Jun 1981 - Q & A

This question comes from a reader in Florida: in the article "The Tabernacle of David" (Needed Truth, issue 10/80) the statement is made (page 158): "David's Son, not by Solomon through Coniah then Joseph as in Matt. 1:1 - 16, for Jer. 22:30 precluded that; but by Nathan and finally through Mary the virgin of Nazareth as in Luke 3:23-38 - David's Son and David's Lord". The Luke genealogy however begins with Joseph; Mary is not mentioned here. Please explain.

Mr J.L. Ferguson, who wrote the article referred to, has kindly provided an answer which is given below.

How I work the matter out is simply this way:-

1. The Matthew genealogy is clear, except that it omits several generations. It is a "begetting" genealogy so that clearly Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus. Jacob was clearly the father of Joseph.

2. This genealogy comes down from David via Solomon and, in particular, via Jechoniah (Matt. 1:11). It was this man regarding whom Jeremiah made the pronouncement of God in Jer. 22:30 (Coniah, Jechoniah and Jehoiachin all being names for the same man). This man was to be childless in relation to the throne of David. He was not of course childless, as such, for he begat Shealtiel as in Matt. 1:12. But Shealtiel was governor, not king, on the return from Babylon. No descendent of Coniah would reign on David's throne. Therefore Joseph, his descendent, had no divine right to the throne either. For this reason he could not have been the actual father of Jesus, to whom the Kingdom is assured. But of course we know that the basic reason for him not being the real father to Jesus was that it was to be the Holy Spirit who would be the Agent in Mary's conception, thus that which was born was holy, the Son of God. Hence the contrasting words in verse 18: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise".

3. Luke delays the genealogy table till after the baptism of the Lord in Jordan. That baptism prefigured Calvary in a remarkable way, and it was only the work of the world Redeemer there which would open the way for men to be reconciled right back to God again (Luke 3:38).

4. Luke, through the Spirit, states Jesus to be the Son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat... of God. Whereas in Matthew Joseph is 36th in line of named descent from David through Solomon, in Luke Joseph is 42nd in line of named descent from David, through Nathan, Solomon's brother.

5. This provides me with the following difficulties:-

(a)How can one man, Joseph, be separately and distinctly descended from two different men, the two men actually being brothers, Solomon and Nathan?

(b) Although one man in the Old Testament can evidently have several names, as in the case of Jechoniah, Jehoiachin and Coniah in para. 2 above, it seems extremely unlikely that the names of all the ancestors of Joseph in Matthew and Luke right back to Solomon and Nathan had different names, whereby the one name appears in Matthew and, as of design, the other in Luke.

6. 1 have therefore felt led to the conclusion that, in the light of the obvious differences in name sequences after David in Matthew and Luke, the Spirit can be doing no other than penning two quite separate genealogies of two quite separate persons. And that further, the reference to Joseph in Luke 3 has in view a son-in-law relationship, son-in-law of Heli. There seems to me room for this thought in the "Son of" expression, whereas it would not be so where it says "begat". This then would be Luke's reference to the establishing of the claim of the Lord Jesus to the throne of His father David. If not, it is given nowhere else in Scripture.

unknown | Jun 1981
Question And Answer