Click link to the next study in my sequential chapter study through the Gospel of Matthew.
And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, "Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days.”(Genesis 49:1) He spoke to them about their places in end-times. And he spoke of Judah in quite different tone than he did about his oldest three sons: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh (Messiah) comes; and to Him shall be the obedience of the people.” (Genesis 49:10) So this seems to say that at the coming of Shiloh, the scepter will depart. However: “What is meant by the phrase ‘the scepter shall not depart’ is that the right to the scepter of leadership shall always remain within the tribe of Judah, regardless of who is actually exercising authority over Israel at any given time. What is meant by the phrase ‘until Shiloh comes’ is not that at this time the scepter of leadership will depart from Judah, but, on the contrary, from that time on, the scepter will remain in actuality within the tribe of Judah [forever]. The adverb 'ad ('until') is used in a similar sense in a number of instances; for example: ‘For I will not leave you until I have done that which I have spoken to you’ (Genesis 28:15), and ‘No man shall be able to stand before you until you have destroyed them’ (Deuteronomy 7:24). Did God leave Jacob after doing all that He promised him? Were the enemies of Israel who were killed able to stand after they were destroyed? Even after the Messiah comes the scepter will still belong to Judah. The right to the scepter will never depart from Judah until the Messiah comes, at which time his scepter will be wielded over all nations (Isaiah 11); up to that time it was wielded over Israel alone.” (The Scepter of Judah, Shiloh and the Messiah— Gerald Sigal of Jews for Judaism)
“Thus dying Jacob, at a great distance, saw Christ's day, and it was his comfort and support on his death-bed, that after the coming of the sceptre into the tribe of Judah it should continue in that tribe, at least a government of their own, till the coming of the Messiah, in whom, as the king of the church, and the great high priest, it was fit that both the priesthood and the royalty should determine.” (Matthew Henry)
Daniel spoke of these things but also of a suppression that should befall the monarchy of Israel. From the captivity of Judah, he spoke of the different suppressors in the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. The Babylonian kingdom was the head of gold. The inferior kingdom of silver was the Persians, and a third kingdom of bronze was the Grecians. And the fourth was the Romans. But then the God of heaven will set up the intended theocracy "which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” (Dan 2:4)
The church fathers believed: “Matthew gives the legal line of descent from David, stating who was the heir to the throne in each case (not necessarily physical descent), but Luke gives the actual descendants of David in the branch of the family to which Joseph belonged.” (Howard Marshall) This resonates true to me. And therefore it is good for the edification of the church.
Many believe that Luke was Mary’s genealogy and implies a right to the priesthood. Yet, Jesus was not a Levitical priest, but rather, after His temptation and perfect life and sacrifice, He became High Priest after the order of Melchizedek— an ancient Canaanite king of Jerusalem before the fall of the promised land to Israel (Gen 14:18–20; Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17). Melchizedek held the offices of priest and king, like Jesus. And he had no known genealogy, like unto the birth of Jesus. Genealogies were always for reckoning tribal association. And it was always by the father but not always by blood. Sometimes it was by affection. Thus Abraham thought that Eliezer of Damascus was his promised seed or heir (Gen 15:2).
And moderns believe that Matthew gives Joseph actual descendants. But he actually gives the succession of those with the right to rule. Let's follow the Scepter:
From Abraham to David (the era of patriarchs and Judges of Israel)—> In Matthew 1:2-6a, we end with the first of Israel's kings reckoned from Judah. And we see instances of a DOUBLE ANCESTRY for the woman in the the list. They were “adopted into another line by faith, particularly, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba.” (Arthur Charles Hervey) But the adoptions of these women never affected the tribal affiliation of the male descendant.
Hear the testimony of Ruth. But Ruth said [to Naomi]:
“Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. The LORD do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me.” (Ruth 1:16-17) The matter of her adoption into the tribe of Judah was settled when she married Boaz of the tribe of Judah.
From David to Captivity (the era of standing Kings of Israel) —> This list from Matthew 1:6b-11, begins with David and a child by “her who had been the wife of Uriah.” (Matthew 1:6b) And it ends with: “Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.” Thus ends the royal line of Judah, which began “from the foundation of the united monarchy of Israel under David to the final dissolution of the monarchy of Judah at the time of the Babylonian exile (Matthew 1:11). David and Jehoiachin thus represent the first and last kings of the dynasty of Judah (Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, 2 Kgs 24:17, being treated as an irrelevant appendix while the true king was in exile in Babylon), whose historical throne-succession makes up the central section of the genealogical list." (R. T. France)
From Captivity to Christ (the era of High Priests of Israel)—> This list from Matthew 1:12-16 contains twelve private individuals— not kings, nor priests. Since “the royalty of the house of Judah was violently suppressed, it is natural to conclude that they are the persons who would have been kings on the throne of Judah, from generation to generation, had the throne of David continued to stand.” (Arthur Charles Hervey) Israel was still a people. “And" then "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.” Matthew shows that Joseph, Jesus’ father, is a descendant of David. AND “Matthew 1:20 explains [how]: When he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.’ “Jesus was not descended from David, who was from the tribe of Judah, through his mother Mary, because she was instead a descendant of Aaron from the tribe of Levi. We know this because Luke’s gospel tells us that Mary was a ‘relative’ of Elizabeth, who was a ‘descendant of Aaron.’ But when Joseph, who was descended from David, married Mary, this also constituted his legal adoption of the son she would bear. The language of Matthew’s genealogy reflects this legal understanding: ‘Joseph, the husband of Mary... the mother of Jesus.’” (How was Jesus from the line of King David if his real father was not Joseph? By Rev. Dr. Christopher R Smith)
“Through Joseph’s adoption, Jesus stands in the line of David, becoming for Israel its King unlike the kings of this world." (Stanley Hauerwas) “Jesus needed an earthly father in order for God’s plan of redemption to be fulfilled. God chose Joseph and Joseph obeyed. Adoptions in the Greco-Roman world were legalized when the father gave the child his or her name. By Joseph calling his name Jesus, Jesus’ adoption was made complete and Scripture was fulfilled.” (Jesus, the Adopted Son by Kristen Padilla) It is beautiful indeed that Jesus was adopted and He is our key to our adoptions as sons and daughters of God!!!
The first objection to this adoption theory by a modern reader is found in the use of the word “begat” by Matthew. “How could that word be used if merely legal heirship and not physical descent were intended? But an examination of Semitic usage soon shows that this objection is entirely without force. Indeed, it is clear in the course of the genealogy itself that the word ‘begat’ is used in a very broad sense. Thus any reader of the OT would know that in the strict sense Joram did not ‘beget’ Uzziah, but that three generations are here omitted between these two kings. As Burkitt has pointed out, it is probable that the author of the genealogy knew his OT as well as we do. Evidently, therefore, he is using the word ‘begat’ in a broader sense than that in which we employ the English word. Lord Hervey, who adopts this general solution of the problem of the harmony between the genealogies, cites a number of instances of DOUBLE GENEAOLOGIES in the OT—that is, a number of cases where a man was reckoned with the family of one who was not in a physical sense his father.“ (J. Gresham Machen)
In the time of the judges (1 Chronicles 20), Jair is reckoned from the house of Judah. “And he is shewn to derive his origin through his paternal ancestors from Hezron the son of Pharez, the son of Judah. For his father Segub was the son of Hezron. But Moses always calls Jair 'the son of Manasseh,' (see Num. xxxii. 41; Deut. iii. 14, 15)” (Arthur Charles Hervey)
Another example is Caleb- "usually called the son of Jephunneh, with the additional information that he was a Kenezite, which is further explained by Othniel the brother of Caleb being called the son of Kenaz; whence it is obvious to conclude that Kenaz was Caleb's grandfather or ancestor yet more remote, and the founder of his house l. But in 1 Chron. ii. we have the genealogy of Caleb given to us. And there he is made out to be the son of Hur, the son of Caleb, the son of Hezron, the son of Pharez, the son of Judah 2. In 1 Chron. iv. 13, 15, Caleb and Othniel appear amongst the sons of Judah, as the sons of Jephunneh and Kenaz, but without the slightest hint who Jephunneh and Kenaz are. The solution I believe to be as follows: Caleb was not strictly an Israelite at all, and the designation 'the Kenezite' imports as much. His father Jephunneh, and his grandfather or ancestor Kenaz, belonged to some tribe probably friendly to the Israelites, and may be compared to Jethro, and to the Kenites. That Caleb was not by birth an Israelite is further manifest from what we read in Joshua xv. 13: 'Unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah.” (Hervey)
Matthew 1:16: “This passage is objected to us by the Emperor Julian in his Discrepancy of the Evangelists. Matthew calls Joseph the son of Jacob, Luke makes him the son of Heli. He did not know the Scripture manner, one was his father by nature, the other by law. For we know that God commanded by Moses, that if a brother or near kinsman died without children, another should take his wife, to raise up seed to his brother or kinsman [Deut 25].” (Jerome)
"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations." (Matthew 1:17)“Three times at the end of fourteen generations the state of the people of the Jews was changed. From Abraham to David they were under Judges; from David to the carrying away into Babylon under Kings; from the carrying away to Christ under the High Priests.... but it was no advantage to them in the way of virtue." (Chrysostom) In the royal lineup, there are three sets of fourteen which is believed by some to be symbolic rather than a literal accounting. Christ begins the seventh seven. And therefore implies the introduction of a Jubilee year for Israel and thus the perpetual reign of Messiah.
"If there is deliberate symbolism in the choice of fourteen it is perhaps better perceived in the fact that fourteen is twice seven, and seven is well-known in the Bible as a significant number, deriving from the seven days of creation, and occurring especially in connection with pre-determined historical periods (e.g. Gen 41:2–7, 26–30; Dan 9:24–27), notably in the organization of history into several (though probably not seven, pace some commentators!) series of seven events in Revelation. Three fourteens is six sevens, and a sequence of six sevens points to the coming of the seventh seven, the climax of history when the ongoing purpose of God for his people from the time of Abraham reaches its culmination [Cf. the 'seventy weeks' of Dan 9:24–27 within which 62 weeks precede the coming of the 'anointed one' to bring in the final week: also the seven 'weeks' of 1 En. 93:3–10.]." (R. T. France)
“Christians had another interest in them [the seven sevens]; namely to prove that their Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, came precisely at the time fixed in prophecy for the beginning of a new era. The attempt to demonstrate this from the seventy weeks of Daniel occupies large space in the history of Christian apologetics.” (Fourteen Generations: 490 Years: An Explanation of the Genealogy of Jesus by George F. Moore)
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’ So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, “God with us.” (Isaiah 7:14) Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.” (18-26) In the narrative of the wicked king of Israel above (Matthew 1:9): "Before Ahaz sealed his bargain with Assyria, God wanted to offer him another option… God sent Isaiah and has him tell Ahaz that first: the invasion will never happen… Neither Rezin nor Pekah would live another two years. And sure enough: within that period of time, both were assassinated. 2ndly God offered Ahaz assurance that he would do as He promised: He tells Ahaz: ‘ask me for a sign – any sign. It can be as deep as the depths of the sea, or as high as the heavens. Just ask for a sign so that you’ll know I’ll do what I say.’… So… he just politely tells Isaiah – and his God - to go take a hike… So God says ‘Fine. If you don’t want to ask for a sign… I’m going to give you one anyway.’ — “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel...” (Isaiah 7:14) ...Ahaz didn’t believe the prophecy. He refused to accept the proclamation that a virgin would be with child. And (you know) there are people today who don’t believe it either. When they hear about the virgin birth – many people… even religious people … too turn away in disbelief…. That alone would be shocking, but various surveys taken over the years have indicated that upwards of 25% of the preachers/ theologians in the US do not believe in the virgin birth. Now, that makes no sense… Matthew.... tells us that Jesus’ birth to Mary ‘… took place to fulfill what the LORD had said through the prophet: The VIRGIN will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’ —which means, ‘God with us.’.. Essentially, the preachers and professors who reject the virgin birth are calling Matthew a liar. And they’re also calling Luke a liar because he told the same story…” (“A Son is Given” by Jeff Strite)
The Jews find fulfillment in Ahaz's son, that is in "Ahaz begot Hezekiah." (Matt.1:9) "No king of Judah, among either his predecessors or his successors, could ... be compared to him." (2 Kings 18:5) “And His name shall be called Immanuel. And thus: "They did what God told them to do. Though it was a fairly common name, it had a genuinely great meaning and would come to be the greatest name, the name above all names.” (David Guzik) “Then, if Jesus Christ be ‘God with us,’ let us come to God without any question or hesitancy. Whoever you may be, you need no priest or intercessor to introduce you to God, for God has introduced Himself to you... John Wesley died with that upon his tongue and let us live with it upon our hearts.” (C. H. Spurgeon)
Comments