The Bethlehem Trilogy

Samuel said to Saul … now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart … to be captain over his people.—1 Samuel 13:13,14

Jacob had prophesied centuries before King David that “Shiloh” and his predecessor rulers would come from the tribe of Judah. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Genesis 49:10, cf. 1 Chronicles 11:1). Shiloh means “tranquil,” by implication “secure or successful,” and was understood as a designation of the coming Messiah (Strong’s Concordance, #7886 and #7951).

Judah’s selection for this privilege of spawning the tribe of regal authority is referred to in 1 Chronicles 5:1,2. Reuben had disqualified himself from the privileges of his firstborn status by his conduct, and evidently Simeon and Levi by their cruelty in the matter of Dinah. Judah was the next in line, and though the birthright went to Joseph as a special reward, “the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright,” and certain privileges thus fell to Judah. Also, he had exampled a spirit a little nobler than the others. Judah convinced his brothers to spare Joseph (Genesis 37:26), and later offered himself as security for his youngest brother (hGenesis 44:18-34).

However, Saul, the first king of Israel, had been chosen from the tribe of Benjamin rather than Judah. As are most things in the divine program, this was done probably for a variety of wise reasons. Saul was head and shoulders above his fellows, whereas his successor David was a less commanding presence but with a better heart loyalty to Jehovah, which was a lesson to Israel ever after of the importance of moral and spiritual values over physical stature and outward appearance. Saul and his rejection also formed a type or figure that Israel would be rejected for its unfaithfulness at the end of the Jewish age, in deference to the David class selected during the Gospel age.

But there was also a very practical reason why an appointment from the line of Judah was in abeyance when Saul became King. The genealogy from David to Judah given in the Scriptures is Judah–Pharez–Hez­ron–Ram–Amminadab–Nahshon–Salmon–Boaz–Obed–Jesse–David. Thus David was the tenth generation starting with Pharez. Pharez was a son of Judah through a sordid affair with Judah’s daughter-in-law, and probably fell under the proscription of Deuteronomy 23:2, which lasts until the tenth generation. David would have been that tenth generation, thus the proscription ended, and he was chosen king.

The Transfer from Benjamin to Judah

This transfer of authority from Benjamin to Judah, from Saul to David, was probably one reason for the inclusion of three narratives—the last two in Judges and the one in Ruth—which precede the anointing of Israel’s first king. These narratives refer to Bethlehem, the birthplace of King David, as though to show the significance of Bethlehem and establish the appropriateness of King David’s dynasty arising from the same location. These three narratives have sometimes been referred to as the “Bethlehem Trilogy.”

The first concerns Micah of Ephraim and a Levite from Bethlehem (Judges 17 and 18) whom Micah induced to be a kind of domestic priest for his family. Subsequently 600 men of Dan on their way to seek a better home in the north forcibly persuaded the Levite to serve them instead. He did, and as his services and worship were impure, it explains how it came to be that this portion of the tribe of Dan, who had given up on their original heritage of land appointed through Joshua, became accustomed to an idolatrous form of worship which they stayed with thereafter, “until the day of the captivity of the land” (Judges 18:30). This ­episode must have been early in the period of Judges, for the Levite at issue evidently was “Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses” (Judges 18:30, NIV, Rotherham, ­unlike the King James version which gives “Manasseh”).

The second concerns a Levite of Ephraim who had a concubine from Bethlehem (Judges 19 to 21). She became the subject of lethal abuse by a band of evil men of Gibeah in the land of Benjamin. The crime was widely publicized, but the tribe of Benjamin refused to turn over the offenders and instead resisted their brethren by armed force. The Israelites sought divine counsel, and “Jehovah said, Judah shall go up first” (Judges 20:18). After two setbacks they triumphed and the tribe of Ben­jamin was nearly extinguished. Probably later Jewish readers of this narrative saw in it a foreshadowing of the struggles between David (of ­Bethlehem in Judah) and Saul (of Gibeah in Benjamin), that David at first would suffer adversities at the hand of Saul, but subsequently triumph, and the house of Saul be nearly extinguished. This episode also must have been early in the period of Judges, for at this time “Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before [the ark of the covenant] in those days” (Judges 20:28).

The third narrative forms the book of Ruth, whose husband was the son of Elimelech of Bethlehem of Judah. Because of a famine in the area he went to Moab where his sons Mahlon and Chilion married Moabite women, one of whom was Ruth. All three men died, and Elimelech’s widow Naomi subsequently returned to Bethlehem with her daughter-in-law Ruth who would not allow Naomi to be alone. Ruth subsequently was taken to wife by prosperous Boaz. The book closes with the happy announcement of the birth of their child Obed, who became the father of Jesse, the father of King David. This episode also must have been in the earlier part of the period of Judges, for Boaz, the husband of Ruth, was the son of Rahab of Jericho.

All three of these narratives unfolded substantially before the narrative concerning Samson, the last of the actual judges referred to in the “Book of Judges.” The Book of Samuel which follows after Ruth thus connects to the time of Samson, who was contemporary with Samuel, though the story of Samuel necessarily involves recounting the experiences of Eli, whose death conincided with the Philistine oppression from which Samson and Samuel consecutively would deliver Israel.

The Genealogy of Messiah

Naturally the pedigree of such a prominent personage as King David would be significant, and we have his descent from Judah specified in detail, as noted above. But the pedigree of his successor Jesus was even more important to demonstrate, in order to show him a just claimant to the promises affirmed to David and his posterity. To King David God had promised, “There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel” (1 Kings 9:5), and this assurance constituted the “sure mercies of David” (Acts 13:34; Psalm 89:1-4).

Both Matthew and Luke record the genealogy of Jesus to demonstrate that Jesus had the proper foundation to be the Jewish Messiah. Matthew, who was writing for a Jewish audience, traces Jesus’ ancestry back to David, and further, back to Abraham (Matthew 1:1), both of whom receive special mention. Luke, writing to a largely Gentile audience, takes Jesus’ ancestry back to Adam, the father of all.

Matthew specifies that from Abraham to David, David to the captivity, and the captivity to Jesus, were equally 14 generations. This is significant to Matthew because he recognized that the numerical value of the name “David”—daleth-vau-daleth in Hebrew—was 14. (Daleth is the fourth letter of the alphabet, vau the sixth, and 4+6+4=14). In order to secure these equivalent numbers some reduction of generations was necessary at least in the second case, for comparing Matthew’s list with the Old Testament shows he omitted kings Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, who would constitute three extra generations between David and the captivity. Perhaps Matthew did this based on Exodus 34:7, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children … unto the third and to the fourth generation.” Immediately before these three kings, wicked Athaliah had reigned as a usurper. Amaziah would have been the third generation following, or the fourth if reckoned inclusively.

The third span of generations, from the captivity to Jesus, covers close to 600 years, about 43 years per generation for 14 generations, which seems an unusually long average age, though not impossible, for that part of man’s history. It is certainly briefer than Luke’s list, though we have no records to compare name by name to check whether there is some abbreviation in this part of Matthew’s list.

Why the Differences?

Comparing the lists of Matthew and Luke, it is apparent that the lists do not coincide in the period from Jesus back to King David. This is generally explained by understanding Matthew’s genealogy goes backward from Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, and Luke’s genealogy goes backward from Heli, the father of Mary, the biological mother of ­Jesus.

This is true, but it explains only part of the disparity. Notice that both genealogies come together in two prominent names during this otherwise disparate part of the lists, namely Salathiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12, Luke 3:27, using the Old Testament spelling). Why, then, do the lists diverge again before Salathiel? Matthew gives the father of Salathiel as Jehoiachin, but Luke lists Neri. Can they both be the father of the same person?

Only if they are both the father in a different sense. One would be the actual father, and the other the father-in-law, that is, the father of Salathiel’s mother. Jehoiachin is the actual father of Salathiel (the Old Testament genealogy says so), leaving Neri to be the father-in-law of Salathiel. But why did Luke list the father-in-law Neri in this case, rather than the true father Jehoiachin?

By making this choice Luke elucidated a parallel between Zerubbabel and Jesus. On the left  are the names in these two parts of the genealogies (using the more familiar Old Testament spellings). Both evanglists list Joseph, whom we know to be the legal guardian of ­Jesus but not the biological father. Matthew then gives Matthan, the father of Joseph, whereas Luke gives Heli, the father of Mary, accounting for the divergence at this point.

The lists come back into synch with Zerubbabel, who was a forefather equally of both ­Joseph and Mary through different sons. This is not something manipulated by Luke, but guided by providence. It is remarkable that Zerubbabel, in whom the two branches of genealogy come together, was himself a type of the coming Christ who is the focus of the genealogy (Zechariah 4:6-10).

In this list Salathiel, the “father” of Zerubbabel, is in parallel with Joseph, the “father” of Jesus. In fact Salathiel was not the biological father of Zerubbabel, just as Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. We learn from 1 Chronicles 3:19 that the father of Zerubbabel was Pedaiah, who was the brother of Salathiel (1 Chronicles 3:17,18). Evidently Salathiel died early, and Pedaiah his brother raised up a child for his brother according to the Levirate Law.

Back one generation, Matthew lists Jehoia­chin as the father of Salathiel, whereas Luke lists Neri. The actual father of Salathiel (and Pedaiah) was indeed King Jehoiachin. Evidently Luke has deliberately chosen to continue the parallel he observed, Neri being the father of Salathiel’s mother, just as Heli was the father of Jesus’ mother.

Solomon and Nathan

It is sometimes supposed that since Matthew takes us back to David through Solomon, and Luke takes us back to David through Nathan —two different sons of King David—that Joseph was descended from Solomon, but Mary from Nathan. In fact this is a misunderstanding of the genealogy. Both Joseph and Mary are equally descended from Zerubbabel, and thus equally descended from both Solomon and Nathan—Solomon through Salathiel’s father, and Nathan through Salathiel’s mother.

The Son of David

At last the promised son of David, the promised seed of Abraham, the promised seed of the woman Eve, did appear, and as the prophet Micah predicted long ago, he came from Bethlehem. “Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).

The name Bethlehem means “house of bread,” a fitting birthplace for the redeemer of the world, the “bread of God” who was represented in the “bread from heaven” in the wilderness. “The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world” (John 6:33).

And, wonder of wonders, we have the privilege of joining with him in his heritage, “joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17). The reader may recall in the article on “The Revolt of Absalom” the mention of Chimham, the younger associate of Barzillai. Chimham went to Jerusalem to be nourished at the table of King ­David, representing our privilege of sitting at the table of spiritual blessings with our King ­Jesus. A later reference says the “habitation of Chimham … is by Bethlehem” (Jeremiah 41:17), representing our inheritance at the side of our Lord ­Jesus from Bethlehem. This is the great honor of the faithful.