Warm hellos once again friends, brethren, fellow laborers, spiritual family, and scattered children of God from here on the Gulf Coast. My wife and I pray and hope this finds you doing well, and that again your week has been blessed.

This is a busy time of year for us here at CGM. Our semiannual Board of Directors meeting will be held this Sabbath evening after sunset. We’ll be discussing this past year, as well as focus on upcoming 2024! These are exciting times we all live in, and ministering must remain focused on God our Father (and Jesus Christ), His ultimate will, and holding fast to the truth in His Word as we serve Him and His children.

Last Friday evening we discussed Prophecies and the First Coming of the Messiah.

So, let’s continue with this subject a bit more of the prophecies referring to the first coming of the Messiah and examine the genealogies in both Matthew and Luke (who gives us Mary’s genealogy) that document Jesus was a descendant of both Abraham and David.

You’ll notice that both are also careful not to state that Jesus was the son of Joseph. They record different details concerning the genealogy of Jesus, but the Scriptural records can and should be harmonized.

The genealogy recorded in Matthew 1 mentions Judah in verse 2, and David in verse 6, as part of the genealogical list. Finally in Verse 16 it is stated “And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom [Mary] was born Jesus who is called Christ.”

In this account a man Jacob is declared to be the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. In this account we see the emphasis on the role of Mary as the one who gave birth to Jesus, but also that Joseph was the legal husband of Mary.

This genealogy must be the list of the biological ancestors of Joseph, who was considered the legal father of Joseph since he married Mary. Matthew 1:18 then goes on to describe the circumstances of how Mary became pregnant with Jesus by the working of the Holy Spirit while betrothed to Joseph. Joseph took her as his wife anyway (even though he was not the biological father of the child Jesus.) We could spend pages discussing how that must have been awkward for Joseph, yet he remained loyal and faithful to Mary.

Now let’s take a few moments to look at the genealogy recorded in Luke 3. Verse 33 mentions Judah, and Verse 31 mentions David in the list. At the beginning of the list it is stated in Verse 23 “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.” In this account Joseph the husband of Mary is declared to be the son of a man named Heli and we saw in Matthew’s account that Joseph was said to be the son of Jacob.

So, is there a contradiction between these two accounts? Absolutely not. This can easily be explained. Notice the parenthetical comment “as was supposed” concerning the declaration that Jesus was the son of Joseph. We know that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.

What we are told in Luke is that Joseph was considered the legal father of Jesus, as was declared by his genealogy recorded in Matthew 3, and so the genealogy here in Luke 3 must be that of Mary. That is why there are different names given for the father of Joseph in the two accounts. The key to understanding is the phrase “as was supposed.” The words “the son” preceding “of Heli” in Luke 3:23 is in italics. The translators supplied what they thought would be appropriate. However, it would be more accurate and definitely clearer to render the latter part of Luke 3:23 as “the son of Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli.” Joseph was a son of Heli by virtue of his marriage to Mary, so that made him a “son-in-law”.

The Jaimeson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on Luke 3:23 states: ” . . . we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph–here His real, there His reputed line–explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Heli,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary, and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. . . On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Savior was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised “Seed of the woman.”

The book of Isaiah also records an important prophecy. “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

There was an application of this in Isaiah’s day concerning a woman who would bear a child, and several years after the birth the kings of Syria and Samaria would be conquered by Assyria. But the prophecy is obviously dual. It is unlikely that the child born in Isaiah’s time would be named “Immanuel.” The name means “God with us.” Isaiah 8 gives more details about the fulfillment. We may look at this more and continue with this subject next time…

Arms up friends! Our sincere prayers and thoughts are with you daily. Thanks in advance for your heartfelt prayers for us.