MESSIANIC CHRISTOLOGY
Genealogy of Jesus
Christ's Right to David's Throne
The question is often raised that since Jesus was not the real son of Joseph but only the son of Mary, what right does He have to sit on David's Throne? Related to the whole issue are the two genealogies found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. If Jesus was only the son of Mary and not Joseph, why was it necessary to give Joseph's genealogy? How do we know that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary's since she is not named in that genealogy, but Joseph is? These are questions that need to be' answered satisfactorily in order to provide a basis for the understanding of why Jesus could claim the Throne of David.
As an introductory statement to the entire theme of this question, we might state that the purpose of Joseph's genealogy in Matthew is to show that, if Jesus really was. the son of Joseph, He could not be king. The purpose o£ the genealogy of Mary in Luke shows why He could claim the Throne of David.
Of the four Gospels only two give a genealogy, the same two that deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Mark and John do not deal with the birth of Jesus or His early life, but Matthew and Luke do, so it is natural that only these two would bother giving us a genealogy. While both Matthew and Luke give us the story of the birth of Jesus, they tell the story from two different perspectives Matthew tells the story from Joseph's perspective while Luke tells the story from Mary's perspective.
In Matthew, Joseph-plays the active role, while Mary plays the passive role. We are told what Joseph is thinking and what is going on in his mind. We are told nothing of what Mary is thinking. We read of how angels appeared to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Mary. On the other hand, when we go to Luke's Gospel we see this same story told from Mary's perspective. In the Gospel of Luke, it is Mary who plays the active role, while Joseph plays the passive role. We find the angels appearing to Mary, but no angels appearing to Joseph. We are told several times what goes on in the mind of Mary, but we are never told anything about what Joseph is thinking. From these two contexts alone, it should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, since he writes from Joseph's perspective; whereas the genealogy of Luke is that of Mary, since he writes from Mary's perspective.
The question still arises, why do we need these two genealogies, especially since Jesus was not the real son of Joseph? A very popular and common answer is this: In Matthew's Gospel we have the royal line; whereas in Luke's Gospel we have the real line. From that statement another one is developed. Some teachers say that Joseph, according to Matthew I, was the heir apparent to David's Throne. Since Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, He could have claimed the right to sit on David's Throne because of His adoption by Joseph, On the other hand, in Luke's Gospel we are given the real line, so that we could know that Jesus Himself was a descendant of David.
Through Mary He was a member of the House of David, but He claims the right to sit on David's Throne through Joseph since he was the heir apparent. We will try to show in this study that, actually, the exact opposite is true.
MESSIANIC CHRISTOLOGY
Christ's Genealogy According to Matthew
Matthew 1:1-17 (NASB)
1:1 The book of the genealogy of
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 To Abraham was born Isaac; and to Isaac, Jacob; and to
Jacob, Judah and his brothers;
3 and to Judah were born Perez
and Zerah by Tamar; and to Perez was born Hezron; and to Hezron, Ram;
4 and to Ram was born Amminadab;
and to Amminadab, Nahshon; and to Nahshon, Salmon;
5 and to Salmon was born Boaz by
Rahab; and to Boaz was born Obed by Ruth; and to Obed, Jesse;
6 and to Jesse was born David the
king. And to David was born Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah;
7 and to Solomon was born Rehoboam; and to Rehoboam, Abijah;
and to Abijah, Asa; 8 and to Asa was born Jehoshaphat; and to Jehoshaphat, Joram;
and to Joram, Uzziah; 9 and to Uzziah was born Jotham; and to Jotham, Ahaz; and
to Ahaz, Hezekiah;
10 and to Hezekiah was born
Manasseh; and to Manasseh, Amon; and to Amon, Josiah; 11 and to Josiah were
born Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12 And after the deportation to
Babylon, to Jeconiah was born Shealtiel; and to Shealtiel, Zerubbabel;
13 and to Zerubbabel was born
Abihud; and to Abihud, Eliakim; and to Eliakim, Azor; 14 and to Azor was born
Zadok; and to Zadok, Achim; and to Achim, Eliud;
15 and to Eliud was born Eleazar;
and to Eleazar, Matthan; and to Matthan, Jacob;
16 and to Jacob was born Joseph
the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17 Therefore all the generations
from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the
deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation to
Babylon to the time of Christ fourteen generations.
Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition in two ways, in that he skips names and mentions the names of women. Matthew mentions four different women in his genealogy: Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Tamar. Why does he mention these four when there are so many other prominent Jewish women he could have mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus? One thing all four women had in common was that they were all Gentile. What Matthew was doing by naming these four women and no others was to point out that one of the purposes of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the House of Israel, but Gentiles also benefit from His coming. Three of these women were guilty of specific sexual sins: one was guilty of adultery, one was guilty of prostitution, and one was guilty of incest. Ruth herself was not guilty of any sexual sin, but she did originate from one. Being a Moabitess means she originated from an incestuous relationship between Lot and one of his daughters (Genesis 19:36-37). Again, Matthew begins hinting at a point he makes quite clear later, which is that the purpose of the coming of the Messiah was to save sinners. Luke, however, will follow strict Jewish law, procedure, and custom in that he will skip no names nor mention any women's names.
With this background, why do we have Matthew's genealogy of Joseph anyway?
Everyone agrees that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus. After the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon, there were two basic requirements for kingship: one was applicable to the Throne of Judah in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the Throne of Israel in Samaria. The requirement for the Throne of Judah was that of Davidic descent. No one was allowed to sit on David's Throne unless he was a member of the House of David. For that reason, any conspiracy to do away with the House of David was doomed to failure (Isaiah 7-8). But the requirement to sit upon the Throne of Israel was one of prophetic sanction or divine appointment. No one was able to sit on Samaria's Throne unless he had divine appointment through prophetic sanction..
Anyone who attempted to rule without prophetic sanction was assassinated (I Kings 11:26-39, 15:28-30, 16:1-4, 11-15,21:21-29; II Kings 9:6-10, 10:29-31, 15:8-12).
With the background of these two Old Testament requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two genealogies, the question of Christ's right to the Throne of David can be resolved.
Matthew's genealogy traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus. The line is traced from Abraham (verse 2) and continues down to where we come to David and Solomon (verse 6) and then to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian Captivity. It is the person of Jeconiah, also called Coniah, or Jehoiachin, that is significant in dealing with the genealogy of Matthew because of the special curse pronounced on this person in Jeremiah 22:24-30: 22:24:
"As I live,"
declares the LORD, "even though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah
were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull you off; 25 and I shall
give you over into the hand of those who are seeking your life, yes, into the
hand of those whom you dread, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 "I shall hurl you and your
mother who bore you into another country where you were not born, and there you
will die. 27/But as for the land to which they desire to return, they will not
return to it. 28 "Is this man Coftiah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he
an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast
into a land that they had not known? 29 "0 land, land, land, Hear the word
of the LORD! 30 "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man
who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.'" (NASB)
Because of the kind of man Jeconiah was, God, through the Prophet Jeremiah, pronounced a curse upon him. The content of this curse was that no descendant of Jeconiah would have any rights to the Throne of David.
In the Matthew genealogy, it should be noted that Joseph was a direct descendant of Jeconiah (verse 16). This means then that Joseph, having the blood of Jeconiah in his veins, was not qualified to sit on David's Throne. This would also mean that no son of Joseph would have the right to claim the Throne of David. So then, if Jesus was really the son of Joseph, this would have disqualified Him from sitting upon David's Throne.
The point of Matthew's genealogy then is to show why Jesus could not be king if He was really Joseph's son. For this reason, Matthew starts out with the genealogy and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth, which from Matthew's viewpoint resolves the Jeconiah problem. So, in essence, Matthew's point is this: If Jesus was really Joseph's son, He could not claim to sit on David's Throne because of the Jeconiah curse. Then Matthew proceeds to show that Jesus was not truly Joseph's son, for He was born of the virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18-25).
Christ's Genealogy According to Luke
3:23 And when He began His
ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son
of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of
Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son
of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of
Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Sernem, the son of Josech, the son of
Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of
5healtiel, the son of Ncri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of
Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of
Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of
Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of
Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of
Nathan, the son of David, 32 the
son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the
son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the
son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son
of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of
Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,
36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah,
the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of
Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son
of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3:23-38 (NASB)
If, by Jewish law, you could not mention the name of a woman but you wished to trace a woman's line; how would you go about doing so? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband. That raises a second question. If you were to use the husband's name, suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read, how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife since in either case it would be the husband's name that would be used? The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English language that does not exist with the Greek language. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word the before a proper name. We do not use a definite article" the" before a proper name - the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John, etc. However, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article the, with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph. Joseph's name does not have the definite article the in front of it, while all the other names do. What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: When he saw the definite article missing from Joseph's name, while it was present in all the other names, it would then mean that this was not really Joseph's genealogy but rather it is Mary's genealogy But in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husband's name that was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63á
Luke's genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. Luke begins his genealogy in the reverse order of Matthew, going back from the present into the past. As the line is traced, it returns to the family of David (verses 31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon, but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David, totally apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Mary's son, He too was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jeconiah.
One Old Testament requirement for kingship was that of being a member of the House of David. In the days of Jeremiah there was that added requirement that one had to be a member of the House of David apart from Jeconiah. Zedekiah, who reigned after Jeconiah, was not the son of Jeconiah. In the case of Jesus, through Mary, He was a member of the House of David, totally apart from Jeconiah. In this manner He fulfilled the first requirement of the Old Testament kingship.
However, Jesus was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jeconiah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Jesus to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jeconiah's blood in their veins. At this point it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jeconiah, only one received divine appointment.
We read in Luke 1:30-33: 1:30:
And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for
you have found favor with God. 31 "And behold, you will conceive in your
womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 "He will be great,
and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the
throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob
forever; and His kingdom will have no end." (NASB)
On what grounds could Jesus claim the Throne of David? First, He was a member of the house of David, apart from Jechoniah; and second, He alone received divine appointment to that throne.
While Matthew's genealogy showed why Jesus could not be king if He really was Joseph's son, Luke's genealogy shows why Jesus could be king. Luke, in contrast to Matthew, does begin with the account of the virgin birth. Only later does he record the genealogy for he does not need, like Matthew, to get around the Jeconiah problem.
The final question is: On what further grounds can it be said that Luke's account is actually Mary's genealogy? While there is much evidence to support this, it will be necessary to limit it to only two lines of argument.
First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary, using her Jewish name of Miriam, as the daughter of Heli.2 It is obvious, then, that in longstanding Jewish tradition Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli.
Second, most versions translate Luke 3:23 as follows:
"Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ... "
That same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a different way, however. While all the names in Luke's genealogy are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of Joseph is not. Because of this grammatical point that same verse could be translated as follows: "Being the son (as was supposed of Joseph), the son of Heli ... "
In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was "supposed" or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli absence of Mary's name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wife's genealogy.
1 For
further details on this Greek grammatical structure see A.T. Robertson, A
Harmony of the Gospels (Harper San Francisco) pages 259-262.
2
Jerusalem Talmud, Chagigah 2:4; Sanhedrin 2J:3; Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin
44:2.