Grace Bible Church Gillette, Wyoming

2. Those in the royal line and especially the Messiah would be called a/the “son of David” (Mt 1:1, 20; 9:27 cf. Mk 10:46-47; Lk 18:37-38 cf. Mt 12:23; 15:22; 21:9).

C. Fulfilment of the Covenants

1. The term “son of David” also has reference to the Davidic Covenant, while “son of Abraham” has reference to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Davidic Covenant assured David (and Israel) that his kingdom would be established forever by one of his descendants sitting on the throne (2Sa 7:12-16). Matthew showed that Jesus was the Messiah, coming from the legal line of David through Joseph (Mt 1:16).

2. The Abrahamic Covenant assured Abraham that not only would his offspring be a great nation (Ge 12:1-3), but that in his “seed” (singular, i.e. Christ cf. Ga 3:16), “all nations would be blessed” (Ge 22:18 cf. Ga 3:8).

II. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MATTHEW AND LUKE’S GENEALOGIES

A. There are some obvious differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies such as, Matthew records from the ancestors to the Messiah while Luke’s begins with the Messiah (Lk 3:23) and proceeds backwards. Matthew traces the genealogy back to Abraham while Luke traces it all the way back to Adam (Lk 3:38).

B. However, the most difficult difference is that after David, Matthew follows Solomon’s line (Mt 1:6), while Luke follows Nathan’s line (Lk 3:31). After David, all of the names were different. Only Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are repeated, but most likely were different persons (Mt 1:12 cp. Lk 3:27).

C. There are several interpretations concerning this apparent contradiction. But the one that appears to be the best explanation is that Matthew’s gospel traces Joseph’s lineage, while Luke traces Mary’s lineage. Otherwise, you are left with one or more levirate marriages to explain two genealogies for Joseph. However, there is no evidence for this.

D. Matthew Traces Jesus’ Royal Line to David

1. The royal line was passed through Solomon.

a) The royal line of the Messiah came through Solomon’s line, who was chosen by God (1Ch 28:5-7). The Davidic Covenant stated that David’s son would build the literal house of God (2Sa 7:12a). Solomon fulfilled this portion.

b) As to the portion that “his” kingdom would be established forever (2Sa 7:13b), this would ultimately be fulfilled by Jesus the Messiah.

2. Solomon’s line contained the curse of Jeconiah (Mt 1:11, 12; Jer 22:30).

a) However, a problem arose with one of the descendants of the royal line by the name of Jeconiah (Jer 24:1 cf. also called Jehoiachin - Jer 52:31

b) Because he did “evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done” (2Ki 24:9), he was the final straw that brought Babylonian captivity (2Ki 24:12).

c) Therefore a curse was placed upon Jeconiah that his descendants would not prosper on the throne of David (Je 22:30).

3. Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son.

a) Because of Jeconiah’s curse, if Jesus was Joseph’s biological son, he would not have been able to sit on David’s throne.

b) In fact, neither Joseph or his sons, nor any ancestors after Jeconiah would have been able to sit on David’s throne.

c) But Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son. Matthew specifically wrote that Joseph was “the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born” (Mt 1:16). The word “whom” (hās - feminine relative pronoun) is clear in the Greek that Jesus’ birth was by Mary, not Joseph. Furthermore, Matthew proceeds to write of Jesus’ virgin birth (Mt 1:18-25).

d) Scripture is clear that God was the Father of Jesus through the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18 cf. Lk 1:35).

4. Jesus became Joseph’s legal heir to the throne.

a) The dilemma was solved by the fact that though Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son, He became Joseph’s legal son.

b) As a legal son, Jesus was heir to all the rights of sonship, including the throne of David.

c) Because the blood of Jeconiah did not flow through Jesus’ veins, the curse was bypassed.

E. Luke Traces Jesus’ Bloodline to David

1. Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli (Lk 3:23)

a) If Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, her name is excluded because only the names of men are directly used.

b) If this is the case, then Eli was Mary’s father and therefore Joseph was Eli’s son-in-law. Luke seems to have indicated this relationship by the fact that, unlike every other name in his genealogy, there was no Greek article before Joseph’s name (tou Mathat, tou Levi, tou Melchi….cf…Jōsāph).

c) Luke states that it was “supposed” (nomizō - assumed, often incorrectly Lk 2:44; Ac 14:19) that Joseph was Jesus’ father (Mt 13:55; Jn 1:45; 6:42).

2. Jesus’ bloodline came through Mary from David (Nathan).

a) If Mary’s genealogy is given in Luke, then it shows that she also was from the line of David.

b) Should Jesus’ Messiahship be questioned on the basis that he was merely the legal heir to the throne through his stepfather Joseph, the blood of David flowed through his veins through Mary, his biological mother.

c) In this interpretation, Joseph was Jesus’ legal father from the line of David (Matthew) and Mary was Jesus’ biological mother from the line of David (Luke), concluding that Jesus was the Messiah from the line of David (Matthew and Luke).

III. INSIGHTS FROM JESUS’ GENEALOGY

A. Sinners in the Genealogy of the Messiah. We generally think about the most notorious sinners in Jesus’ lineage (Jeconiah, Tamar, Rahab, etc.). But the fact remains that that everyone in Jesus’ lineage was a sinner (including Mary). The only sinless person in Jesus’ lineage was “Jesus.” The sin in Jesus’ lineage in no way affected His holiness (He 4:15). In fact, the sin in Jesus’ genealogy (as well as the whole world) was the reason that He came… you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins (Mt 1:21).

B. Gentiles in the Genealogy of the Messiah. At least three of the women mentioned in the genealogy were Gentiles (Tamar - Ge 38:2, 6; Rahab, and Ruth). It shows that even in the midst of a Jewish genealogy of a Jewish Messiah, God had signified the grace of salvation to Gentiles (cf. Lk 2:32).

C. Grace in the Genealogy of the Messiah. The babe in the manger was a royal king. But He was a King of grace. Even as John described him as the Word became flesh…full of grace and truth (Jn 1:14). Jesus was the Royal King, full of grace who extended His grace to sinners, Gentiles, women, and outcasts (Jn 1:16). So the babe in the manger was no mere babe, rather He is the eternal Logos, Creator, and God. He is the Royal King who extends grace to sinners.

Grace Bible Church · 4000 E. Collins Rd · PO Box #3762 · Gillette, WY · (307) 686-1516