CIL - Some Difficult Passages - Book 3

[Resource Manager]

 

THE CHRISTADELPHIAN ISOLATION LEAGUE

 

SOME DIFFICULT PASSAGES

 

by

 

PETER WATKINS

 

BOOK 3

 

CONTENTS

 

1. The Problem of the Imprecatory Psalms.

 

2. Faith and Works

 

3. The Matthew Genealogy

 

a. Why Joseph?

 

b. Four Women

 

c. Three Times Fourteen

 

d. Omission of Four Kings

 

e. A Digression

 

4. The Luke Genealogy

[Resource Manager]

SOME DIFFICULT PASSAGES

 

THE PROBLEM OF THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS

 

Approach Many have been troubled by those Psalms that contain prayers for the punishment or destruction of wicked people. It is one thing to find certain Scriptures difficult to understand; it is quite another thing to reject these Scriptures on that account. We must begin by acknowledging that the Word of God is right, and our understanding of it is at fault; and then we must seek after wisdom, as after hid treasure.

 

Why is it that these imprecatory Psalms, as they are called, trouble us? We cannot presume to know, of ourselves, how God thinks or acts, nor what He expects of His servants. All we can know about the ways of God and His people must be learned from what God Himself has revealed. We may already have fairly clear-cut ideas of how God acts, and what He expects: but these ideas matter only to the extent that they are based upon God’s Word. This may seem obvious; but it is not always appreciated that the Psalms that give offence are a part of that Word, revealed for our instruction. If we find it difficult to receive this portion of our instruction, then, as far as these Scriptures are concerned, we are proving unreceptive disciples.

 

Are we perplexed because these prayers for judgment upon the wicked seem to reflect an unchristian spirit? In other words, do we feel that God’s ways are not equal? Perhaps we will want to repudiate this suggestion, and say instead that we are troubled because the ways of certain God-fearing men are not equal.

 

Our purpose here is to try to show that the Imprecatory Psalms are not inconsistent with the general teaching of the Word of God. Indeed, we submit that those who are offended by these Psalms are capable of being offended by other Scriptures too.

 

Basic Principles.

 

We begin with the incontrovertible proposition that God loves righteousness and hates unrighteousness. From this we proceed immediately to the corollary that He loves righteous men, and hates those who delight in wickedness. Extending this thought still further: God rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. All this is expressed in Psalm 5:4-6: “For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man”.

 

The Lord Jesus said, “I and my Father are one”. Jesus also loves righteousness and hates iniquity (Psa. 45:7). He also loves righteous men and hates wicked men; and he will fulfil the will of God in “rewarding every man according to his work”. To object to any of these propositions concerning the Lord Jesus is to say, in effect, that he is not one with his Father.

 

In the days of his flesh, the Lord Jesus was not given the authority to execute judgment. That was reserved for the future. In the meantime, he could only ask his Father to punish wicked men and frustrate their vile purposes. This accounts, at least, for some of the Imprecatory Psalms. Psalms 40, 69 & 109 are clearly Messianic - the way in which these Psalms are quoted in the New Testament makes it clear that they concern the Lord Jesus — and each of these Psalms contains prayers that God should punish the wicked. These prayers are therefore more truly the prayers of the Lord Jesus than of David who wrote them. Peter explains (1 Peter 1:11) that the Old Testament writers sometimes wrote words which were beyond their own comprehension because their chief application was to the Lord Jesus. Some of these Imprecatory Psalms are almost certainly examples of this. By inspiration David wrote the prayers of the Lord Jesus Christ concerning the punishment of the wicked. If Psalms 40, 69 & 109 are difficult to understand, the difficulty concerns the Lord Jesus more than David. If we regard them as unchristian, then we must attribute unchristianity to Christ and not to David: and we cannot do this, because we have already seen that the Lord Jesus Christ must be at one with his Father in this matter.

 

Perhaps someone wants to say that these prayers for vengeance are inconsistent with what is revealed elsewhere in Scripture concerning the Lord. But are they? Is it inconsistent that the one who speaks of weeping and gnashing of teeth when unprofitable servants are cast into outer darkness, who commands those his enemies who would not that he should reign over them to be brought and slain before him, and who is described as coming from heaven in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God — is it inconsistent that the one who is thus portrayed in the New Testament, should be represented in the Old Testament as praying that God would punish those who abundantly deserve punishment?

 

We should remind ourselves here that there is nothing extravagant about the judgments of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. God delights in mercy, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. That repulsive, sin-stricken man should have had any chance of existence at all is evidence of God’s mercy; and that he should have been offered eternal life is an expression of love that passes knowledge. God’s judgments upon wicked men are always a reluctant last resort; and we know that the Lord Jesus, too, who always acted in accordance with his Father’s will, would only seek the destruction of those whose wickedness was beyond remedy. Remember his prayer on the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”.

[Resource Manager]

God’s Servants.

 

The people of God will think like God, and like the Lord Jesus Christ. They too will love righteousness and hate unrighteousness: and they too will love righteous men and hate wicked men. “An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked” (Prov. 2 9:2 7). It may be that our reluctance to regard wicked men as an abomination is due to the fact that we do not hate unrighteousness. In the days of the Exodus, the Judges and the Kings, God’s servants were required to wield the sword for God. Is it not altogether right that they should have sought God’s blessing before engaging in His work? Ought not Moses to have sought God’s help in destroying Pharaoh? Ought not David to have prayed for strength to slay the Philistine? How could such imprecations be unworthy?

 

In the times of the Gentiles, the servants of God are required to wait for the salvation of God. They have neither the authority nor the power to execute judgment. But they can do one thing. They can pray, as the Lord Jesus did, that God will judge those who are disgracing the earth with their wickedness. This is surely implicit in every sincere prayer for the coming Kingdom of God. There are certain important qualifications, however:-

 

1. The people of God must be careful not to arrogate to themselves the work of judgement reserved for Christ, Note the emphasis in Rom. 14:10: “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ”. They may only pray for judgment upon hardened sinners - utterly depraved people who are obviously beyond improvement: men like Pharaoh, Antiochus Epiphanes and Hitler.
    
   
2. God’s servants will be conscious of their own spiritual frailty. They will only condemn wickedness in others when they have reason, without hypocrisy, to feel assured of their own spiritual health. And even then they will take into account the possibility of falling again under temptation in an unguarded moment: ... having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled”.
    
   
3. Godly people will distinguish between their own enemies and the enemies of God. It may be said that the enemy of a godly man will necessarily be an enemy of God Himself - and this is undoubtedly true. But there is a difference of emphasis. A man is not to be hated because he is a personal enemy, but because he is an enemy of God.

[Resource Manager]

Psalms of David.

 

Now let us look a little more closely at some of the Psalms, and see to what extent general principles apply in particular cases. The author of most of the Imprecatory Psalms is David. Some of these Psalms (e.g. 35, 71, 139, 143) are not obviously Messianic. Whatever else they may be, they must be regarded as the prayers of David for Divine judgment upon certain wicked men.

 

Psalm 35 makes several points clear:-

 

1. David had acted graciously towards these wicked people.
    
   
2. Their ingratitude was one indication of their vileness and fitness for destruction. Such unthankful people would also be loathsome in other ways.
    
   
3. They were plotting against the life of God’s servant. The issue was therefore a decisive one Through no fault of David’s, the position was this: either God could spare the lives of these murderers and jeopardise the life of His servant, or He could protect David’s life and remove theirs. The enemies had precipitated a crisis. David, in his extremity, was asking God to vindicate His promises.

Psalm 71

 

1. Again wicked men had chosen to force the issue by trying to kill David. It was they who had decided that it was to be his life or theirs.
    
   
2. Moreover they were saying that David’s trust in God was misplaced: “God hath forsaken him”. It was a challenge to God Himself.

Psalm 139

 

Two verses here are particularly worthy of attention — “Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies” (vv. 21, 22). The emphasis is right. Because they are God’s enemies, they are also David’s.

 

It is profitable to observe how David - the man whose Psalms are called in question so often - acted consistently with this principle throughout his life. As long as Saul was alive, David honoured him as “the Lord’s anointed”, and refused to retaliate, although Saul treated him as an enemy. On the other hand, he promptly put to death the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul. It seems likely that David’s treatment of the wicked Shimei also provides an illustration of how he distinguished between his own enemies (as such) and God’s enemies. David resisted the temptation of punishing the man who had insulted him so grievously, although he had the power to do so; but when he, David, was dying, he instructed Solomon to judge this wicked man -this enemy of God. Thus this wicked man would not be unpunished, but David would not have the personal satisfaction of effecting or witnessing this judgment.

 

Psalm 143.

 

1. David is not a hypocrite. He recognizes that in God’s sight no man is worthy of justification (v, 2).
    
   
2. He is God’s acknowledged servant, who can expect God’s protection. (v. 12).
    
   
3. He is at the end of his tether. His persecutors choose to create a crisis that compels God’s servant to pray for God’s intervention.

[Resource Manager]

FAITH AND WORKS.

 

The problem will be seen at once if three passages are set side by side:

 

“By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9).

 

“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac” (Heb. 11:17).

 

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (James 2:21).

 

Is justification obtained by faith or works? Some passages seem to teach justification by faith; others, justification by works. The problem becomes a challenge when we note that the same event (the offering up of Isaac) is referred to in Hebrews and James in support of two apparently conflicting propositions. Someone may say that because the Scriptures do not contradict each other, both propositions must be accepted. Justification is by faith and works. We agree of course that there can be no real conflict of ideas in Scripture, and that both propositions must be accepted. But we still have a difficulty, because Paul’s proposition seems to be expressed in terms that exclude James’s. Thus, in Ephesians 2, Paul is not content with saying, “By grace ye are saved by faith”. He has to add, “Not of works”.

 

In order to see the problem more clearly, we remind ourselves here that faith means, simply, “belief”. Wherever therefore we meet the word “faith”, we can safely substitute “belief”. The question then is: How do we reconcile passages which say that justification is a matter of believing and not doing, with passages which say that justification is a matter of believing and doing?

 

The Law of Moses.

 

Let us ponder Paul’s proposition first -that justification (and life, that comes by justification) is obtained by believing, and not doing. What Paul is saying, in effect, is that a man cannot earn eternal life. The fact that man can (and does) earn death, but cannot earn life, is well expressed in Rom. 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”.

 

Some people thought that if they kept the Law of Moses perfectly they would be entitled to eternal life. Paul repudiates this idea. He explains to the Galatians that eternal life is given to those who believe - those who believe the promises made to Abraham and fulfilled in Christ, Paul explains in Galatians 3 that there are two reasons why people could not obtain eternal life by keeping the Law of Moses:

1. Being creatures of sin, people found it impossible to keep the Law, and were cursed for their disobedience. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (v. 10).
   
2. In any case, the Law was never intended to give eternal life. Even if men could have kept it perfectly, they could not claim life as wages for their obedience. “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them” (vv. 11, 12).
   

This raises an important question. What purpose was the Law intended to fulfil? Observe how Paul asks this very question, and proceeds to answer it, in v. 19. Note particularly his use of the words “added” and “till”. “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator”. The Law was therefore a temporary institution, filling the interval between the promises to Abraham and their fulfilment in Christ.

[Resource Manager]

A Law of Works.

 

The Law “was added because of transgressions”. What does “because of transgressions” mean? It may mean that it was a code of laws designed to control a rebellious people. But it probably refers to something else too — something exceedingly important. In Rom. 3:19 Paul says, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God”. This tells us that the Law made people realise what they otherwise might not have realised, that they were sinners, “guilty before God.”

 

How was this effected? We have seen that even if men had been able to keep the Law, they could not have obtained eternal life by this means. They could, however, have obtained blessings in this life. They were promised blessings if they were obedient, and cursings if they were disobedient. In this way they themselves determined their circumstances by their works. For this reason the Law of Moses is sometimes referred to in Scripture as “the law of works” or, simply, “works”. The “works” principle is explained in a passage to which we have already referred — Gal. 3:12: “The man that doeth them shall live in them”. Paul is not giving his own definition here; he is quoting the standard, scriptural definition of the Law of works, which occurs in a number of Old and New Testament Scriptures.

 

Many Israelites seem to have made little attempt to keep the Law of Moses. And those who did try failed. All who were under the Law became guilty before God. If any proof of their guilt was required, the curses that befell them provided this proof. They had been warned of these punishments. Now they had come. There was no argument. Their mouths were stopped. Other discerning people could learn, too, from Israel’s failure, that man cannot release himself from the grip of sin. All the world is guilty before God.

 

Paul does not stop with this desolating picture of human hopelessness and helplessness. Having said that all the world is guilty before God, he continues, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:21-24). God has therefore provided a way of escape for people shown to be spiritually destitute by the Law of works. Though men cannot do, they can believe. How foolish then were those who, having availed themselves of this means of grace, went back to the Law of works! “O foolish Galatians”, said Paul, “who hath bewitched you?”

[Resource Manager]

The Works of Faith.

 

The Law has proved decisively, and for all time, that man cannot obtain righteousness and salvation by works. He must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But belief has its own works. If a man believes something deeply, he will act consistently with his belief. He will produce the works of faith. If one who claims to be a believer does not act like a believer, then it is fair to say that he does not really believe. As James would say, “Faith without works is dead”.

 

There is, therefore, no conflict between the commentary of Hebrews and that of James concerning the offering up of Isaac. There is just a difference of emphasis which the context demands. In Hebrews we are asked to consider the fact that belief prompted Abraham’s action. In James we are asked to consider the fact that belief prompted Abraham’s action.

 

The Works of God.

 

The works of a believer may be viewed in another way. The believer is related to God in a peculiar and wonderful way. Because of this the works that he does are not his works, but the works of God through him.

 

Our first quotation in this essay, is from Eph. 2:8, 9. Let us now look at it again: “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”

 

The passage presented a difficulty because we stopped at that point, right in the middle of the argument. It was done deliberately — to show how so many Bible difficulties are created. Now let us read on: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”. The argument is complete, and satisfying. We are saved by faith. We dare not claim salvation because of our works, because we ourselves are the work of God. And for what purpose are we created? Why, for good works!

[Resource Manager]

THE MATTHEW GENEALOGY.

 

The genealogy of Matthew 1 poses a number of problems. Before attempting to resolve some of these problems — before even stating them — let us remind ourselves of the simple facts.

 

The opening sentence of the New Testament is: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. We recall that God made great promises to David and Abraham concerning a “seed” who should bring blessings to mankind. This verse identifies the promised seed as Jesus Christ. The verses that follow are intended to demonstrate the truth of the position that Jesus Christ is the son of David, the son of Abraham. Thus we read that “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob …” — and so we are led on, generation by generation, to David. From David we are brought, through a further long list of names, to “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”.

 

Why Joseph?

 

The name of Joseph presents us with our first problem. We know that the Lord Jesus was God’s son, not Joseph’s son. How then does a list of names linking Abraham and David to Joseph, who was not the father of the Lord Jesus, prove that the Lord Jesus was the son of David, the son of Abraham?

 

Let us think particularly of the relationship with David. Whereas the link with Abraham is especially significant to us, as Gentiles, the link with David was the vital issue as far as the Jews were concerned, who were all descended from Abraham. It was the Lord’s descent from David that established his Messianic claims.

 

God had promised David that he should have a son who would also be the son of God: “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... I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (1 Chron. 17:11-13). The promised king was born by the operation of the Holy Spirit upon a virgin, named Mary. Thus, in the conception of the holy child, human paternity was excluded, and the babe was, literally, the son of God.

 

But prophets and angels had said that Jesus Christ was to be the son of David, and his claim to the throne depended upon his descent from David. Since, in the immediate sense, there was no human father; descent from David would have to be through his mother. In other words, Mary, the mother of our Lord, would have to be related to David.

 

Viewing this matter theoretically, we can see that there were two ways in which Mary could be related to David. She could herself be a descendant of David’s; and she could be married to a descendant of David’s. In marriage a woman takes on the name and the identity of her husband. Indeed, they become one flesh. If, therefore, Mary’s husband was a son of David, she too would be legally related to David, and her children would be thus related to David too.

 

It appears that Mary was related to David in both these ways. It has been suggested that her own blood descent from David is demonstrated in Luke’s genealogy (though there are problems here which cannot be ignored); and Mary’s husband, Joseph, was also descended from David, as Matthew demonstrates. Jesus Christ was thus descended from David in all possible ways consistent with his divine paternity.

 

Reverting to Matthew’s genealogy, we may say that it is shown here that Jesus Christ was legally to be regarded as a son of David. If this could not have been established, there would have been grounds to challenge his title to David’s throne, despite his mother’s blood descent from David.

 

It is worth noting here that, whatever difficulties we may see in the genealogies, Joseph’s descent from David was regarded as incontrovertible in his day. We remember that he went to Bethlehem, the city of David, to be taxed, “because he was of the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:4). We remember, too, that during the Lord’s ministry people from near and far — including a Canaanitish woman from “the coasts of Tyre and Sidon” (Matt. 15: 21-23) — recognized him as a son of David, and expected great things of him on that account.

[Resource Manager]

A Delicately Poised Situation.

 

Again, viewing the matter theoretically, we can see that the circumstances that related Christ to David through Joseph were delicately poised, so to speak. It was necessary for Jesus Christ to be born by the operation of the Spirit of God; and it was also necessary for his mother to be a married woman — married to a descendant of David’s. If one ponders the implications of these two necessities, the need for perfect divine planning becomes evident.

 

Matthew tells us that “When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit”. We can appreciate at once that this situation demanded the highest spiritual qualities in both Joseph and Mary. As far as Mary was concerned, her faith and submission made the virgin birth possible. Elizabeth says, “Blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord” (Luke 1:45). As far as Joseph was concerned, his willingness to marry Mary, despite the stigma attaching to her condition, made the Messianic claim possible.

 

Let us reverently consider the alternatives. Suppose, in the first place, that Mary had remained unmarried. In that case her child would have had no legal standing at all, far less a claim to David’s throne. Suppose instead that Mary had married a man who was not descended from David. In that case the child would not, legally, have been a son of David’s, and there could have been no valid claim to the throne.

 

Suppose now that Mary had been “found with child of the Holy Spirit” before her espousal to Joseph. In that case — looking at it humanly — the espousal would never have taken place.

 

Matthew tells us that “Joseph ... did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (Matt. 1:24,25). Suppose that Joseph had not taken Mary to his home until after the birth of the Lord Jesus. That would have given the impression that Joseph was reluctant to look after the child, and could have been regarded as evidence that the child was “born of fornication”.

 

Suppose, finally, that Joseph and Mary had been fully married, and had lived together as married people, before the Holy Spirit came upon Mary. In such a case Mary would not have been a virgin, and the testimony concerning the miraculous conception would have been difficult even for right-minded people to credit.

 

Four Women.

 

We return now to Matthew’s genealogy, and note that four women are referred to, besides Mary. Why do these four women appear in this long list of men’s names? Of all the mothers to whom reference could have been made, are we to suppose that these are the most illustrious? Let us see who they are.

 

They are: Thamar, Rachab, Ruth and “her that had been the wife of Urias”. Why, these are the very women who should have been avoided! Or so a human biographer would have thought. Thamar, or Tamar, was involved in an incestuous relationship with her father-in-law, Judah. Rachab, or Rahab, was a harlot. Ruth was a Moabitess. The name of “her that had been wife of Urias” was Bathsheba: and David had committed adultery with her.

 

Why should these women have been included in the royal genealogy, and why should no reference have been made to Sarah, Rebekah and Leah? Cannot we see that they all, and Mary, have something in common? Though some at least of these women were virtuous — and others may have been — their background or circumstances made them socially unacceptable. Mary, too, was under a cloud, as far as the judgment of many of her contemporaries was concerned.

 

The greatness of the son of God was not derived from noble human stock. Although he was born into the human race, no man or woman could boast on this account. The son of God was great despite his human ancestry, and not because of it. He was great because he was the son of God.

[Resource Manager]

Three Times Fourteen.

 

Immediately after the list of names in Matthew 1 comes the following analysis: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations” (v. 17).

 

Three times fourteen is forty-two: and we should expect to find the names of forty-two men in the genealogy. In fact we find forty-one names. The number is made up by the duplication of one name. Jechonias is the last name in the second set of fourteen, and the first name in the third set of fourteen. Why should this be?

 

This is by no means the only unexpected feature. We observe that the second set of fourteen names consists of kings. If we compare the names of the kings listed here with those found in the books of Kings and Chronicles, we shall discover that there are four omissions.

 

In Matt. 1:8 we read that Josaphat begat Joram and Joram begat Ozias. From the Old Testament, however, we learn that between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah) there were three kings: Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah. Why should Matthew leave these names out?

 

The other omission from this section of the genealogy is Jehoiakim. We learn from the Old Testament that Josiah’s son was Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim’s son was Jehoiachin, or Jechonias. Matthew jumps a generation and says, “And Josias begat Jechonias”. Why?

 

A Selective Genealogy.

 

There is no want of problems here. We have seen that the name of one man occurs in the second and third set of fourteen names; and four names have been left out of the second set.

 

It is difficult to find satisfactory reasons for all these unexpected features, though we may be assured there are good reasons in each case. There is, however, one general conclusion to which these features clearly point. It is that Matthew’s genealogy is a selective one. We noted earlier that four women were included in the list because their inclusion makes an important contribution to the elaborate story of the birth of Jesus Christ. Four men are deliberately excluded because, in some way, their inclusion would be out of place in this selective list. One name is found in two sections of the genealogy because, in some way, this name belongs to both sections.

 

Other Omissions?

 

We have seen that Matthew has omitted four names from the middle section of his genealogy. Is it possible that names have been omitted from the other two sections as well?

 

We are not able to prove that specific names have been left out in the first and third sections by pointing to these names on other lists. Even so, there are good reasons for believing that there are omissions — certainly in the third section, and possibly in the first section too.

 

Let us look at the third section. There are thirteen names from Salathiel to Christ (both inclusive). Luke also gives us a list of names linking Salathiel with Christ. It is quite a different genealogical line, so we are not permitted to make a name for name comparison. But because Salathiel is in each case represented as the father of Zerubbabel, we are assured that it is the same Salathiel, and that both lists span the same period. The significant point is this: whereas Matthew spans this period with thirteen names, Luke spans the same period with twenty-two names. Does not this point clearly to the conclusion that as Matthew omitted names, in accordance with his selective principles, in his second set of names, so he must have done in his third set of names?

 

Consider now Matthew’s first set of names. Verses 5 and 6 read as follows: “And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king”. The name of Rachab takes us back to the days of Joshua. The period spanned is therefore from the time of Joshua to the days of David. There are three generations between Salmon and David. Is this sufficient to cover the days of the conquest, the judges, Samuel and Saul? It certainly looks as if there were more generations than are accounted for here. The difficulty however is that there are other genealogies in Scripture of this same period, and there are no extra names in any of these lists. Are we to conclude from this that, for reasons known to God, names have been expunged from all the records? Could they be the names of cursed Canaanites who mingled with the royal seed? Or must we revise our ideas of the chronology of the period?

 

There is much that we have to learn …

[Resource Manager]

Omission of Four Kings.

 

Now let us see if we can find reasons for the omission of the four kings in the second section of the genealogy. The first three omissions are in three consecutive generations. Matthew states that Joram begat Ozias, whereas the Old Testament tells us that Joram was succeeded by his son, Ahaziah, who was followed in turn by Joash and Amaziah. Then came Ozias (Uzziah or Azariah) who was Amaziah’s son. The son, grandson and great grandson of Joram are therefore omitted from Matthew’s list. Why? The history of this period may provide a clue. We discover that the wife of king Joram, and the mother of Ahaziah, was the wicked Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab. Does this have any significance as far as our investigation is concerned? Let us recall some of the facts recorded about Ahab.

 

Ahab was king over another kingdom — the northern, ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. He too had married a wicked woman - Jezebel, and Athaliah was the child of this marriage. We are told emphatically that the marriage of Ahab to Jezebel was abominable to God; “And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him” (1 Kings 16:31).

 

Observe that Jezebel was the daughter of the king of the Zidonians. From Genesis 10 we learn that Sidon was the eldest son of Canaan (v. 1 5). The Canaanites were cursed by God (“Cursed be Canaan” - Gen. 9:25), and there is an abundance of evidence that friendship with the Canaanites meant enmity with God. Ahab certainly made himself an enemy of God by this marriage. Not only did his relationship with Jezebel lead him personally into greater wickedness, but it also brought a great wave of idolatry over the whole kingdom, which ultimately ruined it.

 

Canaanitish Contamination in Judah.

 

What happened to Israel in one generation happened to Judah in the next. Just as the marriage of Ahab to Jezebel brought Canaanitish wickedness into Israel, so the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter to Joram, the king of Judah, brought Canaanitish wickedness into Judah. Thus we read of Joram that “he walked in the way of the kings of Israel ... for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Chr. 21:6); and of Ahaziah his son it is written that “He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly. Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the Lord like the house of Ahab: for they were his counsellors after the death of his father to his destruction” (2 Chron. 22:3,4).

 

The suggestion that is offered here is that God showed His contempt of this vile union between Joram and Athaliah by expunging from the royal line the names of the immediate descendants of the marriage, to the third generation. It may be significant too that the three men whose names are omitted from Matthew’s list all died violent deaths.

 

What then of Ozias (as he is called in the New Testament), the great-great-grandson of this calamitous marriage? Why does he find a place in Matthew’s genealogy? It would seem that, by this time, God’s wrath was appeased. We read concerning this king that “God helped him”, and that “he was marvellously helped, till he was strong ...” (2. Chron. 26:7, 15).

[Resource Manager]

Jehoiakim.

 

Now we have to try to account for another one omission — that of Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, king of Judah. As we have already seen, the list in Matthew by-passes Jehoiakim and states: “And Josias begat Jechonias” (v. 11).

 

The history of Judah is somewhat complicated about this time. Josiah had three sons and one grandson who became kings. Jehoahaz reigned first, but was deposed by the king of Egypt. His brother, Jehoiakim followed, but was taken captive by the king of Babylon. Next came Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin, who, after a very short reign, yielded himself up to the king of Babylon; and finally, Zedekiah, Josiah’s third son and Jehoiachin’s uncle reigned until he too was taken to Babylon.

 

Of these four kings, only two could be expected to appear in Matthew’s list. Only Jehoiakim and his son, Jehoiachin are in the line that leads to Christ.

 

Why then is Jehoiakim omitted? Is it because he, more than anyone else, could be described as the king of the captivity? Not only was he a wicked king, but he was a symbol of the wickedness of the nation. For a long time there had been a filling up of iniquity and a witholding of the wrath which ultimately was to come. Then, in the reign of Jehoiakim, when the cup of wickedness was full, God’s judgments descended. The king was removed by God Himself, and his very name was expunged from the royal line.

 

Jehoiachin.

 

The double inclusion of Jehoiachin still remains a problem. Perhaps some readers would like to do a little research here.

 

A Digression.

 

We shall permit ourselves to digress here, to think about another omission from another list. Many have wondered why the name of Dan is not included in the list of tribes mentioned in connection with the sealing of the 144,000 in Revelation 7. Many brave attempts have been made to grapple with this problem, and some ingenious explanations have been suggested.

 

One obvious conclusion is that, as in Matthew, the list is selective. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, although Joseph is represented by two tribes, as in the Old Testament, one of the two names is different. Whereas in the Old Testament Joseph was represented by Ephraim and Manasseh, the proud Ephraim is left out of Rev. 7, and instead we have Joseph and Manasseh.

 

But what about Dan? A possible reason for Dan’s omission is because the tribe of Dan, from its earliest days, had an unbroken history of idolatry. The beginning of the story is told in Judges. Chapter 18 describes how certain ruffian Danites travelled northwards to find new lands to settle in. They seized a city called Laish and named it Dan, “after the name of Dan their father’. Their spies had already discovered that there were household gods in the home of a man named Micah. They robbed Micah of his idols and all his idolatrous paraphernalia, induced his priest to become their priest, and made their newly acquired city a centre of idolatry. This was no small thing. “And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribes of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land. And they set them up Micah’s graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh” (vv. 30, 31). In view of this disgraceful record, it would have been strange if Dan’s name were mentioned in Revelation 7.

[Resource Manager]

THE LUKE GENEALOGY.

 

Whereas Matthew’s list begins with Abraham and moves on, via David, to the Lord Jesus, the list in Luke 3 is taken back from the Lord Jesus, via David and Abraham, to Adam “which was the son of God”. Although Abraham and David are common to both lists, the names linking David with the Lord Jesus are quite different (apart from two names).

 

Joseph or Mary?

 

If Luke claimed to give us the genealogy of Mary as clearly as Matthew claims to give us the genealogy of Joseph, there would be no problem. The difficulty is that Luke’s very different list also seems to be Joseph’s genealogy.

 

Expressed in another way, the problem is this: if Luke is the genealogy of Joseph, why is it different from Matthew? And if it is the genealogy of Mary, why is it presented to us as if it were the genealogy of Joseph?

 

Let us do a little careful thinking here. We must agree that Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy. It is presented as Joseph’s genealogy; and the subject matter of Matthew’s gospel is consistent with this genealogical introduction which leads us to “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”. More attention is given to Joseph in Matthew than in the other gospels; and the Lord Jesus is here represented as the king, the son and heir of David. His legal descent from David is therefore relevant and important.

 

Turning now to the genealogy of Luke’s gospel, there are three reasons why we should expect it to be Mary’s:

 

1. Because it is different from the genealogy given in Matthew, which is Joseph’s.
    
   
2. Because Luke goes into greater detail concerning Mary than the other gospels.
    
   
3. Because otherwise there would be no genealogy of Mary.

The third point is important. Earlier we noted that, because the Lord Jesus had no human father, descent from David had, of necessity, to be through his mother. We saw that there were two possible ways in which Mary could be related to David: 1. legally (through being married to a son of David); 2. actually (through being a blood descendant of David herself). If Mary was actually descended from David we should expect proof of it. It is submitted that Luke gives us this proof.

 

It is interesting to compare this double link with David with the information that Luke gives us about the descent of John the Baptist. Having stated that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest or a son of Aaron, Luke adds that his wife Elisabeth was “of the daughters of Aaron”. If we think of John as a potential priest who repudiated the priesthood in favour of a greater priest of a higher order, this double link with Aaron is the more significant. Our immediate purpose, however, is to compare it with the double link that Mary has with David — through the descent of her husband and (if we understand Luke’s genealogy aright) by her own descent.

 

It could be objected that although this seems reasonable enough in theory, Luke 3:23 invalidates it by stating: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli” - and so we are taken back, generation by generation, to David. Thus Luke tells us that Joseph was the son of Heli, who was descended from David. Because of this some would want to insist that it is the genealogy of Joseph, not Mary.

[Resource Manager]

A Clue.

 

How do we resolve this problem? First, we remind those who insist that Luke gives us Joseph’s genealogy, that it is different from Joseph’s genealogy in Matthew. Next, we read Luke’s list carefully and look for clues. We follow the names upstream, so to speak, and note nothing of special interest until we come to the name of Zorobabel (v. 27). There is also a Zorobabel in Matthew’s list. Could it be the same person? Yes, it would seem to be the same man because he occurs in about the same place in both lists - which means that the time would be the same. This is confirmed by the fact that, according to both lists, the father of Zorobabel is Salathiel.

 

We are mystified, however, to observe that whereas Jechonias (king Jehoiachin) is described as Salathiel’s father in Matthew, Luke calls Salathiel the son of Neri. Indeed there is a parting of the ways here, and (working back with Luke) we find no more parallels with Matthew until the two lists converge on the name of David. We note that whereas Solomon is the son of David mentioned in Matthew’s list, Nathan is the son mentioned in Luke’s list. From David back to Abraham, Luke’s names are exactly the same as Matthew’s. Then Luke alone spans the period between Abraham and creation, completing his table with the words, “which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God”.

 

Let us sum up what is relevant to our immediate enquiry. Matthew’s list links David with Joseph via David’s son, Solomon, whereas Luke’s list links David with Joseph via David’s son, Nathan. The two lines converge at Salathiel, run together for one generation to Zorobabel, but then they separate again until they come to the name of Joseph.

 

What can we deduce from this? There is a mystery attaching to two names: Salathiel and Joseph. The father of each of these men seems to be different in Matthew from Luke. According to Matthew, the father of Salathiel is Jechonias, and the father of Joseph is Jacob. According to Luke, the two fathers are Neri and Heli, respectively. It is possible that the same explanation will hold good for both cases. Consider Salathiel. Obviously he did not have two fathers, and we have to decide which of the two really was his father. According to 1 Chron. 3:17 Jechonias was the father of Salathiel. This confirms what we learn from Matthew, and leaves us wondering about Luke.

 

Here we have to take into account the fact that in the frequently recurring expression, “which was the son of”, the words, “the son”, are in italics. This means that they do not occur in the original, but have been put in by the translators to make the sense. In the original there is simply a succession of names each linked to the next by “which was of”. There need not therefore be an invariable father-son relationship between the two related names. One would expect it usually, and one gets it usually, but it is not necessary to regard it as invariable. This is clearly illustrated in the relationship of Adam to God. Adam was not the son of God: God was Adam’s Creator. What then of the relationship of Neri to Salathiel? It seems reasonable to suppose that Neri was Salathiel’s father-in-law. Indeed, no other explanation can explain the diverging genealogical lines. And by the same logic it seems reasonable to regard Heli as the father-in-law of Joseph. In that case he would be the father of Mary, and the genealogy would be that of Mary. The purpose of the list would therefore be to demonstrate that the Lord Jesus, as the son of Mary, would be a blood descendant of David.

 

Yet Another Link.

 

Luke thus traces Mary’s ancestors back via David and Abraham to Adam. We have seen that two of her ancestors are Zorobabel and Salathiel. Since Salathiel is the son of Jechonias, we are prompted to ask why Luke does not state, “which was the son of Jechonias”, and then follow the same line as Matthew, connecting Salathiel with David through the kings of Judah. This would surely have been the obvious course. Why does he switch over, instead, to Salathiel’s father-in-law? It is submitted here that this deviation enables us to see what would otherwise be hidden from us - that Salathiel’s wife was also a descendant of David’s. Their son, Zorobabel, was therefore descended from David by both parents. Zorobabel was one of the great figures of the restoration. He was the leader of the people, and under him the building of the ‘restoration’ temple flourished. How significant then that this convincing type of Christ should have been doubly descended from David.

 

If Luke does indeed give us the genealogy of Mary, then Mary herself, being a descendant of Zorobabel, was doubly a descendant of David’s. Taking this one step further, it means that the Lord Jesus was descended from David in two ways through his mother - quite apart from his legal descent from David through Joseph.

 

The matter does not end there. Legally, Joseph was the father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since Joseph was also descended from Zorobabel, he was also doubly descended from David. This means that legally the Lord Jesus was doubly descended from David too!

 

Summing all this up: The Lord Jesus had no human father; God was his Father. His mother Mary was related to David in no less than four ways: legally, through her husband, in two ways; and actually (by blood descent) in two ways. Christ was the son of David indeed!

 

Cainan.

 

Let us conclude this study with one other challenging thought. In the section of Luke’s genealogy that links Abraham with Adam we find one name that does not occur in the A. V. text of Genesis - Cainan. This name comes between Arphaxad, Shem’s son, and Sala. Although the name of Cainan is not found in the tables of Genesis 10 and 11 according to the A. V., it does occur in both these places in the Septuagint version. So Luke confirms the Septuagint reading of the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11. This raises some remarkable possibilities — but that is another story!

 

SomeDifficultPassagesBook3_PeterWatkins_CIL.pdf