Author: thebibleword.org

Melchizedek: the Genealogical Phenomenon

thebibleword.org
       “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”
We know little about the first priest king in the Bible.  Most of what we know about him comes thousands of years after he lived. Genesis 14 records that Melchizedek was a priest and a king of Salem (Jerusalem). Abraham met him after a rescue campaign and gave him tithes of all he had. Melchizedek blessed Abraham from God. This is the extent of Genesis’ account.After a thousand years, the psalms comment that the Messiah will come after the order of Melchizedek. Psalm 110 confirms the definite rule of the messiah. It also adds a promise of God: the messiah would be a priest forever. There doesn’t appear to be much expectation regarding this promise at the time of the NT. This gives the Hebrews writer full freedom to discuss this passage. Hebrews 7 argues how Jesus fulfills this promise. The primary verse now in consideration is Hebrews 7:3. We recognize that the primary point of the passage is the eternal nature of Jesus’ reign as high priest. The verse in discussion impacts the nature of that eternal reign.

The first consideration is of the nature of Melchizedek himself. To be truly without father or mother would infringe upon humanity. Adam and Eve were the only ones without father or mother (yet Luke and Genesis both state their origins). Earlier in the Hebrews letter, the writer establishes Jesus’ humanity. His humanity and his sonship require either father or mother. We see no reason Melchizedek should be the only exception to origin in history, especially without any other historical documentation. Two other options are available for his identity: he is an angel, or he is a form of Jesus. As to the first of these approaches, Genesis identifies when angels appear as men. It is mum on Melchizedek. The angels appear for a temporal mission, whereas Melchizedek was on earth for long enough to rule a city and be well established. For the second alternate approach, the Hebrews writer identifies him as a “man” in verse 4. No other passage can support that Jesus dwelled among men other than his coming as messiah. His appearance in human form like the angels is possible. But if he was Melchizedek, then it would have been easier for the Hebrews writer to just say so. Melchizedek is compared to the Son of God instead of identified as God. His humanity is the best option to pursue.

So what does the phrase “without father, without mother” mean? If it does not apply physically then how does it apply? I believe the sentence uses parallelism. To be “without father, without mother,” and  “without genealogy” ultimately mean the same thing. Having no genealogy is not the same as having no ancestors or heritage. It means that no record of generations is applied. This situation would be like the Levites in Nehimiah 7 who were excluded from the priesthood because of their lack of genealogies. Unlike the Levite priesthood, Melchizedek’s priesthood is not validated on the basis of genealogy. Hebrews 7 intends to show how Melchizedek’s priesthood is superior to Aaron’s. Moses and Aaron’s genealogies are provided in Exodus 6 at the beginning of their ministry. Jesus’ is also provided in Luke 3 at the beginning of His. We are not talking on a physical parenthood platform, but rather legal right to position. Melchizedek had no father or mother who gave him his priesthood. Similarly, Jesus has the legal right to the throne, but not by Aaron’s priesthood (Heb 7:14-19).

Now to the eternal nature of the priesthood. If we interpret this phrase as physical, then Melchizedek must be God himself. However if we understand it in limited context just like the other statements, then it is easier to handle. The dominant character trait is priesthood. It is probable, then, that all the descriptions of Melchizedek are actually focusing on his position more than his person. Beginning of life for a priesthood would require origin, and end of days implies a successor. His lack of “parenthood” may actually be about the origin of his priesthood rather than his person. Parallel to that, his position had no genealogy. The eternal nature of the priesthood has neither beginning nor end of days. Melchizedek was not eternal, but his priesthood was.

So how does Melchizedek retain an eternal priesthood? Does he still reign? If he does not, how does that strengthen the eternal argument? Firstly, Melchizedek is not an original pattern for Jesus. Conversely, it says that Melchizedek was made like the Son of God. It is the Son who defines the terms of a perpetual nature. If Jesus is perpetual, so is the priesthood that Melchizedek partakes of. Secondly, Melchizedek is never called a high priest, as Jesus is. Even if, for the sake of argument, Melchizedek and Jesus do “reign” simultaneously, Jesus’ duties are far superior and important. We are all called priests of God (1 Peter 2:5). Our duties are not more important than Jesus’. There should be no problem with Melchizedek sharing in the priesthood duties of the kingdom, even if we are not aware of the responsibilities. The perpetual quality is in contrast to Aaron’s priesthood. Perpetual does not by itself mean continuing on past the end of time. Perpetual can be applied to a limited time frame and imply a non-wavering or constant nature within a context. It may be that Melchizedek’s perpetual nature applied to his entire life, instead of just a portion of it. The OT priesthood had limits and requirements to service. A priest could only serve within a thirty year time frame of their life. After which they must retire and leave official service (Numbers 8:24-26). The High priesthood was to serve until death. The son of God’s eternal priesthood is not inhibited by age of individual. He serves without thought of retirement, since he is never to die again. Our priesthood continues perpetually as long as it is called “today.” Both options concerning the perpetual nature are valid.

There is mystery clouding Melchizedek. We do not know what his duties are, nor if/how he continues. We know that his priesthood was not based on bloodline. We know that his priesthood is perpetual (constant), giving way to Jesus’ eternal reign. He is in no way superior to Jesus, even though he was superior to Abraham. God is a god of the living, not the dead. Jesus says that Abraham is in a currently living state (John 8:56), so we have no reason to believe Melchizedek is any different. This gives us hope in our future that we may continue to serve in our priesthood before God and His throne throughout eternity.

*EDIT: The word for “perpetual” – ‘diaynekays’ – is used in Hebrews 10:12 and 14. It is often translated “forever” in these verses. However, in 10:1 is translated “continual” for obvious reasons. It is my opinion that the focus of this word is not temporal but definite. The priesthood, the sacrificial system, and the atonement were definite (firmly established) in their own way. (The sacrificial system was not perfect nor eternal, but was official until the change in law came Heb 7:11-12)

Historicity of Genealogies

thebibleword.org

Historicity is an important topic for establishing credibility. If the data within the scriptures are reliable, we must know what to expect in terms of its historical accuracy. Historicity is the field of study that targets whether the History recounted within a document is accurate or if it sacrifices what actually happened for literary or theological purposes. Before discussing the historicity of Biblical genealogies, one must establish a general understanding of Biblical historicity.

First, if historicity is to be challenged, then there must be a credible reason to believe the history is in question. Without adequate evidence against a historical statement, there is no basis to question the source. This implies that with every legitimate question there are multiple accounts of the same event providing mutually exclusive details. Once it can be proven that a contradiction in accounts exists, then one must evaluate which source is more credible. Credibility (or lack there of) can be studied on several grounds including: factual support, contemporary consent, motivation (political, religious, personal), plausibility, or context. As with any study of Historicity, the first attack is on the author and his credibility, and next on the work and it’s literary context.

When one questions the historicity of the Bible they question the authors and/or their purpose. The Bible has multiple authors from varying cultures and backgrounds.[1] Can we know that the authors are historically reliable? Almost all the historical information we have on its human authors comes from within the Biblical text. Many of the authors claim divine revelation,[2] meaning that doubts concerning reliability point rather to an all knowing and perfect source. Some Biblical authors write their works without claiming specific revelation, but are validated by others.[3] In this way, attacking one author invariably attacks others, to the point that the entire Bible stands as a whole unit more than just individual and unrelated works. The Bible is not infallible because it says so. It is infallible because no author within it contradicts another. All texts stand in perfect and incredible harmony.

One must be careful in questioning authors who have more knowledge of the events than ourselves. Every biblical author was in a better historical and cultural position to comment on the material they wrote.[4] If there is a case to be made from this side of time, then we can only use material that was written by those who were the most credible. Many people claim historical contradictions between the Bible and alternative sources, but a study of context always provides a reasonable explanation. This is not a blind and ignorant approach to historicity. We are merely looking for consistent benefit of the doubt to be applied to all history: Biblical documents included. An example of this from a genealogical standpoint is the difference between Luke’s account of the line of David to Adam verses what is recorded in the Masoretic text. Two names are added by Luke: Admin and Canaan.[5] This difference questions historicity. Were these names actually in the line or not? If they were does that mean the Jewish scriptures are unreliable? If they did not belong does that make Luke’s history false?

The answer lies in context, which is the first rule of thumb to solve any literary issue.[6] Where the Masoretic texts are intending to duplicate the originals in all ways, the Greek Septuagint translation makes no claim to this end. The LXX had the right to add material that was viewed as credible without intending to negate the claims of the originals. The Jewish scriptures themselves only represent a limited amount of historical data which focuses on the characters at hand. Luke affirms that he did research apart from traditional scripture. One of the most obvious places we see this is the line extending from Jesus to Nathan son of David. Luke had access to genealogies not needed in scripture but still not questioned by contemporaries. [7] Luke adds these names based on his trust that the LXX was accurate in preserving these names. These names, not needed nor preserved in the Masoretic text, can still be part of history. The Jewish data is not in question because they skipped generations (see article of genealogical Gaps). In this case we do not need to question either the Jewish scriptures nor its Greek translation. Luke researched this issue beyond the documents we personally have. The  LXX in its entirety may not be perfect in historicity, but Luke for his genealogy confirms that it is trustworthy in this case.[8]

Beyond context of source is context of culture. The orthodox Jewish culture was fiercely nationalistic and did not welcome foreign blood. This is often overlooked by historians who like to challenge the historicity of biblical genealogies based on other ancient oral cultures. When we study ancient oral cultures, some say that exact historicity was irrelevant to the ancients. They didn’t always care who made up their history (or they manipulated some in their favor). While other oral cultures may or may not care where their exact origins lie, the Jews saw historicity as of utmost importance in both religion and culture (see sonship and purpose articles). Some call for a postmodern reading of the historical data. In this argument the genealogies aren’t intending to represent real people or times. Instead they are trying to establish loose society connections with those who surround them.

The context of the Jewish culture fiercely opposes this attack on historicity. The dependence on bloodline was unprecedented in the Jewish society. This is what drives the animosity seen in the NT when the fulfillment of the Law allows for Gentiles to be included as sons of God. Without strict historicity this Pharisaical mentality does not evolve as we see it. Because the Jews cared so much about their bloodline, their genealogies were written down early on to preserve them as accurately as possible. Skipping generations was not seen as an offense, but moving or fabricating ‘branches’ of their genealogical tree was egregious. We can trust their motives to preserve accurate history, especially to preserve bloodline.

No one can deny that our understanding of scripture can be enhanced by the study of the ancient world. In such a study we are simply trying to see things through their eyes. But let us also hold to certain parameters. For, unless we introduce consistent rules for application, we will have no grounds to separate scripture and truth from myth and tradition. I hope we would all agree that applying every cultural whim of the ancients to scripture would undermine the very faith the scriptures support. Let us also keep in mind that the scriptures purport things that are, in fact, contrary to contemporary opinion. The Jews were called out to be different from the nations around them. They did fail in this many times over, but when the faithful saints of the Old Covenant preserved scripture, they did so in a very holy and guided way. In order to suggest that a cultural practice, understanding, or intention change the apparent meaning of the text of scripture there must be substantial evidence.

To suggest that the ancients were ok with mythological genealogies is fine. They were entitled to their culture and understanding. To say that the Jews also were aware of this culture is expected. But to suggest that the Jews adopted that meaning simply because it was contemporary needs further support. Especially when every case presented within scripture supports the importance of bloodline, history, and truth. If there is a case that shows the ancient scriptural authors intended a fiction format for their genealogies then we must first explain why they do so in contrast to the pattern established by the seed promise and Israelite bloodline. They must, second, show ample proof that the genealogy is intended to be fiction. Without any evidence to support such, simply claiming “the ancients often thought so” is without warrant, and quite honestly not very consistent with the stress of truth surrounding the scriptures.

Remember what Paul says: “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”

Myths and Genealogies should not distract us from the truth. The myths and genealogies were very prominent in Paul’s day. Rather than interpreting the scriptures by them, Paul saw myth in opposition to it! How do we combat myth and endless genealogy? By sticking to scripture. The point at which we make the genealogies within scripture myth and endless speculation, we are in danger of leaving sound truth and holding to personal opinion.

We must all be careful to not hold to things which we do not know, and to admit ignorance when the truth is not explicit. Humility is important for all sides. But the scriptures are always described as the words of truth. If we substitute truth for myth within genealogies, on what grounds do we stand to hold to the other truths of scripture?

With both source and culture we see that historicity is important to the Jews. The historical accuracy becomes especially important in genealogies. If one questions the accuracy of the genealogies he must present adequate, more accurate, and more credible material that presents a true contradiction. If one questions the historicity of Biblical genealogies, then it is incumbent to provide true and applicable history rather than self opinion.

[1] Noting the extremes of Moses to Solomon to Paul to John
[2] ex: Ezekiel 1:1; Isaiah 1:2; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Galatians 1
[3] Matthew 5:18-19; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:20
[4] 2 Peter 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1-4
[5] Luke 3:33, 36
[6] Another article on skipping generations could expound on this thought. In short, we can see from many places in the Bible where skipping generations is commonplace and still historically accurate. The terms “son of” and “begot” accommodate more than just one generation. The topic of Sonship also aids this discussion by allowing for fluctuation in family connections.
[7] The LXX, for instance, does not claim to be a one to one transliteration of the original text. It retains the literary right to add whatever data it wishes without corrupting the original text. Many of the NT authors confirm that the LXX is accurate enough to use. In other words: the LXX, though not an exact copy of scripture, retains accurate enough historical data that does not necessarily have to conflict with the Hebrew text.
[8] Luke 1:3-4

With the End in Sight

thebibleword.org

One of the things we may not appreciate about Biblical Genealogies is the end view of the author. We read through those portions of scripture and sometimes get stumped by all the names. Our conclusion is that these don’t really effect the story. But doing this puts limits on the intention of the author. Essentially, we may think that the authors did not have the end in sight when writing. I challenge that argument, especially as it concerns genealogies. The ‘end game’ is the primary motive for Biblical genealogies.

One thing to remember is that the author is writing in hind-sight. The historical events have already take place. For this reason, the genealogies are always focused on a specific person or family. The author can trace specifically whom he wants to. He starts, not years back using trial and error to get to his characters, but with specific persons he traces backward. Any genealogist will realize the crucial nature of this approach. This means that there are no ‘dead ends’ to the genealogies. The author concludes each branch with the person(s) he wants to. It also means that the persons at the end of the genealogies do not exceed the timeframe of the source. In the case of the genealogy in Chronicles, the end persons or families were likely contemporary with the source/author or had specific ties contemporary families.

What does this teach us? It reenforces that the genealogies are designed by choice for the purpose of the document at hand. Each genealogy fits the purpose of the document. Because of this, we should have more appreciation for the path the author chose to use. It means he can use or not use whomever he wishes as it serves its literary purpose. But we don’t have to stop the application here. What about our spiritual sonship? How can we learn about or spiritual genealogy as it leads back to God? We learn that in our genealogy we have been chosen with the end in sight.

We cannot presume that we, personally, are the end and crux of God’s salvation. Rather, we function as members within a genealogy. Through the gospel, we are made into the likeness of our forefathers as they were made into the likeness of Christ. If we recognize this pattern we should behave in certain ways. First, we should recognize that our sonship depends on conformity with Christ. If we lay aside our likeness to Him, we lay aside our inheritance. Second, we must model our behavior after those whom God approves. God has given the apostles and prophets, as well has His divine commentary of the early church, to inform us what His children look like. If we choose not to conform to the approved Gospel which God gave, then we cannot call ourselves His children, nor have our names in His book of life. Third, we should live with the end in sight. God, who is not limited to a single timeframe, is the master genealogist. John says through his Revelation that there is a book of life with our names enlisted. The Bible doesn’t just have lists of random people. It records genealogies or enrollments specifically designed to support the function of the whole book. If this book of life is anything similar, we are part of a greater spiritual genealogy which, by itself, is not the goal, but supports the goal: the glory of Christ. If we live with the end in sight, we must realize that we ought to play a role in the spread of the gospel. The author of genealogies, when he has the end in sight, does not record names that are useless to his objective. Some names do not have stated ties, but every name means something to the author and to the one whom the book is designed for.

Your value to God is represented by your place in His book of life. But what are you doing about it? Do you act as though you are the end result, or are a vessel for service? If you have a view of the end, then you will realize that there are souls to save, there are those to be born into Christ whom you can father. You should be “fruitful and multiply” in the kingdom of God. Those who are not fruitful for the service of God are cut off from the tree or removed from the genealogy. Neither I nor any other man is in a position to judge your fruitfulness in the end game of the Gospel. Your function is not rated by number of baptisms. God sees how useful you are. But you cannot be fruitful for the kingdom if you do not try. Live with the end in sight. You are not the end, but serve to bring glory to Christ by being fruitful in deed.

Literary Purpose of Genealogies

thebibleword.org

If the purpose of genealogies was solely religious or social, then why do we find them recorded for us? There are other sources that include this kind of historical data that likely have a more specific focus on every generation.[1] Why, then, did God include the known genealogies into the scriptures, and leave others out? This brings in the second major function of genealogies: literature.

By ‘literary purpose’ I mean that there are a series of questions to be answered regarding its writing: Why was this written by this author, why did the author include this information here, does this information impact or change the surrounding material, and are there any patterns which may effect interpretation. We will begin this review by consulting the last question first.

Some of the more obvious patterns of Biblical genealogies include the use of phrases such as: “and he died”, “and he begat”, “the son of”, and “[his] sons were…”[2] These phrases are usually consistent throughout each genealogy. These repeating phrases are often critical in identifying them as genealogy as opposed to a list of names. They help establish a series of successive generations that might otherwise be seen as a roster or registry.[3] Interruptions to the flow of pattern do occur, but lengthy interruptions lead the style away from a true genealogy.[4] These patterns (and the purposeful interruptions) provide a basis for reading the genealogies in a different manner than normal prose or even poetry. It is commonly agreed that oral cultures who use genealogies format them in ways that aid in memory. Some cases of this exist within the OT text,[5] but the formal genealogies were likely in written, rather than oral, format for scriptural and national purposes. Formal vs informal genealogies are the difference between the Jewish mindset and the mindset of other oral cultures. Jewish families may have relied on oral tradition and informal genealogies, but the formal genealogies (likely informal before written down) claim the stamp of divine authority when placed in scripture.[6] This allows for the literary format of genealogies to express themselves within the text, while still having the historicity required for scripture.

The first literary question is: why did the author write this? This question by itself can easily damage the answer due to speculation. The specific case for each genealogy is easier to study under the second question: “Why here?” The most obvious answer has to do with the inspiration from the holy Spirit: it’s here because God said so. However, this has often been used as a cop-out answer because it begs the question: why did the holy Spirit have it written? Certainly where other answers fail, we can put confidence in God’s plan, but there are almost always further answers to tough questions. From a larger viewpoint of scripture we can see the usefulness of Genealogies as they establish the fulfillment of the promises of God with his people and the Messiah. A great example of this is the record of Judah’s sons. The firstborn Er was slain by God and required a son to pass on the family name. The second son Onan refused this responsibility, and the third son Shelah was too young to marry Er’s widow Tamar. The story of Judah’s children through Tamar was scandalous. Most families would have wanted this story buried and forgotten. We find that Shelah’s oldest is, in fact, Er’s rightful heir. We should expect for Shelah’s son Er to be the primary family of the tribe of Judah, but we know nothing about them. Instead Perez, the illegitimate son of Judah and Tamar becomes the line which brings the kings of Israel. Unless the Holy Spirit guide these stories in Genesis, Moses would have had no reason to write about them. But when the Chronicler writes he pulls from the line of Perez because he sees the greater context of history. Each genealogy has similar lessons and uses. The specific use of each individual genealogy has to be studied with its own context. To know why the author formatted the genealogy the way he did might be answered by going to the source from which he got his information.[7]

From the author’s viewpoint, the Genealogies pertain to the characters, audiences, or situations the author is currently writing about. No genealogy is abstract or without proper context. I will give three examples of three uses of Genealogies from a literary standpoint. One is for time reference: Genesis 5, and 12. The time reference doesn’t have to be in years, but rather emphasis on passing generations. The key term in these genealogies is “and he died.” This phrase notes a passing of time in which every successive generation is dealing with the problem of sin. The purpose is to get the reader from the beginning of time to Abram, who will be instrumental in solving this problem. Another use for genealogies is to establish relational context: 1 Chronicles 1-9, Ruth 4:16-22, 1 Chronicles 23, Matthew 1:1-17. These Genealogies are intended to establish the validity or association of the current characters. 1 Chronicles 1-9 ends with Benjamin’s line, which culminates in Saul’s family (who begins the narrative). Ruth is a foremother of David, making her story valuable to the story of Israel. The author of 1 Chronicles uses his abbreviated family list to show the Levite’s responsibilities for their duties. Matthew shows Jesus as the heir and rightful King after David. A third use for genealogies is to propel a story foreword: Exodus 6:14-27, Luke 3:23-38. These lists are brought in the middle of a narrative, and are used to show the background of the character, or a significant quality about them. Exodus had been talking about Moses for several chapters, so there is no need to introduce him or his background. The same goes for Luke’s account of Jesus. Instead, the focus with Moses is on his new leadership role and his next challenge. To prove that Moses had a right to be heard, the author uses the genealogy to establish his identity as an Israelite and later as a Levite (which is important for the Hebrews to remember while he leads and intercedes for them). Luke traces Jesus’ genealogy to show that his ultimate heritage went back to God himself, and that he fulfills all of mankind’s intent. This is important for the reader to understand as Jesus is tempted in the wilderness and then begins his ministry.

The third question: ‘does the genealogy impact the surrounding information?’ has been touched on already. The Genesis 5 and 12 genealogies do impact the surrounding narrative by adding a sense of urgency and natural deprivation for the human race. Without it the problem of sin doesn’t seem as universal or urgent for Abram. The genealogy at the end of Ruth is actually the climax of the book. The whole book uses otherwise unknown characters to the point that it may read like a fiction story. The genealogy roots it in history and compels the readers to study the book once more to see the foreshadowing of David. Luke 3 also drives home the fact that Jesus is not from men but from God, and therefore has divine qualities. Most if not all genealogies impact the surrounding material. It is a mistake to overlook them completely.

The literary purpose of genealogies is to accompany the text with information that makes the characters credible, or makes the situation applicable. They are neither pointless nor uncredible. God used important religious and social documentation to help the reader further understand the stories they read. For those of us outside that culture, it is very beneficial to use these details to help us understand the minds and identity of the OT and NT characters.

[1] 1 Kings 11:41; 14:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; Esther 10:2; Additionally Matthew 1:5, 13-16 and Luke 3:23-31, 33, 36 mention names that are either not connected or found in the OT.
[2] Examples: Genesis 5; Matthew 1; Luke 3; 1 Chronicles 2
[3] Name lists that are not genealogies include: 1 Chronicles 27; Nehemiah 12:1-26
[4] Example of interruptions: Matthew 1 – “by Rahab,” “by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah,” “at the time of the deporting to Babylon.”
[5] Genesis 4-5- names and generations parallel each other 46:8-27- the phrase “all” seems accommodative.
[6] 2 Timothy 3:16- All scripture is inspired.
[7] Compare: 1 Chron 1 to Genesis 5, 12, 36, and Luke 3:32-38 to the LXX.

Religious Purpose of Genealogies

thebibleword.org

The purpose of Genealogies in the Bible may not be (and I argue that they are not) the same as either modern genealogies or many other ancient genealogies. Today, genealogies or brief heritage records serve the function of proving nationality, cultural minority, or family pride. Ancient genealogies also placed emphasis on nationality and family titles. The nationality may entitle an individual to certain rights (Like Paul, as he used his Roman citizenship to resolve conflicts [1]), or may work against them if their nation was subservient to another.[2] The Family rights may give certain levels of authority in society from kings to politicians to household heads.[3] I suggest that the Biblical genealogies occasionally served these functions, but primarily focused on other objectives. There are two major functions that play a role in this study. This article will focus on the first: the religious function.

The OT does not present a history of the world. It focuses on a single relatively tiny nation called Israel. Even within Israel’s history, the text picks and chooses certain points and leaves the rest for other record keepers.[4] With this in mind, we recognize that OT genealogies do not intend to replicate the entire history of every Israelite.[5] What the text does portray, however, is vital and important to the Jewish religion and way of life. To the Jew, there was no separation of secular government from religion.[6] Their genealogies impacted the way they perceived their religious duties as well as their political responsibilities.

The connection between family line and religion for the Jew dates back to Abram and God’s promise to him. God promised that Abram would have a blood son through Sarah, and that his descendents would number like sand on the sea shore and would inhabit ‘the land.’[7] As a marker of this covenant God required that every male born to this family of promise be circumcised.[8] Circumcision becomes the linking action and symbol between nationality and religion.[9] The primary goal for their geneialogies was to show family links from the current generation back to this forefather, so that their identity as people of God could be confirmed. Second to that, Genealogies served as agents to distinguish households and tribes into their duties and responsibilities.

This primary goal (the family links) is easiest to see in Matthew and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus.[10] They both trace from one end to the other in a straight line to show Jesus’ relationship to Abram and David. The subject of skipping generations could easily be discussed here, but will wait for another article. The emphasis of that discussion is to establish generic family ties without having to name every person in the line. This appears to be a common feature found most prominently in the period of Egyptian captivity. The family connection was also important when establishing legitimacy as true Israelites. This would have been very important upon entering the promised land and coming back from Babylonian captivity. The first period (effected by Numbers)[11] needs the least detail since their objective was to completely remove all previous inhabitants.[12] The pollution of the Israelite line was a constant problem throughout their history. By the time of the exile the Jewish line was in danger of being lost completely.[13]This brought about the necessity for the largest genealogy in the Bible, found in 1 Chronicles 1-9.[14] Ezra (potential author for the Chronicles) lists many family heads of those who returned.[15] He also implimented purity requirements for the priests before they could reenter their duties.[16] Those that could not produce sufficient genealogies were turned away.

This brings us the second religious goal: family duties. The most important family to keep track of was Levi. This tribe was set aside by God for the purpose of serving within the Temple.[17] The priesthood was the specific responsibility of Aaron’s family, and no other. The other Levite familes had spelled out duties in Numbers 4. Further responsibilities are mentioned in Chronicles upon establishing and reestablishing the Temple.[18] The other families are less important from a religious standpoint. The line of Judah stands out because of the leadership duties culminating in David.[19] The royal family is important for tracing the Messiah. Before the kings, the nation relied on tribal leadership.

We see represented in 1 Chronicles 1-9 a focus on patriarchal heads and leaders within the tribes. (Remember that the Chronicles were written upon the return from exile for the returning Jews to remind them the errors of their fathers.) These families and chiefs were supposed to guide the people politically and spiritually. As we read in Judges, they failed to uphold this responsibility. After this failure God allowed the introduction of a king. Once the king line failed as well, the leadership was given back to the family heads, which is why 1 Chronicles 1-9 is so important to those returning Jews.

The majority of genealogy information is provided for the spiritual integrity of the people in order to trace the line of the Messiah, and for the designation of leadership duties within the tribes. This information can seem dull and pointless to the modern reader, but looking at it through the eyes of the primary audience may change your interest. Also, being able to see things from a post-messianic perspective can reveal the foreknowledge and providence of God. The technical and tedious accuracy (as well as the seemingly generic and vague approaches) can show historical confidence and reliability.

______________________________________________________

[1] Acts 22:25
[2] Esther 8:11
[3] 1 Kings 11:35-38
[4] 1 Kings 11:41; 14:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; Esther 10:2
[5] Matthew 1:1 – The summary is typical of genealogy mindset.
[6] Deuteronomy 6:6-9
[7] Genesis 17:8, 15-19; 22:17
[8] Genesis 17:9-10
[9] Galatians 5:3
[10] Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38
[11] Exodus 6:14-25; Numbers 1-4 – These were the generations leaving Egypt, but specially noted in Numbers are the tribal leaders and families.
[12] Deuteronomy 7:2-3
[13] Ezra 9:14
[14] Note especially 1 Chronicles 9
[15] Ezra 2; 8:1-20
[16] Nehimiah 7:6-65 – noting verses 61-65
[17] Exodus 27:21; Numbers 3:5-10
[18] 1 Chronicles 9; 23-26
[19] 1 Chronicles 2-4

Sonship: Part Two

thebibleword.org

Let us consider the difference between Jesus’ identity as the son of God and the saints’ identity as sons of God. What boundaries separate between the two? What rules say that Jesus’ authority as the Son of God does not get passed to the sons of God also? When we call ourselves sons of God how is this different from Jesus calling Himself the Son of God. As a followup to discussions on sonship, this article will tackle some of the sonship implications as they pertains to the saints.

If Jesus can be called “Son of God” and it imply a special relationship, what does it say about us that we may be sons of God?[1] The Scriptures never speak of divine authority from His people. The Children of Israel were also called God’s Children. They called God “our Father.” [2] The special nature of Jesus’ Sonship is found in the exclusive title. That is the problem the Jews had with Jesus claiming exclusive rights.[3] Perhaps their delicacy on the issue had to do with rights within the family metaphor. If Jesus claimed special sonship rights, then that might exclude the sons of Israel from their inheritance rights.[4] In a sense that is both right and wrong. Jesus, as the firstborn, does take all hope for “rights” away from others claiming sonship.[5] Yet, at the same time, Jesus is the only one who can bring the hope of sonship to men.[6] The rest of this article will deal with these two points.

First, Jesus is the firstborn, which implies special rights within the family metaphor.[7] More important than just being a son of someone was to be the firstborn.[8] It is important to remember that “Firstborn” began as a chronological term but the Bible often uses it as a status based on choice or merit.[9] A similar term might be “uniquely begotten.”[10] Abraham had a son before the son of promise, yet this firstborn is driven away. Isaac inherits the firstborn rights, (being the first and only born of Sarah).[11] Jacob finagles the firstborn rights and blessings, although he was the second born.[12] Reuben lost his firstborn privileges due to his misconduct.[13] Ephraim was blessed as the firstborn, though second.[14]

We find a pattern that the firstborn status is important, though not always determined by birth order. The right of the firstborn is that all others in the family are subservient to him.[15] Once the patriarch is past the time of leading, the firstborn becomes the head of the family. As head, the others, whether brothers or servants, must now obey the firstborn. This position is exclusive and, as far as we can see in the bible, is never shared. Jesus’ status as firstborn of all creation implies that he has the right as head of the church, and the right to our submission.[16] Even if we make ourselves equal with Jesus as sons, the NT writers make it clear how that would never work.

Second, Jesus, as head of the family and mediator for us, can now call into the family whom he wills to partake of the rights of sonship. This adoption process was not and still is not overly uncommon. By standards of law in ancient and modern cultures, adoption makes the adoptee legal sons and daughters of the adopter. We are not born of God like Jesus is, therefore cannot have the rights of the firstborn, but we can still be adopted into His family. God made us in His image, but we are not divine because of it. Through Jesus, God remakes us into a new person. We could only do this because he chose to call us brethren.[17] There is no room for illegitimate sons.[18] How does one become a son then? And what rights would follow?

The adoption process in ancient cultures may not have been so drawn out as in today’s. The purpose was also slightly different. The reason for adoption was not as much for the purpose of having children or caring for orphans. Most men would have just taken another wife for that purpose if it was not prohibited by their moral standards[19] or just hosted a charity. Instead, adoption was considered primarily for the sake of passing on the family title.[20] Adoption was not about the adopted but the adoptee. Along with the title came the birthright. Since this was the primary motivation, adoptees were not always younger, but sometimes older trusted men. An elderly couple with no heir would not have the time to raise a child. Rather, they might choose someone close or within their household that they trusted to represent their family well. Abraham was of this mind before Isaac was born. He assumed that his head servant would become the heir of his title, even to the seed promise.[21] God was against this and stressed that the child would be Abram’s own, not adopted. Legitimacy is then key to inheriting the promises of God. One must be children of Abraham in order to be apart of God’s household too.[22] But how does that come? Paul argues that sonship is legitimately measured by faith. If we have faith like Abram, then we are children of righteousness. Most people assume that children are like their parents by default. The danger is assuming the evil and righteousness is somehow hereditary. God shuts down that theory in Ezekiel 18. Instead, God offers a new train of thought in the NT that suggests that action is not determined by sonship, but sonship by action. Jesus was the perfect mediator of both sets of thought because he was the blood son of promise, and also faithful in everything to the end.[23] His merit permits us, as flawed individuals, to have a hope of adoption if we would act like God’s children.[24]

The rights that we inherit are not the birthright, however we receive much more than we could ever hope or ask for. Jesus was given authority over life; we are offered the promise of life.[25] Jesus reigns at the throne of God; we can reign with him.[26] All glory is given to the son; we can bask in his glory, not our own.[27] Jesus received the Holy Spirit while on earth; we may partake of his Spirit also.[28] Paul stated it best in Galatians when he said that Jesus paved the way for us to be legitimate mature sons:

“Now that Faith has come we are no longer under a tutor, for you are all sons of God through Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither jew nor greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise. Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law, so that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His son into our hearts crying ‘Abba Father.’ Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”[29]

This adoption has stipulations attached. First of all, this adoption depends on being baptized into Christ. Second is putting on Christ, which has to do with our manner of living. Thirdly, we must detach ourselves from the things that enslave us, whether it be the Law or things of the world. Fourthly, Paul goes on to say in further verses that we must no go back to the elemental ways of the world and be enslaved again.[30] Sons are free, not slaves. Although we are bondservants of God and “slaves” of righteousness, we do so by choice. To be slaves of our own desires robs us of those righteous decisions.[31]

Sonship is both a theological and a practical aspect of Christianity. Jesus’ Sonship is necessary for His identity as Messiah and His identity as Savior. Our sonship is necessary to please God and to be saved. Let us, then, act like sons of God and imitate His perfect son and our Brother: Jesus.[32]

_____________________________________________________

[1] Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; Romans 8:14; 9:26; Galatians 3:26; 1 John 3:1
[2] Malachi 1:6; Jeremiah 3:4; 31:9; Exodus 4:22
[3] John 5:18, 10:33
[4] Genesis 27:34-36
[5] Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:6
[6] Galatians 4:4-5; Hebrews 2:14-18
[7] Genesis 27:19; 48:18; Exodus 13:1 (22:29); Colossians 1:15
[8] 1 Chronicles 5:1-2
[9] Genesis 21:10-13 – Ishmael was not treated as firstborn, but Isaac was. Exodus 4:22 – the people of Israel were called God’s firstborn, even though they were not the “first” to be his servants. Numbers 3:12-13 – The Levites (not the firstborn tribe) stood in the place of the Firstborn of all of Israel. Colossians 1:18 – Jesus was not the first to be raised from the dead.
[10] John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17 – Isaac is called only begotten even though Ishmael was born first, and Abraham and many sons afterward.
[11] Genesis 25:5-6
[12] Genesis 25:33; 27:35
[13] Genesis 49: 3-4; 1 Chronicles 5:1-2
[14] Genesis 48:14
[15] Genesis 27:29
[16] Colossians 1:15
[17] Hebrews 2:14-18
[18] Hebrews 12:7-9
[19] Genesis 16:1-2; 30:1-24
[20] Genesis 15:2-3
[21] Ibid
[22] Romans 4:1-17; Galatians 3:7-9
[23] John 8:39; Hebrews 2:17; 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:24; 2 Timothy 2:13; 1 Peter 4:19
[24] Romans 5:17-19
[25] John 3:35; 1 John 5:11-12
[26] Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32; Acts 2:30-33; Hebrews 8:1; 12:2; 2 Timothy 2:12; (1 Corinthians 15:25-28)
[27] Matthew 16:27; 25:31; John 11:4; 2 Peter 1:17 – 1 Peter 4:13-14; Romans 5:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18
[28] Matthew 3:16; John 3:34; 7:39
[29] Galatians 3:25-4:7 – Bolded words focus on sonship. Italicized words are stipulations of sonship.
[30] Galatians 4:9-10
[31] Titus 1:15-16
[32] 1 John 3:1-12

Sonship: Part One

thebibleword.org

Although there are core values of children that extend to all cultures, the idea of ‘sonship’ is a cultural issue that changes over time. By ‘sonship’ we mean one person being the child of another. Responsibilities and privileges of sons and daughters today include inheriting the family business, receiving property, or simply passing on the last name. The biblical view of sonship carries its own connotations. We can’t assume that sonship has always meant the same as it does today. Our experiences are only going to lightly impact the implications about another culture or literary frame. The Bible presents a unique culture within itself. While its events took place within real time and society, its themes and motif’s can be found by studying its own text. It claims self sufficiency and perfection.[1] Although cultural studies will impact our understanding of scripture, we should look most to the themes which it presents for itself.

I would like to suggest that the biblical usage of sonship carries with it two primary meanings: the identity of the predecessor, and the inheritance of all rights and privileges.[2] It begins with God’s creation of Man in His own image. With this blessing he gave man the responsibility to rule over the earth.[3] When Seth was born to Adam it says he was born in Adam’s image.[4] This pattern is set for the rest of mankind. We too follow in Adam’s image as we continue the problem of Sin and evil.[5] We, as sons of Adam (mankind), receive the responsibilities of dealing with the things of this earth.[6] We retain his identity and inheritance. For another example, God promised that Abram’s seed would come forth “from his own being,” and thereby inherit all that God had promise to Abram.[7] Due to this kind of thinking the Pharisees attempted to inherit righteousness by calling themselves sons of Abraham.[8] The “Children of Israel” took the same mode of thought when they relied on their sonship to save them from Justice.[9] Both sets of people shared the same problem. The Sonship did entitle them to the same rights and identity as their predecessors, but the rights and identity included the Curses as well as the Blessings.[10] Both Abram and Jacob were chastised for their lack of faith,[11] as their children were. The choices that Adam, Abram, and Israel made still effected their destiny.

The expectation for the Messiah was that he would be the “son of David.”[12] The expected implication was that the Messiah would inherit the throne, kingdom, and all the authority that David had.[13] God’s promise to David was like His promise to Abram in that this child of promise would come forth “from his own being.”[14] The Jews highly valued this blood relation and understood (in part) the responsibility it gave. The next in line to the throne always has the responsibility and rights of the king. The son of David would be king, but also a priest. On a more religious side, the priests, specifically the High Priest line, inherited the same authority and identity as their forefathers to serve the Temple.[15] No one else had that authority. That’s what makes Jesus’ priesthood to the order of Melchizedeck (who had no heritage) so different.[16]

What impact does this discussion have on the world of Christian apologetics? The significance lies in calling Jesus the “Son of God.”[17] By referring to Jesus as the Son of God, the NT authors are implying more than just a high status, they are calling Jesus the living identity of God Himself, with all rights and authority transferred.[18] The authority and power which God the Father has is inherited by Jesus Christ the Son. Jesus’ sonship displays His divinity. Jesus was divine before taking the role of son, but choose the relationship specifically to show that the Word can exist parallel to God and not loose or rob any status. By what scriptures can we make this argument? The Jews made this argument themselves in John 10:36. By Jesus referring to God as his Father in an exclusive way the Jews made the connection to identity. They were upset because Jesus was making himself equal with God. And by their worldview, one cannot be equal with God and not be God. Their lessons in sonship had failed them. In addition to identity, the authority also transfers as we see Jesus teaching with authority, unlike the scribes: “You have heard it said [God’s own Law quoted]… but I say to you”.[19] Jesus used His relationship to His Father to uphold His divine status. If this was a misunderstanding on part of the Jews then Jesus, as a responsible upholder of the truth, should have explained how His sonship did not give Him divine status and authority. Yet since John records this event the way that he does, he is using this very argument as an apologetic for Jesus’ deity.

Further scriptures include Matthew’s account of the angelic promise to Joseph.[20] When the angel was telling Joseph what to name the child he said He would be called “Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” The name Jesus means, “Yahweh will save.” Yet in the first statement Jesus is the antecedent for both the one doing the saving and the owner of the people. And the scripture referenced by the angel calls the son Immanuel: “God with us.” Zechariah 2 and 3 refer to Yahweh coming to dwell with his people. Just afterward, the high priest Joshua (the same name as Jesus) is set up as a forerunner to the one who would come from David’s branch (a connotation to direct descendent). Thus even God’s presence is tied to the seed of David. Just as much as the Jews expected the physical son of David to be the messiah, so God also expected His own person to fulfill this role. Isaiah 9 speaks of a child who, when born, would rule God’s people forever. This should vividly recall God’s promise to David that his seed would reign forever. In Isaiah one of the names of the child is “Mighty God, Eternal Father.”[21] Once more God himself is tied to the sonship promise to David.

If the Sonship of God implies deity as the NT claims, then we must recognize the metaphoric nature God’s relationship. God has chosen the analogy of father and son to describe His position with Himself as it concerns Jesus. He also uses that analogy to describe His relationship with us and our relationship to one another. Sonship is important to the theology of both the Jew and the Christian. We must see God’s word fulfilled as prophesied. God doesn’t always do things in the expected way, but He has made it clear that His son caries His own identity, authority, and power. Because of this, the phrase “Son of God” to the Jews, and hopefully to us, should cause respect for the person of Jesus and His authority over our lives.

 

[1] 2 Timothy 3:15-17 – the scriptures are fully adequate for salvation and for the knowledge Christians need. John 5:39 – Jesus completes scripture, stressing that the scriptures themselves only point to true life. John 10:35 – the scripture cannot be broken.
[2] Hebrews 7:9-10
[3] Genesis 1:27-30 – stresses the transferred authority. Luke 3:38; Genesis 5:1-3 – names Adam as “son of God” in the same way Seth was son of Adam.
[4] Genesis 5:3
[5] Romans 5:12, 15, 17, 19
[6] Psalm 8:4-6; Hebrews 2:6-8 – The psalm speaks of Mankind, the Hebrew writer applies to Jesus.
[7] Genesis 15:4
[8] Matthew 3:7-9; John 8:39, 53, 56
[9] Amos 3:1-2; Malachi 1:6
[10] Luke 1:73-75 – opportunity to serve. Isaiah 58:13-14 – the heritage of Jacob is dependent on keeping the law.
[11] Genesis 12:18; 20:9; 31:26 – the chastising comes from another man who felt wronged. Ultimately it can be seen that things were done because of a lack of Faith. The last example Jacob obeys God but does so in a fearful manor.
[12] 2 Samuel 7:12-17; Isaiah 11:1;10  Matthew 12:23
[13] Acts 2:25-31
[14] Compare Genesis 15:4 to 2 Samuel 7:12
[15] Exodus 27:21
[16] Hebrews 7:3, 12-14
[17] Examples: Matthew 8:29; 16:16; John 1:34, 49; 19:7; 20:31; Romans 1:4; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 1 John 3:8-9; 4:15
[18] Matthew 26:63-65; Hebrews 1:8; 4:14; 1 John 5:9-12
[19] Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43; 7:28. See also Matthew 9:6; John 17:1-2; Ephesians 1:21-23; Colossians 1:13-18; 2:10; Jude 1:25
[20] Matthew 1:21-23
[21] Isaiah 9:6