Would you explain Matthew 8:11-12?

Sincerely,
Bookworm

Dear Bookworm,

Jesus is explaining to the Jewish nation that most of them will not become a part of the church.  The kingdom of heaven is the church (read “A Kingdom For All Nations” for specific verses on that subject).  Jesus is telling the Jews that many people from all over the world (those from the “east and the west” – Mat 8:11) will join the church, but the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (i.e. the Jews) would refuse.  The Jewish nation was the “sons of the kingdom” (Matt 8:12) because they were of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Unfortunately, most of the Jews didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ (Mk 8:31, Acts 18:5-6).

Why did Jesus go into the desert for 40 days where He had to be thirsty, hungry, and face the elements of heat, cold, and discomfort - maybe even come close to dying of dehydration and starvation - JUST so he could prepare to die a horrible death.  Could he have prepared for death in a less uncomfortable way?

Sincerely,
Seriously Sympathetic

Dear Seriously Sympathetic,

Those 40 days were Jesus’ first major test. Jesus had to do more than just go to the cross; He had to live a life free of sin as well (1 Pet 1:19). Christ had to live a perfect, sinless life while still enduring all the temptations that every other human experiences (Heb 2:17-18).

After Jesus was baptized and before He started preaching, He was led into the wilderness for forty days. The purpose of those forty days was for the devil to tempt Christ (Matt 4:2), plain and simple. In a weakened physical, emotional, and mental state (Lk 4:2), the devil threw his best and cleverest arguments at the Son of God.Jesus repelled them all (Matt 4:10). After that initial temptation, Jesus was left alone by the devil for a period of time (Lk 4:13). Jesus’ character is shown not only in how He died… but in how He lived like no other man.

(This question is a follow-up to “Forked Family Tree”)

I thought that was probably it because I knew that both Joseph and Mary were of the bloodline of David.  I guess my next question would be: could Joseph being listed at the end of both lineages (and I realize this is probably mostly inference) have to do with the culture/language of the time?  Thanks!

Sincerely,
Tree Tracker

Dear Tree Tracker,

You hit the nail right on the head – Joseph’s name being at the end of both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies is a cultural issue.  Every Jewish genealogy (both mom’s and dad’s) is tracked through the males in the family.  Regardless of how today’s cultural might view that tradition, that is how it was done.  Joseph is listed at the end of both because he is the final male in the family tree… before Jesus, that is.

I was wondering why the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not completely the same.  Its been explained to me before but I have forgotten.  Thanks!

Sincerely,
Tree Tracker

Dear Tree Tracker,

They are different because they follow the bloodline of different parents.  Matthew starts the genealogy at Abraham, and Luke starts the genealogy all the way back at Adam.  The genealogies really begin to differ once you hit the generation after David.  Matthew traces the history from David’s son Solomon (Matt 1:6), while Luke follows David’s son Nathan (Lk 3:31).

The most likely explanation for this is that each book is tracing a different side of Jesus’ family tree.  Matthew is tracing the legal family tree through Jesus’ foster father, Joseph.  Luke is tracing the maternal side through Jesus’ mother, Mary.  We often forget, but Jesus (like all humans) has two lineages – his mother’s and his father’s.  Both Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David… just slightly different sections of that bloodline.

People seem to think that Jesus was a poor man who had very little.  Most of it stems from His verse about the rich man, camel, and the eye of a needle (Matt 19:24).  The wise men bestowed baby Jesus with great gifts.  After He died for our sins, the Romans cast lots for His robe.  Did the Romans like wearing rags, or did Jesus have some nice things?  I argue this with atheists who have contempt for rich christians.  They think all christians should be penniless.  I myself am jobless, yet I have been given an opportunity for further education.  It is hand-to-mouth, but I am happy and content.  Do you think the government should take people’s money and redistribute it, or is it man's free will?  My question is: was Jesus poor?

Sincerely,
Savings & Trust

Dear Savings & Trust,

We will tactfully sidestep your political question and leave that for a website dedicated to such matters, but we can comfortably answer your question regarding Jesus’ economic state.  Jesus was poor.  When Jesus preached, He was supported by benevolent women (Lk 8:1-3).  Jesus was the child of poor parents.  When the baby Jesus was presented at the temple, His parents made a sacrifice of two turtledoves (Lk 2:22-24).  Turtledoves were only allowed to be used as an offering if the parents were impoverished (Lev 12:5-8).

However, just because Jesus was poor doesn’t mean that He didn’t have a few nice things… like the robe you mentioned (Jhn 19:23-24).  It also doesn’t mean that Jesus requires all faithful people to be poor.  Solomon was faithful, and he was very wealthy (2 Chr 1:11-12).  It isn’t money that is sinful; it is the love of money (also known as greed) that is evil (1 Tim 6:10).  As you mentioned, contentment is the key (Heb 13:5)… as well as a willingness to give of what you have (2 Cor 8:12, 2 Cor 9:7).