Sermon Tone Analysis

*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.