TBR Bible study -- Matthew 1

Interesting. So you think the genealogy is more significant from a symbolic POV than from an actual bloodline?

I understand that there is a prophetic fullfillment aspect to the genealogy also. Am I off base on that?

 

Yeah. Israel was to be God's "chosen" people, to serve as an example of dependence on God, dedication to God, and God's self-giving love. But they repeatedly failed. The Old Testament, primarily the prophets, are filled with God condemning the Isrealites for 'whoring' after other desires, whether idols or possessions, and condemning them for their lack of grace towards the orphans, widows, poor and strangers (Isaiah is particularly strong on that).

There were also expectations of David and all the other following kings that were not met.

Jesus fulfils what both the nation and the king were expected to be. He is the perfect Israelite.

Completely on target. I did a service of Lessons and Carols during Advent. It's a service where you read 8-12 OT scriptures (the more referenced/common ones) that foretell the Messiah. Central to almost all of them is the understanding or assumption that the Messiah is an Israelite of the household (lineage) of David.

 

Wow here's something I never really noticed. I didn't realize he married her, but didn't have sex with her until after Jesus' birth. Is there any significance as to why??

 

To fulfill prophecy, probably. Mary's claim had been verified by Gabriel so Joseph was fully on board with it. And one of the many prophecies foretold about the Christ was that He was to be born from a virgin.

But even if Joseph wasn't aware of the prophecy, there was the issue of maintaining spiritual "cleanliness". Having sex with a woman -- even your fiancee -- who's been impregnated by someone else is in violation of the Law of Moses, cited in Exodus.

 

This is one of the most important points in Christianity, it speaks to the purity of Christ and how important it was for him to remain that way until his supreme sacrifice. It also seems to be a continuing question for some.

 

Hasbeens, thanks for addressing the divorce question, that was going to be my first one

 

For Big Vito

There is a different geneology listed in Luke 3:23-38 that traces from Jesus all the way back to Adam (of Adam and Eve). But there is a difference even from the first generation removed from Jesus. So what's the deal?

Here's the key verse:

"...He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph." Luke 3:23

​

Here is a commentary I found that offers a pretty good explanation:

This debate has not been laid to rest, but the line of Mary theory for the Luke 3 geneology with Joseph named as "the son of Eli", while actually Eli's son-in-law seems the most likely to me, especially considering the reference to the OT book of Ruth, where another person claimed an in-law as his own.

 

First, HB, it's obvious that you're taking a lot of time & doing a lot of work to present this, & I really appreciate it. I'm sure many others do also. Thanks

I thought about that also. 14 itself doesn't seem to be a significant number in the Bible in general, but 7 (half of 14) certainly is. Examples: 7 days in the week, the 7th day being set aside as holy (Gen. chapters 1 & 2); King David saying that he praises God "seven times a day;" (Ps. 119:164); Jesus telling his disciples that they should forgive a repentant brother who sins against them 7 times in a day (Lk 17:4); in Mt 18:22 he tells them to forgive up to "70 times 7"; the 7 churches addressed in Rev 1:4. A pastor I once studied with was of the opinion that 7 was symbolic of completion in scripture.

I think the actual numbers of the generations were more than the sets of 14 listed--some were not "sons of" but "descendants of." One explanation I've seen for that is that these facts were originally passed down orally, & having them in these numbered groups from one major event to another made it easier to remember.

My understanding was that Matthew's gospel traced Joseph's lineage as the "foster" father, & Luke's actually traced Mary's; & that both were descendants of David. Some cultures actually traced lineage primarily through the female line, because, after all, there's never any doubt who the mother of a child is. The Jewish culture was powerfully patriarchal, though, & would likely demand that level of certainty--of tracing both lines that way to "cover all the bases."

I just discovered something about the geneaology I didn't know before, in my Scofield study bible notes, which I think is fascinating. It concerns the part of the line of descent described in Mt 1:11. I'll just quote it here:

"In Jer. 22:24-30, a curse is pronounced upon this former King of Judah [Jeconiah]. There it is predicted that none of his descendants should prosper sitting on David's throne. Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, who was descended from Jeconiah, He could never reign in power and righteousness because of the curse. But Christ came through Mary's line, not Joseph's. As the adopted son of Joseph, the curse upon Jeconiah's seed did not affect him."

To my mind, that would tend to lend credence to the position that Luke's genealogy does trace Mary's line rather than Joseph's.

 

My pleasure.

You're absolutely right, and I remembered the multiples of seven usage this morning while I was at the gym. Thanks for catching it early.

I would agree.