Christmas Controversy

Christmas Controversy!

Matthew 1 and Luke 3

Essie Mae Washington-Williams announced last weekend she is the illegitimate daughter of late SC senator Strom Thurmond and a black teenage maid in his family home, Carrie Butler.

Thurmond was 22 and Butler was 16 when Williams was born in Aiken, S.C., in 1925. She was raised in Pennsylvania by an aunt and uncle, seeing her mother sporadically and not meeting Thurmond until she was 16.

After Thurmond died in June at age 100, Williams said she began to think about ending "all the speculation and questions" about the long-rumored relationship. She said she did not come forward earlier because she didn't want to jeopardize Thurmond's political career.

"I am not bitter. I am not angry," she said during a news conference just blocks the Statehouse where a monument of Thurmond sits. "In fact, there is a great sense of peace that has come over me in the past year.

"I feel as though a great weight has been lifted. I am Essie Mae Washington-Williams, and at last I feel completely free.”

Talk about controversy! Here’s a former segregationist, and a highly respected, conservative senator with a major skeleton in his genealogical closet!

Do you have any skeletons in your family tree? Any villains? Any individuals with shady pasts? Do you have any family members that you had rather nobody find out you are related to? If so, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger! Of all people with a controversial genealogy Jesus has to rank right up at the top!

Scripture records two separate accounts of Jesus’ lineage: Matthew 1 and Luke 3. There’s controversy right from the start when these two lists are merely compared because they don’t match up!

Similarities:

· Matthew’s first 14 names (Abraham to David) agree w/ Luke’s

Differences:

· Great majority of names in each list are absent from the other

· Matthew’s list—Abraham to Jesus—is much shorter than Luke’s—Jesus to Adam

· Matthew skips more generations than does Luke; Matthew has only 27 generations after David; Luke has 42

· Matthew presents a descending genealogy (from father to son); Luke an ascending genealogy (from son to father)

How are they reconciled?

· Simplest explanation, though not without a few difficulties: Matthew’s account shares Jesus legal descent from David through Joseph, who as Jesus’ legal, though not natural father.

· After Joseph the regular formula “begat” is dropped and Joseph is listed simply as “the husband of Mary, of whom (which is feminine) Jesus was born.”

· The new phraseology makes it clear that Matthew does not regard Jesus as Joseph’s son physically, and vv. 18-25 will explain this at length. The genealogy is thus clearly intended to be that of Jesus’ “legal” ancestry, not of His physical descent.

· Luke’s account: apparently traces Jesus’ lineage from Mary’s side; the Eli of Luke 3:23 was probably Joseph’s father-in-law (often referred to as a father) and therefore Mary’s actual father.

· Matthew: Jesus royal claim to the throne through David and Solomon

· Messiah’s royal line began with David. Through the prophet Nathan, God promised that it would be David’s descendants through whom He would bring the great King who would ultimately reign over Israel and establish His eternal kingdom (2 Sam. 7:12–16). The promise was not fulfilled in Solomon, David’s son who succeeded him, or in any other king who ruled in Israel or Judah; and the people waited for another one to be born of David’s line to fulfill the prophecy. At the time Jesus was born the Jews were still anticipating the arrival of the promised monarch and the restored glory of the kingdom.

· Luke: Jesus actual blood ancestry, thus establishing his racial lineage through Nathan, another of David’s sons, and even all the way back to Abraham

It is essential to note that in His virgin birth Jesus not only was divinely conceived but through that miracle was protected from regal disqualification because of Joseph’s being a descendant of Jeconiah (v. 12).
Because of that king’s wickedness, God had declared of Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin or Coniah) that, though he was in David’s line, “no man of his descendants will prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah” (Jer. 22:30).
That curse would have precluded Jesus’ right to kingship had He been the natural son of Joseph, who was in Jeconiah’s line. Jesus’ legal descent from David, which was always traced through the father, came through Jeconiah to Joseph.
But His blood descent, and His human right to rule, came through Mary, who was not in Jeconiah’s lineage. Thus the curse on Jeconiah’s offspring was circumvented, while still maintaining the royal privilege.
I want to single out a few individuals in the lineage of Christ and retell their story, reminding us of some of the genealogical skeletons in Jesus’ closet. Afterwards, we’ll draw some conclusions that I trust will encourage and thrill our soul!
Tamar (2-3)
Forgotten; Angry Widow; Perversion
Story told in Gen. 38…
Judah, son of Jacob, married daughter of Shua

· 3 sons: Er, Onan, Shelah

· Er marries Tamar

· Er, because of wickedness, put to death by God

Levirate marriage had been a common practice in the ancient near east for centuries. The law stated that if a brother married but died without children, one of the surviving brothers was to marry or take her as wife and father a child with her.
The child born of a levirate relationship carried on the name of his deceased father and eventually inherited the family estate.
Onan knew that a son born from his union with Tamar would only further the cause of his deceased brother, not his own.
Onan put his own interests ahead of Tamar’s and Tamar’s future child. Num. 27:8-11 states that if a man dies without a son, then his inheritance is to pass to his daughter. If he has not daughter, then the inheritance is to pass to his brothers. Onan apparently does not want to father a son who will prevent his from receiving his deceased brother’s inheritance.
In Tamar’s culture and society, not only were younger brothers able to provide offspring for her deceased husband, but also her father-in-law, Judah.
Passages like 1 Sam. 25:2-8 and 2 Sam. 13:23-24 make it clear that the annual sheep-shearing season was a time of celebration, feasting, and debauchery. “It’s party time!” “It’s Miller time!”
Tamar knew Judah well. And moral purity does not seem to have been one of his virtues. There’s little doubt that this wasn’t the first time Judah had encountered a prostitute. He does not evidence any naivety. He handled the arrangements like an experienced man of the world.
It was probably common practice to “negotiate” the terms for such an encounter. Therefore, when Tamar asks for some sort of pledge to guarantee payment, Judah fully understands and cooperates.
Seal, cord, and staff—
What happens to Judah parallels what happened earlier to his father Jacob: the perpetrator of deceit is now the victim of deceit.
Judah’s attempt to locate the prostitute put him in a very awkward and potentially embarrassing position (shamed, 23, means “laughingstock”), but he was powerless to do anything about it. Who would ever report a theft to the authorities under such circumstances! The more he sought to find this woman, the more his folly and foolishness would become public knowledge.
Judah’s lack of contrition or repentance over his scandalous behavior is predictable. He is concerned only about the maintenance of his own reputation.
Tamar’s pregnancy—not mere fornication, but rather adultery because Tamar was pledged to marry Judah’s third son, Shelah.
“She must burn!” This is unusually severe punishment—stronger than the Law required (stoning). Only two instances in the OT law call for burning: (1) incest with one’s mother-in-law; (2) prostitution by a priest’s daughter.
This may have been a sub-conscious overcompensation for his own immorality. Often we attempt to cover up our own sinfulness by a severity in our response to the sins of others.

· David: “the man shall surely die!”

On the other hand, it may have been even more devious. It’s possible that Judah, in such a low spiritual state, saw this as a solution to his “problem.” Sooner or later he would have to face the fact that Shelah, his only living son, was pledged to Tamar. If Tamar is put to death, his problem is solved.
Tamar’s response is incredibly subdued and submissive. He doesn’t take advantage of an opportunity to maximize Judah’s embarrassment. Evidently, she privately presents the evidence of his seal, cord, and staff.
“She is more righteous than I” (26). He’s not saying she was more righteous than he was in the matter of the immorality committed, but that she acted so as to procure a son that was rightfully hers by law, while Judah refused to give her Shelah as promised.
As to his act of immorality, Judah makes no comment…what a contrast to his quick and extreme response to the report of Tamar’s pregnancy!
Rahab (5)
Fearful; Abused Woman; Prostitute
She, too, was guilty of prostitution, but for her, unlike Tamar, it was a profession. Rahab, an inhabitant of Jericho, protected the two Israelite men Joshua sent to spy out the city. She lied to the messengers of the king of Jericho in order to save the spies; but because of her fear of Him and her kind act toward His people, God spared her life and the lives of her family when Jericho was besieged and destroyed (Josh. 2:1–21; 6:22–25). God’s grace not only spared her life but brought her into the messianic line, as the wife of Salmon and the mother of the godly Boaz, who was David’s great-grandfather.
Ruth (5)
Foreigner; Pagan proselyte
Like Tamar and Rahab, Ruth was a Gentile. After her first husband, an Israelite, had died, she returned to Israel with her mother-in-law, Naomi. Ruth was a godly, loving, and sensitive woman who had accepted the Lord as her own God.
Her people, the pagan Moabites, were the product of the incestuous relations of Lot with his two unmarried daughters. In order to preserve the family line, because they had no husbands or brothers, each of the daughters got their father drunk and caused him to unknowingly have sexual relations with them.
The son produced by Lot’s union with his oldest daughter was Moab, father of a people who became one of Israel’s most implacable enemies. Mahlon, the Israelite man who married Ruth, did so in violation of the Mosaic law (Deut. 7:3; cf. 23:3; Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:23) and many Jewish writers say his early death, and that of his brother, were a divine judgment on their disobedience.
Though she was a Moabite and former pagan, with no right to marry an Israelite, God’s grace not only brought Ruth into the family of Israel, but later, through Boaz, into the royal line. She became the grandmother of Israel’s great King David.
Bathsheba (6)
Fallen; Adulteress Wife; Promiscuous
She is not identified in the genealogy by name, but is mentioned simply as the wife of David and the former wife of Uriah. David committed adultery with her, had her husband sent to the battlefront to be killed, and then took her as his own wife.
The son produced by the adultery died in infancy, but the next son born to them was Solomon (2 Sam. 11:1–27; 12:14, 24), successor to David’s throne and continuer of the messianic line. By God’s grace, Bathsheba became the wife of David, the mother of Solomon, and an ancestor of the Messiah.
Mary (16)
Pregnant “out of wedlock”—imagine the controversial conversations that swirled around Mary and Joseph!
Although descended from the royal line of David, Mary was an ordinary, unknown young woman. Contrary to claims of her own immaculate conception (her being conceived miraculously in her own mother’s womb), Mary was just as much a sinner as all other human beings ever born.
She was likely much better, morally and spiritually, than most people of her time, but she was not sinless. She was deeply devout and faithful to the Lord, as she demonstrated by her humble and submissive response to the angel’s announcement (Luke 1:38).
Mary needed a Savior, as she herself acknowledged at the very beginning of her song of praise, often called the Magnificat: “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave” (Luke 1:46–48).
The notions of her being co-redemptrix and co-mediator with Christ are wholly unscriptural and were never a part of early church doctrine.
The Bible knows nothing of Mary’s grace except that which she received from the Lord. She was the recipient, never the dispenser, of grace.
The literal translation of “favored one” (Luke 1:28) is “one endued with grace.” Just as all the rest of fallen mankind, Mary needed God’s grace and salvation. That is why she “rejoiced in God [herl Savior” (Luke 1:47). She received a special measure of the Lord’s grace by being chosen to be the mother of Jesus; but she was never a source of grace. God’s grace chose a sinful woman to have the unequaled privilege of giving birth to the Messiah.

Three Unwritten Words in the Genealogy of Jesus:

Sin—w/o exception (including Mary)!
Sovereignty

· Never disrupted by sin

· Never disrupted by Satan

Grace

· God’s grace is greater than our sin

· Properly understood, grace leads to righteous living!

· God’s grace is no respector of persons

· Note whom God deliberately introduced into the genealogy of His Son: sinners of the deepest dye; women, when women in Jewish national life were generally regarded as nothing (in his morning prayers a Jewish male habitually thanked God that He had not made him a Gentile, a slave, or a woman); and pagans such Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabitess (both members of races cursed by God).

· Already—on the first page of the NT—the Holy Spirit was preparing for a new age. Jew and Gentile, male and female, saint and sinner—all would find new status in the Christ to whom this long list of names leads.

· Men/women…rich/poor…outcasts/upper class… Jew/Gentile

· God’s grace makes good use of human failures

· 1 Co 15:9-10 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am…. NKJV

· Amazing Grace with Grace Greater Than All My Sin