Part 3: Matthew's list, and the ramification thereof
Jun 19, 2016 8:19:59 GMT
Post by Colossians on Jun 19, 2016 8:19:59 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
_______________________________________________
MATTHEW’S LIST, AND THE RAMIFICATION THEREOF
The 4 gospels are all equally the word of God, and each plays a certain role in relating the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
However given that God has chosen to call only the gospel of Matthew “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ”, and given that such “generation” relates “generating/bringing into being”, it is Matthew’s gospel and Matthew’s gospel alone in which we should expect to find the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Luke’s list will then of necessity be something else.
Now … we might think it strange that God has called the (entire) gospel of Matthew “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ”, when only the first chapter – indeed only a part thereof – is concerned with how Jesus Christ was (according to the flesh) generated. Why label the entire book by what is related in its few opening verses?
But we are inclined to ask this question because we are modern-day Westerners: we turn up to the shopping mall on a Saturday morning in little better than pyjamas, (rudely) address men much older than ourselves as “buddy”, and (as Christian Westerners) characteristically relate our “testimony” as beginning around the time we were told about the gospel.
Easterners are a little less superficial. For example, a man in Australia might be called James Alfred Smith, where his middle name is just as (synthetically) given as his first name; whereas a man in Russia will be called something like Sergei Ivanovich Zhivortsova, where his middle name relates that his father’s name was Ivan.
Along the same lines, scripture (which stems from the East) is replete with the phrase “son of” when referencing its characters: “Simon son of Jonas” is a prime example.
The point is that the testimony of the Jew did not begin with what he did or had done, but who his father was (see Mt 3:9): any and all of his own achievements were (therefore) to the credit of his father, a fact indeed alluded to (albeit at the spiritual level) by Jesus’ declaration that he that had seen Him had seen the Father (see John 14:9).
And so because Jesus was a Jew, His (human) testimony would, along with His kinsmen according to the flesh, consist primarily in the fact that His father was Abraham, which is of course where Matthew’s list begins.
Conclusion
Matthew’s gospel is Jesus Christ’s (full and proper) (official) testimony.
This is not to say that it is ‘better’ in any way, shape or form, than any of the other 3 gospels, but simply that this is the role it plays.
Amen.
(See also our work: “A linguistic paradigm”.)
_______________________________________________
MATTHEW’S LIST, AND THE RAMIFICATION THEREOF
The 4 gospels are all equally the word of God, and each plays a certain role in relating the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
However given that God has chosen to call only the gospel of Matthew “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ”, and given that such “generation” relates “generating/bringing into being”, it is Matthew’s gospel and Matthew’s gospel alone in which we should expect to find the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Luke’s list will then of necessity be something else.
Now … we might think it strange that God has called the (entire) gospel of Matthew “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ”, when only the first chapter – indeed only a part thereof – is concerned with how Jesus Christ was (according to the flesh) generated. Why label the entire book by what is related in its few opening verses?
But we are inclined to ask this question because we are modern-day Westerners: we turn up to the shopping mall on a Saturday morning in little better than pyjamas, (rudely) address men much older than ourselves as “buddy”, and (as Christian Westerners) characteristically relate our “testimony” as beginning around the time we were told about the gospel.
Easterners are a little less superficial. For example, a man in Australia might be called James Alfred Smith, where his middle name is just as (synthetically) given as his first name; whereas a man in Russia will be called something like Sergei Ivanovich Zhivortsova, where his middle name relates that his father’s name was Ivan.
Along the same lines, scripture (which stems from the East) is replete with the phrase “son of” when referencing its characters: “Simon son of Jonas” is a prime example.
The point is that the testimony of the Jew did not begin with what he did or had done, but who his father was (see Mt 3:9): any and all of his own achievements were (therefore) to the credit of his father, a fact indeed alluded to (albeit at the spiritual level) by Jesus’ declaration that he that had seen Him had seen the Father (see John 14:9).
And so because Jesus was a Jew, His (human) testimony would, along with His kinsmen according to the flesh, consist primarily in the fact that His father was Abraham, which is of course where Matthew’s list begins.
Conclusion
Matthew’s gospel is Jesus Christ’s (full and proper) (official) testimony.
This is not to say that it is ‘better’ in any way, shape or form, than any of the other 3 gospels, but simply that this is the role it plays.
Amen.
(See also our work: “A linguistic paradigm”.)