SON OF ADAM … SON OF GOD

Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on November 6, 2019 under AM Bible Study |

AM Bible Study Group: November 6, 2019 from Luke 3:23-38

Theme: Luke’s genealogy of our Lord teaches us that He ministered for us as one of us.

(All Scripture is taken from The New King James Version, unless otherwise indicated).

In Luke 3:23, we read these words, “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age …” And thus, Luke—after having given us the preliminaries of our Lord’s life—begins to tell us the story of His ministry. But isn’t it interesting that what follows not a story about His ministry? Instead, it is something that we might have expected Luke to have told us at the very beginning of His Gospel account.

It’s our Lord’s genealogy. He wrote;

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, 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 Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:23-38).

When Matthew wrote his Gospel, he began it with Jesus’ genealogy and then told the story of Jesus’ conception and birth. Why would Luke put this genealogy here—at the beginning of our Lord’s ministry—after he had already told the story of His childhood and preparation for ministry? And what’s more, why is this genealogy so different from the genealogy that is given to us by Matthew?

* * * * * * * * * *

We may be tempted to pass by this genealogy—or the one in Matthew—rather quickly. Genealogies are often not very interesting to those of us who live in western culture. (There’s a story about a missionary who was reading from the Bible to some tribal people of another culture; and when he got to one of the genealogies, the people reacted with surprising enthusiasm. “You mean, these stories are true?” they asked. To their thinking, a genealogy is evidence of a connection to real history.) But no matter what culture we may come from, genealogies in the Bible should always be thought of by us as very important. And this one is particularly important; because of whose genealogy it is.

The genealogy in Matthew was uniquely crafted as it was because of who it was that would be reading it. Matthew’s Gospel is a Jewish-focused Gospel account that was intended to present Jesus as the King of the Jews. And so, it’s particular focus was to show the Jewish reader that Jesus was the promised King—the fulfillment of the promises God had made to King David (see 2 Samuel 7:12-13). The genealogy in Luke, however, had a different purpose. Luke’s Gospel is the Gospel account that is uniquely focused on presenting Jesus to the Gentile world as ‘the Son of Man’. And so, Luke’s genealogy reaches all the way back to the very beginning of humanity to show that Jesus was one of us—the Son of Adam—God in human flesh.

Luke was led by the Holy Spirit to show—at the very beginning of our Lord’s ministry—that He was ministering among us, and for us, as one of us.

* * * * * * * * * *

Let’s notice, first, that Luke’s record shows us that …

1. JESUS’ GENEALOGY WAS IN KEEPING WITH HIS IDENTITY.

You can see this by how it begins. Luke starts off with these words: “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph …” Luke was careful with his choice of words. Luke said that Jesus was only “supposed” or “thought’ to have been the biological son of Joseph; because he had already made clear to us that Jesus, in fact, was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit—and not by Joseph. As the angel had told Mary;

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (v. 35).

This same thing was told to Joseph. The angel told him in a dream;

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:20-21).

So; it’s very significant—and very appropriate to the testimony of Jesus that he had already given—that Luke began his genealogical account in the way that he did. Luke wrote that Jesus was “as was supposed” the son of Joseph, and made sure to tell us this at the very beginning. But from then on—in the original language of his gospel—the rest of Luke’s genealogical record does not contain the words “the son of”. Most translations put the phrase “the son of” in italics to show that it is not present in the original. So the way Luke relates Jesus to Joseph is different from the way that he relates Joseph to his father, and Joseph’s father to his father, and so on.

Luke does this to show us that Jesus is a true member of the human family; but that He came into the human family in a way that was different from how any other member of the human family came in. He came as “the Holy One”; born unto us as “the Son of God.”

* * * * * * * * * *

Now; that’s the beginning point of Luke’s genealogical account. In verse 38, he goes on to trace our Lord’s ancestry all the way back to Adam, “the son of God” (or as it is in the original, “Adam of God”). Matthew, in his account, does not trace Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam but rather begins it at Abraham and follows Abraham’s descendancy all the way forward to the time of Jesus. And in fact, from the point that Luke traces Jesus’ ancestry on from Abraham, his account is identical to Matthew’s. The record in Matthew of Jesus’ genealogy from Abraham to David is identical to Luke’s record from Abraham to David. If we reverse the order of things in Luke, and put the two accounts side-by-side, they would look like this:

Matthew	Luke – reversed
Abraham	Abraham
Isaac	Isaac
Jacob	Jacob
Judah and his brothers	Judah
Perez and Zerah by Tamar	Perez
Hezron	Hezron
Ram	Ram
Nahson	Nahson
Salmon	Salmon
Boaz by Rahab	Boaz
Obed by Ruth	Obed
Jesse	Jesse
David the king	David

But Luke’s record from David onward to Joseph is completely different from Matthew’s record. This has caused a lot of people to think that the Bible cannot be trusted. After all, if the genealogies don’t agree, can we trust the Bible in anything else it says?

Let’s compare the two a bit further. Matthew’s genealogical record reads as follows:

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. Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah. Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ (Matthew 1:2-16).

Notice how carefully Matthew also ends his record—with Joseph “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.” He too was making it clear that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. Now; if we reverse the order of the names in Luke so that they go from Jesus’ ancestry in a forward direction—just as we did when we considered his list from Abraham to David—the comparison of the two genealogical accounts looks like this:

Matthew (starting after David)	Luke (starting after David)
Solomon	Nathan
Rehoboam	Mattathah
Abijah	Menan
Asa	Melea
Jehoshaphat	Eliakim
Joram	Jonan
Uzziah	Joseph
Jotham	Judah
Ahaz	Simeon
Hezekiah	Levi
Manasseh	Matthat
Amon	Jorim
Josiah	Eliezer
Jeconiah	Jose
Shealtiel	Er
Zerubbabel	Elmodam
Abiud	Cosam
Eliakim	Addi
Azor	Melchi
Zadok	Neri
Achim	Shealtiel
Eliud	Zerubbabel
Eleazar	Rhesa
Matthan	Joannas
Jacob	Judah
Joseph–husband of Mary	Joseph
	Semei
	Mattathiah
	Maath
	Naggai
	Esli
	Nahum
	Amos
	Mattathiah
	Joseph
	Janna
	Melchi
	Levi
	Matthat
	Heli
	Joseph (“as was supposed” the father of Jesus)

Why is there such a difference? The reason is because though both Matthew and Luke trace our Lord’s genealogy from King David, they each trace them through different sons of David. Matthew’s account traces Jesus’ lineage from David’s son King Solomon; and Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from Solomon’s younger brother Nathan. In other words, Matthew’s genealogical account is of the biological lineage of Jesus’ adopted father Joseph (through whom He inherited King David’s royalty)—starting with Solomon; and Luke’s genealogical account is the biological lineage of Mary (through whom He was King David’s Son in the flesh)—starting with Nathan.

Now; there is a great miracle behind this difference. These two genealogies shows us that …

2. JESUS’ BIRTH WAS THE SOLVING OF A GREAT PROPHETIC PROBLEM.

If you look carefully at the list, you would see that Joseph was biologically in the lineage of throne of David. If there had not been any circumstances that would have prevented it, Joseph would have been a king. But Joseph’s lineage was under a curse that prevented him from ruling as king. And if Jesus had been born as the biological the son of Joseph—if He had been united to Joseph by physical lineage, rather than by adoption after He was conceived in Mary’s womb—then He too would have been born under a curse that would have prevented Him from being the King of the Jews.

Where did this curse come from? Well; do you see the name of one of Joseph’s royal ancestors in Matthew’s genealogy (at about the middle of the list) ‘Jeconiah’? You’ll find that name in Matthew 1:12. Jeconiah was one of the kings of Judah—born in the royal lineage of King David. He was the king under whom Israel was taken captive into Babylon for seventy years. Because of his disobedience, God had placed this king—along with all his royal descendants—under a curse in Jeremiah 22:24-30. He is referred to in Jeremiah as “Coniah”; and God speaks through the prophet Jeremiah in that passage and says,

“As I live,” says the LORD, “though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, where the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off; and I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear—the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of the Chaldeans. So I will cast you out, and your mother who bore you, into another country where you were not born; and there you shall die. But to the land to which they desire to return, there they shall not return.

“Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol—a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD! 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 any more in Judah‘” (Jeremiah 22:24-30; emphasis added).

So; here’s the problem. God had made the promise to King David that his “throne” would be “established” unto his offspring “forever”; and unless Jesus had been legitimately of the lineage of David, He could not—in any way—have been King of the Jews. But because of the curse that God had placed on King Jeconiah and all his offspring, if Jesus had been a full physical descendant of the royal lineage of David through Joseph, then He would have been biologically connected to a lineage that was prevented—because of a curse from God—from ever sitting on the throne again! How could God keep His promise to David and still be true to His own word?

Here’s how. Our Lord’s mother—in whose womb He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and from whose physical substance His body was made—was biologically from King David in the lineage of David’s son Nathan; and not of the royal lineage of Solomon. But since Nathan was never king, none of his physical offspring possessed the right to the throne. And so, God—in staggering wisdom almost beyond human grasp—ordained that Jesus our Savior would be born physically of the lineage of David that was not under the curse (being conceived in the womb of His mother apart from the agency of a man); but then brought into the full right to the throne through the royal lineage of David—without inheriting the curse—by being adopted by Joseph!

What a great problem this was! How could our Lord be born a full heir of the promise of King David—and yet not inherit the curse that was upon David’s offspring? God solved this great problem by causing our Lord to be conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary; and then, afterward, to be adopted by her husband Joseph.

And we never would have known about the way that God solved this problem if the Holy Spirit had not given us these two genealogies together.

* * * * * * * * * *

The world truly needs what these two genealogies give us. Dr. Harry Ironside has written;

Now there are those who reject the Saviour as the Messiah, as many for instance in Israel do, who are still looking for a Messiah, and expect that sometime, perhaps very soon, perhaps in the more distant future, the Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of Jehovah’s Anointed into the world will have their fulfillment. If Jesus is not the Messiah there are no records left whereby it would be possible for them to trace out the genealogy of anyone who might come in the future professing to be the true Son of David, who was destined to fulfill the promises made to the people of Israel and to rule over the Gentile world. There is no way now by which they could prove that any future Messiah was really the promised Saviour. The genealogies have all been lost. We have nothing beyond that which is given us here in the Bible. After the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, no other records were preserved that would enable anyone to trace out the genealogy of a future Son of David, if He were yet to arise. So God had a special reason for preserving the genealogical lists until His Son should actually be born into the world of a virgin, as predicted. After that, there was no special reason to keep the records, so they were lost (Addresses on the Gospel of Luke [1947], p. 103; emphasis added.)

Praise God that we have the genealogical record identifying Jesus as the promised Messiah—born of David, born of Abraham, born as a full Son of Adam. Jesus was born into the human family in the full inheritance of royal authority! And only Jesus could have been! And only the virgin conception of Jesus could have made His rights to inherited royal authority possible. And only God could have solved this great problem in such an astonishing way. He stepped fully into our cursed condition for us—without Himself being under the curse.

Truly our Lord, King Jesus, entered into His ministry as one of us—born from us and for us—as Luke has it, “the son of Adam, the son of God”!

EA