As I was saying... some details related to this event are hard to dismiss wholesale. Here is additional information about the meaning: The Birthright of the King.

But first: When determining royal rights and privilege and who gets to sit in the biggest chair... we probably understand best the obvious concept of direct descendancy of kings (of which most of humankind is not... including this poor peasant!). What we shouldn't forget when figuring all this royal mess out... is that Prince Charles and his children are considered different inheritors than... not only us... but also Prince Edward and his begat-ees. Edward and his generations may have legal right... provided a series of events occur... but Charles and his progeny still uniquely possess actual right to reign.

So here's some details: The Book of Matthew (written primarily to a Jewish population in order to establish progenitorial rights) is a book of beginnings and lots of begattings.

Matthew writes to establish the royal right of rulership as a direct blood line being a descendant of the Davidic Royal House. Interesting to note: when reading this compiled geneology... remember it had to have been written sometime before the fall of Jerusalem in 72 AD otherwise the details would have been completely lost to most of recorded history. As recent as 200 years ago, there was no way known... to have been able to reconstruct either of these New Testaments lists with such accuracy. Certainly in 300 AD there was less an opportunity to be accurate... especially if, as some moderns suggest, these lists were made up of, you know... contrived concoctions and forgeries, the thing of myths and legends, of poetry and non-history. In the best of circumstances, we all know it doesn't take long to lose significant portions of past history. How many of us with the most sophisticated tools available can trace our ancestry much before the last century?

Anyway... what rationale does one have for knowing their lineage? Up to that time, it was more than a fashionable game of trivia pursuit. Real men and women expected a Deliverer, a David's greater Son to come. If it was your son, you'd want to be able to verify your royal claim to the keys of the Palace, right?

Matthew begins:

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Pares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Boaz of Rachab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; and Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; and Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; and Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; and Ezekais begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; and Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren... and Jechonias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; and Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Now... wasn't that fun? (You should have typed it!!) But before you hurry to read that list again... let me point out a few things:

1 - Notice... it does NOT say: and Joseph begat Jesus. Fortunately for the compiler of this record the passage is very clear... of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. After all, centuries earlier... this blood line was cursed. Had Jesus been part of this blood line... He would NOT be able to claim Messiahship.

2 - Some highlighted Who's Who... in the list:

The descendants of Phares were led by Moses through the wilderness experience having exited Egypt. The descendants of Zara had left earlier taking to the Seas to form the City States of Greece and Troy. Later they became the Militians of Zaragosa, Spain. Ultimately, they ended up marrying the High Kings of Ireland, Scotland and England.

3 - Five blessed women grace this geneology list:

Thamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah who seduced her father-in-law; Rachad, the Madam of Jericho's house of prostitutes; Ruth, the stranger (a foreigner); "her of Uriah" (Bathsheba, another man's wife); and Mary, the mother of Jesus

(Not really the typical idea of holiness and pietous behavior... but apparently good enough for Jesus' lineage!)

Okay... now how about reading Matthew's geneological account again. This time with a little more understanding! (smile)

Regarding the geneology recorded in the Book of Luke (written primarily to a Gentile population to establish Sonship in the race of Adam), we read:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Hanna, of Joseph, of Hattathias, of Amos, of Naum, of Esli, of Nagge, of Maath, of Hatathias, of Semei, of Joseph, of Juda, of Joanna, of Rhesa, of Zorobabel, of Salathiel, of Neri, of Melchi, of Addi, of Cosam, of Elmodam, of Er, of Jose, of Eliezer, of Jorim, of Matthat, of Levi, of Simeon, of Juda, of Joseph, of Jonan, of Eliakim, of Melea, of Menan, of Mattatha, of Nathan, of David, of Jesse, of Obed, of Boaz, of Salmon, of Naasson, of Aminadab, of Aram, of Esrom, of Phares, of Juda, of Jacob, of Issac, of Abraham, of Thara, of Nachor, of Saruch, of Ralec, of Heber, of Sala, of Cainan, of Arphaxad, of Sem, of Noe, of Lamech, of Mathusala, of Enoch, of Jared, of Maleleel, of Cainan, of Enos, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

Now... are we having fun? Here's a few more things to consider:

1 - When we read this Luke 4 section you discover it usually says: which was son of... affixed to each name. Remember that is interpolative and added by translators. The expression used here can equally apply to sons-in-law as well as others. For all those entries... it could have easily have read which was son-in-law of... In Greek, it actually reads: tov (meaning from... or out of...)

2 - Notice carefully... this geneology begins: "Jesus being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph". The difference noted in scholarly debate between these two geneologies can be understood when we remember the Lukean account recalls Mary's geneology and shows legal right while bypassing the tainted record found in the Matthew record of Joseph's cursed bloodline .

3 - Joseph (more like "Charles"), being of a lineage with actual right to reign... adopted Jesus of Mary (more like "Edward"), who was of legal royal lineage.

4 - At the time of Jesus, were there others who possessed this legal and actual right to reign? Probably... most certainly. What is interesting is... that in the fullness of time, there was this One who went around making the claims He made... who actually possessed a traceable right to reign -- both actually and legally.

John writes:

Now, the Birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...

FOR... the finest presentation on the subject of His Birth, please visit the homepage of Dr. Gene Scott. You will be glad you did ! You can listen to Dr. Scott's teaching 24 hours each day... anywhere in the world using Windows Media Player or Real Player. Just click on: Dr. Gene Scott™ on the University Network.

 Reggie Keith