The Genealogy of Jesus

 Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus

The Book of Kells

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (The Apostle Matthew 1:1-17)

Luke's Genealogy of Jesus

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke the Evangelist, 3:24-38)

The Family Tree of Jesus of Nazareth

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, ...

The Evangelist Luke give us the genealogy of Christ from Mary through David to God. Luke opens his genealogy by writing: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” Actually, Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, since Heli was the father of Mary. The difference between Luke’s genealogy and that of Matthew (Mt 1:1-17) is clearly set forth here; Matthew has Jacob as the father of Joseph (Matthew 1:16). Matthew’s list follows the Davidic covenant (Psalms 132:11-17; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12) through David’s son Solomon down to Joseph. In that Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, he inherited all rights as a legal firstborn. He, therefore, had a legal claim to the throne of Israel through his father Joseph by adoption. Luke, on the other hand, stresses the genealogy of Christ through Mary, back to David through David’s son Nathan (verse 31). While Matthew shows Jesus to be the son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1), thus the national Messiah and king of Israel, Luke does not stop his record at Abraham but continues on to Adam and ultimately to God (verse 38). Luke’s clear intent is to show Jesus to be the Son of God and the universal Savior. All of the Gospels speak of the universality of Christ’s mission, but Luke makes it his main theme.

The Christology of Luke’s Genealogy

Jesus says of himself, “I am the root and the offspring of David” (Revelation 22:16). The imagery is that of a (family) tree, of which Jesus declares himself to be both the root and offspring (or branch). The dual nature of Christ is portrayed in this imagery and demonstrated in Luke’s genealogy: This is true in that the root of David’s family tree is shown to be God (v38) and the offspring (branch) is shown to be Jesus (verse 23). Thus, by Jesus’s self identification of being both the root and offspring of David’s genealogy, Jesus is declaring Himself to be both the son of David (i.e. man) and David’s God.

Challenges of the Genealogy

First, neither Matthew’s nor Luke’s list of generations is complete. At times one is said to be the son (or father) of another when they may be several generations removed. Secondly, many persons had more than one name which may appear in one list by one name and in another list by yet another. Thirdly, one may be said to be a son, or father, of another when they would not be so by blood but by law. Fourthly, the greatest challenge presented by the two genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38) is the appearance of the same two names, Salathiel and Zorobabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27) in both list at a juncture that seems impossible. Finally, the fifth challenge (not found in the New Testament lists, but are extant in Old Testament listing) is that Zorobabel is said to be the son Salathiel (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Ne 12:1; Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23; *Matthew 1:12; *Luke 3:27), but also the son of Pedaiah (1 Chr 3:19).

The reader will see that the five challenges listed above will be sorted out in the revelations that come to us through these genealogies.

Revelations Within the Genealogies of Christ

Matthew divides his list from Abraham to Christ into three sets of 14 generations a piece (Matthew 1:17). For the Apostle to do this he had to skip over some generations to keep his number to a very neat and purposeful fourteen. (So when Matthew says that so-and-so begat so-and-so, it may have been a grandson or a great grandson in view). I say purposeful because Matthew’s theme is to introduce Jesus as the King of Israel - the son of David. The number fourteen is the number of David’s name in the science of gematria. Gematria turns names into numbers and numbers into names. The Hebrew had no separate set of symbols to represent numbers, but used their alphabet. The name David, in Hebrew, is spelled דוד: transliteration: dvd. The three letters have a numerical value of 14: D (4) + V (6) + D (4) = 14. So in manifesting Jesus as the son of David, Matthew uses the devise of gematria to covertly establish the theme for his book. In that he has 3 sets of 14 would not be lost on his readers (he wrote for and to the Jews) for they would see in the number 3 a confirmation that the number 14 was very intentional since 3 is the biblical number of confirmation. For Matthew to achieve his last set of fourteen generations he included Mary thus showing the validity of genealogical descent of covenant prerogatives through a woman (see Genesis 3:15). Mary was the daughter-in-law of Joseph’s father, Jacob, ergo, Jacob's daughter by law. One should remember this, in that we are far from finished with the “female factor.  From vv2-6 Matthew takes the reader from Abraham to king David. Here we see the Abrahamic covenant manifested. In vv6-11 the reader is taken from David’s son Solomon to Jechonias (Jechoniah). In these passages the Davidic covenant is in view. Finally in vv12-16 Matthew introduces the generations from Salathiel to Jesus, and in doing so the new covenant is proclaimed.

Covenant prerogatives had to be transferred from Solomon’s lineage to Nathan’s because God rejected Jechonias (also called: Jechoniah, Jehoiachin, and Coniah) and his descendants from the Davidic covenant (see Jeremiah 22:24-30 also see Zach 12:12). This necessary transfer was accomplished by the migration of a woman from Nathan’s lineage to that of Solomon’s; most likely the wife of Salathiel (also called: Shealtiel). This particular female would be a descendent of Neri: (Lk 3:27) thus making Salathiel the son-in-law of Neri. The precedent for this type of listing is established in Luke 3:23 where Joseph is said to be the son of Heli: when in truth he was the son-in-law by his marriage to Mary. Therefore, Zorobabel would be the grandson of Neri on his mother’s side. Through this process Zorobabel, who is of great importance to the Davidic covenant (he is identified with the Messiah; Haggai 2:23 cf Jeremiah 22:24 and especially Zechariah 3:8 where he is called “The Branch”; also see the prophets Haggai [Hag 2:21-22] and Zechariah [Zech 4:6-7]) would be considered the descendant of David through Nathan. Thus, God maintains the curse on Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:24–28) while fulfilling his promise to David that his seed would occupy the throne forever (Ps 132:11-17). (It is an interesting side note that both Solomon and Nathan were sons of Bathsheba - 1 Chr 3:5.)

There is another move away from the male bloodline of Jechoniah after Zorobabel which most likely took place with Zorobabel’s daughter, Shelomith (1Chr 3:19). Here she holds the place in the genealogy of her family; which would never be the case (certainly not normative) unless her name was necessary to maintain the family line. This “Female Factor” would be in harmony with the theme of gynecological redemption being provided through the “seed” of the woman (see Genesis 3:15) and, which would shed light on why, to this very day, the Jewish religion recognizes ONLY the offspring of a Jewish woman as the heir to Jewish prerogatives. This is to say, one must have a Jewish mother to be a Jew. Ergo: an offspring of a Jewish man and a Gentile woman would not be a Jew, but the offspring of the gentile man and a Jewish woman would be a Jew. This is seen in Acts 16:3 where Paul had Timothy circumcised. Timothy was the son of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother.

Zorobabel (Luke 3:27) was born in Babylon, but returned to Jerusalem as governor (Zachariah 2:2); all accounts but one list him as the son of Shealtiel (the New Testament - Salathiel). The one challenge to this is found in 1 Chr 3:19, where he is said to be the son of one Pedaiah. Now we know that Pedaiah was the brother of Salathiel (vv17&18). It is thought by most that Salathiel died before siring any children to continue his name, in which case his brother enter into a levirate (brother-in-law) marriage ( Deut 25:5; Ruth 2:20) with his widow and sired Zorobabel in behalf of his dead brother Salathiel. This is the only scenario that would allow both brothers, Salathiel and Pedaiah to be listed as the father of Zorobabel.

Conclusion

In this way, the Lord God renewed the covenant promises to Zorobabel that he had withdrawn from his grandfather Jechoniah (Jeremiah 22:24-30). See Jeremiah 23:5-6; Zechariah 3:8; Haggai 2:7-9; 2:20-23 compared to Jeremiah 22:24 with Haggai 2:23. Zorobabel is called “The Branch” (Jeremiah 23:5-6 cf Zachariah 3:8); the “Signet Ring” (Seal) (Haggai 2:23); along with the High Priest, Joshua, he is called the “Anointed” which would be “Christ” in Greek. Thus, Zorobabel is the renewed type of the Messiah. Yahweh had maintained His curse on the blood line of Jechoniah and remained faithful to His covenant with David.

Apostolically Speaking

Bp. Jerry L Hayes, D.D.

Read Other Articles by Bishop Jerry

• The Literary Form of the Book of Revelation
  This article reveals the literary form of the book of Revelation. Such information goes a long way in helping the Bible student grasp the knowledge offered by this great book.
• The General Epistle of James, An Introduction
  This writing seeks to place into the hands of Bible students an easy to understand introduction to the book of James. Luther called this blessed Epistle an epistle of straw. Luther was wrong.
• The Gospel According to John, An Introduction
  This writing offers an introduction to the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel According to John. This book of the Bible is a Gospel Apart. It is "the other" Gospel. We discover what makes it different.
• Biblical Water Baptism (Infant Baptism and Baptism for the Dead), Episode VIII
  Here, in the concluding episode we discuss infant water baptism, baptism for the dead, and the types and shadows of water baptism from the Old Testament.
• How Is God One?
  Christians profess monotheism. But is it true. In this article "How Is God One" Bishop Jerry Hayes reviews the meaning of One God by looking at the NT Grk words translated "one."

Jesus Came Water Baptizing

 

    “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”; was the question the Pharisees asked John the Baptist. The Pharisees, who where priests and Levites, were sent from the temple officials to interrogate the Baptist as to his identity. (Jn 1:19-25).

From the questions being asked the Baptist, it seems that the temple scholars were of the opinion that when Messiah came he would come baptizing. 

Why were they of this notion?

It is most likely that they were referencing the opening of the vision of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 1:1-31). Isaiah begins his prophecy by presenting Judah and Jerusalem as a people that had forgotten their Master, a  sinful nation, “A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the Lord, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward”. As a result, Yahweh was judging them; but, in His mercy, He had left them a remnant that gave promise of a future. But in the meantime, Yahweh rejects the worship of the temple apparatus, altogether. In lieu of the animal sacrifices, holy days and oblations they were to undergo a washing. We read, as did the Jewish scholars of Jesus’ day, the prophet’s words: “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes”. Here, Yahweh, through the prophet Isaiah, calls for a national purification by water: a national water baptism. As a result of this national baptism, Zion shall be reborn.

(There were, at least, some in the early period of the Church that saw this passage from the prophet Isaiah as indicating water baptism. E.g., Justin Martyr, in his first apology (AD 155-157) cites Isaiah 1:16 in support of Christian water baptism (Justin Martyr, First Apology Chapter 61, while he does not reference Matthew 28:19 at all.)

The officers of the temple, that came to question the Baptist, were correct in their notion that when Messiah (the Christ) came He would come water baptizing. They had the right calling card, so to speak, but instead of the Messiah, they were dialoguing with His forerunner. 

The Messiah Came Water Baptizing, As The Temple Expected.

I am speaking, here, as a Pentecostal believer: Why have we not heard more of the water baptizing ministry of Jesus Christ? As I write this essay I am in the autumn of my life (73 years old), my earliest memories are of church, preaching, and Bible studies. I do not recall, ever, a sermon, teaching, or even a discussion on the fact that Jesus carried out a water baptizing ministry throughout His 3 1/2 years of earthly ministry. One cannot help but wonder why this was/is true. Although it is only recorded in the Forth Gospel, by the Evangelist John, it is very pronounced; so much so that none can deny it. 

St John 3:22-26,  

After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized. 23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. 24 For John had not yet been thrown into prison.

25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!”

John 4:-1-3, 

Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), 3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

John the Evangelist informs his readers that Jesus was baptizing at the same time the Baptist was baptizing: before the Baptist was thrown into prison. What is more, Jesus was baptizing more disciples than was John the Baptist (Jn 4:1-2). (The Evangelist did not dispute the report given to the Pharisees concerning the number of disciples Jesus was baptizing — so there is no need for us to doubt its validity.) The Baptist, himself, affirms that this was the proper course of events: "He must increase and I must decrease". The baptizing, under discussion here, took place in the earliest part of Christ’s earthly ministry. This early Judean ministry of Jesus is not recorded by the synoptic gospels, which is the reason the synoptic gospels have no record of Jesus baptizing. The chronology of the synoptic gospels are important here, because they inform us that John was put in prison shortly after Jesus was baptized. Therefore, since the Scripture informs us that both Jesus and John were baptizing at the same time, it is evident that Jesus began baptizing His followers right out of the gate, so to speak.

The temple officials were no fools, they knew that the coming of the Messiah would mean trouble for them (as is delineated in the first chapter of the prophet Isaiah.) They, also, knew that the Messiah would come baptizing. We read that Jesus took His disciples and left Judea for Galilee upon learning that the Pharisees had received the report that He was baptizing more disciples than John the Baptist. The baptist had been arrested and the same danger was very real for Christ, for He was in truth the ONE the Pharisees thought John might have been. So, He removed Himself from that imminent possibility (Jn 4:1-3). He got out of Dodge, for His time was not yet come to be killed.

Though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.

The Evangelist John had already informed his readers that Jesus was baptizing (John 3:22), however, in chapter 4, (v2) he adds an editorial to his former statement: i.e., that it was not actually Jesus doing the baptizing, but it was His disciples. we are to understand the twelve, and perhaps the seventy (Luke 10:1-24). We are not to take from this that Jesus did not esteem water baptism as unimportant, for He did require it for one’s salvation (Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; …”.) 

Just as a pastor in a large church would delegate the chore of baptizing to under ministers, so did Jesus delegate baptizing to His disciples.  (Since it was His disciples that were doing the actual baptizing in this instance, it is save to assume that they had been, personally, baptized by Christ, Himself.) 

Robertson on John 4:2, “(καιτοιγε Ιησους αυτος ουκ εβαπτιζεν αλλ' ο μαθητα αυτου). Parenthetical explanation that applies also to 3:22. Imperfect tense  (εβαπτιζεν) means that it was not the habit of Jesus (to baptize). This is the only NT instance of καιτοιγε (and yet indeed), compound conjunction (καιτο in Ac 14:17; Heb 4:3 ) with intensive particle γε added”.  

Vincent on John 4:2, “The imperfect tense: it was not His practice to baptize”. 

According to Robertson and Vincent, the Grk verb ebaptizen is imperfect tense and means that it was not the “practice” of Jesus to baptize. This does not exclude Jesus personally baptizing His first disciples (the twelve), and they, then, continuing to baptize on His behalf. 

Other respected English versions:

New International Version

although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

English Standard Version

(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

King James Version

(though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),

NASB 1995

(Though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples,)

Christian Standard Bible

(though Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were),

Holman Christian Standard Bible

(though Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

American Standard Version

(although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples),

What we see here is the delegation, by Christ, of the work of the ministry to under-shepherds. Much the same way the pastor of a large congregation would delegate baptisms to ministers of lesser rank. This mode of operation, on Jesus’ part, is further manifested in the feeding of the multitude with the loaves and fish (Matthew 14:13-20//Luke 9:13-17//Mark 6:30-43//John 6:1-14.). E.g., Jesus blessed and broke the bread and fish and assigned the distribution of the elements to the disciples; in the act of baptism He does the same. The baptism is Jesus’, He authorized and sanctified it, then, assigns the performance of it to the disciples. (We are not told by the Evangelist whether or not the seventy were included in the number of disciples that were doing the baptizing, but nothing excludes that probability.)

Since it was reported to the Pharisees that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than did John the Baptist (there is no reason to doubt the report, and every reason to believe it was true), we can only objectively assume that the number of followers that Jesus baptized was great. 

It seems clear enough from holy Scripture that the disciples of Jesus water baptized at His behest, and in His behalf: thus, in His authority. The Evangelist John does not refute that Jesus’ ministry was baptizing more disciples than the Baptist, only that it was not Jesus, Himself, doing the baptizing in this instance. This begs at least two questions:  1). How was water baptism into Christ valid before His death, burial, and resurrection, for which it is a sign (See on Rom 6:1-4.)? And  2). Since the number of people water baptized by Jesus, through His disciples, was, no doubt, great, how do we know that the thief on the cross, who believed on Jesus, was not baptized?

The Efficacy of Jesus' Water Baptism: 

Response to question #1: How was water baptism into Christ valid before His death, burial, and resurrection, for which it is a sign? Subset to that question, and the actual point, is: If the blood of Christ is applied at water baptism, which is everywhere attested to throughout Scripture ( Matthew 26:28; Acts 22:16; Ephesian 5:25-26 [washed by the Rhema = living voice]; Revelation 1:5.), how was it applied before it was shed? The answer is: the power of the living Testator.

It is true that a testament is of no effect until the death of the testator (Hebrews 9:16, For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.); however, Christ had been crucified since before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). All creation had been predicated upon that singular death. Though Jesus had come to die, the deed had already been accomplished in the mind and purpose of God. Men establish memorials to events after the event takes place in time, only God can establish a memorial to an event before that event exists in time and space. Why? Because He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:19) and calls those things that are not as though they are (Romans 4:17). So, Jesus, being God, establishes the memorial of water baptism to picture His death, burial, and resurrection before His death, burial, and resurrection are materialized in the realm of time and space. The physical world, after all, is only a reflection of what is real in the spirit realm. 

As to the subset: If the blood of Christ is applied at water baptism, which the holy Scripture clearly teaches, how was it applied before it was shed? The answer is: Much the same way Christ could offer His body before it had been broken, and His blood, before it had been shed, to the disciples at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19-20). The estate of the Son of God was His body and blood. It was of heavenly origin and was to be given for the salvation of a fallen creation. After the death of the Testator in time and space, the administration of the estate would be given over to executors, in the form of duly ordained ministers; however, during the earthly life of the Testator, His estate is His to dispense as He wills. So, then, He could give His body, even before it was broken; and He could give His blood, even before it was shed. As the blood was, indeed, given at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, so, too, was it applied to repentant sinners at their water baptism at the hands of the disciples, before it was shed on the cross. I say, “At the hands of the disciples”, but it was actually Christ who was baptizing through the disciples. It was Christ Who was administrating His living estate in person.

Was The Thief On The Cross Water Baptized?

Response to question #2: Since the number of people water baptized by Jesus, through His disciples, was, no doubt, great, how do we know that the thief on the cross, who believed on Jesus, was not water baptized? Why is this an important question? 

This question is important because those within Christianity who hold to salvation by ‘faith alone’ often cite the narrative of ‘thief on the cross’ (Matthew27:38//Luke 23:39-43) as evidence that one does not need water baptism to be saved. While water baptism would not have been a requirement for the thief, in that he died under the old covenant and was saved the same way all saints of the Old Testament time period were saved, it remains important to show how the assertion, that the thief was not baptized, is only an assumption, and a poor assumption at that.

Scripture relates the conversation between the three men on the three crosses: the first thief mockingly speaks, “If thou be Christ save thyself, and us”; the second thief speaks, “Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? We indeed justly; … but this man hath done nothing amiss. Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom”; Jesus speaks, “To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39-34, KJV). The evidence provided by holy Scripture concerning the second thief gives every indication that he was intimately knowledgeable of Christ before the event of their crucifixion. First, was his statement: “but this man hath done nothing amiss”. How did he know that, if he had not known of Jesus and the circumstances that had brought Him to the cross? The second thief was sure of his personal guilt, and was equally sure of Jesus’ innocence. He could have only had this knowledge from prior association. He knew Jesus! Secondly, the second thief demonstrates complete understanding of just how Jesus was King, and the spiritual nature of His kingdom, in his request: “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom”. The second thief understood that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world. Where did he get that information? He knew Jesus! The knowledge the second thief manifested of Christ gives every indication that he was a follower of Christ already, and had, therefore, in all likelihood been baptized into the “kingdom” of which he knew so much.

Kingdom Dimensions to the Baptizing Ministry of Christ.

There is a marked, and definite, Kingdom dimension to the baptizing ministry of Christ. Especially, in that water baptism is the symbol of new birth. Isaiah had already given the call for a national purification by water (See Isaiah 1:16.), Jesus followed up with his admonition unto Nicodemus that all Israel (See the word “Ye” in the KJV: plural ‘you all’ [St John 3:7].) must be born again of the water and of the Spirit (See St John 3:3–8.).

With the coming of the Messiah (the Christ), Israel was to be born again: this is make clear by Jesus’ use of the plural “you” to Nicodemus. This new birth would be signaled by a national water baptism (See Isaiah 1:16.). It was for this reason that the temple scholars asked John the all searching question: “If you are not Christ …, why do you baptize”? This question was asked because the Messiah would bring a reset to Israel: the scholars knew this. But, “Were they prepared for it?” is the question.  As it proved out – they were not. 

Christ lamented Israel’s unreceptive-ness to Him as their Messiah: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt 23:37, KJV)

However, there was a remnant that did receive Him (Romans 11:5). With this remnant the King established His kingdom (Matthew 4:17,).

The establishing of the messianic kingdom took the form of the rebirth of physical Israel into a spiritual kingdom. Jesus spoke of this as “the regeneration” (Matthew 19:27-28); Regeneration means: Rebirth. Peter approached Christ with an inquiry: “We (the disciples) have left all to follow you, what shall we have?” Jesus' response is apropos to our subject: ‘You who have followed me in the regeneration will be seated upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel’.

The regeneration, of which Christ spoke (St’s #G3824, palingenesia, means: New Birth), resulted in the rebirth of Israel from a physical to a spiritual nation. The symbol and seal of this regeneration was water baptism. To this end the New Testament teaches clearly of the baptism of regeneration. For instance in Titus 3:5 we read: “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit”. It is important to note that Titus 3:15 is the only other place (apart from Matthew 19:27-28) where the word “regeneration” (Grk: palingenesia) is used in the New Testament. Furthermore, it was this baptismal regeneration of which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, in John 3:3-5. 

Some would be of the thought the the “regeneration” referenced by Jesus in Matthew 19:27-28 has the new earth and new heaven of Revelation 21:1 in view. And, indeed, the manner in which the commas are placed in the text of Mathew 19:27-28 could lead one to think that to be the case. However, one should take note that there were no such punctuations in the original autograph. Here, I will give three scholarly sources for the understanding that the regeneration is the church age:

1. Pulpit Commentary: In the regeneration (τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ). The word means “new birth,” or “renovation, renewal.” It occurs in Titus 3:15 in reference to baptism, “through the washing [laver] of regeneration.” It has been variously interpreted in the present passage. Some have connected it with the participle preceding, "ye who have followed me in the regeneration," and explained it to mean the reformation and spiritual renovation commencing with the preaching of John the Baptist, and carried on by the ministry of Christ. But more generally … it is taken with what follows, Ye shall sit, etc. The meaning, however, is still disputed. Some say that the Christian dispensation is intended, and an intimation is given of the work of the apostles in the unseen world in directing and guarding the Church.
2. Meyer’s NT Commentary: ἐν τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ] in the regeneration, does not belong to ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι (Hilary, explaining the words by baptismal regeneration (Titus 3:5); also Calvin, who understands by παλιγγενεσία the renovation of the world begun in Christ’s earthly ministry), for the disciples could only have conceived of the renovation of the world as something that was to take place contemporaneously with the actual setting up of the kingdom; the ἀποκατάστασις (apokatastaseōs, restoration, St’s #G605) Acts 3:21, does not represent quite the same idea as the one at present in question.
3. Calvin’s Commentaries (On Matthew 19:28.): In the regeneration. Some connect this term with the following clause. In this sense, regeneration would be nothing else than the renovation which shall follow our restoration, when life shall swallow up what is mortal, and when our mean body shall be transformed into the heavenly glory of Christ. But I rather explain regeneration as referring to the first coming of Christ; for then the world began to be renewed, and arose out of the darkness of death into the light of life. And this way of speaking occurs frequently in the Prophets, and is exceedingly adapted to the connection of this passage. For the renovation of the Church, which had been so frequently promised, had raised an expectation of wonderful happiness, as soon as the Messiah should appear; and therefore, in order to guard against that error, Christ distinguishes between the beginning and the completion of his reign.

   From the above references it is clear that what we are presenting is not an innovation to church doctrine, but is, indeed, a respected view.

Jesus' mission was to lead the Jews out of the types and shadows of temple worship into the full glory of the Kingdom of God; this new kingdom would be for all people – not just the Jews. This longed for messianic kingdom arrived with the messianic king: Christ Jesus! 

Even if many (who lack understanding) are expecting the Davidic (Messianic) kingdom to come in the future, holy Scripture is clear that it arrived with the coming of the Son of David: namely, Jesus Christ. This was the understanding of James, the Lord’s brother, and, indeed, all the holy apostles and the elders at Jerusalem. We understand this because: In the book of Acts, chapter 15, James, with the complete counsel, recognized the Church as the House of David restored, thus, identifying the Church as the “restoration” of which Christ spoke (Matthew 19:27-28), and into which disciples are water baptized (Titus 3:5). 

Jesus totally assumed the identity of the King of Israel: He came baptizing, just as the temple scholars thought the Messiah would do; He introduced His Kingdom Manifesto in the form of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7); furthermore, He established His government in the form of the 12 apostles and 70 other disciples (See Luke 10:1-16.): This governmental structure mirrored the 12 tribes and 70 elders of Israel (See Numbers 11:16.). 

Conclusion:

In this epistle we have not addressed the function of Jesus as the baptizer of the Holy Spirit. This was not our purpose. Our purpose was to highlight His water baptizing ministry and its function. Hopefully, we have taken a small step in shutting the mouth of those who would minimize the importance of water baptism in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Amen

Apostolically Speaking,

Bp. Jerry L Hayes, D.D.