the Common English Bible is to make God’s Word more appealing and accessible to readers of different backgrounds and denominations. ‘There are a number of translations available for conservative churches,’ noted Franklyn. ‘This is trying to make a bridge between conservatives, moderates and liberals’ (Christian Post, 7-13-11). The latest edition of the Common English Bible is the product of over 100 biblical scholars from 24 denominations. Franklyn said the process of translation was a ‘collaboration between opposites’ (Associated Baptist Press, 8-18-11). In fact, while the project was sponsored by an alliance of five liberal mainline denominations—the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church—several translations of the Common English Bible come from evangelical institutions such as Wheaton College, Westmont College, Bethel Seminary, and Westminster Theological Seminary. The new edition of the Common English Bible is unique in its use of contractions as well as in its translation of Jesus’ title ‘Son of Man’ to ‘the Human One.’” (“FEA News & Views”, Foundation Vol 32, Issue 3-4 [2011]: 40-41).
Harold Camping—False Prophet
“Harold Camping has proven himself to be dangerous to the cause of Christ by continually twisting Scripture and setting dates for Christ’s return. He became the subject of tremendous media attention when he falsely predicted that the rapture would occur on May 21, 2011 (after he had already previously predicted that Jesus would return in 1994). After May 21 came and went without incident, Camping declared that a ‘spiritual judgment’ took place that day and that the visible end of all things will occur on October 21 of this year. In an audio message posted on Family Radio’s website, Camping stated, ‘We’ve learned that there is a lot of things that we didn’t have quite right,’ and yet he justifies his false prophecies by saying that had the rapture occurred, ‘We would not have been able to be used of [God] to bring about the tremendous event that occurred on May 21 of this year, which probably will be finished out on October 21 that’s coming very shortly.’ He added, ‘That looks like it will be the final end of everything.’ Camping went on to say that unbelievers will likely feel no pain or suffering during the rapture/judgment of God on October 21 because God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. However Christians, Camping said, will ‘quietly receive the new heaven and the new earth.’ Camping has consistently embraced and propagated false doctrine based upon a dangerous and untenable theological system and hermeneutic. Clearly, no true believer should support or associate with his ministry, Family Radio.” (“FEA News & Views”, Foundation Vol 32, Issue 3-4 [2011]: 43).
