![]() |
|||||||||
We are going to begin this sermon in II Timothy 3:16. It is one of those verses that ought to be for every single one of us something that is committed to our memory.
All Scripture is profitable but some Scripture we tend to overlook or maybe we neglect altogether. Usually these parts that we neglect altogether are in the Old Testament, and they are called "the begats." So-and-so begat this person and that person begat somebody else and that person begat somebody else. There are chapters like I Chronicles 1-8, or Ezra 2 and 10 or Nehemiah 7, 10, and 12 and I can almost guarantee you that if you will look at the chapters in your Bible they are in mint condition because you have hardly ever looked at them. But this scripture says that the whole Bible is profitable. That means it is a practical and a useful tool, especially for the teacher. It is the standard for testing everything that claims to be true. It is our safeguard against false teaching, by giving warning when one turns aside. It is a source of guidance in the right path. It trains us how to understand how to live. It shows us how to do Christ's work in this world. And this scripture, II Timothy 3:16, is saying that we need all Scripture in order to function properly, even the begats. They are in there for some reason. Scripture combined with the Holy Spirit and experiences are the means by which a person is brought to maturity. We might change that and say it is the means by which we are brought to holiness. Turning our attention from the Old Testament, I think that even in the New Testament we pay little attention to the begats that are in there. And there are two chapters, Matthew 1 and Luke 3 that have an awful lot of begats in them as well. Now I have to confess to you that I am no different. I have to almost force myself to read into those chapters and studying into those chapters is something that I do not like to do at all. But, they are there, and when we do study into those chapters and compare them with lists that are given in the Old Testament then some very interesting things begin to come to light. There are curious differences that appear comparing the begats in the book of Matthew, especially, with the begats that appear in other parts of the Old Testament. Now we are going to be looking at one of those curious differences that occur between Matthew 1 and I Chronicles 3.
This is typical of just about every verse that appears up to and including verse 17. The words "son of" which may appear in your Bible, does not appear in this particular one, mine says "begot." When you see that it in the Bible, it means, "descendant of." Not necessarily literally "a son of" because someone who is named there may not be a son. He may be a grandson, even a great grandson, but in this particular list all of these people are related by blood, and that bloodline ends in Jesus Christ. And that is its importance. To confuse things a little bit further, every once in awhile, you will read in the Bible of somebody who was the son of, for example, Belial. In this case, "son of" does not even mean "descendant of," it means someone showing the characteristics of, and Belial means foolishness. So a son of Belial is a son of foolishness. And this person is showing the characteristics of someone who is foolish. Matthew has three groups of fourteen names beginning with Abraham. The first group begins with Abraham and ends with David. The second group begins with David's son Solomon and ends with Jeconiah, who was the son of Josiah. The third group begins with Shealtiel and ends in Jesus Christ. Now, if you would compare Luke's list with Matthew's list you would find that Luke runs in the opposite direction. He begins with Jesus Christ and ends with Adam. So he goes backwards, whereas Matthew comes forward. Matthew also interestingly lists four ladies in that line as well, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. So we have 42 men, and 4 ladies. All of these were ancestors of Jesus, but they varied considerably in personality, spirituality, and experience. Some of these people were heroes of faith, such as Abraham, David, and Ruth. Some of them had shady reputations, like Tamar and Rahab. Some of them were very ordinary personalities, like Ram and Nahshon. Some of them were evil like Manasseh and Abijah. Two of the ladies very definitely were Gentiles, and one more probably was a Gentile, because her name is not Israelitish. That is Tamar, she was probably a Gentile. The fourth lady, Bathsheba, married a Gentile. She married Uriah the Hittite and was probably considered by the Israelites to be Gentile as a result of that marriage. So, we have four very interesting ladies there. One of the things that I feel certain God is showing us is that God is not limited by human imperfections. He can work through anybody He desires to carry on His will, even if there are shady characters in the ancestry of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Let us go back to a companion list in I Chronicles 3. Verse 9 has the name of David, and what is listed here is the family of David.
Unless I counted them wrong, there were 2I Kings from David to Zedekiah. But in the list in Matthew, there were only 15 kings listed. Three of those were of the same generation. That is, they were brothers or uncles or nephews. These three followed Jeconiah, and so they were related by blood. They were of the same family line. However, they were not directly in Christ line as ancestors of His and so there is a very logical reason why those three were left off. Remember, these were the three that followed Josiah. In addition to that there was one renegade queen. She was not on either list. Her name was Athaliah. We will get to her a little while later on in the sermon, but she was a bad one. She usurped the throne following her son Ahaziah. She got on the throne by killing all the potential heirs. She was a pretty bad person. Some of the most evil kings of Judah ever had are on the list as part of Christ ancestry. There are three kings we have not mentioned by name yet, except in the reading of the scriptures. But there are three kings whose names appear here in I Chronicles 3 but they are omitted from the list in Matthew 1. Now it is not clear which of four possible kings, whose names are not on the list. There is a reason for this, why it appears there might be four rather than three. That is because of a confusion of names, and I will get to that just a little bit later. There are two possibilities. The three whose names are left off the list come from I Chronicles 3:11-12, where it begins with:
The one possibility is that Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were dropped off the list and the reason they might have been dropped off is because of their connection to Athaliah. The other possibility of the three names might have been Joash, Amaziah and Uzziah. We add another name there. Why might they have been dropped? Well, a second reason might be that rather then having been dropped because of their connection to Athaliah that they were dropped in order to draw attention to a disastrous flaw that these three men had in common. I have to say to you right up front here I do not know which is the correct answer because God does not tell us. Either one of the two possibilities of the three names would be a good enough reason as far as I am concerned. We will explore the first one just a little bit. We will spend a great deal more time on the second one because if they are the ones that were dropped then the reason they were dropped has an interesting application to you and me today. We definitely are not descended from or have direct connections to that the line, but we may very well have the same kind of spiritual problem, that these three, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah had. Before we proceed any further, we need to understand something. The books of Kings and Chronicles are in some ways much like the four Gospels. That is, they give differing points of view, differing perspectives of the same events. Kings primarily approaches things from a standpoint of giving us an insight into the history of the northern ten tribes, at least history as it regards the kings, whereas Chronicles focuses its attention on the southern kingdom of Judah. Remember we are dealing with two different kingdoms. The ten-tribed kingdom in the north, Israel, and the two-tribed kingdom in the south, Judah. Kings gives us the perspective, primarily, from the northern point of view. Chronicles gives us a perspective from the southern point of view. Other differences go farther than that, because the books of Kings do not give much insight into spiritual causes or motivations. It deals with facts. I might say that it gives us facts of history, from a human point of view. It is pretty much just a record of history. Chronicles, on the other hand, gives us God's thoughts about the history that took place. It is history from a divine standpoint. It gives a philosophy of the same history that Kings covers showing deliverances, repentances, and reformations. We are going to be spending most of our time in Chronicles.
Aha! What a way to begin. He kills off his own brothers in order to make sure that they do not usurp the throne. Now, if we give him the benefit of the doubt, it is entirely possible that he had good reason to do what he did from a carnal standpoint, because, maybe his brothers were giving indications that they were already plotting because they were jealous. Because Jehoram got the throne when they thought they were every bit as good as Jehoram, and that they should be on the throne. Jehoram, though, had more power. He beat them to the punch. He put them to death before they got him and assassinated him. Now the background for this event goes all the way back to chapter 18, verse one, where it kind of innocently says
Anybody know anything about Ahab? He was possibly the most wicked king that Israel ever had. He was blessed (?) by having as his wife Jezebel. What a blessing! Now how were relations cemented between Jehoshaphat and Ahab? Well, they arranged a marriage. Jehoshaphat's son, Jehoram, married Ahab and Jezebel's daughter, Athaliah. That was a very common way of doing things back then in those days. And so they became blood relatives.
Let us drop down to verse 12. Things got so bad that Elijah, who had been whirled away in a whirlwind about seven or eight years before, sent a letter to Jehoram.
Take notice of that because that kind of phrase usually indicates the regard in which he was held by his subjects. This sort of tragedy, at its beginning, had a very foolish arrangement of a marriage and had a very tragic results for Judah, because Jehoram preferred to follow his evil wife, rather than his godly father. And Jehoram's evil was so pernicious, it just kept growing and growing, so that the people would not bury him with the other kings. And so he died unregretted and unlamented. No one cried at his death, and yet he is on the list of Christ forebears, this evil, evil man. Now in chapter 22 verses one through five is mentioned Jehoram's son Ahaziah. But I think for now we are going to skip this man. We are going to get back to him later. But I will say, in verse two his mother's name was Athaliah, and he also walked in the ways of Ahab.
Depending upon the way that the kings are let in or let out of the list in Matthew 1 this man may be in or he may be out. If we include him in, then we are looking at the record of another king just as wicked and evil as his father Jehoram. Let us look at another one. These three I just want to give you as examples of wicked kings who are on the list. I am doing that because I want you to see that their relative evil or righteousness apparently did not have much to do with whether they were on Christ's ancestry list or not. It almost seems that God left three men out, not because they were particularly evil, but He wanted to draw our attention to something. Something else, because He could have easily left these three fellows out and the list, we might have said, would have been better without them there, but that is the way human beings look at things.
Manasseh was the son of probably the second or third best king that Judah ever had. To me, the three best kings, hands down, that Judah ever had were David, and he stands in a class of his own because every king is compared to David, even the good ones. Let me put it this way, all of the good kings are compared to David, because he was the standard. And there are only, that I know, three other kings that are compared to David. And that is Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. And there seems to be special attention drawn to Josiah as having been the second best, with Hezekiah then being the third best, and Jehoshaphat the fourth best. That is kind of my list, but I think that it has some biblical reasoning to it. So now we are looking here at the son of one that was at least a third best king, Hezekiah.
Judah became worse under this wicked man than all of those whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel—the Canaanites, the Hivites, the Hittites. He seduced Judah; he destroyed all of Hezekiah's good works. He used astrology, spiritism, wizardry, human sacrifice, erection of idol groves, and you know what, he repented in captivity. But apparently, he was not allowed to be buried with the kings. Despite all of his wickedness he is on the list in Matthew 1. In Matthew 1, once again, just a reminder, that "begat" or "son of" does not actually mean father of, it can mean father or grandfather or great-grandfather.
Now, who is this man Uzziah? If you have a King James Version it probably said Ozias. I am going to show you something very interesting I mentioned a little bit earlier towards the beginning of this sermon. One of the things that make this a bit confusing as to which group of three God intends is because of a confusion of names. Let us go back to II Chronicles 21. We are picking up here in the reign of Jehoram.
Now mark that name, Jehoahaz, in your mind. Let us go to chapter 22:1. Remember, back in chapter 21:20, we find the burial of Jehoram and so now the kingship is going to go from Jehoram to the next in line.
Now, wait a minute, in chapter 21:17 Jehoahaz was Jehoram's youngest son. Are these two different men? Or is it the same man with two different names? That is what it is. It is the second one. In both cases, he was the youngest son. But now he has a different name and his name has changed from Jehoahaz to Ahaziah.
Remember, there are no other sons of Jehoram left. What have we got here? Hey, we have a man with three names. It starts out Jehoahaz, then it becomes Ahaziah, and five verses later it becomes Azariah. See what I mean about a confusion of names? Let us go to II Chronicles 25:27. The name I want you to pick up on here is in the very first phrase.
On to chapter 26. Now remember Amaziah—A-m-a-z—has now died because he was assassinated. And so when a king dies and you have to have a new king:
Now notice the name of the son, Uzziah.
That is Azariah—A-z-a-r—not Uzziah. We now have Uzziah as a different name and his name now is Azariah, but they are one and the same man. Matthew was written in either Aramaic or Greek, or written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, whichever it happened to have been. Matthew has the Greek equivalents of the Hebrew names, and the reason that there is confusion is because in the Hebrew vowels are not written. What this sets up is that if the Ozias of Matthew 1:8 is in reality the man variously called Jehoahaz or Azariah or Ahaziah and not the one that is called Uzziah, it sets up an interesting circumstance. Now, three kings in a row are not on this list. For this sermon, we are going to make the assumption that the kings that are not on the list are Joash, Amaziah and Uzziah. We are going to look at what the Bible says about these three men. We are going to read just a phrase out of three different chapters dealing with the three different men.
I emphasized what I wanted you to see. What they had in common was that everyone of them did what was right in the sight of the Lord. And yet it is entirely possible that these men that did what was right have been stricken from the king's list as ancestors of Jesus Christ. And men that were downright evil were allowed to be on the list, Manasseh, Joash, or Amaziah. Very interesting! Why? Was it because God wanted to draw attention to their stories more forcefully than otherwise might have been done if they had been left on the list? Let us go back and look at the life of Joash.
Remember, I mentioned, there was one renegade queen? That was Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, granddaughter of Omre of Israel. But Jehoshabeath, daughter of the king took Joash, the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's sons. Now Joash was an infant at the time. Jehoshabeath was Joash's aunt. She was sister to Ahaziah. She, too, apparently, was a daughter of Athaliah. But, when she began to see the carnage that was taking place she ran into the nursery, she picked up Joash, and hid him so that Athaliah was unable to kill him (verse 12). He was hidden with them in the house of God for six years while Athaliah reigned over the land. Jehoshabeath had made a very good marriage, and this is what saved her, I am sure. Because she married Jehoiada who was one of the best high priests ever in the history of the Bible.
Jehoiada was a powerful influence for good. Joash had a forty year reign, but unfortunately Jehoiada did not live through the entirety of Joash's reign.
I do not know that there are many high priests that were buried with the kings. Quite distinctive, and I think it was a recognition of two things. Number one was that he was a great, righteous man and a tremendous influence on Joash. Number two, the people recognized that in reality Jehoiada was actually ruling. He was the king in reality, whereas Joash, though he was the front man, did not really have it to be king. But Jehoiada did.
In other words, they left the way of life that was represented by the temple. In other words, we might say if we were up to date, that they left the church as it were.
Jehoiada was not really his father but he had acted as his father. He was not his biological father, but in reality, he had reared this king of Judah.
This is the murder that Jesus referred to there in the New Testament when He said 'You killed Zechariah between the altar and the court.' It just shows what ingratitude can do to a person's thinking. Let us evaluate Joash's character. Joash was a fellow traveler. He was a leaner, he was a clinging vine, who did not have the resources within himself so that whenever the pressure came on him there was no one for him to lean on and he drooped and spiritually he died. We might say it this way: Joash went whichever way the wind blew. He was easily influenced by the peers who were around him. He went whichever way the crowd was going. His true character came from the crowd that he was in. When Jehoiada was with him, and the influence was for good then Joash was compliant and seemingly a good king. But, when he was with a bad crowd he went whichever way the peers were going. He was afraid to buck his peers and, let us add this; he did not repent when he was warned.
So he was assassinated and not buried with the kings. Is that not an interesting contrast between him and his "father" Jehoiada who was not even in the kingly line but was held in such high regard that he was buried with the kings. I think we would have to say that Joash's character was something that was merely programmed. It had not truly been internalized. It was not genuine. You see, brethren, faith has to be something that is grounded within us and is personally held. You might recall Ezekiel 14:14 about Noah, Job, and Daniel, that even those three righteous man could only save themselves. Let us look at Amaziah in chapter 25.
Amaziah was preparing to go to war. He was putting a fighting machine together. So he took a census and this is what he found.
But at least Amaziah obeyed the message from God through His prophet. Now let us look at verse 14. Between verses 10 and 14 the battle occurs, and Amaziah wins a great victory.
Can you imagine that? It almost defies logic! Here God gave him a great victory over the gods that he now adopts as his gods. Is that not something?
Let us drop down to verse 18, because now Amaziah in between has challenged Israel, two-tribed Judah against ten-tribed Israel. And so, Joash, king of Israel was contemptuous of this challenge from Amaziah.
In the parable, in the riddle, Amaziah (Judah) is the thistle and Joash (Israel) is the cedar. Now a cedar is mighty and strong and the thistle is so weak that a little old forest animal can come by, and would trample and scatter it to smithereens. And so he is saying, he is taunting them, he is saying, you come up on me and I will step on you like on a thistle, and all the seeds will go blowing all over the place. Well, Amaziah, in his puffed up pride, having just won the battle with the Edomites says "Heh, heh, I will get you." Well he did not get them. He went to battle against Israel, and he was smashed in defeat. Just like Joash said he would be.
You know what they did with him? Have you ever seen a Western where the guy gets shot out the wilderness somewhere and what do they do? They tie him onto the horse, stomach to the saddle, draped over the top of it with his hands tied underneath to his feet that are on the other side of the horse. That is what they did to him. Just tied him to a horse and sent him back to Jerusalem. What an ignominious ending for the royal seed to come to. Now let us evaluate his character. What we see here is vacillating instability. A great deal like Joash, but Amaziah wanted the best of both worlds. You might compare him to a parable that Jesus gave a man who began to build. He seemingly began pretty well. He listened to the prophet of God. He repented. He changed his ways, and God gave him a great victory, and then he began to turn. So he was a man who began to build and was not able to finish. We might call him a man who is semi-religious, unsteady in character and conduct. He was a man who had the right kind of piety and godliness early in his life, but we can see here that early piety and godliness is no excuse for self-indulgence later on. The flaw that we are beginning to see develop here is that these men all began well, but they did not finish well. Let us look at Uzziah. Perhaps in some way, this is the most tragic of all
He was not compared to David, was he? We just read that Amaziah was not all that great. He started out okay, but he did not finish up okay.
Does not that kind of remind you of Joash who sought God in the days of Jehoiada? Here was Zechariah, another strong priest, who had understanding in the visions of God. And as long as Uzziah sought the Lord, God made him to prosper. God helped him against the Philistines. And so he had a lot of victories.
And then he tells the size of the army and how they prepared for them an entire army of shields, spears, body armor, bows, and slings to cast stones
Uzziah presumptuously disregarded God's Word, because God's Word said that only the priests were to do this responsibility. Success after success spoiled his character. He became arrogant, conceited, and filled with inordinate self-esteem. He was the victim of ostentation. His heart was lifted with pride, and then he tried to emulate the Oriental kings around him and become a priest also. Now, what was the result of that?
Then Uzziah became furious. Oh, whenever someone challenged his authority it was a put down of his pride. He felt that he had become infallible.
Josephus has an interesting story. I do not know how true it is, but I will give it to you, at least the essence of it. Josephus says that the earthquake that is mentioned by Amos in Amos 1:1 (where Amos says that he prophesied two years before the earthquake), occurred when Uzziah went into the sanctuary and that the roof of the sanctuary was torn or rent by the shaking of the earthquake and a ray of sunlight boomed into the temple and struck Uzziah right in the forehead and quickly went out and when it went out the leprosy was what remained. Anyway, tradition has it that this was the hand of God, showing His displeasure at the presumptuous pride of this man, whom He had blessed so greatly and that now felt that he was infallible and above doing wrong and that his word had become law. Again we see a man who had started out marvelously. But when he was confronted with the truth and repentance was demanded of him late in his life because he was turning away, and God was trying to save him from the course that he was headed on, the man refused to repent. They all hardened their hearts. They—the three kings—all rejected God's Word and refused to repent.
Is God hard? Is He austere? Is He unmerciful? Does God owe us salvation? Does He owe us eternal life? Is it something that He is bound to give us regardless of our conduct, regardless of the direction of our lives?
You see, there is an individual responsibility. God never condones sin nor grants license for us or anyone to disobey His commands. Please understand that we are not talking here about our transgressions that are done out of weakness or out of ignorance. We are talking about transgressions that are done as a way of life with knowledge that we are doing wrong. God never condones that kind of sin, and he never grants license for anyone to disobey His commands. God always allows the sinner to repent. He will always chase after the sinner with His Word and give them the opportunity to repent. We saw that with Joash and Amaziah and Uzziah. There is always an open door for a sinner who will repent. But unless we do, the mind eventually becomes set, becomes seared, and repentance becomes impossible. In Exodus 32, Moses is the speaker in this poignant section, where he offers his life, you might say, as hostage to the children of Israel.
Just to reinforce what I said in regard to Ezekiel 18. God enters names and God has prerogative to take names out as well. That is a sobering thought indeed. Let us go to Deuteronomy 29 beginning in verse nine. Moses is addressing the people and says,
The subject here is the keeping of the covenant. Let us think of this in terms of the New Covenant rather than the Old Covenant. That is the principle I want to extrapolate from here.
He is saying that what we have done in entering into this covenant is something that does not just stop with us but it reverberates and will have effects even out into the future.
That is what Joash said. That is what Amaziah said. That is what Uzziah said. When they said, I will not repent, I will not listen to God's prophets. I am going to continue to go in the direction I am going in, and I am going to have peace and prosperity regardless of that.
God is saying through Moses, "Do not kid yourself." I bring this up because we have come out of a very Protestant society. That society has taught us that God is virtually obligated to give us salvation because His grace is so great. His mercy is so great, that as long as we have accepted the blood of Jesus Christ, salvation is absolutely assured. That is not true—which I will show you in just a little bit out of the New Testament. Somehow, they have worked it around in order, I think, to tickle people's ears, that God is virtually required to give us salvation. But they forget that God's mercy is perfectly balanced by His justice and those two are perfectly balanced by His love. He knows that anybody who is of a mind to live in a way that is different from this way, should that person inherit the Kingdom of God, that person would be absolutely miserable for all eternity, and God's sense of justice will not allow Him to do that to that person. He will not commit people to that kind of misery. Not only would they be miserable, they would cause misery for everybody else as well. They would be thorns in the side of everything that is right and good and progressive, just like Satan, Lucifer. If it would not be good for one of us to be there we will not be there.
It is in the book! Ritenbaugh did not write that there in the Bible. There is a principle in God's Word that expands on this in other places in the Bible—where He tells us that we are judged as we judge others. And so He says be awfully careful the kind of judgment when you begin imputing motives to people. People whose hearts you are not able to read, and you begin to say things about them that God knows to be not true. That you are judging them on the basis of your "insight"? He also tells us in the Lord's Prayer that we will be forgiven as we forgive. Another interesting one to think of. So we see a principle here, that faithfulness and loyalty is a two-way street. Faithfulness and loyalty is a two-way street.
That is the means of reconciliation, by the broken body and the shed blood of Jesus Christ and the purpose is to present you and me holy, blameless, and irreproachable in His sight.
Remember the three kings. They all began well. 'He did good in the sight of the Lord all the days of....' But when they began to turn aside, and God found fault with them and He sent them a prophet to give them repentance, they hardened their hearts and rejected God's offer of mercy.
Now those three kings did not continue. Continuing is the test of the reality of our faith.
|