THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER
"Search the scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. " (John 5:39)

VOLUME 1, NUMBER 12, APRIL 22, 2001

THE GENEALOGIES

             In Matthew 1:1 – 17, and in Luke 3:23 – 38, we find genealogies.  They sometimes turn out to be sections of the gospel accounts that folks are inclined to look at and then skip.  All of the names, many of them hard to pronounce, and all of the “begats”, just seem to make for difficult reading.  However, those genealogies are in the Matthew and Luke for very important reasons.  We can get an idea of their importance from an exchange that we find in Matt. 22:41 & 42.  There the bible says, “Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, ‘What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?’  They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’”  

            The Jews of the first century were well aware of the fact that the Messiah was to be of the lineage of David.  They were well versed in such passages as 2 Samuel 7:12 – 16, Psalm 89:3 & 4, and Psalm 132:11.  The genealogies trace Jesus back to David and solidly connect Him with the Messianic prophecies.  

            Isn’t it interesting that Matthew begins his account of Jesus by establishing this fact?  Surely that demonstrates the importance of the Lord’s ancestry, especially in a gospel that was evidently written with the Jews in mind.  Luke includes his genealogical record of Jesus immediately following the Lord’s baptism and just prior to the beginning of His public ministry.  The fact that Luke’s gospel was written to be read by the Greeks and includes the genealogy indicates that it was of universal interest and importance.

            Today we have the benefit of centuries past and recognize the ancestry of Jesus as proven.  The first century Christians did not have this advantage and needed to be properly prepared to teach the Messiahship of Jesus in light of Old Testament prophecy.  

            As we look at the genealogies themselves, we must recognize that they are different, and the study of them comes with a certain number of difficulties.  

            Matthew’s genealogy is the shorter of the two.  It goes from Abraham forward 42 generations ending with “and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”  It is divided into 3 groups of 14 each, the first group being from Abraham to David, the second from David to the Babylonian Captivity, and the third being from the Captivity to Jesus.  

            There are difficulties.  For instance, names are left out.  In v. 8, we find, “and to Joram, Uzziah;”, but what about Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah?  In v. 11, we read, “and to Josiah were born Jeconiah and his brothers”, but that leaves out Jehoiakim. However, these were all recognizable names and easily supplied by Matthew’s Jewish readers.  (I hope at this point that nobody is doing a SKIP-OVER because of all the names and begettings.)  

            What must be considered is what Matthew was attempting to accomplish.  Not only is he demonstrating the connection of Jesus to David, he is also supplying an abbreviated history lesson.  He traces the origin of the house of David from Abraham to David.  He shows its rise to power and its decay from David to the Captivity, and he shows how it had risen again, as promised, from the Captivity to Jesus.  There is a definite historical movement to Matthew’s genealogy that demonstrates a twofold purpose.  He was connecting the ancestry of Jesus to David and he was tracing the rise, fall, and rise again of the house of David.  

            Luke’s genealogy is different from Matthew’s.  Instead of running forward from Abraham 42 generations, Luke’s genealogy runs backward from Jesus to Adam, 76 generations.  From Abraham to David the two genealogies are the same, but from David to Joseph they are different except from two names, Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel.   (Hang in there now, don’t do a SKIP- OVER.)  The major difficulty is that these two different genealogies are presented as the line of Joseph.  How do we explain that?  

            There are several explanations that have been offered.  One is that one genealogy is giving the natural line of descent and the other the legal line of descent.  It has been suggested (and this was the ancient explanation of most what are called the Early Church Fathers), that Joseph was the legal son and heir of Heli, but the real son of Jacob.  

            What seems most plausible to me is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, and that Luke is actually tracing the line of Mary.  This certainly would fit in the character of Luke’s gospel, for he gives more attention to the experiences of Mary than the other gospel writers.  

            The point of the study is this – the Old Testament prophets had declared that One would come from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob , Judah , and through the line of David who was to be the Savior of the world.  He has come, and the genealogies are presented to prove His ancestry.  

            In Acts 13:21 – 23, we find Paul stating, “And then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish , a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.  And after He had removed him He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all My will.’ From the offspring of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus.”

                                                            Greg Litmer

A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED  

            What are the “marks of the Lord Jesus” that Paul spoke of in Galatians 6:17?  

            In Galatians 6:17, as Paul was bringing the Galatian letter to a close, he wrote, “From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”  The epistle itself makes it clear that some were denying Paul’s apostleship and seeking to damage his influence among the Galatian churches.  There were those who were trying to bind adherence to various aspects of the law of Moses upon the gentiles in Galatia , saying that such was necessary for salvation.  In order to successfully do that, they had to undermine Paul’s authority among the gentile Christians.  This is the “trouble” to which Paul referred.  

            What about the “marks of the Lord Jesus”?  The word translated as “marks” is “stigmata”, and there has been a tremendous amount of misunderstanding related to this statement.  From the middle ages individuals have been said to bear the “stigmata” of Christ.  What is meant by this common usage are the nail prints, the wound in the side, and occasionally the wounds caused by the crown of thorns, the scourging, and even the bearing of the cross, that Jesus bore in His body.  This is not what Paul had reference to.  

            Paul had reference to the scars and wounds he had received in his own body as a result of the persecution he suffered for his labor in the Lord.  In 2 Cor. 11:24 – 25, Paul gives us an indication of what he had been through, “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.  Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep.”  His point was that those who troubled him and questioned his apostleship needed to be aware of those marks of persecution that he bore in his body.  They were a seal of his fidelity to the Lord.