-18-
The Genealogy of Jesus
As a young Christian, I was
deeply challenged by the anti-missionary attack on the genealogical
qualifications of Jesus. At first the alleged discrepancies raised against
Jesus' genealogies appeared insurmountable. But upon closer examination, I found
the genealogies listed by Matthew and Luke to be one of His greatest Messianic
proofs.
Matthew and Luke Genealogies
Since the Messiah had to be a
descendant of Abraham (Gen. 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Micah 5:1) and of the
line of kings coming through David (Isa. 11:1,5; Jer. 23:5; 1 Chron. 28:5, see
also 1 Chron. 29:1, 24), it comes as no surprise that Matthew and Luke would
devote so much space to Jesus' genealogical pedigree. Matthew traced the descent
of Jesus from Abraham and from the line of kings descending from David, and
divided it into three sets of fourteen generations each.1
Paul referred to Jesus as the
second Adam through whom righteousness is regained (1 Cor. 15:21-22). Not by
accident did Luke, a disciple of Paul, trace Jesus' descent from Adam himself.
Where Adam failed, the second Adam succeeded in perfectly resisting Satan's
temptations and in providing salvation for Adam's fallen offspring.
Why No Objection?
Judaism has three main objections
to Jesus' genealogies: (1) Matthew lists Jesus as a descendant of King Jeconiah
whose line is cursed. (2) Jesus is not a natural descendant of Solomon through
whom the Messiah must descend. (3) Genealogy is not reckoned through the woman,
but only through the man.
Before addressing these
objections, it is significant to note that no such protests to Jesus' pedigree
were voiced during the first century. Apparently, the fact that Jesus was indeed
of royal descent and a potential heir to the Messianic throne was not an issue.
The Records No Longer Exist
"It is assumed that under
Herod I, all genealogical rolls kept in the temple were destroyed (Sacas, 'Beitrage,'
II. 1570). The loss of the official genealogies was deeply deplored as a
calamity, more especially because of their importance for the understanding of
the books of Chronicles (Pes. 62b; B.B. 109.)."2
If these records were useful in
understanding the genealogies left to us in Chronicles, how much more would they
have confirmed and explained those listed by Matthew and Luke. Consequently,
Paul could say with great force "it is evident that our Lord arose from
Judah" (Heb. 7:14). This being written to the Hebrew Christians while the
genealogical records were present in the temple implies that Jesus' lineage was
above scrutiny. So any objections raised concerning Jesus' genealogy today would
have found no audience during the time the genealogical registers were public
information.3
The Curse on Jeconiah
It's argued that Jesus could not
ever be the ruling Messiah sitting on David's throne, since Matthew lists Him as
a descendant of Jeconiah. Of Jeconiah, the prophet Jeremiah said,
"No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David,
and ruling any more in Judah" (Jer. 22:30).
First, I find it puzzling for
this argument to be set forth without qualification by virtually every single
anti-missionary, knowing full well that his own Rabbinic tradition teaches that
the proscription on Jeconiah's seed was rescinded! Does not the anti-missionary
believe his own Rabbinic tradition? If yes, then why does he still insist that:
"Jesus, a descendant of Jehoiakim [Jeconiah] according to both evangelists,
was ipso facto unqualified to begin with"? (Sigal, p. 185).4
Michael Brown aptly exposes the
duplicity of the anti-missionary on this point:
My question, then, is this: Are
these anti-missionaries unfamiliar with all the ancient Rabbinic traditions that
state that the curse was reversed? 219 That would be hard to imagine,
since these Rabbinic texts are quite well known and some of the
anti-missionaries are educated rabbis. Whey then do they advance an argument
that flies in the face of Rabbinic tradition? That would be like a Christian
advancing an argument that contradicted the teachings of the New Testament.
Could it be that it is quite hypocritical for some anti-missionaries to raise
the charge of deception or dishonesty against Messianic Jews when, in reality,
this a charge by which they should examine themselves? After all, if an
organization is called Jews for Judaism, shouldn’t it be expected to represent
the position of traditional Judaism rather than to attempt to refute the
Christian position by any and all means? For lovers of truth, this is certainly
something to consider.5
Second, if in fact the curse has
not been lifted, this makes the genealogy of Matthew and Luke all the more
compelling testimony to Jesus' Messiahship. Haggai teaches, in an indisputable
Messianic prophecy, that the Messiah, as represented by Jeconiah's grandson
Zerubbabel, must come through Jeconiah's seed!
"In that day, saith the Lord
of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel,
saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith
the Lord of Hosts" (Haggai 2:23).
As proven in chapter five, this
prophecy did not find fulfillment with Zerubbabel and the Jewish remnant as
demonstrated by the context. The heavens and the earth were not shaken. Nor were
the nations overturned. Without question, the glory of Zerubbabel's temple did
not exceed that of Solomon's. Based on these facts, we must take this reference
to Zerubbabel as a prophecy of the Messiah and His kingdom. This means that the
Messiah had to come through the line of Jeconiah through Zerubbabel, thereby
refuting the anti-missionary objection that the Messiah could come through some
other descendant of Solomon (Sigal, p. 184). But Zerubbabel is a descendant of
Jeconiah! So if we take this proscription absolutely, there cannot be a future
Messiah! How is this surface contradiction resolved? By understanding that the
curse only extends to Jeconiah's natural descendants and not to his legal. God,
being fed up with the sinful and fallen state of David's monarchic successors,
now by-passes them and promises the throne to King Messiah, whose origin is not
from the loins of a mere human father, but rather from heaven:
And thou, profane and wicked
prince of Israel [Zedikiah, the last king to sit on David's throne] whose day is
come, when iniquity shall have an end. Thus saith the Lord God; Remove the
miter, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same:..I will overturn,
overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it
is, and I will give it [to] him.
(Ezekiel 21:31-32).
God would have to raise up the
Messiah Himself, who by virtue of the virgin birth avoids the sinful taint of
Jeconiah's seed. This He did through the birth of Jesus. This truth helps us
harmonize several passages which allude to the dual nature of the Messiah.
According to the Tanakh, the Messiah was to be "a child" whose name
was to be called "the mighty God, everlasting Father" (Isa. 9:6). He
was to be a descendant of David (Isa. 11:1-5), yet at the same time be David's
"Lord." (Psalm 110:1). Furthermore, He is referred to as being the
"seed" of the woman implying that He would not be the natural seed of
the man6 (Gen. 3:15). Only a supernatural virgin birth would make it
possible for all these passages to find their fulfillment in one person and for
Zerubbabel's Messianic descendant to escape the curse placed on Jeconiah's
natural line.
Not a Natural Descendant of
Solomon
Matthew lists Jesus' genealogy
from David, Solomon, Jeconiah, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Jesus, being the
adopted Son7 of Joseph, obtains his legal right to the throne from
Solomon through Jeconiah, but avoids the curse placed on his natural
descendants. Luke gives Jesus' lineage through his mother Mary back through
David and his son Nathan, thus tracing Jesus' fleshly descent from Abraham,
Judah, then down through David and Nathan. Thus it could be truly said that
Jesus was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom.
1:3).
To this the anti-missionary
objects: "Since Christian missionaries, following Matthew's genealogy,
claim that Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph, they accordingly admit that
he was not a descendant of Solomon" (Sigal, p. 184).
Is it a valid argument to say
that only natural sons possess genealogical reckoning? The principle and
precedent of a legal descendant carrying on the lineage of his father is found
in the law of the Leverite marriage. According to the Law of Moses:
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 a husband's brother unto her. And it shall be,
that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother
who is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel (Deut.25:5-6).
With the inheritance of the name
of one's legal father also comes genealogical reckoning. According to the book
of Ruth, the Leverite law was interpreted to include distant relatives when
there was no brother (Ruth 4:1-5 cf. Lev. 25:48-49).
Genealogy through the Woman?
Matthew lists Joseph as the son
of Jacob (Matt.1:16). Luke says that Joseph is the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). We
maintain that Matthew lists Joseph's genealogy and Luke lists Mary's. Luke
states: Jesus "...being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of
Heli,..." (Luke 3:23). Most in Israel rejected the idea of the virgin
birth, supposing rather that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph, but in
actuality, he was only the natural Son of Mary, the daughter of Heli. With this
the Talmud agrees when it lists Mary the Mother of Jesus as "the daughter
of Heli" (Chagig. 77:4).
However, the anti-missionary
insists that genealogy is never reckoned maternally. Therefore, Jesus does not
qualify to be the Messiah. The principle established in the Tanakh is that under
normal circumstances inheritance and tribal name were only to be passed on
through the man. However, there were exceptions to this. For example, in Numbers
27:1-8; 36:6-12 the daughters of Zelophehad, in a special ruling from God,
received the inheritance of their father, because he had no sons. Sigal
discounts the appeal to Zelophehad's daughters example by saying that the
incident only "concerns the transference of physical property and not
privileges of lineage." (Sigal, p. 180). This is incorrect. The daughters
of Zelophehad were also concerned that "the
name of [their] father be removed from among his family because he had no
son..." (Num. 27:4). How would his name be carried on if not through the
genealogical registers? This God remedied by a special ruling. The name of their
father Zelophehad continued on through the daughters’ marriage to their uncles
sons. Any sons born to this union reckoned their genealogy through Zelophehdad
as well.(See also 1 Chronicles 2:34, for another example of a man whose tribal
name was carried on through his daughter and recorded as such in the
genealogies.)
The Messiah, by reason of His
virgin birth, would certainly qualify as an exceptional situation. Therefore,
his fleshly genealogy could rightly be traced through his mother.