Truth Magazine

By Walton Weaver

To say that Jesus Christ came into the world is simply to affirm an historical fact. The manner of his coming is a much more complex subject, but Scripture itself affirms that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), and that “God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). We accept as fact what Scripture itself affirms about the incarnation of Christ, and make no attempt to address the more complex questions associated with that subject. Our aim is briefly to touch on the question, why? Why did Jesus Christ come into the world? And even on this question we must limit the scope of our inquiry. There are reasons for his coming that are beyond the purpose of this article. Our study will be limited to four reasons which the Bible gives for Christ’s coming into the world. Each of these pertains directly to our salvation.

To Do The Father’s Will

Jesus himself said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). He came to do “the works of Him who sent Me,” and yet he had only a brief time in which to do them  a period described by him as “while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work” (John 9:4). Though he did many “works” all of which were a part of the Father’s will, there was one work in particular that was to be the ultimate outcome of all of these works. The last week of his life, and in anticipation of his death, he said, “I have finished the work which You have given me to do” (John 17:4). His statement looks back upon his life as brought to a perfect end by the sacrifice of himself which he was about to make. On the cross he said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), no doubt meaning that he had accomplished the work he had come into the world to do. God had prepared a body for him that he might offer himself to God in a very special way (Heb. 10:5). This offering of himself upon the cross was the ultimate goal of all that he had come into the world to accomplish.

God did not desire the sacrifices and offerings made under the law, but he prepared a body for Christ that he might come and do the Father’s will “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). To this end, Jesus affirmed, “I have come  In the volume of the book it is written of Me  To do Your will, 0 God” (Heb. 10:7). The Hebrew writer had already said, “who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and was heard because of his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And having been perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:7-9). Christ was obedient to the Father’s will in every respect. His perfect obedience qualified him to be offered up as a sin offering to God. His resolve to completely do the Father’s will is best illustrated in the length to which he was willing to go in the offering up of himself on the cross for us. Paul makes this point when he says that he “humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8).

To Reveal The Father

Christ is the only one whose testimony of the Father involved an immediate apprehension of him. He is the only one to have himself observed the Father. The very fact that he “came down from heaven” (John 3:13) enabled him to bear witness to what he had “seen” with his Father (John 5:19; 6:46; 8:38) and what he had “heard” from him (John 8:26, 28, 40; 14:10, 24; 15:15  the same was true of the Holy Spirit, John 16:13). While he was in the world the same relation which he had all along with the Father continued. He continued to be “with” the Father who sent him (John 8:16, NKJV). His judgment was true because he was not alone; it was the Father’s judgment as well as his own because his relation to the Father was such that whatever he said the Father also said. Christ’s judgment was not merely a human judgment; it was a divine judgment because of his unique relation to the Father. His judgment was God’s judgment be-cause he was one with the Father. Is this not but another way of saying that whatever he spoke and whatever he did he spoke and acted as one with the Father because his very nature required that he speak and act as one with him (Heb. 1:3)? This is what he meant when he said that he could of himself do nothing (John 5:19, 30  nor could the Holy Spirit speak “of himself’  John 16:13).

This unique relation with the Father enabled Jesus to perfectly declare the Father unto us. This was another reason for his coming into the world. John 1:18 says, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Again, the unique relation of the unique Son of God (lit., in the earliest manuscripts, “the only begotten God”) to the Father is what is affirmed. The words “who is in the bosom of the Father” suggest an abiding closeness between the Father and the Son. It is Christ’s intimacy with the Father while he was declaring him that is being described, and yet what is said describes what is permanently true of Christ. Alvah Hovey quotes Luke as pointing out that the “timeless present participle is here used, like the finite present in 1 John 3:3, 7, to express an inherent, permanent relation of the only begotten Son to the Father” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 69). Because of this ever abiding relation to the Father, John says that Christ is the one who has declared him or made him known. What has been declared is what Christ knew by being in the bosom of the Father. Christ had immediate and intuitive knowledge of God (John 8:55). This could be affirmed of no other. Only the Son has such knowledge of the Father (see Matt. 11:27). He alone could say when asked of Philip, “Lord, show us the Father,” that “he who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). He was declaring the Father unto us in his every word and action.

To Destroy the Works of the Devil

John says, “He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Both Jesus and other writers of our New Testament also had much to say about this same problem and how Jesus’ coming into the world was meant to deal with it. Questions on the origin, nature and consequences of sin, on the one hand, and the nature of God and how he must deal with sin, on the other, are central to the subject of salvation and why Jesus Christ came into the world. These are not new subjects; they are not first introduced in the New Testament. From the very beginning the problem of sin was present. God’s hatred for sin had also been demonstrated again and again throughout the Old Testament period. When John affirms that “the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil,” he is simply announcing what is God’s last effort to overthrow the power sin, and what is more important, what proves to be his triumphant act in accomplishing that fact.

With the lifting up of Christ on the cross a certain judgment would be brought against this world (John 12:31a). The ruler of this world would be cast out (John 12:31b). Jesus would through his lifting up draw all men unto him-self (John 12:32). “That world remained God’s world, even though it had become disintegrated by sin and had tried to organize itself without reference to its Creator, and in con-sequence stood under His judgment. But Jesus lifted on the cross, the supreme expression of the invincible power of divine love, would draw to himself like a magnet all who accepted in faith His victory over sin and evil; and over against all such believers the world and its prince would be impotent” (R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 150). Jesus Christ and the cross is the Christian’s victory over the world. To those who are called the cross is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). Though Christ died in weakness, he is mighty in us (2 Cor. 13:3-4). John assures his readers that they are of God and have overcome those who have the spirit of Antichrist “be-cause He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:3-4). No Old Testament saint ever had such strong incentive to be an overcomer.

To Take Away Sins

Not only did Jesus come to destroy the works of the devil in our lives, but he was also “manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:5). Sin is a transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Sin reaps the wage of death (Rom. 6:23), or separates one from God (Isa. 59:1-2). The sacrifices of the law could not remit sins (Heb. 10:1-4) and bring sinful man back into God’s favor. A better offering was required; yet it must be a blood offering, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). The better offering was the blood of Jesus Christ. We may now be “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28). Christ “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). We were redeemed by the “precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …” (Gal. 3:13); God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Such an offering was necessary in order that God might be just: ” . . . For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:22b-26). All men had broken God’s law. All were lawbreakers. The penalty was spiritual death, eternal separation from God. God had allowed this condition to continue all during the Old Testament period. No provision to take away sins had been provided. The demand of the law for punishment had to be met. God sent his Son to suffer the penalty for our sins. In his death upon the cross the just demands of the law had been met. God is just in saving those who believe. Christ’s sacrifice also made provision for those under the First Covenant (Heb. 9:15). Through the provisions of the New Covenant we have the assurance that “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). The testimony of John the Baptist is, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin on the world!” (John 1:29).

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 1
January 4, 1996

By Jim Ward

To appreciate the death of Jesus, we must understand something of law and the enormity of sin. What does it mean when Paul says, “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15:56)? Taking the last clause first, sin is the violation of law (1 John 3:4), and the violation of law brings a penalty. Specifically, “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20), “for the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). A legal system, once breached, puts the violator under a curse: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, `Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are writ-ten in the book of the law, to do them’ (Gal. 3:10). Clearly, then, law demands sinless perfection, and when men fall short  as all do (Rom. 3:23)  it puts them under the curse of death. Furthermore, since law accepts only flawlessness, it obviously makes no provision for failure. It only indicts and punishes men; it never justifies them. This, perhaps too briefly stated, is the “strength” behind sin.

Now we turn, even more concisely, to the first clause, “The sting of death is sin.” Though sin separates men from God, as long as they remain alive, there is hope of reconciliation. However, once they die physically, that hope is lost; they remain forever separated from the Lord. Thus is sin the “sting of death,” and thus, do we begin to see a glimmer of its dreadful effects. It destroys man eternally.

As the Old Testament vividly paints this half of the picture, no event of the patriarchal era is more to the point than the great flood. It destroyed all mankind, save for eight souls  and all because of sin! Later, the Law of Moses brought evil into clearer light (Rom. 7:13), often by focusing upon seemingly guileless men. The episode of Uzzah and the ark of the covenant is shocking. Untrained hearts are horrified at the “grossly unfair punishment” of this well-intentioned man. But this ruination which sin, however slight it seems to us, brings upon man is only half the story. Man is not the only one to suffer.

It is not until the New Testament that we see the other half of the truth: that sin costs God dearly too. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have ever-lasting life” (John 3:16). When God exacted a penalty upon the ancient world of Noah’s day and upon Uzzah, and in-deed upon all sinners of all time, he committed himself to paying that penalty. Sin, running the gamut from black to white, as men view such things, calls for a price that men cannot pay and still be redeemed.

We readily understand how God can be either just or merciful, but not how he can be both. How is he to be just and merciful, to punish sin and to save the sinner? He did not renege on his prehistoric intention to slay Jesus (Rev. 13; 1 Pet. 1:18). Rather, he carried that plan through and “set forth” Jesus “as a propitiation by his blood, through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:25-26). 1 Peter 3:18 says it this way, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit . . .” (1 Pet. 3:18).

Never has the news of a death filled us with such joy. Usually we recoil at the very thought of it; we shrink from the shrill ring of an untimely phone call. But now, after struggling helplessly under the penalty of law, we learn the good news that the price has been paid for our sins. How-ever deeply sin has stained our souls, there is power in the blood of Jesus to cleanse. The sweet and awful truth hits home. I have been redeemed, but at what price? At what pain to my Heavenly Father? Only when the answer sinks down into our awareness, only when we understand the cost of sin to ourselves and to God do we see iniquity for all its ugliness. God’s “only begotten Son”  he’s the price.

And what a sacrifice! He’s not an animal  their blood would not suffice (Heb. 10:4)  but a man, a sacrifice tailor made by God to do his will (Heb. 10:5-10). But neither is he merely a man, for he is God, and higher than the angels. Which of the angels was ever called God’s Son, or was to be worshiped, or had an everlasting throne (Heb. 1:5, 6, 8)? Being himself God and man, he is the perfect mediator between his brethren and God (Heb. 2:17).

Jesus “was in all points tempted as we are” (Heb. 4:15); yet unlike us, he “committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). He died an innocent man. Be-cause of this, we can live in spite of our true guilt. God forgives those who will trust in his Son because that Son bore the sinner’s guilt. He “himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:23). “For he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). That, dear reader, is a hallelujah message!

Furthermore, Jesus forged his perfection in the arena of life’s temptation and the society of his fellowman. He was not some ascetic recluse who withdrew to a cave or mountain top to meditate and merely avoid harm to man. His morality and goodness were positive as well as negative. He “went about doing good and healing all who were op-pressed by the devil” (Acts 10:38). He gave sight to the blind, cured lepers, made the lame to walk, fed the hungry, raised the dead, taught principles which promote man’s happiness, forgave sin, preached repentance, and promised healing to a sin-sick world. From childhood, he was “about his Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). He came to do Heaven’s will, and at the end he could say to the Father, “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do” (John 17:4).

From Gethsemane to Golgotha, he bore unspeakable anguish of spirit and pain of body. In the garden, he prayed, “`Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.’ Then an angel appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony, he prayed more earnestly. Then his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:42-44). The innocent Savior bore his rugged cross to the barren hill, while the murderous Barabbas went free. Between railing thieves, the Lord found a place of humiliation, and there hanged until about the ninth hour, when he cried out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” Finally, in the rough mercy of a shortened moment, “Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit” (Matt. 27:46, 50).

On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,

The emblem of suff’ring and shame,

And I love that old cross where the dearest and best

For a world of lost sinners was slain.

And never has the news of a death filled us with such shame and horror. That is how enormous our sin is! That is the measure of our evil and rebellious ways! For we most certainly understand that our God did not pay a greater price than was absolutely necessary to redeem us. He is not bloody and cruel. Yet he turned his back on his sweet and guiltless Son. And the reason is this: it had to be; our sins demanded it.

Tell of the cross where they nailed Him,

Writhing in anguish and pain;

Tell of the grave where they laid Him,

Tell how He liveth again.

Love in that story so tender,

Clearer than ever I see;

Stay, let me weep while you whisper,

Love paid the ransom for me.

Oh, how that last line cuts us to our very core: “Stay, let me weep while you whisper, Love paid the ransom for me.” How long has it been, my brothers and sisters, since we have wept at the story of Jesus? How long since we have ached for what we have done?

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 11-12
January 4, 1996

By James P. Needham

Introduction

The word “genealogy” is found twice in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 1:4; and Titus 3:9, where Paul warned young preachers of the first century to beware of endless and useless arguments about such matters. This probably had reference to the Jewish Christians trying to trace their ancestry to prove their tribal origins which was a useless exercise after the death of Christ and the establishment of his church (Gal. 3:26-28), hence was not worth arguing about, and would “gender strife.”

Another word with the same connotation is “generation,” and it is the word used in Matthew 1 to introduce the genealogy of Christ. It “denotes an origin, a lineage, or birth” (Vine). Thus, a study of the genealogy of Christ is a study of his lineage. A thorough study of his lineage is a faith-building exercise and establishes his qualification and identity as God’s promised Messiah and Savior of the world.

I. Christ’s Genealogy in Two Phases

1. In the mind of God in eternity. A thorough study of the genealogy of Christ must begin with God the Father in eternity. The concept of Deity’s visiting this planet in a human body was conceived in the unfathomable recesses of the infinite mind of God before the world was created. The incarnation of Divinity was made necessary by God’s foreknowledge that man, when created, would exercise his free-moral agency, sin, and, there-fore, need a redeemer.

While this is beyond the ability of the finite mind to comprehend, it is revealed in God’s word and must be accepted by faith. The Scriptures repeatedly affirm it, and all Bible believers accept it. Look with me at a few passages of Scripture:

 Christ was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

 God’s “works were finished from the foundation of the world” (Heb. 4:3).

 Christ was “foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20).

 Christ was delivered “By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23).

 Christians are called “. . . according to God’s own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9).

 Christians were promised “eternal life . . . before the world began” (Tit. 1:2).

 The saved are “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God …” (1 Pet. 1:2).

 Christ uttered “things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 13:35).

 “The preaching of Jesus Christ” was and is “according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began” (Rom. 16:25).

 The church was established “According to the eternal purpose which He (God) purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11).

2. On earth in the Garden of Eden in the first promise of a redeemer. The earthly genealogy of Christ Jesus begins in the Garden of Eden when God said to mother Eve, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). Three significant things are revealed in this pregnant passage: (a) It is the first promise of a redeemer: The seed of woman, Christ, would bruise the head of the serpent, that is, it would sup-ply the means by which men could reverse the work done by Satan in leading Eve to sin and thus subject all her progeny to a world ruled by Satan and filled with sin; (b) It is also a revelation regarding the lineage of the Redeemer: He would be the seed of woman; that is, a male human would have no part in the begettal of the Messiah, and (c) thus it was also a prophecy of his virgin birth. When Jesus was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, Joseph, her espoused husband, was told by an angel of God to “fear not . . . for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:20). The virgin birth of the Messiah was also the subject of prophecy. Isaiah prophesied the birth of a son by a virgin which would be a sign from God, and his name should be called Immanuel, which means “God with us” (Isaiah 7:14). This was specifically identified as fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:21,22).

The word “seed” in this passage is exceedingly significant in tracing the lineage of the Messiah. Tracing the seed promise through the pages of the Old Testament will bring us directly to Christ Jesus.

• The Messiah was to be the seed of woman (Gen. 3:15).

When Cain slew Abel, the seed, Eve said at the birth of Seth, “God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel …” (Gen. 4:25).

• Following the Flood God said to Noah, “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you” (Gen. 9:9).

When God called Abraham, he said, “… and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).

• When God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, he said, “. . . I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17:7).

• In confirming his covenant with Isaac, the seed of Abraham, God said, “. . . Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an ever-lasting covenant, [and] with his seed after him” (Gen. 17:19).

• The seed promise passed through Isaac to Jacob, who begot the twelve patriarchs (1 Chron. 16:17; Acts 7:8).

• When Jacob was dying he called his sons to his bed-side, and gave the Messianic blessing to Judah, saying, “Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Gen. 49:8-10). This identification of the Messiah is continued all the way through the Book of Revelation, “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof” (Rev. 5:5).

• The seed promise passed from Judah to David, who became known as “God’s anointed” and God promised “to show mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore” (2 Sam. 22:5). One of the most significant prophesies in the genealogy of Christ was given to Nathan the prophet in the time of Samuel, “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David” (2 Sam. 7:12-17).

The Jews of Jesus’ time knew full well the origin of the promised Messiah. While his coming from Nazareth confused them, they said, Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (John 7:42). They obviously were ignorant of the fact that he was born in Bethlehem, or else were ignoring the fact.

Among the Jews there was an air of anxious expectation for the fulfillment of the seed promise. It has been said that every Jewish mother longed to give birth to the promised Messiah. All the events that occurred under the Law of Moses pointed to the fulfillment of the seed promise: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19).

Throughout the prophecies of the coming Messiah and their fulfillment Jesus is identified as the promised seed. He is called: (a) The seed of woman (Gen. 3:15). (b) The seed of David (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), and (c) The seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16).

Jesus being the seed of woman speaks of his virgin birth. His being the seed of David speaks of his royalty. His being the seed of Abraham speaks of his ethnic origin, thus his humanity. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. . . . For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Heb. 2:14, 16).

It is amazing how inspiration so consistently follows the seed promise. Paul shows how important it was to do so when he says in Galatians 3:16, “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.” If all the recordings of the seed promises had originated with man, surely somebody would have goofed up and made the word “seed” plural. To have done so would have destroyed consistency, and sullied the whole story of the scheme of redemption. It is impressive that inspiration here turns on whether a word is plural or singular, thus upon just one little letter “s”. Talk about verbal inspiration, this is letter inspiration!

All the preaching in the Book of Acts has as its theme that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-promised Messiah. This message was gladly received by thousands in the first century, but rejected by many more thousands, especially among the Jewish population. This occurred because the teachers among the Jews developed their own idea of what the Messiah should be. They had distorted the image God had painted through the Old Testament prophets, and since he did not fit this image, they rejected him as an imposter and a fraud. They looked for an apocalyptic Messiah who would re-establish the throne of David and deliver them from all their enemies and make them a world power as they had been in the past.

Saul of Tarsus became their national leader in opposition to Christ as the promised Messiah. He “breathed out threatening and slaughter against the disciples” (Acts 9:1) to the point that the church at Jerusalem was scattered. He then traveled to foreign countries to bring back to Jerusalem for trial on charges of blasphemy those who had called upon the name Christ.

One of the most significant events in history, however, was his own conversion on one of his trips to Damascus. Over night he went from national hero to public enemy number one because he “preached the faith he once destroyed” (Gal. 1:23). He spent the rest of his life trying to persuade one and all that Jesus Christ was the long-promised Messiah and Saviour of the world. The powers among the Jews never forgave him for his defection from their cause. They pursued him like a wild animal and heaped upon him bitter and hateful persecution. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus to Christ remains, even today, one of the strongest arguments for his Messiahship. It is a problem for Jews and other unbelievers, and shall remain so.

II. The Genealogies of Christ by Matthew and Luke

It seems inappropriate to close this discussion without some reference to the table genealogies of Christ as given by Matthew and Luke. These genealogies have given rise to much controversy and the difficulties attendant upon them a source of false accusation with skeptics who try to use them to discredit Jesus as the promised Messiah.

It is obvious that the two genealogies of Christ in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 have different purposes. In studying them carefully it seems that one is able to discern those purposes, at least to some degree. Several observations need to be made in reference to the differences in these genealogies.

a. First one should note that in these genealogies the word “son” is used in a very general way. For instance, in Matthew 1:1, David is called “the son of Abraham.” Thus, the word “son” simply means descendant. This, then, must pre-vent one from trying always to lay the names given in the genealogies end-on-end, as it were. Whole generations are passed over to suit the purposes of the genealogist.

b. It is impossible for us to understand all the intricacies of these genealogies since we are not told their specific purpose(s). Certain purposes seem evident from a careful study of the lists, but we cannot be certain of these and we should exercise caution here.

c. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus from David through Nathan  not Solomon  as does Matthew, because his purpose seems to be to prove Christ’s descent from David through his mother, and thus establish him as the “son” of David, thus heir to David’s throne. This would be necessary because he is said to be “the son of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). Bible students know that Joseph was not Christ’s biological father, but rather his legal father by adoption.

d. Matthew’s purpose seems to be to trace the genealogy of “Joseph, the husband of Mary” (Matt. 1:16). He traces the genealogy back to David through Joseph, Jesus’ adoptive father. (See Matt. 1:20.) Thus, Jesus is established as the son of David both from a legal and a natural point of view (Adopted children are legal heirs).

e. Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy through his fleshly mother all the way back to Adam, seemingly, to prove that he is the “son of man” as well as the “son of God” (Luke 1:32).

f. It should be noted that these two lists match perfectly from Abraham to David, from whom they take differing directions, which demonstrates different purposes.

g. Any seeming difficulties are caused by our lack of knowledge of the purposes of the compilers. For instance Joseph, the husband of Mary, is said to be the son of Jacob in Matthew 1:15,16, but the son of Heli in Luke 3:23. As stated earlier, we must observe the broad use of the word “son.” It is more likely that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was the father of Mary, his wife, for, as stated earlier, Luke traces the genealogy of Mary rather than Joseph. One must keep in mind the broad use of the word “son.”

Much is made by some of the fact that the four women mentioned in this genealogy were connected with scandal. Rahab, the harlot of Jericho (Matt. 1:5); Thamar the daughter-in-law of Judah who played the harlot with him as an act of vengeance because he did not give her his next son to wed at the death of her husband (Matt. 1:3); Ruth, who spent the night at Boaz’ feet on the threshing floor (Matt. 1:5); and Bathsheba, who was David’s partner in adultery (Matt. 1:6). It’s a bit strange why so much is made of the shortcomings of these four women, and nothing is said about the shortcomings of some of the men in the genealogy. After all, Adam sinned, Abraham and Isaac lied about their wives, Jacob was a supplanter, David was an adulterer and a murderer, and Solomon was a polygamist and an idol worshipper. I could go on and on, but what’s the use? More men in the genealogy of Christ were connected with “scandal” than women. All this demonstrates that if God must have sinless people in order to work out his eternal plan, his plan never would have gotten worked out. David sought and received forgiveness, and so far as we know, and it is safe to assume, that the others did too. It is comforting to know that God can use us in the out-working of his divine plan in spite of our weaknesses. Not for a moment does this mean that God sanctions our shortcomings, but he has a plan for their remedy. He holds out an ideal toward which we must ever strive, but never fully reach.

Recently there has appeared in some of the liberal papers an article by Andre Resner entitled “Christmas at Matthew’s house” (an absurd title to begin with) which approaches the genealogy found in Matthew from a modernistic, faith-destroying point of view. This article even insinuates that the story of Mary’s pregnancy was morally questionable, and that Joseph sought to cover it up by telling of a dream he had. While space forbids quoting the complete irreverent article, I shall quote one of the more absurd paragraphs from it:

Though we’re still quite surprised by Matthew’s covert statement “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit,” Matthew has set us up for it (by using the four women of questionable moral character previously jpn) . It’s a sort of “Here we go again, folks…” Another sexually questionable woman. And what about Joseph’s faith in the face of Mary’s story? For it was he, who after a single dream, went ahead and married her. A dream that was real, yes, but still a dream. Could it have been a message from God? Or, could it have been his own imagination, his wanting to believe her so much that his subconscious produced a nocturnal justification for marrying her, even in the face of such outlandish excuse? But there’s Joseph, crawling into bed with her every night the rest of his life, relying on a dream, believing in her word, that she really hadn’t slept with another man and used him to cover her shame. If we’ve paid attention to the women of Matthew’s genealogy we’re not entirely surprised by Mary’s (Joseph’s?!) predicament. If God used those of the Messiah’s family tree thus, why wouldn’t the Messiah himself come from a similar situation? (Wineskins, Nov. 92).

In the first sentence of his article, Resner says, “Matthew is sneaky.” It goes down hill from there! After his article aroused some controversy, as one might imagine, Resner wrote another article in which he sought to blunt the impact of his first article and proclaim his deep belief “in the divinity and virgin birth of Jesus  in his death, burial and resurrection and in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures . . . I wrote the article because of my deep love for the Lord and his church, not to show a disrespect for either.” Sure had me “fooled”! We never would have gathered this from his article! But this is in the genuine tradition of a gospel preacher turned modernistic. They have to spend more time and effort covering their tracks than it takes to make them. It seems they are always misunderstood. The problem is that they are understood but hope they won’t be. In this way they can play out their true role as “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15).

He also claimed that he wrote the article for young people! Yeah, for the purpose of destroying their faith. It is a warped sense of need and propriety to think this is the kind of commentary on the genealogy of our blessed Saviour that our young people need! Lord, save our young people from such “benefactors”!

It is also interesting that a retired “Dr. Holbert Rideout, Professor Emeritus of Christian Education at Abilene Christian University,” wrote an article commending Resner’s piece, and says, “My wife and I have been helped in our own faith by this challenging piece.” Why is it that I don’t find this surprising? It probably would be more appropriate to say that the article helped his lack of faith.

When understood, a careful study of the genealogy of Jesus invalidates the absurd claims of skeptics that the genealogy of Jesus is a hodgepodge of monumental confusion to the point of rendering it absurd. Admittedly, the genealogy is not simple, but neither is it without organization, and a sense of purpose. Most of its difficulties arise from our inability to know for sure what were God’s purposes in giving it in two versions.

The reader will find helpful discussions on this matter in Clark’s Commentary, the ISBE, and Biblical Analysis by C. H. Woodroof and Arvil Weilbaker, pp. 145-150.

Conclusion

An overview of the genealogy of Christ finds him descended from the great heroes of faith in all generations since the beginning of time. To be sure, they were not sinlessly perfect individuals, but they were of a character commensurate with God’s divine purpose to bring a savior into the world and “overcome the works of the devil” (1 Jn. 3:8) wrought in the Garden of Eden. His coming was prophesied, his scheme of redemption was typified, and his Father glorified. In the words of Paul, “without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Tim. 3:16).

The pure-hearted student of the genealogy of our Lord cannot avoid the impact of his fulfillment of the many prophecies of his coming, and his being the consummation of God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:10, 21), and being thankful to God for his marvelous love and grace that expressed itself in giving his only begotten Son to die for us.

Guardian of Truth XL: 1 p. 3-7
January 4, 1996