Covenant Words
Covenant Words

Episode 613 · 2 months ago

The Gospel of Luke #13

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Luke 3:23-38

This is the genealogy of Jesus Christ

The son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obin, the son of Boez, the son of Salah, a son of Nassan, the son son of Aminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arnie, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Seah, the son of Rue, the son of Paleg, a son of Ebert, the son of Sheila, the son of Canaan, the son of our VAC sad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamick, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of jared, the son of Mahalil, the son of Canaan, the son of Enus, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Amen, please be seated. Well, I'm not sure I'm guessing, maybe this has happened to your pastor before, but I kind of woke up this morning in a in a cold sweat, and I started thinking, what are you doing preaching out of the genealogies and UH, obviously we've come to that point in the gospel of Luke. But I still thought you can't do this. And in my mind I thought I know what I'll do. I'll switch the night sermon to the morning and and and then I thought that would work because particularly, and this is a plug for tonight, I found several, Um, very similarities between tonight's text and the play that we read on Friday night. So that that's kind of interesting. But Anyway, Um, then I thought, no, I think Andrew's printed out the bulletins. Uh, that's not going to work at all. Um. So I mentioned a while ago that sometimes in my carnality, Um, I think, God, why, why did you not take out a couple of genealogies in the Bible? And and maybe you know, put a chapter on who should be baptized or what's speaking in tongues means or up along that line. But...

...again, I said, I realized that God's Word is ultimately perfect. I remember hearing a preacher one time talking and he said that before he had a particular experience that he had trouble getting a sermon out of the gospel of John, but then after that experience he felt he could preach out of the maps. Um. So I'm not preaching out of the maps, but I am preaching out of a genealogy, and we need to know that God can even use a genealogy. Now, in Philip Riikin's commentary on Luke he relates a story that he got out of the wicklift Bible translator newsletter and I found it interesting, so I want to repeat it to you this morning. It goes like this. When a Bible translator and Papua New Guinea started to translate Matthew's Gospel, he thought the last thing I want to do is bogged these people down with the genealogy. So he began with chapter two. But the day came and all the other chapters were done, they called together the men who were helping him and they decided on the best way to say begat. Then they proceeded with Matthew Chapter One. Abraham Begat Isaac Isaac Beigett, Jacob, Jacob Beghett, etcetera, etcetera. By the time they completed about six of these bighats, the translator could sense the men were becoming excited. Do you mean they said that these were real men? Yes, he answered, there were real men that's what we do, they added, referring to the custom of keeping track of genealogies. We thought that these were just white man's stories. Do you really mean that Abraham was a real man? Yes, the translator said, that's what I've been telling you. We didn't know that, they said, but now we believe that night they gathered the village together and said listen to this, and they read the first chapter of Matthew, and that chapter was a key for the belief of the tribe. So we should never doubt the wisdom of God. But once genealogy was important. We already...

...saw that. Well, I guess you didn't because I preached that sermon Beck in Wisconsin, but you probably know from the Christmas story that Uh Joseph and Mary needed to know where to go to be taxed, and of course that required them knowing and being able to trace their genealogy. Since the early days of the church, there have been efforts to connect the four living creatures in revelation chapter four to the four Gospels. The problem is there really isn't agreement among all the people that try to do that as to which beast or which face equals which Gospel. But I've always kind of found one, and I'm not saying this is hard and faster or inspired or anything like that, but I found something that I thought is at least interesting. I always thought that Matthew, who presents Jesus as the king, is best represented by the lion, and Mark, who presents Jesus particularly as a servant, is best represented as the ox, and Luke, who presents Christ has man in his humanity, is the man, the face of the man, and John, who especially emphasizes Christ as God, is the ego and everything. I bring that up this morning is because if you look at the genealogies of the four gospels, you'll see that they all relate. You say, Wall wait a minute, pastor, I know it's a genealogy and Matthew, Luke, what are you talking about? All four? Well, Matthew, who presents Christ as a king, of course must trace the genealogy through David and actually through the Kings, through David Back to Abraham, which he does. Luke, who presents Christ as man, presents his genealogy taking Christ back to Adam, ultimately back to God, of course, but back to Adam. Mark, who presents Christ as a servant, has no genealogy, because a servant doesn't really need a genealogy. And John, who presents Christ as God, has the shortest genealogy. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with...

God and the word was God. His genealogy simple, Jesus God. That's all he gives to us. Now again, I'm not presenting that is something that's absolutely proven. So don't take it that way, but I find it interesting. But the main problem we have in our genealogy this morning concerns the differences between the genealogy that Matthew gives us and the genealogy that Luke gives us. And the main question that divides people on these genealogies is, is Luke's genealogy a genealogy of Joseph or is it a genealogy of Mary? Now there are arguments on both sides of this question. The Old English poet Francis Quarrels Uh wrote this. When two evangelists shall seem to vary in one discourse, they're converse, not contrary. One truth doth guide them both. One spirit doth direct them doubt not to believe them both. Now the question I had is I prepared this message is how much of this is valuable for a Sunday morning sermon, and I came up with the thought not a lot, but maybe some, and so I'm going to give you some of that and then I want to move to application. But I want to begin by giving you some of the differences between Luke's and Matthew's genealogy, without trying to say anything has what would prove whether Luke's genealogy is actually a genealogy of Mary or a genealogy of Joseph? A couple of things. are a few things we should know about Luke's genealogy as I read through them. Maybe this struck you. We don't know a lot of these people. They're not mentioned their names. About half of the names in Luke's genealogy are not even in the Old Testament, so we're not very familiar with them at all. And let me talk about the part of Luke's genealogy that Matthew doesn't give because Matthew doesn't go from...

Adam to Abraham as luke does. And so what about the names that Luke gives us from Adam to Abraham? Well, the genealogy that Luke gives us from Adam to sham, who is Noah's son, is exactly the same as the genealogy of Genesis Five, only Luke gives it to us in reverse order. And then the names from Sham to Abraham in Luke, also in reverse order, a difference than genesis, but they are, outside of that, the same as genesis eleven ten, to which only one exception, and the exception is that genesis eleven tells us that our facts said Father Sheila, but luke puts in another name, the name of Canaan, in that. Now that name is not found anywhere else but only in the Septuagint, which you may know, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. John Gill says this but seems to be Oh, into some early negligent transcriber of Luke's Gospel and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority. I say early because it is in many Greek copies and in the vulgate, Latin and all the oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them, but ought not to stand neither in the text nor in any version. For certain it is there never was such a Canaan the son of our facts head, for Salo was his son, and with him the next words should be connected. Well, you see, gil has a strong opinion. I'm going to leave it there. Before we continue compare again matthew and Luke's genealogy from Abraham to Christ, let me deal with some general differences again. Matthew begins with Abraham and moves forward to Christ, where Luke begins with Christ and moves backwards to Adam. Matthew mentions women in his genealogy, whereas Luke mentions no women in his. Matthew gives some explanatory notes in his genealogy, explaining something about...

...certain people in the genealogy, but luke gives nothing outside of his very first comment in verse twenty three. Matthew's genealogy is a total of forty two names, and those forty two names are divided by Matthew into three groups of fourteen each, which also means, of course, there are six times seven names in his genealogy. Luke gives us another interesting number of names. He gives us seventy seven if we don't count the name of God in it. Now, if you compare the genealogies from Abraham to David and Luke and Matthew. They're roughly the same. There are two names that are slightly different in the two accounts, but we can assume that they are different names of the same person. But it is in the genealogies between David and Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, that we run into a lot of difficulties. There is almost no similarity between Matthew and Luke in those names. It starts right away with David's son. We are used to the genealogy that starts with David and then, of course, Solomon and then real bowman. We're used to that genealogy. But Luke doesn't give us that one. He gives us Nathan, we know a very little about from the Old Testament. And then he goes on from their listing people we have no idea who they are and there are only two names in the two genealogies that are the same between David and Christ and those two names are zerobable and shielty. Of those are the only ones that are listed in both the genealogies. Matthew gives us twenty four generations between David and UH Joseph, Luke gives us forty and again most of the names...

...that do not appear in the Old Testament. But it is possible that Luke had access to some genealogical records that others did not have access to that perhaps we're destroyed when the temple was destroyed in a D seventy. Perhaps those genealogical records were then destroyed. So he may have used those to construct his genealogy. For it's very common for people to know Paul knew that his genealogy went back to Benjamin and Barnabas knew that his genealogy went back to Levi sort appears that people knew in those days their genealogy and the less amount of names that we find in the gospel of Matthew probably suggests that matthew skipped some genealogies. Was Most people believed that he did, and that was not uncommon at all in genealogies. And the phrase where Matthew says the father of in his continuing genealogy does not have to mean direct father. It just means that they are in line together. It could be used of a grandfather, a great grandfather, and you know the word is used in the gospels in that way, even going back many, many generations. And so that is uh, the question there that we have or why these names me may be different. So let me deal just a little bit and then again I want to go to application. But I want to deal with the question of whether Luke's genealogy is that of Joseph or is it that of Mary. Now there are arguments on both sides of this and Um one is that the argument of the side that said that, uh, Luke and Matthew's genealogies are both genealogies of Joseph. Now, one argument for that would be it wasn't the common practice of Jews to trace a genealogy through the mother. So if this genealogy was of Mary, it wouldn't really be accepted by the Jews at that time him. And...

...along that line, people also ask if this is indeed a genealogy of Mary. Wouldn't you think Mary's name would be there? And it isn't even mentioned. And why would luke, in Chapter One, Verse Twenty Seven, why would he draw special attention to the fact that Joseph was of the House of David, if this genealogy is not of Joseph? Now there have been several people that accept that idea, that this is Joseph. One would be the founder of our denomination, J Gresh Matchen, who thought that both of these genealogies were the same. But he thought that Matthew gave us the legal descendants of David. In other word, Matthew gives to us the men who would be the legal heirs to the throne, if the throne was there to be had, and Luke instead, machin thought, gives us the descendants of David. That would lead up to and end up with Joseph, Mary's husband. Not only Matson believed that, which is a waiting name to put onto this, but another name you may have heard of believed this, by the name of John Kelvin. He also held to that view. What about some arguments in favor of Mary's genealogy? In this idea, generally, Mary and Joseph are looked at a somewhat distant cousins. We're not sure exactly how distant. And if this is the view that one his spouses, that Luke is giving us Mary's and Matthews giving US Joseph, then indeed the two gospel writers are giving to us a dual claim to the throne of David by Jesus, since both by blood through Mary and also through legality through Joseph, he has the claim to be David's son. Donald Barnhouse brings out that this actually solves a problem that bothers many. Back in the Old Testament, the Prophet Jeremiah uttered a prophecy in chapter twenty two, in verse thirty, and this prophecy goes as follows. Thus says the Lord right this man. This is talking about...

Jack and I write this. Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring will succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah. And people ask, well, if that's true, that Jack and I will have no child to succeed him, what in the world is he doing in Matthew's genealogy? Wouldn't that then negate Jeremiah's prophecy? But if Matthew's genealogy is only the legal genealogy and Luke is giving us the blood genealogy, then we can say that makes perfect sense. Others point out the way that Luke begins his genealogy where he says being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph Son of Healy. He says by doing that Luke is particularly trying to draw our attention away from Joseph and to marry, and that he is doing that. And the Jewish talment actually says that Mary was the daughter of Healey. So Luke is purposely omitting Joseph from the genealogy and telling us that actually Jesus was the grandson of heally. Again, the Great Puritan Commentator Matthew Henry believed that this was a Mary's genealogy. Far Far as modern commentators, Philip Reich in, the former pastor of Tenth Press Philadelphia, future current president of Wheaton College, r Kent Hughes, Pastor of the College Church in Wheatne Illinois, the reform commentator William Hendrickson and the name you may have heard, John Macarthur, all hold that. Well, I'm letting you pick your own view. Um, I'm going to move to application because that's where I wanted to center on uh this morning, but hopefully it's at some interest to you. Some of you more pedantic p but like myself, may have found some of that interesting the...

...others of you, please wake up right now. That would be great. Um, I want you to note in verse twenty three that Luke begins his genealogy with the fact, as I told you last week, we would not have known had luke not given it to us, and that is the fact that Jesus began his ministry at Thirty years of age. And I told you last week that there's precedent to that. David began to rule when he was thirty, Joseph began to rule with Pharaoh when he was thirty. The levite begin to serve as priest between the ages of thirty and fifty, and so we oh luke for that detail. And then there's a very important word in verse twenty three. It says of Jesus being the son and then, parentheses, as was supposed, of Joseph the son of heally. Now let me tell you something about that word supposed, and looking up in my concordance, that word occurs fifteen times in the New Testament. Out of the fifteen times that it occurs, nine of the Times it is used by Luke. So it was a favorite word that luke uses. And here's what's important to note in every single case where Luke uses this word, he uses it in except one. I'll say there is one exception. But in eight of the nine occasions where Luke uses this word he uses it to mean a fact that people suppose is true but in reality was not true. A couple of examples. Acts Fourteen nineteen. But Jews came from Antioch and ICONIUM and, having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. Now, whatever you believe there about that particular incident, Paul was not dead and he walked back into the city. So they...

...supposed wrong. And Act six seven, when the jailer woke and saw the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped, but they hadn't. They were all there. And so again this is how the word is used. So Lucas saying, people believed that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, but he wasn't. It was the supposition of those around them, maybe a presupposition, I don't know, but it was a supposition of those that were there. But Lucas saying they were wrong. And as Luke would tell us in his genealogy, he is ultimately and actually the son of God. And that word actually supposed. It occurs in Luke's genealogy, where every other place the phrase the son of would appear, and so luke is trying to tell us something there about God. Let's not Miss Luke's emphasis right there, as I said, the genealogy, and Luke goes all the way back to Adam, which leads me to consider what I considered to be the most important points, at least what I've looked at, in this genealogy. Now, I mentioned earlier that John Emphasizes the Deity of Christ and I mentioned also that Luke is proving in his genealogy that Jesus shares in humanity, that he is a son of Adam and therefore he is man. But believers of the Orthodox faith, and by that I don't mean uh eastern or Greek Orthodox in regards to that, but as believers of the Orthodox faith, we believe that Christ is both God and man, not half God half man, but God and Man. It's...

...interesting when you read through the Gospel Stories that oftentimes the Gospel Writers will tell us a story that emphasizes this, that Christ is both God and Man. As man he's in the bottom of the boat sleeping. That's what humans do. As God, he gets up and tells the winds and the waves be muzzled, and they immediately cease. As man he comes to the fig tree looking for food because he's hungry, because humans get hungry, but as God he curses the tree and says no one eats fruit of the henceforth forever. As man, he subjects himself to the tax of the temple, but as God he brings the money for the tax in a fish's mouth. Has Man, he weeps at the tomb of his friend Lazarus, but as God he commands Lazarus to come out of death's hold. As Man he dies crucified on the Cross, but as God he comes out of the Tomb on the third day. As the hymn and our PSALTER hymn puts it, fairest Lord Jesus, ruler of all nations, son of God and son of Man. Both must be affirmed if we are to be Orthodox, and I'm sure, because you're a part of an OPC church, that most of you know what the word Orthodox means, but it simply means Ortho means straightened like an orthodonist, and doc simply means an opinion, like we're seeing a doxology, which is telling our high opinion of Christ. So Orthodox simply means that we are straight thinking. And so in all seventy seven names in this genealogy of Luke, Christ is connected to humanity, but of course Luke mentions he is also God.

And so in some wonderful way we believe that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. The Presbyterian preacher Henry Boardman said, we accept the marvel because God has affirmed it, not because we can explain it. But let me make another point about this genealogy that relates to you and I, and here's what I want to tell you. With some modification in this genealogy, okay, we can do a little bit of modification of it, you would be able to find yourself in this genealogy of Luke somewhere, and I know none of us have this, but somewhere there is a genealogy that takes us back to Adam, and in fact you can know this. Your genealogy is exactly the same as Christ for the first ten names that are given to us in that genealogy, because we are all related not only through Adam but through noah. So we all have that genealogy in common. And so we are related to enoch, Methuselah, Seth Noah. I've told you before, and I haven't told all of you, but I've told some of you, that the origins of my last name Cufus, and I won't go into that story right now, but but I'll tell you that the gist end of it is that I know positively I don't have any royal German blood flowing in my veins, but that I was part of the poorest of the poor in Germany Um, and so I don't have much to break about that. But I am a royal blood because I have noah, I have enoch in my veins. So take that ANCESTRY DOT com mine. So I could say this morning in some complex way, if I had all of the genealogical tables of humanity in...

...front of me for the human race, I could establish some sort of relationship between the man Jesus and myself. Now I know he didn't have children, so I can't do it that way. But I might be a four D and seven cousin. I'm not. I'm not sure, but but I could establish it in some way. But my point is not. That isn't the important thing. The important thing isn't whether I can establish some physical relationship to Christ. The important thing is can I establish a spiritual relationship to Christ? Can I say that I am a child of God? Am I one John Refers to when he says in First John Three, one see what kind of love the father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. And so we are. Again, Paul will say in Romans Eight, which we read earlier, sixteen and Seventeen, the spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. And if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs of Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may be glorified to him. Am I a child of God? Am I a brother or sister of Christ? Hebrews two, eleven to thirteen, for he who sanctifies being Christ and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, and that includes sisters. As well saying I will tell your name to my brothers in the midst of the congregation, I will sing your praise and again I will put my trust in him and again behold I and the children God has given me this morning. If you have been born again by the Holy Spirit of God, you are a child of God. To him, I don't remember if it's in this uh assalter him nor not, but it was in the trinity. Him That says I'm a child of a King, and indeed we are a child of a king. And that that is...

...the case, someone's been wiped out of my genealogy. WHO WOULD THAT BE? Satan. We know Jesus said that those around him that he said You, you are of your father the devil. Oh, he's that. He was there, he was in my genealogy, but no longer. I have a different father. I have a better genealogy, and so do you, because Christ became man he was two seventeen. Therefore, he had to be made like brothers in every respect so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God to make propitiation for the sin of the people. Christ has made propitiation for those whom he calls his brothers and sisters. Those were called the children of God. Luke does something interesting that I'll point out in closing here, and again I'm not speaking to the question of whether his genealogy is that of Mary or that of Joseph, but he does something here that he also does when he recounts Paul's First Sermon in acts, chapter thirteen. And what he does there, in one way in the Gospel and another way to acts, is he basically leaves out every king between David and Solomon. Now, I know I mentioned the robber ball and shall tell some people believe that those are two men with the same name and they were not actually the kings, and I don't I don't know if that's true or not. But basically what Luke does is say, forget all those kings, go back to the king who was the true type, go back to David.

That's what Paul doesn't his sermon and exerteen. He just goes back to David. You see, there's an heir to the throne of David. There is one to whom it was prophesied that of his kingdom there shall be no end. There was one who indeed would sit upon the throne of David, and that one is Jesus Christ, to that one, the only true king. to Him we humbly submit and find ourselves not only his subjects, but his children and his brothers and sisters. Brothers, it does not appear what we shall be, but think what you are. Think what you are children the Most High God. You are part of that chain. If you have trusted in him, if you've gone to the Cross and put your sins on Christ asked him to be the Lord of Your Life, you are a child of God, of royal descent. This morning, let's pray our God and father. We thank you that you have indeed given us the blood, the blood of Christ that sheds for our sin, and thereby we may be called children of God, not because of natural blood that we descend from, but because of the blood that came from him at the Cross, and Lord, we know. Because of that, as we will remember it again tonight in the service, because of that, we have royal blood. We are children of the king, we are children of the most High God, no longer...

...to serve Satan and his host of darkness, but instead to serve our glorious and wonderful and loving God. Lord, we thank you for that this morning and we asked this in Christ name, Amen. Man.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (633)