Matthew 1:1-6 (ESV)
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, [3] and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, [4] and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, [5] and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, [6] and Jesse the father of David the king.
And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,
Genealogieas, One I my favorite verses of the Bible is Titus 3:9. “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” (Titus 3:9 (ESV)
That verse has become more or less a prayer of mine every morning. I pray it right before finding a foolish controversy on the internet to engage in. But I find it peculiar that the New Testament starts out with that which Paul tells us to avoid. Well, genealogies are for the most part a little foolish. They can be fun, but none are as important as Christ’s.
Matthew starts out with this Genealogy tracing it back through Joseph the legal custodian of Jesus. And he traces it back to Abraham. This is necessary to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah and from whose branch he comes. He is of the house of David. He is the Son of David.
Much is made of the women mentioned in this genealogy. They are often depicted as being the “bad girls of the Bible. But just today as I was engaging in a foolish controversy on the internet a woman pointed out that this is often done in an offensive way, and not really all that helpful. I suppose not. American Christianity has a fascination with being bad before being saved, and I can imagine the sermon is like a vicarious “testimony,” which is probably about as helpful as an actual testimony. I never understood why people find it efficacious for a man to stand up in the middle of a church service filled with teenagers, and recount all the illicit sex, and drugs he did before he “got saved.” More often than not it gives the impression that you have to be a strung out heroin addict, and womanizer or whore before you can be saved. Something many teenagers are more than willing to go along with. But enough of that.
The women that are mention in these genealogies may have had a bit of a sordid past. We are all sinners, and if you want to check out sordid pasts, check out the history of the men mentioned in this genealogy. But the women are most peculiar not because some of them engaged in prostitution, or let the men sample the goods before marriage or were otherwise exploited by the men in the story, but the fact that they were all foreigners. Jesus was to be a blessing to all nations as was promised to Abraham. And all nations then, or at least various nations, and not just the Jewish nation, had a part to play in his coming about. It was a message to the Jewish readers of the text that Jesus Christ didn’t have a pure Jewish genealogy, and neither did it matter.
3 comments:
I'm reluctant to post this comment where others can read it. It's not the place of the sheep to correct the shepherd and I mean no disrespect.
This post is 99.5% great stuff, as usual for you. I have no problem with the substance. However, on the periphery you hit something that is a pet peeve of mine.
Having been extracted from my Baptist tarnishment, I now appreciate that Mary is the blessed mother of God and rightfully has a place of honor in the nativity story behind Jesus. But I keep seeing poor Joseph getting short shrift as, "Joseph the legal custodian of Jesus." As a lawyer this makes me cringe every time I hear this sentiment expressed. By law an adopted child is as much the child of the adoptive parent as if he had been born to that parent. As modern, sexually lax, Americans I'm afraid we lose sight of what a sacrifice it was for Joseph to take Mary and make an honorable woman of her - in an age where virtue was still a universal virtue and long before the Catholic Church seems to have made honoring Mary their primary doctrine. I know you're only emphasising that God the Father is Jesus' father and that he is therefore true God. But I hate to see Joseph pushed off as some kind of "foster dad" of legal guardian.
Sorry to pontificate. I think you're doing a great job and I hope I don't leave the wrong impression.
Scottydog,
For one I don't find this to be correction. I like to view this blog as some sort of virtual Bible Study ongoing. And I write hoping that people will ask questions, and share insights.
And you are right, I wouldn't want to diminish what Joseph did. I remember once talking to a man who never knew his biological father until later in life. He always said that man might be my father, but he aint my dad. He was trying to express something there, that I couldn't quite understand. I grew up in a home where my father was my dad, and maybe more often my father. It was a rather formal home. I always thought father to be the more respectful of the two terms. But as a father and a dad, I've come to cherish the second more than the first. Joseph wasn't a biological father. I'm sure he was every bit a father and a dad to Jesus, and we can all be thankful for that.
Your insight today is very helpful though, because it touches on an issue that more and more people are dealing with in this world of broken families. and though I live with that perpetual reality, I don't often bridge the gap to Biblical interpretation to see the issue being addressed where I see in maybe a narrow tunnel vision another issue being addressed, and address that one over and over again! So thank you.
Thanks.
It's not simply a matter of appreciating the work of adoptive parents in society. Again, from a legal perspective, if Jesus is not the son of Joseph, then he's not hte son of David. If he's not the son of David he's not the Messiah and therefore not the Son of God. If he's not the son of God, who is he the son of? Joseph? But then if he's ONLY the son of Joseph, who cares? Take out one little point from the hypostatic union and the whole redemption of mankind comes crashing down like a house of cards. Thus it is as important that Jesus is the son of Joseph (under the law) as it is that Mary is the mother of God.
Post a Comment