Lineage of the Savior - Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38

Matthew starts out with the lineage of the Savior and I didn’t think anything of it until the IM quoted JTC as saying, “The consensus of judgment on the part of investigators in that Matthew’s account is that of the royal lineage, establishing the order of sequence among the legal successors to the throne of David, while the account given by Luke is a personal pedigree, demonstrating descent from David without adherence to the line of legal succession to the throne through primogeniture or nearness of kin. Luke’s record is regarded by many, however, as the pedigree of Mary, while Matthew’s is accepted as that of Joseph.” Matthew’s account goes:

Joseph-> Jacob-> Matthan->Eleazar-> Eluid-> Achim-> Sadoc-> Azor-> Eliakim-> Abiud-> Zorobabel-> Salathiel-> Jechonias-> Josias-> Amon-> Manasses-> Ezekias-> Achaz-> Joatham-> Ozias-> Joram-> Josaphat-> Asa-> Abia-> Roboam-> Solomon-> David-> Jesse-> Obed-> Booz-> Rachab-> Salmon-> Naasson-> Aminadib-> Aram-> Esrom-> Phares-> Judas-> Jacob-> Isaac-> Abraham

Matthew makes a really interesting statement afterward, “So all the generations of 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.” I have no idea why this is significant and seems very random and insignificant to me. However, the IM comments, “Old Testament prophecies declared that the Messiah would be a descendant of David and that an offspring of Abraham would bless ‘all the nations of the earth.’ Some scholars have suggested that Matthew’s inclusion of three sets of 14 generations was purposeful and is significant because the number 14 is associated with the name-title ‘David.’ Hebrew and other ancient languages used letters of the alphabet to represent numbers as well as sounds. The Hebrew letters in the name David carry a numeric value of 14 (the letters in the name David [D-V-D] are 4 and 6 and 4= 14). Since the promised Messiah was to be born into the lineage of David, some scholars have speculated that Matthew may have divided the genealogy as he did to subtly emphasize that Jesus Christ was the long-waited Davidic Messiah. Also, the number 14 is double the number 7, which is the number signifying perfection and completeness. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of divine perfection and completeness.” In English and in our culture, or at least for me, numbers aren’t that big of a deal to me so this is absolutely bizarre. With all these numbers the thought that came to me while listening to this was when people say that God is obsessed with numbers that’s why everything is either a 7 (7 days of the creation) or 12 (12 apostles.) But that’s not really the case, there were 2 of every kind of animal, there are 3 members of the Godhead, there are the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, etc. So clearly it’s not God that’s obsessed with numbers, it’s Satan. With all the Satanic organizations it’s all about the numbers, the numbers on the points of the star and people supposedly being killed by the Illuminati only on certain days of the month, it’s really interesting. It just makes me wonder if perhaps one of the tools Satan used to turn the Jews at the time away from the true gospel was the obsession with numbers because really, who would say “Jesus’s genealogy down from Abraham is 42 but if you divide up the generations in this way then it will be 3 sets of 14 and the 14 adds up to the spelled out letters of the name David, and David was the king of Israel that is supposed to have the Messiah in it, so here’s the proof.” Maybe I’m being a little bit harsh with something I don’t understand but it just seems to me to show how deeply ancient Hebrew culture was entrenched in superstition and priest craft.

The first question about this is why is Joseph’s lineage important? In the December 1974 Ensign article entitled “Mary and Joseph” the author makes an excellent point saying, “At that time, the Jews were ruled by Rome, and the rights of the royal Davidic family were not recognized. Herod, king of the Jews by Roman appointment, was not even an Israelite. Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazereth, the King of the Jews.” This might be a difficult concept to understand but the context that I take it is the incident of the native Hawaiians. I took a Hawaiian Studies class when I was in college there in Pearl City and one of the lessons that we had was that of the Hawaiian monarchy. Obviously, Hawaii is the 50^th state in the U.S. so it is not a sovereign nation because it was occupied and overthrown by the U.S. military and Queen Lili’uokalani was dethroned. The Hawaiian people today, though there are only a few of them, want the U.S. to leave their islands and give them back their nation. When it was asked what the people would do if they got their land back, she answered that they would reinstate the monarchy because the legal heir to the Hawaiian throne is still known. I thought about that, being the rightful King or Queen of Hawaii but because a foreign government overthrew your monarchy you are just another guy. I thought about what they were probably doing or their lifestyle, if it was prestigious or common, and probably among those who follow who should be the rightful king, they are probably respected or honored, but in actuality they are probably destitute like all the other native Hawaiians. This is tracking back through just a couple hundred years, but Joseph’s lineage makes him the king of a nation that was disbanded 24 generations previously after Solomon died and much of the nation of Israel rebelled and made their own kingdom. For Joseph to be the rightful king over a people who haven’t recognized his line of authority for several hundred years, but still makes his heir the rightful king of Israel and a Son of David. The Jewish people calling the Savior the “Son of David” during his mortal lifetime does indicate, however, that they did recognize his family’s legal right to the governance of Israel, it was still an important and relatively recognized aspect of their culture, so that’s interesting to think about.

The other question is, why does Joseph’s lineage matter if Jesus was the biological son of Heavenly Father? As far as I know it wasn’t public knowledge before His ministry that He wasn’t Joseph’s son, so the general populace wouldn’t have known any different, but in the context of scriptural aspect of this, is it doctrinally accurate to say that Jesus is the heir of the throne of David through Joseph, and the answer is yes. Regardless of the fact that Mary, Jesus’s mortal mother, was a cousin of Joseph and therefore shared the same lineage, thus biologically, through His mother He was the “Son of David.” But regardless of that fact, Jesus was still the heir of David through Joseph because He was “adopted” by Joseph and therefore entitled to all the legal rights and privileges of that appointment. It makes sense to me, but apparently some people take issue with the fact that Jesus couldn’t have inherited Joseph’s position because he wasn’t the biological son. Apparently in the ancient world the concept of adoption was respected quite a bit more, and any adopted child was considered as legitimate, legally, as any blood child. So it does matter that Jesus was entitled to the throne by being adopted by Joseph any way you look at it.

One thing that I didn’t mention was the women that were in the genealogy, as the mothers were mentioned along with the fathers. Bathsheba is mentioned as “David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias.” “Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar,” “Salmon begat Booz of Rachab,” and “Booz begat Obed of Ruth.” I didn’t really thing anything of why some women were mentioned and others not, but the IM has a most interesting perspective. It says, “Several women are mentioned in Matthew’s pedigree of Jesus Christ. Tamar was from Adullum in Canaaite territory; Rahab was a Canaanite of Jericho; Ruth was a Moabitess before converting to Judaism; and Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah, a Hittite. This all four were either non-Israelites or associated with non-Israelites. What can we learn from Matthew’s inclusion of these four women in the genealogy of Jesus Christ? First, it demonstrates that God had worked through Gentiles in the past, thus preparing Matthew’s readers to appreciate the commission to ‘teach all nations’ that would come at the end of his Gospel. Second, the mention of these particular women, each of whom was figured in a controversy of some sort in the Old Testament, shows that in Israel’s past, God had worked through people and situations that the Jews would not have expected, thus preparing Matthew’s readers for the account that is immediately to follow- Mary and the virgin birth. Third, it shows all of us today that personal righteousness is not dependent on possessing the ‘perfect’ lineage, since Jesus Christ’s lineage was not perfect. Finally, the inclusion of women in the Savior’s pedigree reflects the important truth that men and women are equals in the eyes of God.” Excellent commentary on a very important concept, our family or our heritage doesn’t define us, for good or for bad.

Here we have the second pedigree list, as is supposed to be Mary’s lineage or might also be considered Joseph’s non-legal line.

Jesus-> Joseph-> Heli-> Matthat-> Levi-> Melchi-> Janna-> Joseph-> Mattathias-> Amos-> Naum-> Esli-> Nagge-> Maath-> Mattathias-> Semei-> Joseph-> Juda-> Joanna-> Rhesa-> Zorobabel-> Salathiel-> Neri-> Melchi-> Addi-> Cosam-> Elmodam-> Er-> Jose-> Eliezer-> Jorim-> Matthat-> Levi-> Simeon-> Juda-> Joseph-> Jonan-> Eliakim-> Melea-> Menan-> Mattatha-> Nathan-> David-> Jesse-> Obed-> Booz-> Salmon-> Naasson-> Aminadab-> Aram-> Esrom-> Phares-> Juda-> Jacob-> Isaac-> Abraham-> Thara-> Nachor-> Saruch-> Ragau-> Phalec-> Heber-> Sala-> Cainan-> Arphaxad-> Sem-> Noe-> Lamech-> Mathusala-> Enoch-> Jared-> Maleleel-> Cainan-> Enos-> Seth-> Adam­-> God

There are several key differences here that I think are profitable to mention. First is that this lineage goes to all the way back to Adam whereas the pedigree in Matthew only went back to Abraham. Reading up on this issue I came across a very interesting perspective on this. From a website, I read the following insight, answering the question of how to reconcile the two different pedigrees the author says, “They don’t necessarily need to be reconciled Matthew and Luke both have very different objectives in their writings. Matthew is a text that’s addresses to Jews and Jewish-Christians, uses legalistic language, and strives to show that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah according to their traditions and scripture. Whether or not Jesus was adopted by Joseph doesn’t matter as much as far as inheritance goes. The Mediterranean world of antiquity saw adopted sons as full inheritors of a family’s wealth and name (with the accompanying glory, fame and weight that goes with a name)… In other words, it didn’t matter that Jesus was born of a virgin. As Joseph’s adopted son he held just as much claim to the David fame and rights as any trueborn son would be. It was important for Matthew to demonstrate this, as it was seen as a key requirement for the Jewish Messiah. As for Luke, take a note about the first person mentioned in the genealogy. It different significantly. In Matthew the first person is Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites. In Luke it is Adam. Why is this? Luke’s writing style, and specific message, is for a Greco-Roman audience. The Jesus of Luke is stoic, performs miracles as good deeds rather than the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and is much more interactive with Gentiles. He is defended by Pilate, and exonerated by the centurion at the cross. What does this mean for his lineage? Tracing Jesus’ lineage back to Abraham in Matthew conveys the message that Jesus is very much his, and David’s (heir). He is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Tracing Jesus’ lineage back to Adam in Luke shows that Jesus is the Saviour of all mankind, as Adam predates the practice of circumcision and the establishment of a promised people. This doesn’t make either account any less meaningful, testimony building, or significant. What it does show us is that the writers of the Bible were writing in specific eras, with differencing social and religious contexts, to different audiences.”