The Genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ

[Resource Manager]

THE GENEALOGY OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

 

ACCORDING TO THE BIRTHRIGHT IN THE STATUTE OF JUDGMENT (Num. 27:11)

 

By G. R. D. MOYE

 

Being a brief treatise of the inspired Genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ recorded in the First Chapter of Matthew and the Third Chapter of Luke

 

“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt. 1:1).

 

“And the Angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.... Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the Angel said unto her, The Holy Spirit 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.” (Luke 1:30-35).

 

FOREWORD

 

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS is given in Matthew, chapter 1, and in Luke, chapter 3; but it is evident that the outlines given there need amplification and substantiation from The Chronicles of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Author has developed the subject in this way. My part has been confined to remoulding the literary structure and the correction of the proofs. To all readers, I commend the work as containing “treasures new and old” in which each will find much pleasure and profit. May God richly bless the effort.

 

A. R. D. MOYE,

School Teacher,

Walla Walla,

New South Wales.

Nov. 22nd, 1944.

 

(I am deeply indebted to Mr. A. R. D. Moye for helpful advice in preparing this study for the press. —The Author.)

 

“The analogy of nature is often referred to in the Scripture in illustration of the deep things of the Spirit. It is reasonable that one should be laid under contribution in expounding the other, because the beings to be taught are natural beings, and the exponent is the Creator of them all. “—Dr. Thomas

[Resource Manager]

PREFACE

 

The importance of The Genealogy of Christ is evidenced by the fact that it forms the introduction to the Messianic character of the Saviour in the Gospel of Matthew, and of his divine Sonship in the third chapter of Luke. The subject is apparently one for students; yet the author of this exposition believes that it can be made an interesting and fascinating topic for the consideration and contemplation of everyone who loves to "search the Scriptures" for their eternal and divine truths. To this end, a brief explanation of the intricacies of the subject is indicated in this study, which is, in fact, a synoptical view of its salient features.

 

Many people, though without scriptural warrant, treat the subject with studied indifference, and quote Paul's address to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:1-4) in support of their attitude. It is prayerfully hoped that this treatise will help the reader to overcome any antipathy to the theme, however acquired, and give to him instead an awakened enthusiasm for its truth and spiritual grandeur.

 

If it was incumbent for the Jews to produce the credentials of their lineage, as, for example, in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, in assuming their priestly office; or of their kings to the right and title to the throne of David, how necessary is it for us to see the divine reasons for the preservation, of the generations of Israel's kings and priests in the Chronicles of the Scriptures?

 

The following quotations from well-known authorities will help to dispel any misgivings concerning the words of Paul, and give answer to our critics, who think that the "endless genealogies" referred to are the genealogies of the Scriptures: —

 

"They (Christian sects) were all, therefore, unanimous in acknowledging the existence of an eternal nature, in whom dwelt the fulness of wisdom, goodness, and all other perfection, and of whom no mortal was able to form a complete idea. His great being was considered by them as a most pure and radiant light, diffused through the immensity of space, which they called pleroma, a Greek word, which signifies fulness; and they taught concerning Him and His operation the following things:

 

The eternal nature, infinitely perfect, and infinitely happy, having dwelt from everlasting in profound solitude, and in a blessed tranquility produced at length from itself, two minds of a different sex, which resembled their supreme parent in the most perfect manner. From the prolific union of these two beings others arose, which were also followed by succeeding generations; so that in the process of time, a celestial family was formed in the pleroma. This divine progeny, being immutable in its nature, and above the power of mortality, was called by the philosophers, aeon, a term which signifies, in the Greek language, an eternal nature. How many in number these aeons were, was a point much controverted among the Oriental sages.

 

It appears highly probable that the apostle, Paul, had an eye to this fantastic mythology when, in the first chapter of His First Epistle to Timothy, verse 4, he exhorts them not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, etc. " (Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Chapter I: Internal History of the Church, page 24. )

 

Again, "The opinion is very decidedly held that a mythus is contained in Gen. 6:1-8, and certainly not without reason, if the 'theogonic' and 'mythologic' idea of 'sons of gods', and 'the widely spread dogma of the theogony in the polytheistic religions of the ancient world', were also found in this passage. It is strange that the sobriety elsewhere evinced by our modern expositors is here exchanged for a willing acquiescence in the silliest whims of the Alexandrean Gnostics and Cabbalistic Rabbins, in order to make an attempt from that quarter to pervert and throw suspicion on Scripture truth." (Havernick: Introduction to the Pentateuch, page 110.)

 

The time is at hand when the Lord Jesus Christ as the King-Priest of the world after the Order of Melchizedec will prove His identity and claims by the display of omnipotence at His second appearing among men. May the reader accept this brief contribution as a scriptural study of those claims, for out of them are the issues of Life.

[Resource Manager]

INTRODUCTION

 

THE Bible is pregnant with a knowledge not found in ordinary literature. The Scriptures are divinely inspired, and, therefore, rest upon a plane far above human conceptions and ideals. It has a delicacy of composition, in which is inwrought the hidden wisdom of the Deity in language which is both literal and figurative.

 

The Divine Word was written through Holy Men moved by the Holy Spirit. In this way, it is of divine origin and infinite. No Scripture is of any private interpretation. It is its own interpreter, and God's glory lies in concealing a matter, and honour to Kings who search it out. In the inspired Word, Yahweh has placed on record what knowledge in His wisdom men should know, and He expects them to take Him at His Word. It is only through submission to His Will that men's thoughts are disciplined by it and directed to the truths which it contains.

 

In the Book of Deuteronomy we read:

 

"Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak;

And hear, O earth, the words of My mouth.

My doctrine shall drop as the rain,

My speech shall distil as the dew,

As the small rain upon the tender grass,

And as the showers upon the earth.

Because I will publish the name of the Lord:

Ascribe ye greatness unto our God."

(Deut. 32:1-3).

 

In this refreshing style, Yahweh reveals His eternal purpose. Rain is produced by the moisture being evaporated from the earth's surface by the sun and condensed in the cold atmosphere of the firmament. Dew is the moisture in the atmosphere deposited in the night upon the herbage of the field through loss of heat by radiation. In the morning when the sun begins to warm the earth, the dewdrops become once more invisible, aqueous vapour. The analogy has beautiful spiritual implications. All of God's children are, as it were, born in "the womb of the night." In the resurrection morn, when the Sun of Righteousness arises with healing in His beams, they are drawn up from the waters of the earth to become in the Heavens "so great a cloud of witnesses," transformed into Spirit, radiant and resplendent with glory. This, then, is the Mystery of Godliness, and forms a fitting prelude to the thoughts which follow upon the Genealogy of Jesus, and its relation to Redemption; to those intricate problems which concern the regal and priestly rights belonging to Jesus through the Eternal Word of the Father:

 

"Being made so much better than the angels,

as he hath by inheritance obtained a more

excellent name than they." (Heb. 1:4).

 

THE SPIRIT IMPULSE

 

The impulse of the spirit rather than of the flesh has been the grand principle whereby DEITY has BEGOTTEN the imperishable seed of promise.

 

Abraham's concern for Isaac, and Isaac's for his twin sons, Jacob and Esau, in the matter of marriage is fundamental to the whole of the divine purpose in the union of the Bride in her spiritual marriage to Christ Jesus. If fundamental, it is worthy of serious thought, and like a golden thread that divine care to be displayed in the selection of a wedded partner runs through the pattern in the lines chronicled in the Scriptures and culminating in the Son of God. From Eden it terminates in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Noah informs us that God destroyed men, because "the sons of God," men and women of faith, mingled themselves with the seed of men, with the worldly and carnally minded. (2 Pet. 2:4-5, Jude 6, 1 Pet. 3:20). It was this knowledge that taught Abraham to guide the destinies of his own son, Isaac. He directed Isaac towards a kinsman, and to seek Rebecca. Isaac himself followed the same command and faith as Abraham.

 

This law of kinsmanship, stated in the STATUTE OF JUDGMENT (Num. 27:11), is found frequently emphasised in the five books of Moses. It concerns the integrity of the stock of Israel as the begotten son of God — Yahweh's firstborn. Thus a nation was born to Abraham, so that Jesus could lay claim to that Sonship by a rigid blood relationship. This claim would give Jesus the title of heir to the promises. Hence it was necessary in the eternal purpose for Yahweh to produce a son of faith, and through faith in a lineage and that by Spirit Impulse.

 

Sarah gave birth to a son to Abraham, but not until faith was established, and the covenant sealed by the law of circumcision. They were thus both elected. This selection, by God was done when the impulse of youth was dead:

 

 

"He considered not his own body now dead (when he was about one hundred

years old), neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb." (Rom. 4:19).

"Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead"

(Heb. 11:12) — Isaac, of whom it is written:

"In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Rom. 9:7).

 

These words contain a new truth. They refer to the power of the resurrection — to creative power giving life where death reigned. All depends on faith in the activity of divine power which brings about the will of God. Abraham and Sarah trusted in that divine power, when their bodies, as we have seen, were in manner dead, beyond the natural power of reproduction.

 

Ruth is exemplary. She was selected by Boaz for her spiritual virtues and her submission to the law of God. She fulfilled the Spirit Law of faith, and not for any physical comeliness of fleshly appearances.

 

Mary, of whom Christ was born, was not affected by the impulse of the flesh, but was operated on by God's Spirit, and conception meant faith and a mind of the Spirit. In Rom. 8:16 we read: "The Spirit beareth witness with our Spirit that we are the sons of God." And so, whenever a son of God is born, it is by faith according to the will of God. Thus the flesh is eliminated, and the exercise of the Spirit Power upon the sons of God alone operative. For this reason they are called upon "to crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts thereof," "to mortify the deeds of the body," and look to that life in Christ Jesus, radiant with the beauty of faith, whose beams light up the mighty deeds of the Father, for the pattern of good works. It is a beautiful exhortation for the unmarried members of the Body of Christ Jesus, especially the young, to seek their partners in a bride or bridegroom in the truth. Only then can there be one mind in the governing principles of hereditary and sympathetic love toward Christlikeness.

[Resource Manager]

STATUTE OF JUDGMENT (Num. 27:11)

 

The Statute of Judgment was the great statute of the Old Testament which made mandatory, under law, the recognition, of the principles of a righteous seed. It was given so that the titles to an estate or inheritance (the land of promise) would be directed to the requirements of God as to the integrity of the stock of Israel. It was a wise law and had limitations. It concerned those Israelites exercised by faith, and reduced Israel to what the Scripture terms "the seed of the woman," the remnant by faith established. (Ezra 9:8).

 

It then operated as a tribal law to preserve that faith in the individual's estate. It concerned the woman and allowed her to redeem herself as a participant in her holdings.

 

In case of a woman being an heiress by the death of her husband, or born with no brothers, in each case an heiress, she would be required to approach a "near kin." The first kinsman was a cousin (see Num. 27); he would be required to do the part of a husband and so raise up a "son of God." This is called redemption:

 

"Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon,

have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name

of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the

dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and

from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day." (Ruth 4:10).

 

If the near kin failed to perform his part, he was cut off from any future blessings. Hence the redemption of Ruth's estate taught prospectively, by figure, redemption in Christ Jesus of "the purchased possession". (Eph. 1:14). Ruth's virtues and actions represent the Bride of Christ, espoused in one husband and presented as a chaste virgin to him. (2 Cor. 11:2).

 

We can easily discern and identify Jesus as David's heir. Mary was an heiress or Princess to David's estate by lineage. Jesus being born of Mary inherits through her God's Name as His Father and God's rights through David.

 

Solomon said: "Now therefore, as the Lord liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day." (1 Kings 2:24). Note that he uses the words "God... established and set me" upon David's throne. The promise of a son was established and set in Solomon, as God's choice. Solomon represented the Greater Son, Christ Jesus, in type, the work of God's Kingdom. If Solomon was heir to David, Jesus must come through this established and set line of descent, otherwise Jesus could not claim to be a rightful legatee of that estate. Contrary opinion would wrest the Scripture, and deny Christ His inheritance.

 

Many exponents have wrongly construed the decree in Jer. 22:29-30: "Write ye this man childless." Coniah had children and therefore was not childless. His off-spring continued on until Zerubbabel.

 

Again, if Joseph (Matt. 1:16) was the heir presumptive to David's throne, then a son of Joseph by natural descent must be the future heir. Jesus could not claim it. Now Joseph and Mary were kinsmen, coming through the line (lineage) of paternal descent. Mary's father was a direct heir, and it is apparent that Mary was what one might call a Queen. Seeing that women were subservient to the male, she could not sit upon a "throne" of God. The Law of Moses provided the means to end this impasse (see Num. 36); hence Mary would have to wed a kinsman in Joseph before this could actually be accomplished. God usurps, rather, over-rules, the power of the legal right through marriage and brings forth "a Son." A son to Joseph by Mary would be a son begotten by the will of the affections of the flesh. A son born by human wedlock in this way could never sit eternally upon David's throne because of sin, "for there is no man (born of the will of the flesh) that sinneth not," and hence could not earn the title through implicit obedience.

 

"And they truly were many priests, because they were not

suffered to continue by reason of death." (Heb. 7:23-24).

 

This natural succession is called imperfection. Jesus proved himself a perfect son by his perfect obedience in suffering unto death. The agony of the Cross was the subjugation of his will to God's will, 'expressed in the anguish of Gethsemane: "Not my will but thine, O God, be done." This was his triumph. He overcame self-will in deference to the Will of his Father, who made manifest in the resurrection of the Son of His love that He is "just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus, " and declared His righteousness in setting Christ Jesus in majesty at His right hand in the Heavens, there to appear in the presence of God for us. (Heb. 9:24). In this way, God brings many sons to glory in Christ Jesus.

 

A son to mere human parents on both sides failed to "establish" and "set" himself in the ages and generations before Christ, because of disobedience through flesh weakness, and was therefore unfruitful in bringing "many sons to glory."

 

A son born according to the Will of God through Mary was a perfect Son, and therefore a fruitful Son, spoken of frequently, by metaphor, "a fruitful vine." Jesus being heir by birth and legal status can divide and share his inheritance as he thinks fit. God has committed all judgment unto His Son. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." All who are born of the will of the flesh are alienated from the hope of eternal life, being "dead in trespasses and sins." But if by belief in the things of the Kingdom and of Christ Jesus they "put on" Christ by baptism (immersion in water), they become by adoption the sons and daughters of the Father in Heaven, heirs — co-heirs — and "fellow-citizens" with Christ in the eternal Commonwealth of Israel:

 

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, above all people, for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

 

This study introduces new matter, and brings forth treasures "new and old." Whatever may be its imperfections, let us not shut our eyes to a subject of great spiritual beauty, but let us grow in grace and knowledge of all the wonderful and eternally grand things spoken of in Jesus Christ as "the word made flesh":

 

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to

become the sons of God, even to them that believe his name;

which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,

nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made

flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the

glory of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

(John 1:12-14).

[Resource Manager]

THE GOSPEL

 

Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Paul preached for two whole years in his own hired house the things concerning the Kingdom of God and those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

What is meant by the Kingdom of God? A kingdom is a regal constituency. Its ruler is a King; the earth or part of the earth over which he rules is his kingdom; and the people over which he is sovereign his subjects. The Kingdom of God is similarly constituted. Jesus is the divinely appointed King. The whole earth is revealed as his Kingdom. His associate kings and priests will be the immortalised saints of "the first resurrection," while his subject peoples will be the mortal inhabitants from which will be harvested the Elect to fill up his Kingdom at the end of the Millennial epoch, when God will be "all in all." It is therefore apparent that the kingdoms of men must be overthrown and the Kingdom of God upon the earth supplant them. (Dan. 2:44).

 

The establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth with Christ Jesus as the one and absolute ruler thereof is the gospel which was preached to Abraham:

 

"And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the nations

through faith preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying,

In thee shall all the nations be blessed. ... 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. 3:8,16).

 

That which was preached to Abraham was the promise of an eternal inheritance of the land of Canaan (Gen. 17:8), and from that centre, the world, ruled by a King which should be by direct descent "his seed." (See Matt. 1:1). They who accept the conditions of this Abrahamic Covenant, and who have been baptised into Christ Jesus become by adoption also "the seed of Abraham" and heirs with Christ of the same promises. (Gal. 3:26-29, Rom. 8:16-17).

 

How often do we hear the words, "The blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin?" Many people speak of this as the gospel. Not so. It is a part of the gospel, rather, the confirmation of it: "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:14). Paul says, "the seed is Christ," and that Jesus confirmed the promises and sealed them by his blood. The Blood of the New Covenant thus confirmed these promises and made them sure. And thus the Gentiles who have put on Christ by baptism become by faith also kings and priests with Christ Jesus, and their glorious future is apocalypsed in these words:

 

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book,

and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed

us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and

people and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and

priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:9-10).

 

The purpose of the Genealogy of Christ Jesus is to preserve the right of inheritance, which is directed through a seed, "the seed of the woman," a virgin in Israel (Isa. 7:14), and not merely through the lineage based upon "the will of the flesh, nor the will of man." (John 1:13-14). The whole matter was to be controlled by God, and where man had apparently defeated that control, the providential hand of Yahweh is seen preserving the line intact. The Law of Moses was expressly designed to this end. The Jews were required to produce their bona fides as to lineage before they were allowed to officiate as priests in the Temple. Intermarriage beyond the limits of the Law at once disinherited them. Failure to produce their credentials prevented them from officiating, and as a result, they were regarded as polluted, and "put from the priesthood." (Neh. 7:64).

[Resource Manager]

REVIEW OF MATTHEW, CHAPTER I.

 

Matthew introduces us to the subject in these words: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." The word "generation" is equivalent to "genesis" or origin. The Hebrew word is "toledoth". "This is the book of the generations (Heb., toledoth) of Adam." (Gen. 5:1). It is the shortest lineage in the Scriptures, for it contains only one name, SETH. The word SON is in the singular number, which makes it appear that God intended to convey to us the importance of that son. The rest were to be excluded from the lineage, for Yahweh had in view the future realisation of the prophecy in Gen. 3:15, and at once selects and controls the lineage of Adam in Seth. In Genesis 17:7-9 we have the answer to the intention of the Spirit, which states that THE SEED would relate to a particular generation and be confirmed in that generation.

 

The generation of Jesus is the generation of the Sons of God, who would derive their name from the Father. It does not concern those who belong to the line such as Cain's, which was blotted out, or to the genealogies of the Gentiles. The Gentiles or such of them who would believe and obey God would be made heirs, irrespective of descent. God would provide them a Saviour, as He would Israel.

 

Matthew deals with Jesus and his origin as "the Son of God" in the singular sense through SETH, NOAH, and ABRAHAM, as to generation, therefore Jesus is a creation of God—"the Word made flesh from the beginning of the world"—the Christ-World.

 

Adam was created from the dust of the ground, but Jesus was begotten by the Spirit's operation upon Mary, and that is why he is referred to as the son of David. In verse 6, we read: "Jesse begat David the King. " This title is important, for the use of the word, THE KING, in this verse is done to place emphasis upon Jesus as KING—as the son of David, the King— and son of Abraham. The generation, of Jesus is therefore connected up with the inheritance through Abraham, and the regal rights through King David to the throne of Yahweh in Jerusalem. (Matt. 5:35).

 

The throne of David was divinely placed in Jerusalem. (2 Sam. 5:4-5). He ruled over "all Israel and Judah," over the twelve tribes of Israel, styled the Commonwealth of Israel, or the Kingdom of God. (1 Chron. 28:5). This temporary Kingdom of God, nationally brought into being in the Exodus and regally constituted in King David, has been overturned and dispersed, until He come, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose right it is to restore it. (Eze. 21:26-27, Acts 2:29-31). In other words, the throne of David is to be resumed or restored again by Jesus. The whole history of Matthew in chapter 1 is to trace that divine purpose in the generations culminating" in the birth of King Jesus, and his genealogy cannot be understood without due regard to that design. Any attempt to sever the genealogy from Yahweh's purpose in Christ Jesus would make a scriptural understanding, of it insoluble. It could not be rightly understood. The lineage of Jesus is subject to a conditioned life of the progenitors of the King confined to A GENERATION, a carefully divinely controlled line of descent.

[Resource Manager]

BIOLOGICAL PROOF OF THE SCRIPTURES ORIGIN OF LIFE

 

In the beginning, God created the universe, and about six thousand years ago, man, and placed the man and the woman whom He created and made in a Paradise or Garden in the territory of Eden. All things, including the human pair, were the delight and pleasure of their Creator, and described as being "very good." Man was innocent and sinless, and to test his fidelity he was given a simple command to observe. In process of time, he was seduced to disobey the command and sinned; so the Lord "drove out the man" and man became the creature of his natural environment to eke out his mortal existence by the sweat of his brow, and eventually to cease to function as a living soul, subject to the inexorable decree: "Thou shalt surely die."... "Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return." This, then, is the common lot of mankind; but while God condemned man to mother earth through the operations of natural law, He did not wholly abandon him to a fate of annihilation, but formulated for him a scheme of salvation, and thus man was "made subject to vanity in hope." Provision was made for his redemption through the forgiveness of his sins. (Eph. 1:7). This scheme of redemption based upon sacrifice was typified to Adam and Eve in these words: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them." (Gen. 3: 21). Here was the divine significance given to the shedding of sacrificial blood, a covering for nakedness, the nakedness of sin, and in the last book of the Bible styled the Book of Life—"Written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8).

 

"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose

sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord

will not impute sin. " (Rom. 4:7-8).

 

But when man began to multiply upon the face of the earth, he went his own way, and became corrupt and wicked. He became morally and spiritually depraved, and his offspring suffered. As a corrective to this spiritual and moral declension, God has given man laws to obey which will do him good in the life that now is and prepare him for that which is to come —the gift of Life Eternal. The laws of God and His plan of salvation will therefore arrest or overcome the defects caused by sin upon the body and prevent at least moral deterioration, though, no doubt, were also intended to keep man subject to those laws as Israel was in healthy physical being. (See Deut. 28). Our bodies are like plants, and like them may respond to a certain degree of cultivation toward physical well-being and improved health. Medical science now demonstrates this, and the life of man living under hygienic conditions and improved sanitation has been increased, but, of course, no matter what improvements may be made in the way of health, the laws of mortality will inevitably take man to his long home: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit to God who gave it." (Ecc. 12:7).

 

The book of the generation of Jesus is retrospect in regard to his life and work. Mark uses the words, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," which is, in essence, the same as that of Matthew's.

 

In Genesis 30:37-38 we read, "Jacob took him rods of green poplar and of hazel and chestnut trees and pilled white strakes in them and made white strakes to appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters and in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink." Jacob understood the influence of environment upon offspring. The cattle that were unaffected, together with the weak ones, he eliminated. The strong ones he kept for himself. This is what is called selection. He carried out this selection for seven years, and considerably increased his flock. In this way, Jacob outwitted the injustice of his uncle, Laban, by using the laws of nature, and thus recouped himself for the loss of wages due to him.

 

Now, Jesus was begotten by the Spirit of God and not through the "affections of man." Mary, also was a prepared vessel, being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit; but, as in the case of Sarah, faith in the operations of God was also necessary. Since God was the Father of Jesus by the power of the Spirit vitalising "the seed of the woman" in the way described (Luke 1:35), the Son so brought forth would naturally reflect the spiritual image of the Father. We read: "God... hath spoken unto us by a Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds (Gr., ages), who being the effulgence of His glory, and the express image of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power." (Heb. 1:1-3). The flesh of Jesus was the substance, so to speak, and the Holy Spirit the power which impressed that substance with the spirituality of the Father, and thus Jesus was able to overcome the evil influences of the human environment to which he was subjected. Not only was his life influenced by the manner of his birth, but virtually the same laws determined his family history through the ages. The divine Spirit was the controlling power.

 

Jacob was surnamed Israel: "for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." (Gen. 32:28). The name passed to his descendants, now known as the Jews, a shortened form of Judah. They were designated Yahweh's firstborn, and son (Hos. 11:1, Matt. 2:15) as typical of Christ Jesus, who bears the same filial relationships. We have a remarkable line of descent — Abraham-Isaac-Israel (Jacob)-David-Jesus Christ.

 

In the matter of promise, Isaac is selected, the promised son to Abraham, and so we read, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Rom. 9:7). Divine selection eliminates the flesh. Isaac was a son born to Abraham and Sarah through faith in the promise of God, and it was the divine intention that Israel remain so. They were to remain faithful in order to be the select generation from whom God would raise up a Prince having power with God and who would prevail over all his enemies. Faithful Jews would henceforth not marry out of Israel. There are apparent exceptions, as in the case of Ruth, but exceptions prove the rule. The marriage of Ruth is termed a proselyte marriage, and those affected are considered part of the congregation of Israel. Out of this divinely controlled congregation divine selection went on according to the will of God, who could see the end from the beginning. Thus out of four thousand years of selection, commencing with Adam and terminating in Mary, we eventually have a woman as God's chosen vessel by the Spirit as the mother of Jesus, the Son of God. The hand of God is everywhere disclosed.

[Resource Manager]

STUDIES IN HEREDITY QUOTATIONS

 

The following are excerpts from "Study in Heredity," by E. B. Ford, M. A., B. Sc. They give the implications of Science in support of those factors which become intimately involved in the lineages chronicled in the Scriptures and converging upon the Lord Jesus Christ: —

 

"It is important to notice that, as living organisms are derived from each other, there is a continuity of living substance, carried by the gametes, from generation to generation, therefore, the fundamental resemblance of the offspring to the parents is due to the fact that it starts from the same material which, growing under similar conditions, attains a similar end.

 

"All those who derive pleasure, or even profit, from the study of living things, will find an added interest in knowing how their variation is controlled, how they evolve, or how desirable qualities may be established in stocks which they may possess. Nor must it be forgotten that these same laws apply to the HUMAN RACE. A knowledge of them is becoming essential for the student of a variety of social problems, and for those who advocate or even oppose, eugenic reform. It has been found that numerous diseases, or the tendencies to acquire them, are inherited; so also, it has been proved, are many normal characteristics mental as well as physical; medical men must certainly be acquainted with the principles upon which these facts depend. "—E. B. Ford: Study in Hereditary, page 8.

[Resource Manager]

KINSMAN MARRIAGES

 

The question is often asked concerning the marriages of kinsmen, such as the marriage of cousins, and even closer matings: Are they allowable? What are the consequences upon offspring?

 

We come across many such marriages in the Scriptures; but, according to Lev. 18:6-18, we find they were forbidden. It was only under extraordinary conditions or circumstances that they were permitted, and then controlled by divine selection. Paul, in Rom. 11:24, when speaking by similitude uses the illustration of grafting a branch which is selected upon a good olive tree. His particular instance, he says, was "contrary to nature." Ordinarily, the graft and the tree must be of similar stock, of good physique and fitness, so that when the union takes place "the root and fatness" of the parent stock would be transmitted to the offspring. In other words, the laws of heredity in the parent stock of good kind will tend to be perpetuated in the scion, and in this way deterioration in the family tree prevented or arrested.

 

We have said there are many kinsman-marriages reported in the Scriptures, and some examples are given below. As names have meanings in the Scriptures, we give also their import: —

1. Gen. 20:2,12: Abraham (father) married Sarah (princess), his half-sister.
   
2. Exo. 6:20: Amram (exalted) married his father's sister, Jochebed (Jehovah is glory), scientifically termed a "back-cross".
   
3. Gen. 28:2: Isaac (laughter) married his cousin, Rebecca (very fair).
   
4. Num. 36:11: The daughters of Zelophehad married cousins.
   

Quoting E. D. Ford again, we are given some observations of Science upon inbreeding, page 196-197, Study in Hereditary: —

 

"Close inbreeding need not therefore be ultimately harmful; rather, it is beneficial when practised in combination with strict selection.

 

"We therefore see that inbreeding combined with selection can raise the quality of the stock which is thus purified from those genes which produce disadvantageous results....

 

"They can, however, be concentrated again by inbreeding the offspring. As already explained, this procedure reduced the proportion of heterozygotes (dissimilar), so that the different homozygous (similar) types crystallize out, as it were. Continued selection of those in which the desirable character is most fully expressed will not only produce its maximum effect, as the greatest number of genes controlling it are brought together, but will fix it in the homozygous (similar) condition."

 

These facts are really self-evident. They have been mentioned to indicate that the first stage in incorporating a new variety ought to involve close breeding. This is a procedure which may be regarded with considerable misgivings. The impression that it is generally harmful is indeed reflected by the marriage laws of most countries, and will be endorsed by most of those who have practical experience in breeding animals, if not plants. Furthermore, it will be realised that the type of inbreeding here required is of the closest kind; a series of brother and sister matings, or a back-cross to a parent. Now the bad repute which such a method has gained is not wholly deserved."

 

According to Ezra and Nehemiah, the children of Judah and Israel were rebuked for inter-marrying with the surrounding nations. The Jews were required to be a separate people unto the Lord—a peculiar people. Their law was given to them to ensure that effect, typically enunciated in the Law of Circumcision. This was the law of separation as a token in their flesh, and its obvious design was the preservation of physical and moral purity.

 

It is impossible to have a genealogy of a people not segregated, as segregation is the only practicable means to ensure the PURENESS of the stock. In Lev. 19, we even read that God did not allow the Jews to experiment with nature, that is, their cattle were not allowed to gender with a diverse kind, nor were they allowed to plant mingled seed. The profound implications were that things offered to God must be pure. They were to be "without spot or blemish." The only way, then, to obtain a perfect sacrifice was to produce it perfect in kind, and scrupulously maintain that perfection by careful breeding and selection.

 

Mr. Ford and other scientists who experimented with plants and animals found that too much mingling of seed produced recessive results. The preservation of the Jewish race as a separate and exclusive race was an attempt by God to prevent a similar retrogression of national integrity, and therefore, the loss of that distinctive spirituality which Yahweh had been pleased to incorporate in them. The preservation of that spiritual perfection was the divine, sole motive. The flesh profited nothing, and the end in view was the production of Jesus Christ. The progeniture of God's Son underlies everything in the way of genealogical control of the Jewish nation. Thus, Yahweh set in operation FAITH in implicit compliance to His law in order to bring out the best in mankind in this way. In Jesus, He consummated His ideal — a man who lived a sinless life, and who became a perfect sacrifice unto death, "as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

 

In 1 Chron. 5:1, we read these words: "Now the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the (natural) birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler (Prince, R.V.); but the birthright was Joseph's.")

 

We have a statement here that the genealogy is not to be reckoned according to right of birth. Reuben sinned and his rights were given to Joseph. The only way for Judah to beget a Chief Ruler or King was upon the spiritual attributes of Joseph. Judah had a despotic temperament, and evidently he was the leader of his brethren and prevailed above them, and his will became law among them. When he appeared before Joseph in Egypt he showed moral weakness, because he thought that Joseph would take revenge and slay them for their cruelty to him. Joseph, on the other hand, showed a different spirit, noble of heart and tender in spirit, a fitting type to be entrusted with the birthright, especially in divine things. If we take the hereditary qualifications of Joseph and Judah and unite them, i.e., unite the spiritual ideals of Joseph with the ruling spirit of Judah, and combine them in a man, we would then have a man fit to be King and to rule Israel, and ultimately mankind. This uniting is done by marriage — a marriage by divine selection, so that the offspring acquires the right attributes of mind and heart for the eternal purpose of God.

 

From the very start marriage complications according to the kinsman-law forced themselves upon Judah. Failing to do the part of a kinsman, to his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Gen. 38:11), who appears in the genealogy of Christ in Matthew, circumstances through the subtilty of Tamar brought about the desired union and the continuance of the legal line in. the lineage. "And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I, because that I gave her not Shelah my son." In Ruth 4:12, Thamar (Tamar) is coupled with the glory of Ruth: "Let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman." This, then, is the beginning of the lineage of Jesus through Judah.

 

Again, Levi was chosen as the offspring of Yahweh. God took the sons of Levi, Aaron and Moses (the glory of Yah is exalted) as his firstborn and heritage. Moses and Aaron were excellent ground for such an entrusted position, as history proved. We see Aaron take for a wife a Princess of Judah. The Levites were not allowed to take a wife unless she was virtuous, holy and physically sound. (See Lev. 22). Again, the Kings of Judah are recorded in Chronicles and in the books of the Kings with their mothers' names. In most of these instances their wives were of the order of Aaron. All these instances are not accidental, but determined by God, so that the hereditary rights and dispositions might appear in the offspring. It is divine selection so that God's heritage would be through a woman's seed. This is proofed in Mary's relationship to the Aaronic priesthood. Luke 1:36 refers to Elizabeth as Mary's cousin and John as a second cousin to Jesus. Hence we have Jesus in a position of a kinsman to John, who died without issue. Thus we have Jesus as a redeemer of God's heritage in "bringing many sons to glory."

 

Jesus had the necessary qualifications in his genealogy, and his birth by the Spirit added to the Son of God that necessary balance which ordinary men lack. In all things, he pleased the Father, and he was a Son in whom God was well pleased.

[Resource Manager]

TO BEGET

 

There is a twofold point of view in the words “to beget.” The intention of the Spirit in Gen. 10:5,20,31 gives the generations of the family of Noah and leads us to conclude that the Spirit meant to give not only names solely belonging to individuals, but also names having a collective designation or significance. This is confirmed by comparisons with the plurals in Gen. 10:13-14. Thus, too, we have in Num. 1:2: “Take the sum after their families (pl.) by the house (sing.) of their fathers.” “There shall be a man of every tribe, every one head of the house of his fathers” (v. 4). And so, by analogy, the House of God, too, has many families or members in one head.

 

The word “to beget” has a wide application and does not always convey to us the order of sequence in lineage, that is, from father to son. In some cases, several generations are omitted. A father might have several wives and many sons, yet the selection of a son as heir would be through a certain selected woman. The name of that woman is specially stated in most cases, since the woman bears the son, and is responsible for his upbringing and nurture in the faith. Thus we have Ruth (faith), Rahab (faith in works), Bathsheba (obedient), Thamar (righteous), specially mentioned in the genealogy of Matthew relating to Christ’s birth. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is recorded as a woman of faith, and was numbered with the faithful women of her kind: “Blessed art thou among women.”

 

When we plant a seed in the ground, we plant it in a selected spot, in the very best soil possible, so that it will grow under the best influences, and reproduce the best of fruits. The mother is the soil of her offspring. Her life morally and physically in the gestation period must be carefully guarded so that the offspring might inherit the tendencies of a good life. The future of offspring is very often influenced by the character of the mother, and together with the environments of life, bring out the predominant characteristics in the offspring. “A good tree bringeth forth good fruit.” A good mother brings forth good children and vice-versa.

[Resource Manager]

PATRONYMICS

 

The word “patronymic” is derived from “patron”, a father. Literally, it means “the name of the father.” We find in the Bible a repetition of names in certain tribes, as, for instance, in the tribe of Esau, where we come across similar names to those of the tribe of Israel. The word is often used in commentaries, and its use is explained briefly below.

 

In the first place, the use is based on genealogy. People who mingle in mixed marriages cannot claim a genealogy even on Scriptural foundations, as genealogy is the cultivation of descendants upon pure lines. There is a very great difference, for instance, between a pure-bred merino sheep and a crossbred Jesus is referred to as “a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

 

In Luke 2:4, the word lineage is “patria”, from the Greek, meaning “father”. In Romans 9:5, we read: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came.” Jesus came directly through a selected line of kings, whose names are extended and repeated in the lineage.

 

We find in the tribes of Esau and of Israel, names of similar import. These names denote parentage, and in them one is able to trace the lineage of the woman. Esau and Jacob were twins. Esau was the elder, and married twenty years before Jacob. Both were of spiritual parents and brought up in a spiritual environment. At the age of forty, Esau went and conquered Seir, whose daughters he took to wife, and established himself as imperial chief over Arabia. This victory nearly cost him his life. On the return to his home, he was approached by Jacob to sell his birthright. “Sell me thy birthright this day.” (Gen. 25:31-32). Esau said: “Behold, I am at the point to die, and what profit shall this birthright be to me.” Esau, however, recovered and later became a king ruling over Arabia, Egypt, Midian, Edom and so on (Gen. 36, Deut. 2). He became the father of the Edomites. Jacob selected this name for Esau at the age of forty. If Jacob used the name Edom for Esau at the time of his return from Seir, Jacob must have been acquainted with his sin. It is apparent, then, that both Jacob and his mother, Rebecca, were acquainted with the wickedness of Esau; Isaac naturally wanted to give the birthright to Esau, the elder, but he had already sold it to Jacob. It is certain that Isaac had not known that Esau had despised his birthright, or he would not have attempted to bless Esau. We therefore have the circumstances providentially controlled, whereby Jacob supplants Esau in the birthright he had despised and sold.

 

In Deut. 23:7, we read: “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, because he is thy brother.... The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation (made possible only by marriage) of the Lord in the third generation.”

 

The children of Esau and Jacob contracted marriages with each other. These marriages were mostly contracted by the women of Esau to the menfolk of Joseph and Jacob, but rarely did a woman of Israel marry an Edomite. If the women did marry Edomites, the males of Edom must become Israelites and be edited in that particular tribe of that woman.

 

Jacob had twelve sons to Laban, and it is never stated to whom they married, save Judah, who took the daughter of Shua to wife, a daughter of the Abraham-Katurah combination, and Joseph. Of the others, we have only family designations as a guide. Thus, by he use of patronymics, we are able to arrive at a solution of many difficulties.

 

The first example of patronymics is the appellation. HEBREW, which is Semitic. It is derived from EBER, a progenitor of Abraham. The term was used in regard to Abraham, Abraham the Hebrew. In 1 Chron. 7:32, we come across a son of Asher called Heber. The name appears to have been first used by Esau, for in Judges we find a Kenite called Heber (a Hebrew name). (Jud. 4:11): “Now Heber the Kenite had severed himself from the Kenites, even from the children of Hobab, the brother-in-law of Moses.” This Heber was a son of Jethro, and a brother of Moses’ wife, therefore, Jethro was a Hebrew. I suggest that Asher married a daughter of Esau and called his son, Heber.

 

After the use of patronymics, we find this method used in pedigrees. The second example is found in the term, Korah. Korah is a son of Reuel, the progenitor of Jethro. (1 Chron. 1:35). The transferring of the name into the sons of Levi is done by marriage. Levi married into the stock of Esau. The children of God were not to mingle their seed with the Canaanites, and therefore, in these intermarriages between the children of Esau and Israel we are correct in our deductions in a racial sense, as the children of Esau were blood relations and near kinsmen to Jacob.

 

The appellation, Kenite, does not necessarily signify pure Canaanitish cast, but that there is, on the side of the woman concerned, foreign blood. Hence, we have the lineage of the female by this method.

 

The wives of Caleb, the spy, Moses, Joseph, Asher, and Levi were all taken from the sons of Edom. We are told that Rahab was the mother of Boaz, and that her faith established her in God’s sight. In 1 Chron. 2:55, she is said to be of Kenitish origin, and came of Hemath (Ham). The term applies to Caleb and Jethro also. Caleb is said to be a brother of Othniel, who is termed a son of Kenaz. If Kenaz is a son of Esau, it would be reasonable to suppose that Kenaz and Rahab were brother and sister, or rather, Rahab and Othniel were brother and sister.

[Resource Manager]

Chart

 

The Solution to Matthew 1:1 and Luke 3

 

(Briefly explained)

 

[Resource Manager]

HISTORICAL PROOF OF THE EGYPTIAN DYNASTY OF JOSEPH IN EGYPT WAS SHEMITIC

 

A knowledge of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings, as they were called, throws light upon some of the obscure places in the history of Joseph. "Every shepherd," we are told, "is an abomination unto the Egyptians"; consequently, "the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews." (Gen. 43:32). Jacob and his family were sequestered in the land of Goshen, because of this antipathy on the part of the native Egyptians. And why this antipathy to the shepherds? "A mysterious race; now gradually emerging from the shadows of four millenniums, the Hyksos, a term meaning 'Royal Shasus' (Shasu is an Egyptian word denoting the Arabs or Bedouins of the Deserts) conquering Syria and Palestine, where Flinders Petrie has in recent years identified many of their fortified strongholds, and then spread into Egypt, where, at first in lower (or Northern) Egypt and afterwards for a time at least in Upper (or Southern) Egypt as well, they established a powerful alien dynasty, reducing the native Egyptians to subjection. For some hundreds of years this race of aliens, proclaimed as Semites by their features in an ivory group discovered in a tomb at Abydos, held ruthless and efficient sway, not merely in Egypt, but over an empire spreading from Bagdad in the north to the First Cataract of the Nile in the south. The important point is that, being Arabs, they were Semites and near-of-kin to the Hebrews. —From "Confirming the Scriptures," by T. Miller Neatby, page 30.

[Resource Manager]

FAMILY DESIGNATIONS

 

In Numbers 1:2-4, we read: "Take ye the sum of the congregation of the children of Israel after their families, after the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upwards, everyone head (ruler or prince) of the house of their fathers." Thus we have "the house," "a head, " and "families". The head is singular, families plural, and house singular and plural, hence singulars and plurals in the manifestations of God's House—Jesus as head over God's House, in which there are many families.

 

The house of Rechab (alias Rahab) has many families, with Judah as the head. Rachab (Rahab) (Matt. 1:5) begat Boaz of Salma (Salmon), of the tribe of Judah. We must not lose sight of the fact that the head of this house is therefore Judah; but the house of Rachab is designated on her side of the lineage, and the name of her children take the family titles from Edomitish origin. Now, Caleb is also confined to the house as a first-born son, and had some paternal right to the birth of Boaz. Let us contrast these designations as they appear in 1 Chron. 1:34-41 with that of 1 Chron. 2:50-55.

 

1 Chron. 1:34-41	1 Chron. 2:50-55
Zerah Shammah Shobal Manahath Ithran Korah, or Zorah Son of Reuel	Zareathites Shumathites Shobal Manahethites Ithrites Zorites, or Zorathites Son of Caleb, the Kenezite

The tables before us are the sons of Reuel and the family designations of the house of Rechab, through the lineage of Caleb, the Kenezite. In 1 Chron. 2:55, we read: "These are the Kenites that came ... of the house of Rechab." Therefore, the imperfection of caste is Kenitish and is traceable back to Heber, on the side of Ephrathah.

[Resource Manager]

HISTORICAL

 

We are thus able to harmonise history with the lineage and to create a new chain of evidence. 1 Chron. 2:52 speaks of the half of the Manahethites, and 1 Chron. 2:54 says, "and the half of the Manahethites, the Zorites."

 

In 1 Chron. 2:4, we have the lineage of Pharez. Again, 1 Chron. 4:1, the lineage begins with Pharez. As to origin, both are related to Judah. Now in 1 Chron. 4:1, the split is caused through Shobal, due to a second marriage. He halved his family of Manahethites (1 Chron. 4:2) to that of the Zorathites. Zorah was the allotment of Dan, therefore, his first wife takes the title of Judah, while his second wife the title of Dan. For example, Hezron, of Judah, had two wives also. The first of Judah, the second of Manessah (1 Chron. 2:21). Jair is always called the son of Manessah on the side of his mother. In Ezra 2:61, a Levite is called Barzillai, after the daughter of Barzillai.

[Resource Manager]

CALEB, THE SON OF JEPHUNNEH

 

Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, the Kenite, is the son of Hur. Hur is the son, of Judah, (Exo. 31:2), whose son Bezaleel was appointed by Moses to make the Ark of God. Caleb married Ephrath, and begat Hur (1 Chron. 2:18-19) after the death of his first wife.

 

Now in 1 Chron. 2:50, we read: "These are the sons of Caleb, the son of Hur, the first born of Ephratah (Princess — see Gen. 17:15, "AH"). Caleb, the son of Hur, is a grandson of Caleb, the son of Hezron, and is of the tribe of Judah. He received his designation through Ephratah, the Kenite. The children of Caleb, the son of Jephunneh in Exo. 4:18 are descendants of Jethro (marg., Jether). In 1 Chron. 7:38, Jephunneh is the son of Jether (Jethro), of the tribe of Asher. It is the lineage of his mother (Hur's wife). In reviewing this chapter, we have the name Heber (v. 32) noted. This name is derived from Eber in Gen. 10:25, one of the forefathers of Abraham, hence the word, Heber. In Judges 4:11, we again come across the son of Jethro, called "Heber the Kenite." Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) was a Hebrew. Asher, in calling his son Heber, married also into the same stock as Moses, and is designated by the use of patronymics. Jethro, of Moses, must not be confused with the Jethro, of Asher. The Jethro, cf Asher, is a relative on the female side of Jethro, the Edomite, by the use of patronymics. Asher married an Edomitish woman.

 

In reading the text, 1 Chron. 2:9-18, 1 Chron. 4:15, and Judges 1:14, we are confronted with a difficulty concerning Caleb. Is he a son of Hezron of 1 Chron. 2:18? YES.

 

The references in Judges 1:14 and 1 Chron. 4:15 refer to his grandson, who is often referred to with the appellation, the Kenite. The words Kenite, Horite, Hittite, and Hivite, all derive their names from Canaan, the forefather of Ham. These names are used interchangeably and frequently concerning the children of Jethro. Jethro was the son of Reuel (Num. 10:29, Exo. 2:18). Reuel is the son of Esau and Bashemath the daughter of Ishmael. Ishmael was the son of Hagar. In 1 Chron. 2:55, Rahab is designated with her children as Kenitish, hence the appellation Kenite is retrospectively reviewed as coming through Hagar the Egyptian, therefore, Caleb's wife, Ephratah, Zipporah, (Moses' wife), Salmas' wife, Rahab, and Asher's wife are from the stock of Edom (Esau). By reviewing this retrospectively Joseph of Egypt called his son Ephraim, after the town Ephratah. Here we meet a retrospect in patronymics which determines Joseph's wife's origin as Shemitic (Edomitish), and connects up with the wife of Caleb, indicating that Joshua is related to Caleb's wife. The Hebrews previous to Abraham's day were usually called Shemites (Shepherd Kings). They looked upon the site similar to the Jews, namely, Jerusalem, as the throne of the future King. Caleb is hyphenated, the elder, with Ephratah, called Caleb-Ephratah, and is significant.

 

Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, the grandson of Caleb the spy, is referred to as "head" (Num. 13:6) of the tribe of Judah, and also referred to as the "prince of Judah" (Num. 34:19), designated as the son of Jephunneh. We are able to trace his name back on the male side of its origin — Judah. The antithesis of this analysis will give us an example to show how precise and exact this way of computing the progenitors of Jesus Christ is. For instance, Uriah the Hittite (Kenite) was the son of Zabab to Ahlai. (See 1 Chron. 2:31, 36, and 1 Chron. 11:41). Jarha was an Egyptian; therefore, if one could trace the lineage of Jesus Christ back to Jarha we would have an Egyptian as a Messiah (as to origin), and the very fact that Caleb was called a Prince (Judah, Prince) is proof that he was not of Edomitish extraction. Commentators are in error in assuming Caleb an Edomite, upon the hypothesis of the appellation, Kenite.

 

We have another of these similitudes in the case of Nabal, called a Carmelite (1 Sam. 27:3). Carmi is Caleb and forms the root word of Carmel. Carmel is the district of Hebron (Kirjath-Arba). (Jos. 15:54). Again, in 1 Sam. 30:14, we have the expression, "to the south of Caleb."

 

If we compare the two instances of the begettal of David and Nabal respectively, we find them both of the house of Caleb, but of different mothers. The same hypothesis is used to determine their parentage.

 

The topographical aspect is remarkably correct, since the conquest of Caleb gives us the correct key to the solution of the many difficulties and adds to the authenticity of the Scriptures. We have in this method of computation a double protection to the subject and to the right division of the Scriptures.

 

It will be seen from the above references that the inheritance given to each tribe acts as an independent lineage since the change of name is affected in accordance with a state of marriage, thus the statement, "thy land shall be married"; therefore, the virgin, the daughter, receives a new name, "the New Jerusalem." We have in the history of the Exodus a lesson of the great scheme of salvation taught by examples—"these things were written for our learning"—and typical instances throw a flood of light upon the divine purpose in Christ Jesus.

[Resource Manager]

SALMA

 

In Matthew 1:4, we have "Nahshon begat Salmon (Salma)." This is in agreement with 1 Chron. 2:10; yet in v. 51 of 1 Chron. 2, Salma is a son of Caleb, the spy, and is the father of Bethlehem. The question arises: Is Salma a son of Nahshon or is he a son of Caleb? Caleb the spy is the actual father of Salma (Peace). It was during the Exodus and while in the wilderness that the congregation of Israel suffered divine judgment, and perhaps Nahshon suffered also; for in Num. 1:7, we find Nahshon selected as the head of the Princes of Judah, yet only five years later, in Num. 13:6, we find Caleb edited as a spy (cf. Num. 34:19), and he is selected as prince and head of Judah. How can we reconcile these anomalies, and harmonise these apparent inconsistencies? Many expositors have noted this difficulty, but have never suggested a satisfactory solution. Like many things in the Scriptures, secrets are hidden; but the children of faith are able to search them out. One has only to find the foundation of God's purpose and build upon it and the message is revealed.

 

The book of Chronicles, like Matthew, is arranged in order of sequence without any references to the reasons why extra names are recorded. As we are now dealing with Caleb, we ask the question: Why are three names recorded in verse 9 of 1 Chron. 2, viz., Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubi alias Caleb (the elder)? In tracing for a kinsman, it will be seen at once when consulting the records that Caleb is a brother to Jerahmeel (v. 42), and Ram a son of Jerahmeel (v. 25). Why all this detail? It is not done elsewhere, nor at random; therefore, there must be some reason why the Spirit employs this method of compilation. The reason is obvious, since I have proved that there cannot be two heads of Judah. Thus, assuming that Nahshon died without issue, and Caleb the son of Hur acted the part of a kinsman and performed the duties of raising up a son of Nahshon while the son retained the name of Nahshon, he was really a son of Caleb, the spy.

 

There is another method that will prove the hypothesis herein expressed tenable. It will be seen in the play upon the name and inheritance of the ones concerned. We refer to the names Ephrathite and Bethlehemite. The origin of Ephrathite, I believe, is Semitic. It came from the name Euphrates. Joseph called his son Ephraim, after Ephratah, for it was in that region his mother died. It was afterwards changed to Bethlehem. Caleb, senior, married a woman named Ephratah, and by arriving at the correct origin of Caleb's wife, we can determine the origin of Joseph's wife.

 

Having proved that Ephratal and Bethlehem are one and the same place, six miles south of Jerusalem, we also point to the fact that it was the portion or lot of one of the families of Judah named Salma (Peace), a son of Caleb (Junior), termed in 1 Chron. 2:51, "The Father of Bethlehem," or founder of that celebrated city, we can rightly assume that he is the father of Boaz, etc. It is easy to assert these things; but any observer will be able to see' from the following quotations that such is the case. In 1 Sam. 16:18, and 1 Sam. 17:12, Jesse is termed a Bethlehemite, and David as son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem-Judah. These terms are applied to Elimelech in Ruth 1:1-2, and Micah 5:2 uses the term in regard to the prophetic appearance of Jesus Christ, and that in relation to his birth, thus connecting his birth with the inheritance of David: "Thou Bethlehem-Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel." The term Ephratah is designed to give one the lineage of the woman, who was not of the seed of Jacob, but of Esau, hence the case is traceable back to Hagar; therefore, the designation Kenite as an appellation to Caleb denotes his origin on the part of his grandmother. In. verse 55 of 1 Chron. 2, Rahab, who is the mother of David, is stated to be of Kenitish origin, which came of Hemath (Ham). Rahab was a daughter of Kenaz, a son of Esau to Aholibamah; and Othniel a brother to Rahab and Caleb, merely a blood relation on the female side. We are able to reconcile the chronological difference which makes it impossible for Othniel to be a brother to Caleb in the strict sense of the word. Gen. 13:8 (brother—kinsman).

[Resource Manager]

TOPOGRAPHICAL

 

By this term we mean to describe a place, a tract of land in which history is united. Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, was allotted many places in Judah. He and his son were united in the exploits of conquests over the Canaanites. Kirjath-Jearim was one particular place recorded. In 1 Chron. 2:52, Shobal is called the father of Kirjath-Jearim. He was the son of Caleb the Kenezite.

 

Kirjath-Jearim is called by Caleb a city of forests. Then the name was changed from Baalah (feminine), her idol—Kir-jath-Baal, city of Baal—to Kirjath-Jearim, city of forests. Thus Joshua 15:9, 13, and 1 Chron. 2:52 are in agreement, and the history and the allotment belong to Caleb, the son of Jephunneh of 1 Chron. 4:15.

 

Again, Jabez, a man of sorrow of 1 Chron. 4:10 is called after Jabez, a city (1 Chron. 2:55). There is no doubt that these two chapters—1 Chron. 2, and 1 Chron. 4—are interlocked.

 

We have the geographical significance in the Hebrew nation, among whom it could be preserved in its purity, because that people continued faithful to their original family unity, and kept free from mingling with other nations and races. We have through their seclusion a true specification of geographical tradition. We are indebted to the Scriptures for their revelation regarding the topographical and historical exactness. This aspect of the Bible has been further proofed by the archaeological discoveries of recent years. We, who believe the Scriptures, revel in this fact, since Herod demanded where Jesus was to be born. He was told in Bethlehem of Judah (Matt. 2:5), literally, "the house of bread." It was the city of David. In Luke 2:4, it links Joseph with Mary as to the lineage of David also, thus connecting the throne with the inheritance of David, therefore, we read: "The Lord shall inherit Judah, his portion in the holy land." (Zech. 2:12). Judah was the only tribe that conquered his inheritance through Caleb, the spy, hence Jesus redeems that portion and makes it possible for Caleb to receive eternal life, when the Lord shall come and choose Jerusalem again. This is in itself proof that Caleb the spy was a progenitor of Jesus Christ—a close kinsman to Jesus Christ by prospect, and in. scriptural usage, a father of Jesus Christ.

[Resource Manager]

"WRITE YE THIS MAN CHILDLESS." (Jer. 22:26)

 

In Strong's Concordance, the word "childless" (ar-eree, to make bare, to bear iniquity—in 1 Sam. 15:3 the word is shaw-kole, to bereave, lose children literally) in this particular place does not mean in the literal sense, but "to demolish utterly. " The same Hebrew word is used in Lev. 20:20, and supports my contention, being in strict harmony with the context of Jeremiah 22:26-30. This interpretation strikes at the heart of the British-Israel fallacy, because it does not concern the progeny of Jechoniah, but is merely a prophetic forecast of the condition of Israel and Judah, held, in captivity until redeemed.

 

The edict was written against Coniah alias Jeconiah. We read:

 

"Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." (Jer. 22:28-30).

 

A similar decree was also directed against Zedekiah in these words:

 

"And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, Thus saith the Lord God, Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it him." (Eze. 21:25-27).

 

The two decrees are a fulfilment of the prophecy recorded in 2 Kings 20:18:

 

"And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, they shall take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken."

 

The reason for the dual recording is, because of the diverting of the lineage. The throne really belonged to Jehoiachin through his father Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim and Zedekiah were half-brothers. (See and compare 2 Kings 23:31, 36; 2 Kings 24:18). Their father, Josiah, had two wives, therefore it was impossible for two kings to sit on the throne at one time, hence the two decrees.

 

"To write this man childless" is to render a person barren of salvation, or, in scriptural language, unfruitful, and the simile employed is that of a withered branch. If we view the statement literally then the ban affects the woman as well as the man, because Coniah had a son, Zorobabel, who was governor of Judah in Babylon; therefore, the scriptural ban does not apply in the literal sense. In Leviticus 20:20, to be written childless is for a person to "bear his iniquity," and to die for it; therefore, to bear his iniquity and to be written childless are one and the same thing, and under such a curse a man would die eternally unless the redemption law operated. There is an extreme example of divine wrath upon Nadab and Abihu, who offered strange fire before the Lord. They are recorded as dying childless.

 

The women of Israel understood the truth of this matter. For instance, we have the answer of the widow to Elijah in 1 Kings 17:18, "O man of God, art thou come to call my sin to remembrance and slay my son?" Naomi also confirms the widow's lament in similar feelings: "Call me not Naomi (Pleasant), call me Mara (Bitter): for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me"... "the Lord hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?" (Ruth 1:20-21).

 

Naomi was morally a good woman and did not deserve her suffering and affliction; nevertheless, it was a Jewish belief that physical ailments were the result of sin. Naomi understood her position in this way, but attributed her inability to this physical law.

 

Naomi was the wife of Elimelech (My God, the King) of Bethlehem-Judah. Her two sons, Mahlon (Sickly) and Chilion (Wasting Away), were not physically capable of producing good seed; therefore, having died childless, they needed redemption from their physical incapabilities. Their death left their proselyte wives free to follow their own wills, either to remain true to their proselytism in serving the living God of Israel, or to go back and worship the gods of Moab. Naomi requested of Ruth, "Would ye stay for them having husbands?" The widow awaiting second marriage must await in seclusion. (Gen. 38:11).

[Resource Manager]

THE KINSMAN LAW

 

The Kinsman Law is the Redemption-law, "a marriage law," designed for the preservation of the seed (Christ) of the woman, so as to secure and confirm the promises made unto the fathers of Israel. It was a law that confirmed the heirship to the promises by lineage, and eventually gave the rights of the title to the Lord Jesus by inheritance—"The King of the Jews."

 

The Jews quoted this law to Christ concerning the resurrection. (Mark 12:23). This very law is featured in Deut. 25:5-7: "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be that the FIRSTBORN" which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel." This law taught by figure redemption and resurrection, and so in the case of Ruth we read: "Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren." (Ruth 4:10).

 

Chilion and Mahlon were born under the Law and were Israelites. They died childless; this left Naomi also childless, and to die without children under the Law was to die eternally. (Lev. 20:20). Ruth was already a proselyte by being married to Mahlon, but was bereft of her husband and so childless in the strict, personal sense, for she could not marry unto a stranger unless she forsook the God of Israel. She was not willing to do this, and the circumstances of her birth would be a disadvantage in her approach to a kinsman, unless a means to that identification could be established. Naomi instructed Ruth in this method of proposal to Boaz, who was quick to realise his responsibility and so raise up seed to Naomi. The firstborn of Boaz belonged to Naomi and proceeded in the name of Elimelech, that is, in regard to the kingship. By a son proceeding in the name of Elimelech, the inheritance was redeemed and resurrected and the foundation of faith sustained.

[Resource Manager]

PARALLELISMS IN THE KINSMAN LAW

 

The following is a paraphrase of texts. It will help to bring out the meaning of each with emphasis. I have used the word "parallel" because the texts will reveal that such is the case; nevertheless, it is best to consult the verses to see if the true sense and meaning are given: —

1. Exo. 2:1: A son of Levi takes a daughter of Levi to wife.
   
2. Luke 1:5: A son of Aaron takes a daughter of Aaron to wife.
   Note: In Exo. 6:20, we find the answer to the question in Exo. 2:1, which says, "Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife, and she bare him Aaron and Moses.")
   
3. Num. 36:1, 11: A son of Manessah takes a daughter of Manessah to wife.
   
4. Luke 2:4: A son of David takes a daughter of David to wife.
   

Concerning Joseph, we read that he "also went up from Galilee out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and lineage of David), to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife." (Luke 2:4-5). Mary is also included in the lineage of David, and the assumption is that Joseph is a cousin or near kinsman to Mary.

[Resource Manager]

RECORDED PECULIARITIES IN THE LAW

 

In Matt. 1:3, we read: "Judah begat Pharez of Thamar." The circumstances of Pharez's birth was one of peculiar incident, but according to the KINSMAN LAW it was no sin on the part of Thamar, his daughter-in-law (Gen. 38:11), since the Law revealed that the kinsman, when the circumstances arose, was to act the part of a husband and to raise up seed to his brother. Judah acknowledged this in his remark concerning Thamar's act in seducing him: "She is more righteous than I."

 

In Matt. 1:12, we also read: "Salathiel begat Zorobabel." Zorobabel is recorded in 1 Chron. 3:19 as a son of Pedaiah, and in other parts of the Scripture as a son of Salathiel. We have not the information that will positively answer the question as to being the son of both, but the material for the solution exists in the fact that it was a law in Israel that a dead man's brother was required to take his deceased brother's wife and raise up seed to his brother. (Deut. 25:6). This was a wise law in that it kept the family inheritance intact. (See Num. 36:9).

 

The circumstances of the Babylonian captivity so depleted the ranks of the Israelites who lost a goodly number in battle. These losses caused an apparent discrepancy in the records, as did the general apostasy of Judah in mixing with the nations around them in marriage, which was divinely forbidden, and for which they suffered the judgment of God. These calamities caused a shrinkage of the lineage. Instead of a near kinsman, such as a cousin or aunt, being the one to redeem the seed, the lineage would be retrospectively reviewed, so as to determine the nearest kinsman. This was done in the case of Zorobabel, whose daughter, Shelomith, had to seek a kinsman in the line of Nathan.

 

Salathiel, in Luke 3, is edited as the son of Neri. This would be according to my hypothesis his mother's lineage, and would make it possible for a gradual infusion of the line of Solomon to be redeemed later in the marriage of Shelomith into the family of Nathan. Thus a son to Nathan would be the son of Solomon.

 

In the same tribe of Judah, Jair is called the son of Manasseh. (Num. 32:41). He is never called of the tribe of Judah, although he is on the male side of that tribe. His son took the daughter of Zelophehad to wife and was considered of the tribe of Manessah. If the Messiah were born through the lineage of Jair, it could be traced back to Judah. We have it recorded in Judges 17:7 that a man of Bethlehem-Judah, that is, of the family of Judah, was also of Levi. In Judges, the man's name is given as Jonathan, the son of Moses (R.V.), yet designated in the tribe of Judah. (Judges 18:30).

[Resource Manager]

BIRTH BY FAITH

 

In 1 John 5:1-5, we have victory attributed to faith. The context of this chapter deals with "begat and begotten," and "begat and begotten" are linked by birth. A key indicating the implications both natural and spiritual in the words is given, for instance, in Heb. 11:11: "Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child, when she was past age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised." The 12th verse supplies the answer of faith in the words "begat" and "begotten" used by John. The first word is used in the singular number, and the second in the plural: "Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the seashore innumerable."

 

In Romans 9, we have the confirmation of the seed born to Sarah in the promise: "At this time will I come and Sarah will have a son," "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." That is, "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: for the children of promise are counted for the seed" (vv. 7-8). "Of whom concerning the flesh Christ came." "Of whom" here is from ex hoon, which is plural, and has its antecedent in "the fathers" (plural). In this way, Christ Jesus came through the flesh, and not jointly through Joseph and Mary.

 

Referring to Genesis 17, we find these words: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Further on, in the same chapter, the covenant is assured in the promise of the birth of Isaac: "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shall call his name Isaac: and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him." (Gen. 17: 7, 19). That which was born to Sarah was therefore a son of God. The meaning of Isaac is laughter. That laughter was associated with pleasure. When Jesus was on earth he made the remark that there was more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repented than over ninety and nine just persons who needed no repentance. Hence, the birth of Isaac, præternaturally, and the meaning of his name, designedly chosen, have far-reaching implications in the outworking of prophetic truths. As it is written in the Psalms:

 

"When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion,

We were like them that dream.

Then was our mouth filled with laughter,

And our tongue with singing:

Then said they among the nations,

The Lord hath done great things for them.

The Lord hath done great things for us; Whereof we are glad.

Turn again our captivity,

O Lord, As the streams in the South.

They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.

He that goeth forth and weepeth,

bearing precious seed, Shall doubtless come again with rejoicing,

bringing his sheaves with him."

(Psalm 126).

 

The picture pertains to the New Age, the New Birth of the Children of God, the New Heavens (Ruling Powers) and the New Earth (Subjects rejoicing in the Just Rule of God's Kingdom upon the Earth), and of a time "when a Nation will be born in a day"—the day of the Resurrection, and the day of the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the Earth. And in that day "The Lord shall be King over all the earth... there shall be one Lord and his Name one." (Zech. 14:9). Then shall there be laughter and singing and joy to the earth's utmost bounds, and the words of Jesus read in the synagogue of Nazareth a joyous reality:

 

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel (glad tidings) to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:18-19).

 

Is it any wonder that they all sat enthralled at such prophetic eloquence, "and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth?"

[Resource Manager]

GOD'S DECREE

 

In Eze. 21:25-26, the Spirit says of Zedekiah: "Take off the Crown... I will give it to him whose right it is." In Jer. 22:24-30, to Jehoiachin (Coniah): "Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol... wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?"

 

Again, the Spirit in Isa. 11:1 says, out of a tree cut down a shoot appears. The tree that has been cut down is the nation of Israel, as spoken of in the prophecies above. The sprouting of that tree of Israel again is alluded to in these words: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." The word translated "stem" is, according to Gesenius, a stock or stump of a tree which has been cut to the ground. The image thus presented to us by the prophet is a tree which had been cut down to the ground, and from whose stump a new shoot springs as a sucker grows up from its roots. How truly this figurative description pictures the state of the Royal Tree of Israel cut down by the Babylonian Captivity? From the very stump or root of David the line was to flourish again, and for ever, in the Royal Majesty of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The decree against Coniah put an end to Judah's kingdom. Zedekiah was taken captive and killed, leaving Judah's throne vacant (Jer. 52:10); but in the 37th year of the captivity, the King of Babylon took Jehoiachin (Jechonias, Matt. 1:11-12) from the prison and exalted him above the thrones of the Kings of Babylon. (See 2 Kings 25, Jer. 52). Here is a typical resurrection or establishment of the Seed Royal of Israel, as implied in the name Jeconiah (Yah is establishing).

 

The lineage of Solomon to Zerubbabel remains unbroken. And here many get into difficulties. The appearance of Zerubbabel's (Matt. 1:12, Luke 3:27) name in both records has never been answered, except by supposition. In 1 Chron. 3:19, we read: "And the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister." Shelomith means a daughter of Solomon, or Peacefulness, and consequently, an heiress to the estate of her fathers. Jechonah (Jehoiachin) was told: "No man of his seed shall prosper ruling any more in Judah." Man's utter helplessness is God's opportunity, and so we read Paul significantly saying:

 

"Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,

We had been as Sodoma, and had been made

like unto Gomorrha." (Rom. 9: 29).

 

Such was the plight of Israel without the Lord's intervention.

 

Now it is a solemn fact that Israel and Judah are to remain in captivity until they are redeemed and the Most Holy avenged. While in this state they are "written childless," and they are in sin, suffering the curses of the Law. (See Deut. 28). We are told, for instance, in Num. 3: 4, that Nadab and Abihu died "without children," that is, their inheritance went direct to Eleazer. The title of "firstborn" became degraded—"They could not continue by reason of death." (Heb. 7:23). In sin they died. If they had children the lineage would not be continuous, or it would be redeemed by a kinsman. This is the position of Israel and Judah. They are in bondage to sin. (Ezra 9:7-8): "Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and to confusion of face, as it is this day. And now, for a little space grace hath been showed from the Lord our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in His holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage."

 

In due time, God raised up a Son to Israel through Mary, Jesus, and he will act as a Redeemer, because all that belongs to Mary is that portion in Bethlehem-Judah, of which it is written: "The Lord shall inherit Judah, His portion in the Holy Land, and shall choose Jerusalem again." (Zech. 2:12). Hence, Jesus as the son of Mary is heir to that portion which carried with it THE CROWN. IT WAS THE WOMAN THAT TRANSFERRED THE INHERITANCE TO THE SON.

 

The degraded Inheritance and Crown needed a redeemer according to the terms of the covenant, signified in the rite of circumcision. (Gen. 17:10, cf. Col. 2:11). Jesus fulfilled the terms of the covenant by perfect obedience and a sinless life even unto death, and by a blood price purchased the right to redeem His Heritage and that of the Father's in the promises. Shelomith transferred the rights of Solomon to Nathan (Luke 3:31), and Mary the rights of David to Jesus. The lineage is diverted through a woman to her son—to Jesus Christ—who was "the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). And since all who are in Christ Jesus are members of his Body (see 1 Cor. 12), they, too, are "the sons and daughters of God Almighty" (2 Cor. 6:14-18), and do not belong to the flesh. (Rom. 2:28-29). In this way, God brings many sons to glory.

[Resource Manager]

SUMMARIES OF MATTHEW — FROM CAPTIVITY TO JESUS

 

The latter portion of Matthew is a summary of Judah's relationship to the different offices connecting the Royal Line to the priesthood. To make the idea clear, the following grouping is devised:

 

First:

 

Zerubbabel begat Abiud. (Matt. 1:13).

Zerubbabel begat Rhesa. (Luke 3:27).

 

Neither of these names is recorded in 1 Chron. 3:19; therefore, I take it that they are based upon the divine selection indicated in 1 Chron. 5:2: "For Judah, prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler (the Prince)."

 

Second:

 

Abiud means Father of Judah.

Rhesa means Chief.

 

Rhesa, then, takes the place of Shelomith, the Chief of Zerubbabel in Luke's line, while Abiud, "Father of Judah," is summarised as being connected with the line of Matthew. There is only one Salathiel and one Zerubbabel—hyphenate the name, Abiud-Rhesa, and the meaning would be, Father of Judah (i.e., Prince of Judah)—Chief, indicating that the latter portion of Matthew is interwoven with Luke.

 

Third:

 

All the kings of Judah who were contemporary with the captivity each in his turn suffered the wrath of Deity. The "Jehovistic" significance in their names became omitted, viz.:

Sons of Josiah:
1. Johoahaz, changed to Azor
   
2. Jehoiakim, changed to Eliakim - Apostates of Judah.
   
3. Zedekiah, changed to Sadoc - (See Matt. 1:13-14)
   Son of Jehoiakim:
   
4. Jehoiachin (Jechonias), changed to Achim
   

Dr. Burges records with respect to the changed names the following: —

 

"Eliakim is the same name as Eliakim which Pharaoh-Necho changed from Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34; 1 Chron. 3:15). Sadoc is a shorter form of Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17). Achim is a shorter form of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:8), the second element of which, Jachan, is rendered by the Greek, Jachim, or in some Greek MSS., Jachin or Jachim and Axim (Gen. 46:10; 1 Chron. 24:17), the abbreviations for the last three being effected by omitting the Divine Name."

 

Again, another writer says:

 

"The prophecies uttered by Jeremiah during his short reign appear to be the denunciation of the King (Jer. 22:23-24), in which he denies the prefix 'Je' to his name." ("The Testimony, " p. 276, August, 1927.)

 

From these deductions, Abiud, Father of Judah, has reference to Judah as the dominating factor, Kingdom of Judah, a main factor determining the genealogy— the Kingdom is indicated as having lost its spiritual significance by God claiming the title to the Name—the Name belonging to the One "whose right it is," even to the Lord Jesus Christ (Jesus being in Hebrew, Yeshua, Saviour).

 

There are four names in the latter part of Matthew's lineage after the Babylonian captivity (v. 11), viz.: —

1. Eliakim (Jehoiakim).
   
2. Azor (Jehoahaz).
   
3. Sadoc (Zedekiah).
   
4. Achim (Jehoiachin).
   

Jehoiakim is made to connect up with Jehoiachin (Achim, his son). The two names in the centre of the compilation, are regulated to the centre, and are not in the order they were at the time of the captivity.

 

Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah are sons of Josiah, while Jehoiachin is the son of Jehoiakim. The lineage is continued through Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, his son, and not through Zedekiah or Jehoahaz. These latter two princes of Judah have no claim to the throne while their nephew lives. Hence, we have a reason for the complexities of the lineage in Matthew's account after the captivity. This part of the genealogy is but a summary of the whole lineage from the birth of Judah to Jesus Christ.