Chapter 13: The Lord Jesus Christ as David’s Descendant

by Gideon Khoo, Malaysia

THE DETAILS OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT

THE DIVINE INVOLVEMENT IN THE DAVIDIC HISTORY

THE DESCENDANT OF THE DAVIDIC GENEALOGY

Christians should not be troubled by the chaos in the present world because we know that chaotic world events eventually converge to fulfil God’s prophetic plans. This is because God controls history. In the study of the history of David’s descendants, and ultimately David’s Descendant, we will see how God has weaved the fabric of human history to fulfil His prophetic word, in this case, the coming of His Son through the line of David, through the womb of a virgin. Every name listed in the genealogies of Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3 was a mortal instrument of God in the development of Divine history. When we speak of Divine history, it may appear as if God only steers the overarching framework of an era or epoch, but the genealogies of Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3 demonstrate that God was not only interested in empires and kingdoms, but also in individuals – who might be kings or commoners – whose lives were intercepted by the Divine hand to bring about the fulfilment of God’s plan in the birth and arrival of the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of God.

In the study of the Lord Jesus Christ as David’s Descendant, we will examine the stories behind some of the great names in these genealogies, and witness how God was providentially and directly involved in their lives. We will discover how God in His infinite wisdom had steered the course of their lives to accomplish His purposes. The difficult questions concerning the structure and differences of the two genealogies of the Lord Jesus will unavoidably arise, and we will attempt to provide some insights.

This chapter will address the following headings:

The Details of the Davidic Covenant
The Divine Involvement in the Davidic History
The Descendant of the Davidic Genealogy

THE DETAILS OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT

It is not our intention to exhaustively cover the subject of the Davidic Covenant, which has been effectively dealt with by another chapter in this book. Our objective in this section is to sufficiently elaborate the contents of the Davidic Covenant to provide context to our subject of the Davidic Descendant. The making of the Davidic Covenant between God and David is found in 2Samuel chapter 7 and 1Chr.17.11-14, in the backdrop of David’s spiritual ambition to build a house for God. Before he died, David reiterated the covenant details in his last words to his men and to Solomon, 1Chr.28.1-10. When Solomon had risen to the throne of his father David and built the Temple of the Lord, he made mention of God’s covenantal promise to his father David in his dedicatory prayer recorded in 1Kings chapter 8 and 2Chronicles chapter 6. From these passages, we learn that the promises of God in the Davidic Covenant entail these four main elements: first, the seed; second, the house; third, the throne and the kingdom; fourth, the Land.

The Seed

The prophetic use of the word “seed” appears in Gen.3.15 for the first time, and points to the coming of the Messiah. The thought there is that Messiah would be a Man because He would be of the Seed of the woman, and He would bruise the serpent’s head. The next time when the seed is mentioned that is of any Messianic significance is in relation to Abraham’s seed. Though the reference to Abraham’s seed often has Isaac in mind, and then the nation of Israel: a seed multiplied as the stars of heaven, and the sand of the sea shore, Gen.22.17, we eventually learn that the frequent mentions of the word “seed”, in the singular instead of the plural form, in association with Abraham, point to the Lord Jesus Christ: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many; but as of one, ‘And to thy seed,’ which is Christ” Gal.3.16. The coming of Christ as the Seed of Abraham meant that Christ would come from the nation of Israel. Therefore, He would not only be a Man, but He would also come from the nation of Israel.

Messiah would not only be from the seed of Abraham, but He would also come from the seed of David. God has progressively revealed What the Messiah will be: He will be Man; Where the Messiah will come from: Israel; and Who the Messiah will be: He will be King. God has narrowed down the identification of His Christ progressively through the Scriptures.

When God gave the Davidic Covenant, He said to David, “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for My name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever” 2Sam.7.12,13. When God spoke of David’s seed, it would seem from this passage that the direct reference is to Solomon, who would proceed out of David’s bowels¹. But when we read the parallel passage in 1Chr.17.11,12, the text says: “And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me a house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.” Instead of saying that the seed will proceed out of David’s bowels, the Chronicler said that the seed shall proceed out of his sons. Therefore, the Chronicler was even more Messianic in his treatment of the word “seed” than the writer of 2Samuel: Messiah will proceed out of the royal lineage of David!

¹ The word “bowels” is never in the singular in the Old Testament when used in this sense of procreation.

The House

When the Davidic Covenant was spelled out to David, there were frequent mentions of the “house”. It is important to discern that there are three uses of the word in 2Samuel chapter 7 and 1Chronicles chapter 17, even though they might overlap in meaning. Firstly, the house could be a reference to David’s physical house, 2Sam.7.1,2; secondly, the house could be a reference to David’s royal household, or his kingdom, 2Sam.7.11,16,18,19,25,26,27,29; and lastly, the house could be a reference to God’s house, which is the Temple, 2Sam.7.5,7,13.

Instead of David building a house for God, God promised to build him a royal household that will last forever, and also to build a house (the Temple) for Himself through David’s son, Solomon. The Davidic Covenant is a unilateral and unconditional covenant, that is, the covenant does not depend on David to fulfil his obligation, but solely upon God’s faithfulness to fulfil His. However, when David reiterated the contents of the Davidic Covenant to Solomon in his last words, it seems that Solomon’s faithfulness and the faithfulness of subsequent kings were prerequisites for the perpetuity of the Davidic household. David said to Solomon: “keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: that the Lord may continue His word which He spake concerning me, saying, ‘If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said He) a man on the throne of Israel’” 1Kgs.2.3,4. Would the obedience or disobedience of David’s sons place a risk on the perpetuity of David’s household?

If we carefully examine David’s citation of what God said: “If thy children take heed to their way … there shall not fail thee … a man”, we learn that the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of a son of David would only affect the particular generation of that son concerned. But the ultimate fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant to establish his house forever could not be altered, because it all depended on God’s faithfulness. For example, despite the wickedness of Abijam (Abijah), which would have threatened the continuity of the house of David, we are told: “Nevertheless for David’s sake did the Lord his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem” 1Kgs.15.4. If any of David’s sons was disobedient, God could still suspend his throne: from Scriptures we read that this was the case when Nebuchadnezzar came and destroyed the Temple, and caused the reign of David’s son to cease. On the other hand, if all of David’s sons were faithful (alas, very few were!), the historical continuity of his royal household would be preserved and would not see any Divine suspension through the governmental hand of God.

It is important to note this, because the principle is reflected in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus as outlined in Matthew and Luke, which saw a temporary termination of the Davidic reign when Judah was carried into Babylon, Matt.1.11. But this regrettable suspension did not nullify the promise of God to David. Matthew and Luke laboured to demonstrate to us through a list of David’s sons – many of them with flaws and a history of failures – that God was still faithful in fulfilling His covenant. It is also worth observing that not all the names in the Matthew and Luke genealogies were well known. The sons of Zerubbabel did not reign on any throne (neither did Zerubbabel, for he was governor instead of king) and were not well known. Yet Matthew and Luke allowed these obscure names to be listed to show that the effects of God’s governmental judgment were still seen and felt even after Zerubbabel of Judah had returned to rebuild the nation. It was obvious that the throne of David was not restored to its former glory, at least not yet. However, the dimness of those names after Zerubbabel very quickly gave way to hope and promise with the arrival of the Messiah. God had not forgotten His promise to David. Out of seeming hopelessness, the genealogy in Matthew introduces the Messiah at the end: Jesus, Who is called Christ, Who is of the seed of David, and the only One worthy of the everlasting throne.

Finally, the word “house” in 2Samuel chapter 7 is occasionally used to denote the house of God, the Temple, 2Sam.7.5,7,13. The Davidic Covenant promised that David’s son, Solomon, would be the builder of God’s first Temple. However, just like the house of David, for which continuity on the throne depended upon each king’s faithfulness, the house of God and its existence also depended upon the king’s and the nation’s faithfulness. When Judah, through its kings, deteriorated in disobedience, God eventually removed them from the land, removed the king from the throne, and the house was levelled to the ground! However, God had never forgotten the covenant He made with David. Just as the Davidic Covenant would finally see the fulfilment of a Seed and the King, in the Person of Jesus Christ, the house, the Temple of God, will also see its ultimate covenantal fulfilment when the Millennial Temple is finally built, and the final Son of David sits on the throne.

The Throne and the Kingdom

What did God mean when He said to David, “He shall build an house for My name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever” 2Sam.7.13? Strictly speaking, God did not explicitly say that the throne will be in His house, the Temple, though it might reasonably be implied. But historically there was no linkage between God’s house and the king’s throne. Not a single king from the line of David ever entered the sanctuary of God, except Uzziah, and that was to his own peril and eventual demise. The access into the Temple of God and the sanctuary was the privilege and prerogative of the priesthood alone. What is then the linkage between the Davidic Covenant, which entails an unceasing line of kings from David, and the Temple of God, which according to Divine appointment, had nothing to do with the king’s privileges? It is not until we arrive at a verse like Zech.6.12,13 that we realise that God’s promise in 2Sam.7.13 was implicitly incorporating a future throne in His Temple, though not yet fulfilled in any of Judah’s past kings. No kings had ever sat on a throne inside the house of God, but, according to Zechariah chapter 6, another One will build another house of God, and He will sit on the throne in that house: “He shall build the temple of the Lord … and shall sit and rule upon His throne”. The Lord Jesus Christ will in the days to come be the Builder of God’s final Temple, and this Temple will see Him sitting upon His Temple throne, reigning over the Millennial Kingdom. Therefore, one of the key elements of the Davidic Covenant is that the house of God will eventually incorporate the throne of the coming Messiah King.

The Land

God also promised David that He will plant His people in the Land, 2Sam.7.10, as He had also promised Abraham. God said He will appoint them a place. The place was God’s sovereign choice, and will be to God the centre of the world. It might not have the most beautiful landscape in the world naturally speaking, or contain the most fertile soil, but it is the place of His appointment. Then God said that He will plant them there. They will multiply and be fruitful like a tree planted by the rivers of water. And He will cause them to dwell safely in the place that will be their own. The land which God has appointed for them, and where He will plant them, will also be a land of lasting peace. Israel has not known real peace in the Land, not even today, because they have not entered into spiritual rest through faith in the Lord Jesus, their long-awaited Messiah. But the days will come when Israel recognises that the Messiah, the Son of David, is the One Whom their forefathers had crucified. The nation will be reconciled to the crucified Man of Calvary, and the Land will finally enjoy lasting peace and security through the reigning King, the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ.

THE DIVINE INVOLVEMENT IN THE DAVIDIC HISTORY

In this section, we look at strategic examples in the Bible where God’s intervention in the Davidic history is evidently connected to the lineage and the coming of the Messiah. Through these examples, we observe God working in the lives of men and women, sometimes overturning the turbulent circumstances they faced, to prevent any derailment of His prophetic plans. Ultimately, God’s intervention in their lives was a display of His grace and mercy.

In the Lives of Boaz and Ruth

The last word and the last name in the Book of Ruth in the Hebrew Bible (as well as most English Bibles) is “David”. The reader of this Old Testament book will be curious to know why a book which starts with a cluster of very unhappy events, and progresses to a love story of happy endings, should end with a genealogy which climaxes with the name of David. Is it not because the genre of the Book of Ruth is not primarily a romantic narrative, but a Divine history of how God intervened in the lives of Naomi, Ruth and Boaz, so that He might bring David, the forefather of the Messiah, into the scene of time? The genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew from Pharez to David, Matt.1.3-6, was very likely taken from Ruth. Because Matthew had already witnessed the coming of Jesus Christ by the time he wrote his Gospel, he viewed the Ruth genealogy with a retrospective lens as a precursor to the ultimate arrival of the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the Proclamation of Isaiah

In Isaiah chapter 7, we read that Rezin the king of Syria was confederate with Pekah the king of Israel. While Ahaz might not have known the evil counsels and secret conversations between Pekah and Rezin, God revealed them to him through Isaiah, for they said: “Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal” Isa.7.6. The enemies were now threatening the throne of David by wanting to replace the king of Judah with the son of Tabeal.

God would not allow this, and He stepped in to give assurance to Ahaz and Judah through Isaiah that the counsel of Pekah and Rezin “shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass” v.7. God not only assured Ahaz through words, but He also wanted to prove His words with a sign. The self-righteous Ahaz refused to ask God for a sign, with the pretence that he did not want to tempt God, v.12, but the true reason behind his refusal was that he had already requested help from the king of Assyria, and had pawned the treasures of the Temple in exchange for an alliance with him and for military assistance from him, 2Kings chapter 16.

Despite the refusal of Ahaz, God proceeded to announce the sign of a virgin birth, and this is what interests us in relation to the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially in Isa.7.14². God spoke to Ahaz through Isaiah, starting from Isa.7.4-9, with verbs and pronouns using the second person singular (with an exception in v.9, where the two verbs “believe” and “established”³ are both plural, but we will revisit this exception later). Upon Ahaz’s refusal, God gave His reply to the nation instead of to Ahaz, Isa.7.13,14, hence the second person verbs and pronouns shift to plural in these verses. In the subsequent verses after Isa.7.14, the second person verbs and pronouns revert to the singular. Therefore we see that, upon Ahaz’s refusal, God turned to the nation with plural pronouns and verbs in His prophetic announcement. But I would suggest that the plural verbs and pronouns in Isa.7.13,14 are not only intended for an audience limited to Judah, but to all who would read these words regarding the Messiah’s birth, including us. The event that is being prophesied, the birth of Christ, deserves a universal audience; hence, God no longer speaks only to Ahaz but to all.

² Isa.7.14; Gen.3.15 and Mic.5.2-4 are the three passages in the Bible that give us direct prophetic indications of the birth of Christ.

³ Actually, the words “believe” and “established” are the same word, aman, the former being in the active and the latter in the passive form.

We noted that the two verbs “believe” and “established” in v.9 are also in the plural, even though it was part of God’s communication to Ahaz. Could it be that God’s prophetic announcement, that He will not let the throne of David be usurped by another, to derail His covenantal promises to David, requires a response of faith in the hearers, nationally and universally? Even though Ahaz refused to believe, many will exercise faith and witness God’s faithfulness in fulfilling His plan.

The throne of David was threatened by the enemies’ desire to install the son of Tabeal, but God defeated the plot of the enemy. Assyria would eventually defeat Syria and the ten tribes of Israel under Pekah. Not only was the throne of David not replaced, despite the wickedness of Ahaz – at least not yet – but God gave a sign: the sign of the virgin birth. In relation to the virgin birth of Isa.7.13,14, we have no doubt that it was fulfilled in the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, as is shown in Matt.1.22,23. Yet the question is often asked as to whether there was a more immediate fulfilment of this virgin birth, in the time of Isaiah. Such a miracle from God was definitely possible in the lifetime of Isaiah, even though it is not likely that this took place. However, based on Isa.8.1-4,18, the birth of a child through Isaiah’s wife, the prophetess, was an object lesson to Judah, that God was able to bring about a child by His own appointment, even though it was not through a virgin birth (for Isaiah already had a son, Shear-jashub, Isa.7.3). Therefore, the fulfilment of Isa.7.14 was not realised in the time of the prophet. Much more can be said about this and the debate surrounding this issue, but we will not benefit by devoting more space to it.

What interests us most is the relevance of Isa.7.14 to the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, we will now examine this Isaiah passage in relation to His birth. As we have mentioned, the focus shifts from Ahaz to the “house of David” because Ahaz refused to respond. Because this prophetic announcement was of the highest significance, the house of David was summoned to pay full attention: “Hear ye now”! The Lord Himself is the One Who will give the sign. The emphatic “Himself” carries the sense that the Lord will personally participate in the giving of this sign by performing the miracle (rather than through a prophet or an intermediary). This is true in the virgin conception and birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. The angel Gabriel said to Mary: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” Lk.1.35.

Much discussion has surrounded the definition of the word “virgin” in Isa.7.14. There are generally two words used in Hebrew for the word “virgin”: almah and betulah; the former word, almah, is the one in our passage of consideration. It is a relatively rare word compared to betulah, and appears only seven times in the Hebrew Bible. Some critics have argued that betulah would have been a better word than almah, because the former is a more accurate word for a virgin. Therefore, they argue that the text in Isa.7.14 does not refer to a literal virgin and the incident is not to be viewed as miraculous. We will not devote too much time and space here to defend this point, but suffice to say that these critics are at best inaccurate and at worst dishonest. The word betulah does not conclusively refer to a virgin, although there are instances where it does. Joel 1.8 is clearly an example of how the word betulah might not be restricted to a virgin, as the woman there laments for the husband of her youth. On the other hand, whenever almah is used there is a greater tendency that the reference is to a virgin, though we cannot arrive at this conclusion for every occurrence of almah. However, one thing is clear: Isaiah used almah only in 7.14. Whenever he used betulah, 23.4,12; 37.22; 47.1; 62.5, it was in relation to a nation: either Zion, or Zidon or Babylon. In order not to mislead the reader into thinking that the virgin of Isa.7.14 is a nation or a people, Isaiah, by the Spirit of God, chose the word almah, with the definite article, indicating that the virgin is a literal virgin woman.

In addition to how the word is used in Isaiah, we also have the testimony of the Septuagint⁴ (LXX) text of Isa.7.14. The Greek word used there is parthenos, which means a virgin, and the meaning of the word is not disputed. Hence, the ancient men understood almah in Isa.7.14 to mean a virgin when they employed the word parthenos in their Greek translation. But the most authoritative testimony is that of Matthew in his Gospel: “‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel,’ which being interpreted is, God with us” Matt.1.23. Matthew quotes word for word from the Septuagint, except for the word “call”⁵. Our approach to Biblical exposition has always been to take the New Testament as the key to understanding the Old Testament. Therefore, Matthew gives the meaning and the context to the word almah, as well as the story of the fulfilment of the prophecy. The verb “call” deserves more attention at this point. While the Septuagint and Matthew use the second person plural “you shall call” and the third person plural “they shall call” respectively, the verb in Isa.7.14 in Hebrew is actually third person singular, in the feminine⁶. Hence, the end of the verse should read, more explicitly, “she shall call His name Immanuel”. Despite the debate of whether almah is a more suitable word for “virgin”, the fact that this son was to be named by his mother instead of the father already indicates that a man was not biologically involved in the birth of this child.

⁴ A translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, probably produced in the third century BC. It was in widespread use in New Testament times.
⁵ The Septuagint uses the future second person plural, “you shall call”, whereas Matthew changes it to the future third person plural, “they shall call”. Both are clearly referring to the nation.

⁶ While Greek verbs are not gender based, Hebrew verbs are.

This child born of a virgin, in Isa.7.14 called Immanuel, is also the child spoken of in Isa.9.6,7, Who will inherit the throne of David and his kingdom, Isa.9.7. These titles in Isa.9.6, summed up in the singular “name”, given to this child, explicitly reveal the Deity of the child. These titles might have surprised the hearers of Isaiah’s day: “And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” Isa.9.6. This child is truly God. Based on the Hebrew text, a better translation of Isa.9.6 would be “…and He shall call His name Wonderful, Counsellor …”⁷ Hence, it is not a name that is given to Him by some other, but the child Himself shall appoint His own name. He must also have pre-existed in order that He might give Himself a name before He was born as a child. This child is born of a mother and therefore of human descent, and yet He is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace. We can only conclude that this child, Who is also Immanuel of Isa.7.14, is God manifest in the flesh. Matthew informs his readers that Immanuel is the Lord Jesus Christ, and His coming amongst men is truly the visible presence of God on earth and the fulfilment of “God with us”.

⁷ Based on the “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia” (BHS), though some translations are based on a possibility that the verb “call” should be in the Niphal passive, hence “He shall be called”.

In conclusion, we see that God spoke to Ahaz the king of Judah, and intervened to nullify the plot of Syria and Israel against Judah and against the throne of David; He possibly employed Isaiah and his wife’s conception as an object lesson to the nation; prophesied concerning the coming of the Messiah through a virgin birth; and gave a name to the child which signified the visible presence of God amongst men. All these were the activities of Divine involvement in the lives of these ancient people as a prelude to the coming of the Messiah, and as honouring God’s covenantal promise to David concerning the lineage of Christ the King.

In the Women of Matthew’s Genealogy

In addition to Mary, there are four women in Matthew’s genealogy of the Lord Jesus: Thamar (Tamar), Matt.1.3; Rachab (Rahab), Matt.1.5; Ruth, Matt.1.5; and Bath-sheba, Matt.1.6, though Bath-sheba’s name is not specifically mentioned. Naturally speaking, every one of these four women carries with her a history marked by some kind of humiliating circumstances, which sometimes even involved gross immorality.

The question therefore is, what purpose does it serve that God allowed these women to be part of the Divine history of Christ’s descent? Firstly, the awkwardness of the events surrounding these women, instead of putting doubts into the credibility of the Bible, further enhances its reliability by recording history honestly, without shying away from the mention of less desirable incidents. Secondly, and more importantly, Matthew wants to show that these unlikely misfits were monuments of grace, instead of stains of embarrassment, and nothing about who they were could derail God’s unchangeable plan in the birth of Jesus Christ. As far as Jewish tradition was concerned, these women and their backgrounds cast a shadow of uneasiness over the genealogy of the birth of Jesus Christ; but God brought His plan into fruition not through the efforts, cleverness, or plots of men, but by His own sovereign grace and providential wisdom, and by intervening and guiding, sometimes through miraculous means, the path of men and women.

We will now briefly examine the stories of Tamar, Rahab and Bath-sheba. We have already examined Ruth’s story under a stand-alone heading above, because of our interest in the genealogy at the end of that book. Hence, we will now only look at the lives of the other three women and the circumstances surrounding their involvement in the Davidic history.

Tamar

The bittersweet story of Tamar in Genesis chapter 38 is a display of God’s sovereign grace. Who would expect a tragic saga like hers to eventually become a story of God’s goodness and mercy? But Genesis chapter 38 is a story of Judah as much as it is of Tamar. Even though Genesis chapter 37 commences with the story of Joseph, the Spirit of God inserted the story of Judah in chapter 38 before resuming the story of Joseph, in chapter 39. The position of the story of Judah and Tamar seems out of place, but the seeming ‘intrusion’ of this story into the Joseph narrative was deliberate, in order to bring attention to the importance of the story. While Joseph was the saviour appointed by God to bring deliverance to the household of Jacob amidst the catastrophic famine, Judah was really the most important person as far as the Divine plan of the coming Messiah was concerned. The sudden introduction of the Judah-Tamar story arouses the curiosity of any reader, and thereby encourages the reader to wonder at its placement. It is not until one reads the genealogy of Matthew and Luke that one begins to realise how significant the Judah-Tamar story is: through them came Pharez, who was to be one of the forefathers of David, and ultimately of the Messiah. Therefore, Moses’ motive of placing the whole story of Joseph’s beginnings till his death in the Book of Genesis was not to showcase how great a person Joseph was (though we definitely learn lessons from his greatness and life’s encounters, and even as a type of Christ), but to show that God used Joseph as an instrument to preserve Judah’s seed, because out of his loins would come the Messiah.

The story in Genesis chapter 38 begins with Judah’s ambition to continue his seed, but his plans and ‘mis-plans’ resulted in tension, treachery, and trauma. When Judah’s two sons, Er and Onan, met with tragic deaths, Judah was afraid that his youngest son, Shelah, would face the same fate. Therefore, he told Tamar to wait at her father’s house until Shelah was of marriageable age, but Judah’s true intention was really to keep Shelah away from Tamar forever, as was clear through his own confession later, Gen.38.26. When Tamar eventually realised Judah’s plot, she took matters into her own hands and pretended to be a harlot to lure Judah. Judah went in unto Tamar, and she gave birth to Pharez and Zarah. Through it all, we see that Judah was immoral, and Tamar played the harlot. However, were it not for Tamar’s action, Judah would have been a hindrance to the line of the Seed, the line of Messiah. God, in His sovereignty, allowed the action of Tamar, and overturned the foolishness and unfaithfulness of Judah. At the end, it was Tamar who had the greater vision, though her methods were not commendable, and it was Tamar who was more worthy of the name of Judah than Judah himself.

Matthew did not shrink back from mentioning Tamar at a time when genealogies were mostly traced through men; also, most would prefer noble names with an honourable past to be in their genealogy. Tamar and the women in Matthew’s genealogy were neither male names nor noble names. Matthew wanted to show that it was all of God’s scheme, and therefore, the coming of Christ, though through flawed humans, was not based on human ingenuity or plan. Judah, by his own plots, had failed, and, from a merely human perspective, his selfishness nearly ruined the plan of God. But God in His sovereignty still used unlikely subjects like Judah and Tamar, and guided the Davidic history until Christ was born of the virgin Mary.

Rahab

Rahab, or Rachab, is the second woman named in Matthew’s genealogy. What Matthew states about Rahab is surprising, seeing that no other Biblical sources inform us that Boaz was of Rahab: only Matthew, Matt.1.5. Rahab lived approximately two hundred years before Boaz, a time gap that would have made it quite impossible for Rahab to be the natural mother of Boaz. Hence, this record presents a difficulty. It is most likely that Matthew was using a compressed genealogy, where he was not so concerned with following a strict lineage of successors (this is even more apparent with the names of some of the kings, as we will see later), but listing names that might have a certain spiritual or theological significance to him. If that is the case, then Rahab was either the grandmother or the great-grandmother of Boaz. Furthermore, the original text literally reads “And Salmon begat Booz out of Rahab …” This expression “out of” is used of all these four women in the genealogy and means that the child was born out of the woman. However, the expression can also be generic enough to mean that the child came from the family of the named woman, which most likely is the case for Rahab and Boaz.

Matthew’s purpose of including Rahab in the list, even though she was a social misfit during her time, and of an undesirable background, was again to demonstrate that all was of God, and nothing was to be attributed to the industry of men. If men were to be left to their own devices to pass down a successive legacy of ‘fourteen generations times three’ Matt.1.17, the best that they could accomplish was a genealogy marked by dark spots and inconvenient truths, and that is what we have in Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogy of the Lord Jesus. Yet God could take a lineage like this, and cause the light of hope to shine through darkness in the arrival of His Son on planet earth through a miraculous conception. This was most likely Matthew’s purpose in placing a woman like Rahab in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus.

Bath-sheba

In the genealogy of Matthew, Bath-sheba only appears as “her that had been the wife of Urias” Matt.1.6. The tragic story of David and Bath-sheba, which ended with the death of Uriah the Hittite, is told in 2Samuel chapter 11. Why is Bath-sheba’s name not explicitly mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, when the names of the other three women are? At this point, Matthew is subtly indicating to us that the failure was not so much Bath-sheba’s as it was David’s. Hence, the very man with whom God had made the Davidic Covenant was himself a threat to the covenant, were it not for the sovereignty of God. If we read 2Samuel chapter 11 (and it is in 2Samuel chapter 7, only four chapters before, that God gave David the covenant!), we notice that Bath-sheba was a passive participant to the whole immoral act; after all, who would dare to say no to the king? David was to be blamed; therefore we read, “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” 2Sam.11.27. Matthew is then showing us that the circumstances that brought about the son referred to in the Davidic Covenant, Solomon (the nearer prophetic fulfilment of 2Sam.7.12-14), were even preceded by adultery and murder. Matthew’s purpose, demonstrated in this case and in the previous ones, was to show that God did not depend on any favourable circumstances or on ingenious devices of men, for men could only bring about failures in the scheme of Divine things. The arrival of the Messiah was completely dependent upon God’s intervention in the lives and history of all these Biblical characters.

THE DESCENDANT OF THE DAVIDIC GENEALOGY

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are precious because these are the only record of the genealogy of the Lord Jesus. These genealogies not only trace the beginning of the lineage of Christ, but, of equal importance, clearly indicate the terminus of the lineage at Jesus Christ. The world is abuzz with many conspiracy theories to entertain the ungodly appetite of the modern generation, including spinning stories based on spurious gnostic sources which say that the genealogy of Jesus Christ was far more extensive than what is recorded in the Bible. They claim that Jesus had biological children of His own. Christians ought not to be troubled or bothered with nonsensical, blasphemous claims like these. But we do of course read from the New Testament that He has spiritual children, Jn.13.33; 21.5, who are the result of spiritual regeneration, not biological procreation.

Whenever the discussion of these two genealogies arises, the difficult issue of tracing the names and reconciling the lineages would naturally surface. It is not possible for the writer to avoid this difficult discussion; hence, we will address this when we examine Luke’s genealogy.

Matthew’s Genealogy

Matthew’s genealogy begins with David and Abraham, and is written with the intention to demonstrate that God’s promises, to Abraham of a Seed, to David of a King, and ultimately to Israel of a Messiah, were finally fulfilled in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Genesis

In a dramatic tone reminiscent of the creatorial themes of the first verses of Genesis, Matthew begins his Gospel literally with these words: ‘‘The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.’’ That is what the word “generation” is in Greek: genesis. While Moses’ book of Genesis begins with the Divine activities of creation in the material realm, Matthew wants us to appreciate that the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is a kind of re-creation, in the spiritual realm. This spiritual re-creation would result in the regeneration of Adam’s fallen race. The world that has fallen under the grip of sin would be reclaimed by Jesus Christ through His atoning work. Hence, Matthew ends his Gospel with this note to signal that the Lord Jesus has begun to achieve exactly that: “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth” Matt.28.18. And He will reclaim the whole creation completely at the consummation of the ages.

Matthew also uses the word “genesis” in Matt.1.18: “Now the birth [literally “genesis”] of Jesus Christ was on this wise …” When Matthew used this word in 1.18, most likely he had in mind Gen.5.1: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him”. The word “generations” in Gen.5.1, as well as subsequent occurrences of this word in Genesis, is literally the word “genesis” in the Septuagint. In total, ten generations are listed in the Book of Genesis: Gen.2.4; 5.1; 6.9; 10.1; 11.10; 11.27; 25.12; 25.19; 36.1; 37.2. Of these generations, Adam was the first of humankind. But the Lord Jesus Christ is now the new representative of mankind, as the Last Adam, because He will put right what Adam had wronged, and He will reclaim for God what was lost. This thought was likely in Matthew’s mind.

However, there is more to the use of the word “generation” by Matthew. Of these ten generations in Genesis, there are seven that are directly linked with the genealogy of the Lord Jesus (if we include the generations of the heavens and the earth, Gen.2.4). When Matthew began his Gospel with the “generation of Jesus Christ”, he likely thought of these seven generations in the Book of Genesis and, more importantly, that Jesus Christ is the goal of these previous seven generations. Through the wisdom and the intervention of God in human history, the seven generations were propelled in a direction that led to the coming of Christ, the Seed, Gal.3.16. However, this generation of Jesus Christ is not only the finality of all prior generations, it is also the fulfilment of God’s covenantal promises to the patriarchs: specifically here, David and Abraham.

“The Son of”

Matthew calls Him “the Son of David, the Son of Abraham”, instead of ‘the Son of Abraham, the Son of David’, even though the latter would have been more accurate chronologically. But Matthew is more interested in the theological significance than in the chronological order of the genealogy. In a genealogy that is predominantly filled with the names of kings from the line of Judah, it is no surprise that the theological focus of the genealogy is that Christ is the Son of David. Yet, of no less importance is the truth that He is also the Son of Abraham, because the Davidic Covenant is also an expansion of the Abrahamic Covenant, Gen.17.6. Therefore, the coming of Jesus Christ, according to Matthew, is a testimony to the faithfulness of God in fulfilling the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants in relation to the sending of the Seed, and the coming of the King.

It is also important to notice, though obvious, that the Lord Jesus Christ is not the immediate son of David or Abraham; He is only the Son of David and Abraham from the tracing of patriarchal lineage. Hence, the word “son” in this genealogy cannot be restricted to that immediate sense only. When we see this, it will lay the basis for us to understand that Matthew did not intend to give a genealogy containing only immediate sons, and we will discover that he sometimes skips a few generations in between two names, yet uses the expression “son of” without intending it to mean the immediate biological relationship of a son to a father; sometimes “son of” could mean the son of a great-grandfather, etc. For example, between King Jehoram (Joram) and King Uzziah (Ozias), Matt.1.8, there are at least three kings who are not mentioned: Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah. If we count the usurper queen Athaliah, there would be four on the throne, but not mentioned by Matthew, between Joram and Uzziah. There are also omissions between Josiah (Josias) and Jehoiachin (Jechonias), Matt.1.11, where the names of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim are missing. Matthew chooses not to mention these names, perhaps with the theological intention of grouping his genealogy into three sets of fourteen generations. If we bear in mind that Matthew’s use of “son of” is not strictly limited to an immediate father-son relationship, then we would not be puzzled or troubled by the skips or omissions of names from the lineage.

The Fourteens

Why did Matthew structure his list into three sets of fourteen generations, Matt.1.17? And, perhaps more puzzling, why is the counting of fourteen names to make the fourteen generations not always consistently achieved throughout? In the first two sets, from Abraham to David, Matt.1.2-6, and from Solomon to Jechonias, Matt.1.7-11, we count exactly fourteen names for these two sets of fourteen generations. However, in the third set, from Salathiel onwards to the Lord Jesus Christ, Matt.1.12-16, we only count thirteen names, even though Matthew tells us that from Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations, Matt.1.17. It is possible that Matthew intends for the name of “Jesus, which is called Christ” to be counted twice, making the total fourteen generations.⁸ If that is the case, then Matthew is possibly thinking of counting “Jesus”, the pre-Calvary Messiah, as one generation, and “Christ”, the post-Calvary resurrected Messiah, as another generation. The death and resurrection of Christ will result in a spiritual generation that is not born of the flesh. In connection to this, one wonders why Matthew is the only Gospel writer who uses the word “church”. It is possible that in Matthew’s mind, a called-out people, a spiritual regeneration, that is the result of the resurrection of, and union with Christ (shorthanded by Matthew in this statement, “who is called Christ”), forms the fourteenth generation of the third set. Therefore, Christ and His Body, the Church, is the fourteenth generation. Matthew did not explicitly state that in the beginning, because his readers would have been puzzled if he had done so without having developed his theme of God’s grace extending out from the nation of Israel to the Gentiles. His concept of “church” had not yet been unveiled; this would be done in chapters 16 and 18. As God had commanded the first Adam to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it …” Gen.1.28, the Last Adam, as according to Matthew, will accomplish a greater purpose for God, in causing the earth to be populated with regenerated people who will bow to the One Who has authority over heaven and earth, Matt.28.18. They will together with Christ be the fourteenth generation of the third set.

⁸ This was first suggested by Herman C. Waetjen in his journal article “The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew”.

But why the number fourteen? This is again an often-debated issue in Matthew’s genealogy. It has been said that the name of David in Hebrew is made up of letters that add up to a total value of fourteen⁹. I am quite happy with such an explanation. Matthew uses a number that reminds his readers that this genealogy, marked by the ups and downs of human history, made up of men far from being perfect, surrounded by love, treachery, compromised morality, unexpected endings, departure, and idolatry, was never in danger of failing at any time, because of the promise of God to David, and because the stamp of David’s name has been written over it!

⁹ The name of “David” is formed by three Hebrew letters, having the numerical value of 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

The Virgin Birth

The climax of the genealogy story of Matthew chapter 1 is of course the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus. It is significant that Matthew describes the birth event as “the genesis”: “Now the birth [‘genesis’] of Jesus Christ was on this wise …” Matt.1.18.¹⁰ Even though the word “genesis” could also mean “birth”, as translated in most English Bibles, the deliberate use of this word, which only appears five times in the whole New Testament, should cause us to wonder if the word “birth” sufficiently expresses Matthew’s thoughts, especially when he had used this same word as the second word to begin his Gospel (in the original text of Matt.1.1, though it is the fifth word in the Authorised Version. We have already discussed the significance of this word and so will not reiterate this point). Therefore, Matt.1.18 should literally read: “Now in this manner was the genesis of Jesus Christ …” Again, this opening of the story of Jesus’ birth is reminiscent of the generational story of the patriarchs in the Book of Genesis, in which whenever a generation is presented it is followed either by a list of genealogical names or by a story. When the mentioned generation belongs to the line of the Seed, it is often followed by a story, Gen.5.1; 6.9; 25.19; 37.2. The way Matthew mentions the genesis or generation of Jesus Christ highly resembles the generational stories of the Seed in Genesis; immediately after Matthew mentions the “genesis” of Jesus Christ, he proceeds to tell us the story of how Christ was born. Matthew is indicating that the Lord Jesus is the promised Seed of the Book of Genesis, and the same Seed as promised under the Davidic Covenant.

¹⁰ The Authorised Version, which is based on the Received Text, uses the word γέννησις, whereas most major manuscripts read γένεσις, which is the word we take in this article. The two words are very closely related to each other.

Our attention must now turn to v.16 to consider some important points concerning the virgin birth. From Abraham onwards, the word gen-naō in the active voice is used in the genealogy for the begetting of a son, thirty-nine times, but the word gen-naō suddenly switches to a passive voice when describing the birth of the Lord Jesus: “of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”. The use of the passive voice is to indicate that, unlike all the others in the list, the begetting of the Lord Jesus was the initiative of neither Mary nor Joseph; it was of God, and Mary was only a mortal instrument used by God to carry in her womb the eternal Son of God. This point is further enhanced by the relative pronoun “of whom” in the feminine gender, referring to Mary. Unlike all the sons in the genealogy, who were begotten of an earthly father, the Lord Jesus is not said to be begotten of Joseph, but the phrase reads (literally) “out of whom [Mary] Jesus was begotten [by One outside of Joseph and Mary], who is called Christ” (parenthetical comments have been inserted by me for clarity). He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Matt.1.20, not begotten of Joseph, and begotten of Mary only in the sense that she was the instrument out of whom Christ was born. He was earlier referred to as the Son of David, and Son of Abraham, but Matthew was careful with his vocabulary, so as not to say that He was begotten of any human father. Although it might have been appropriate for Matthew to say that He was the only begotten Son of God, this was not the right place to state that because it might give his readers the idea that the Lord Jesus was a biological offspring of God. In this genealogy, He was begotten in a sense that He had come into the world through a human birth, in a human existence, according to the Divine arrangement of God, by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Matthew describes the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus with the choices of vocabulary and grammar that demonstrate Divine inspiration.

Luke’s Genealogy

Sonship

Unlike Matthew, Luke does not situate his genealogy at the beginning of his Gospel. Instead, he places it after he has given a detailed account of the birth of Christ, surrounded by human circumstances, like the conceptions of Mary and Elisabeth, the visit of shepherds, the birth and ministry of John the Baptist, the Messianic expectations of Simeon and Anna, and the politics of Rome. More importantly, Luke situates the genealogy immediately after God had declared from heaven, “Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am well pleased.” Lk.3.22. The purpose of the genealogy after this public confirmation was to show that Christ, despite being declared the Son of God from heaven, was also of a human origin traced to Adam. Hence, being the Son of God and being fully Man, He was God’s chosen One for the earthly mission of bringing salvation to mankind.

Another reason why Luke mentions God’s approval of His Son here, through a public declaration, is that he wants to first assert that He was not begotten of any earthly father, but He was God’s eternal Son. After telling us that God had declared Jesus as Son, Luke proceeds to cite the genealogy, but even then, he has to qualify in a rather unique but necessary way the parentage relationship between Jesus and Joseph: “being son, as was being supposed, of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi …” Lk.3.23,24 (my literal translation of the Greek text). While Luke’s use of “as was supposed” may partly have been in order to maintain the prominence of the Lord Jesus as God’s Son, I suggest that the main reason was that he was conscious of the virgin birth of Jesus through Mary, Joseph’s wife, and it could not be said without any qualification that Jesus was the son of Joseph. It is also interesting to notice that when God declares from heaven, “Thou art My beloved Son” v.22, the word “Son” is preceded by a definite article in the original text. However, when Luke says, “being son, as was being supposed …” v.23, the word “son” is anarthrous (that is, without the article), very likely with the intention to point out a distinction between these two uses of “son”: He was the Son of God unequivocally; but He was son of Joseph only in an earthly parental sense, bearing the characteristics of a father-son relationship without any procreational association.

As the genealogy is traced all the way to Adam, Luke refrains from using the word “son” throughout.¹¹ He does not want to give even a speck of impression that the Lord Jesus was in any way biologically linked with the fallen race of Adam, after having mentioned that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit through Mary, Lk.1.35. By now, Luke has already informed us that He was born of a virgin, and that His lineage could be traced all the way to David, and to Adam. But Luke goes further, for he ends this genealogy with “which was of God”, with the intention to bracket the genealogy with the heavenly declaration of His Divine Sonship at one end, and the mention of God as the originator and Creator of mankind at the other end. Therefore, from one end to the other, all was of God, and nothing was to be credited to human invention or intervention.

¹¹ In most English translations, the expression “the son of” in the Lukan genealogy is written in italics since it is not in the original text.

Comparing the Genealogies in Matthew and Luke

When we attempt to reconcile Matthew’s genealogy of the Lord Jesus with that of Luke, we are immediately confronted with one of the most difficult Bible problems. The differences between the genealogies are quite noticeable, even though they agree in many places. However, before we examine the two genealogies, let it be known that this Bible difficulty in no way casts a shadow of doubt on the accuracy, credibility, and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures. Many critics of the Bible have used this seeming discrepancy of the two genealogies as a kind of ‘holy grail’ of their unholy ‘crusade’ against the Scripture. Though we might never be able to satisfactorily solve the puzzle of the two genealogies, we must at least acknowledge that Matthew and Luke were not embarrassed to lay out their genealogies, despite being conscious of each other’s Gospel. If Matthew did not know Luke (which is very unlikely), the believers in those early days saw no embarrassment in circulating the Gospels as Divinely-inspired texts. If they were not embarrassed, nor saw any need to provide any form of apostolic supplementary clarification to explain a discrepancy (which they did not suspect would create so much controversy), then they must have taken for granted that the so-called discrepancy was not really a discrepancy. They must have known something that was well known then about the two genealogies of Jesus Christ, and saw no necessity to provide any form of clarification for the differences.

We will not labour through all the different theories attempting to explain the differences between the two genealogies, because space would not allow us to do so, nor would it be profitable. Furthermore, there are ample commentaries and material available on this subject, and we would only be recycling the various hypotheses. Hence, I will simply state my view, which is not a new insight. Some glaring differences between the genealogies include that of David’s sons: Matthew records that Christ came from the line of Solomon, Matt.1.6, whereas Luke shows that Christ was from the line of Nathan, Lk.3.31. The two genealogies converge again at Shealtiel (Salathiel) and Zerubbabel (Zorobabel), Matt.1.12; Lk.3.27, then diverge again until they converge yet again at Joseph and the Lord Jesus. The table below shows the comparison between the genealogies:

MATTHEW	LUKE
	God, Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala, Lamech, Noe, Sem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Sala, Heber, Phalec, Ragau, Saruch, Nachor, Thara,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judas, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Booz,Obed, Jesse, David,	Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Juda, Phares, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naasson, Salmon, Booz, Obed, Jesse, David,
Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias, Manasses, Amon, Josias, Jechonias,	Nathan, Mattatha, Menan, Melea, Eliakim, Jonan, Joseph, Juda, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jose, Er, Elmodam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri,
Salathiel, Zorobabel,	Salathiel, Zorobabel,
Abiud, Eliakim, Azar, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob,	Rhesa, Joanna, Juda, Joseph, Semei, Mattathias, Maath, Nagge, Esli, Naum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli,
Joseph, Jesus	Joseph, Jesus

One of the most common explanations of the differences between the two genealogies is that Matthew traces Joseph’s lineage whereas Luke traces Mary’s. One of the arguments given to support this theory is Luke’s use of the expression “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” Lk.3.23. It is suggested that “as was supposed” meant that the Lukan genealogy was that of Mary’s, but Joseph was given the credit, being son-in-law to Heli, who was the father of Mary. Since the Lukan genealogy did not include any names of women, the mention of Mary (as in Matthew) in the genealogy would have been out of place. Therefore, Luke inserted Joseph’s name, though he was technically the son-in-law; Luke qualified the relationship by using the expression “as was supposed”. However, as we have explained earlier, Luke most likely used the expression “as was supposed” to rule out any misunderstanding that the Lord Jesus had any biological connection to Joseph, and to make clear that He was of the virgin birth.

Personally I am not convinced that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary; hence, I suggest that both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies trace the lineage to Joseph, and finally the Lord Jesus. How then do we explain the differences between the genealogies? The possible explanation, though not a new one, is that the differences in the two genealogies are the result of levirate marriages. A levirate marriage is based on the Old Testament law that a man was obliged to marry his brother’s widow to ensure continuity of his dead brother’s name. According to Deut.25.5-10, the firstborn of this levirate marriage shall bear the name of the dead brother, and not of the brother who took the widow as his wife. Therefore, a child born of a levirate marriage can have two fathers: one biologically, based on the living father, and another one legally, bearing the name of his mother’s deceased husband, the father he had never met. Based on this possibility of multiple instances of levirate marriages in the genealogies, we would be able to explain the differences between the two. The theory of multiple levirate marriages in the two genealogies was first suggested by a second/third-century theologian and historian Sextus Julius Africanus, who based his theory on a known traditional understanding of the two genealogies at that time. Though his source was extrabiblical in nature, he had the advantage of being relatively close in time to the ‘apostolic fathers’, of whom some had direct interactions with the apostles of the Lord Jesus. Hence, Africanus’ suggestion of a weave of levirate marriages in solving the genealogical differences between the two Gospels cannot be discounted.

In the first divergence, of Solomon and Nathan, who were both the sons of David, it is possible that Nathan died without a son. Based on the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy chapter 25, Solomon might have taken Nathan’s widow as wife, and they had a son named Mattatha. In this case, Solomon was the biological father, but Nathan was the legal father. These divergent lineages of Solomon and Nathan converge at Shealtiel (Salathiel); but this convergence is not without its own difficulty. It has been suggested by some scholars that Shealtiel was the biological son of Neri, though a legal son of Jeconiah (Jechonias, Coniah). Due to the wickedness of Jeconiah, God took away his right to have a son upon the throne of David according to Jer.22.28-30, and Jeconiah died childless; hence, his biological lineage was cut off. However, Neri likely married a widow of Jeconiah, and begat a son by the name of Shealtiel. Therefore Shealtiel was the biological son of Neri, but a legal son to Jeconiah. Matthew followed the legal lineage in this case and recorded Jeconiah as the father of Shealtiel; but Luke must have known from his source that Shealtiel was the biological son of Neri, though Neri’s name had never been mentioned in any Old Testament Scriptures. It has also been pointed that Zerubbabel’s father was not Shealtiel according to the genealogical record of 1Chr.3.19, but instead was Pedaiah. Again, a case of levirate marriage could have taken place, where Shealtiel died and Pedaiah took Shealtiel’s widow as wife, and Zerubbabel was the biological son of Pedaiah and Shealtiel’s widow. If this was the case, then Zerubbabel’s biological father was Pedaiah, but his father according to legal ancestry was Shealtiel, which is also the name used for Zerubbabel’s father in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Haggai.

What about Zerubbabel’s sons in Matthew and Luke? In 1Chr.3.19 we read of Zerubbabel’s sons, but none of them was named Abiud (named in Matthew), or Rhesa (named in Luke). It is again important to remind ourselves that it would be unthinkable that Matthew or Luke did not have access to the Chronicler’s genealogy, or did not even bother to secure a copy of 1Chronicles when they were writing the genealogy of the Lord Jesus. Hence, we must rule out the possibility of ignorance or negligence, or even the making of a careless mistake on the part of the writers. This is an important apologetical consideration when examining the genealogies by Matthew and Luke. The only explanation is that both Matthew and Luke had access to sources that we know not of. One possibility is that Abiud and Rhesa are alternative names of the same persons listed in 1Chr.3.19. It was possible for a Jew to have multiple names, and Matthew and Luke knew those names by tradition. Another possibility is again that of a crisscross of levirate marriage among the sons of Zerubbabel.

In the matter of Joseph having different fathers (Jacob and Heli), according to Africanus there was a tradition held in the days of the early ‘fathers’ that it was a case of levirate marriage: Jacob and Heli were brothers; Heli died, and Jacob married his widow, making Joseph the biological son of Jacob and the legal son of Heli.

Though we cannot dogmatically assert that the theory of levirate marriages is the only explanation, it is certainly a very possible one. If we adopt this theory to explain the differences between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, then one profitable lesson, if any, that we can learn from this complex weave of names is this: God has been working in the history of these men (and women), and in His sovereign ways weaving the pathways of these people through life, death and marriages, to pave the way for the arrival of the Messiah through a web of names that sometimes diverges and converges, until it converges in Joseph, the legal father of the Lord according to the Law, and hence the Lord is called the son of Joseph by those who knew Him and His earthly family, Jn.1.45; 6.42.

CONCLUSION

God gave an everlasting covenant to David. The unconditional promise God made to David through the covenant necessitated that God ensured its fulfilment. This He did by intervening in and steering the Davidic history which eventually saw the arrival of the Messiah through the virgin birth. In the process of guiding history towards God’s intended goal, He used mortal instruments that were far from being perfect, and some even had an inconvenient or embarrassing past. But Matthew and Luke show, through their genealogies, that God’s covenantal promise did not depend on men being perfect or capable, else nothing of the Divine plan would have been accomplished. But all was solely dependent upon God’s faithfulness and power. The virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ was not only according to God’s prophetic plan as announced in Isaiah chapter 7, but it was also according to His precise timing. The apostle Paul said, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” Gal.4.4,5. Paul, like Matthew and Luke, was selective and careful in his vocabulary when he described the birth of Christ. He did not say that God’s Son was born of a woman, but literally “became of a woman, became under the law”. By using the word “became”, Paul was implying that the Son pre-existed before He was born; but another possibility is that Paul was reluctant to use the word “born”, because he could have been thinking of the virgin birth, and the fact that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Why was David chosen to be the forefather of the Messiah King? Just like the list of names in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, David was also a poignant reminder of the fallibility of man, regardless of rank or riches. Therefore, God’s choice of David was purely out of God’s sovereignty. David was deeply conscious of that: “Then went king David in, and sat before the Lord, and he said, ‘Who am I, O Lord God? and what is my house, that Thou hast brought me hitherto? and this was yet a small thing in Thy sight, O Lord God; but Thou hast spoken also of Thy servant’s house for a great while to come. And is this the manner of man, O Lord God? and what can David say more unto Thee? for Thou, Lord God, knowest Thy servant. For Thy word’s sake, and according to Thine own heart, hast Thou done all these great things, to make Thy servant know them. Wherefore Thou art great, O LordGod: for there is none like Thee, neither is there any God beside Thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears’” 2Sam.7.18-22. When we read 2Samuel chapter 11, one would naturally wonder if the Davidic Covenant was in danger; after all, the king had committed adultery and murder. We again see God being true to His own word; the covenant between God and David was an everlasting covenant that did not depend upon David, but upon God’s faithfulness to His own promise. Therefore, even David’s failure could not alter God’s choice of him, that his line would be the line of Christ. Christ not only came from the line of David, but will certainly, in a day to come, rule on the throne of David.