Matthew 1:1-6

1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.

Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram.

Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon.

Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse,

and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.

This genealogy proves that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Messianic promises made to David (Isaiah 9:6-7) and the covenant promises made to Abraham (Genesis 22:18).

Judah (v.2) — is named alone among his brothers because the prophecy of Jacob (Genesis 49:10) says that Shiloh would come from Judah.

Tamar (v.3) — She seduced her father-in-law, Judah (Genesis 38).

Rahab (v. 5) — She was a prostitute in Jericho who sheltered the messengers (Hebrews 11:31)

Ruth (v.5) — A Moabitess. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord forever (Deuteronomy 23:3).

Her who had been the wife of Uriah (v.6) — Bathsheba, who committed adultery with King David and then became his wife after her husband was murdered.

David (v.6) alone has the title, the king. Solomon’s name is there, but there is no kingship attached to it. The unbelieving Jew, as he tries to reject prophecies concerning the Messiah, has always made a strong point of this, that the promises given to David concerning a son were all fulfilled in Solomon. Solomon according to them is the king, and higher than David in his rule and dominion. How striking then that the Holy Spirit gives the name simply Solomon without adding “the king” to it. David is the king and no other can have the title, till his Son come: even He who came and whom David called Lord (Psalm110:1). — Gaebelein, page 24.

The son of David to whom he looked for the fulfillment of his purpose of the establishment of the kingdom around the temple of Jehovah was Solomon. His name, Solomon, the peaceful, suggested the principle of the kingdom. His greatest endowment was that of wisdom, His specific work was that of the building of the temple. His reign was characterized by peace and prosperity.

Nevertheless the story of Solomon is one of disastrous failure. In spite of the gifts of wisdom from on high he lived a life of unutterable and appalling folly. Even though he built the temple, he so contradicted all that for which it stood as to make it a center of form without power; and even though through the goodness of God to him, for the sake of his father, the kingdom was maintained in peace during the period of his life, he had sown it with seeds of disruption which bore harvest immediately after his death. Thus was David disappointed in his son after the flesh.

Jesus Christ the Son of David after the flesh, but the Son of God as the resurrection finally attested, came for the overcoming of all the failure which characterized the life and reign of Solomon. With an innate wisdom He proceeded to the building of the temple which cannot be destroyed; and laid the foundation for the establishment of the Kingdom in peace and prosperity from which all that offends will finally be cast forth.

The son of Abraham to whom he looked for the fulfillment of the promise of God, that from him there should spring a nation which should be the medium of blessing to all the nations, was Isaac. His name, Isaac, laughter, was to Abraham for evermore a witness of the merging of the human and the Divine, in that he was born because “Sarah received power to conceive seed when she was past age.” Through him there was given to Abraham that seed which consisted of sons who, to his vision were destined to carry forward the enterprises of God. The one influence which he exerted was that of the power, which he retained by faith, of blessing his sons after him. 

Nevertheless the story of Isaac is one of disappointment, both in the weakness of his own character, and in the appalling failure of his sons through the long succession of the ages; and in the fact that they failed to enter into the true meaning and value of the blessing he pronounced. Thus was Abraham disappointed in his son after the flesh.

Jesus, the son of Abraham after the flesh, but in the mystery of His Person able to say, “Before Abraham was I AM,” came to realized and fulfill all the purpose which had failed through Isaac and his seed after him. He was the true son of Abraham both human and Divine, and there sprang from Him “so many as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand, which is by the seashore, innumerable,” to carry out the purposes of God. — Morgan, pages 8-9

It is significant to note that, when Jesus offered Himself to Israel as the Messiah, His claim to Davidic descent was never challenged. The Jews must have consulted the records to see whether the One who made such claims for Himself had the right to make those claims. Had they found any flaw in His descent, they would have been quick to accuse Him of being an impostor. Even though the nation rejected Him, it was not because He was outside the Davidic line and therefore ineligible to claim the Davidic throne. — Pentecost, page 39

The following is from a lesson I wrote for work.

Matthew, in the first chapter of his gospel, gives a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Luke 3 also gives us a genealogy of Jesus Christ. But the two lists are very different. Some people, who have looked for problems in the Bible but haven’t wanted to look for answers, have considered this evidence that the Bible cannot be accurate.

In fact, the two genealogies are fantastic proofs of how the Bible fits together. Here’s how:

Matthew’s list begins with Abraham. In verse six we find David and his son Solomon. Luke’s list begins with Joseph and goes back to Adam. In Luke 3:31, we see David and his son Nathan.

Luke is giving Jesus’ lineage through His mother, Mary. He refers to Joseph because genealogies were almost exclusively traced through the father. But when referring to Jesus’ relation to Joseph, Luke uses a word for son that includes the meaning “step-son.” Nathan was David’s oldest son, the one who usually would have become the next king. He didn’t, but a legal claim to the throne continued through his line to Mary, giving Jesus a legitimate legal claim to the throne of Israel.

Matthew is giving Jesus’ lineage through His legal father, Joseph (although Joseph wasn’t his birth father). Joseph’s line goes back to Solomon, David’s second son. Solomon and his heirs actually reigned, giving Joseph a legitimate royal claim to the throne.

Here’s where it really gets interesting. Because Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, He had a royal claim to the throne. But if Jesus had been Joseph’s son by birth, He would have had no claim at all to be king. Why? If you look in Matthew 1:11, you find a man by the name of Jechonias. Because of Jechonias’ sin, he was cursed by God: Thus says the Lord: “Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.”

So Jesus, through Mary back to Nathan, had the legal claim to the throne. Through Joseph (and only as his step-son) back to Solomon, He had the royal claim to the throne. Both lines ended with Jesus Christ. No other sons of Mary and Joseph had a claim to the throne because they had an older brother with a better claim who was (and is) still living. And any other birth sons of Joseph would have been subject to Jechonias’ curse. All of Mary’s other sons were through Joseph. All this means that if Jesus Christ wasn’t the Messiah, there never will be one.

This entry was posted in Matthew. Bookmark the permalink.