- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I recently had the joy of God using me to bring a lost soul from India to salvation. Upon his request I sent him a bible, in which he claimed it was the greatest gift he ever recieved.
Like everyone who reads the bible this person had a question to ask me. I`m not exactly sure how to answer the question, nor am I sure what the answer is. I am hoping someone here will be able to help me.
The question is: In Matthew 1:1-16 Jesus does not belong to Joseph, just Mary. And Mary is not from the line of David (or is she), so how can Jesus be from the line of David?
I will check back for any responses. However, if someone would like to e-mail me an answer, that is fine as well. My e-mail address is: [email protected]
Thank you everyone for your time.
Mary is from a branch line of David, the descendent of a bastard child. According to Biblical law, a bastard’s descendents may not ascend the throne or hold office of any sort for ten generations. Mary is not a direct-line descendent of David, but is still of the family. Joseph is a direct-line descendent, but God revoked the kingship of David’s line (which is why Joseph wasn’t on the throne.) So Jesus was legally and by blood, David’s heir. That is how I understand it.
thankyou very much 🙂
In the first chaper of matthew there is the genealogy of Mary. This is very easy to get except for verse Matt 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (greek: andra, aramai: gavra) of Mary…" there is confusion here because of the way andra was translated here. it should have been father. There are two Josephs, one whose father is Heli (luke 3:23) …he is the husband of mary and the other joseph whose father was Jacob…the father of Joseph(the father of mary).
Hope this helps…bless you!
Quote Quote: from sunnyb on 8:25 am on Sep. 3, 2002
In the first chaper of matthew there is the genealogy of Mary. This is very easy to get except for verse Matt 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (greek: andra, aramai: gavra) of Mary…" there is confusion here because of the way andra was translated here. it should have been father. There are two Josephs, one whose father is Heli (luke 3:23) …he is the husband of mary and the other joseph whose father was Jacob…the father of Joseph(the father of mary).Hope this helps…bless you!
This is a common misconception. There is nothing to suggest that either of the geneologies given in Mathew or Luke are supposed to be of Mary’s line and no unbiased biblical scholar gives this notion any credence.
You have to admit that it would be very odd if every single version of the bible, all translated from the orginal Greek made the same error in translation.
hey,
THe reason that it is talking of mary’s bloodline has to do with the conception of Christ. Joseph did not have a part in it, and wasnt even married to Mary until after the conception. Who was the bible talking about when it said "of whom was born Jesus"? –Mary, not joseph.
yes it is weird that the translations all get this mistranslated but that is not really all that surpising, being such a male dominate society as when the bible was translated.
sunnybQuote Quote: from Maybeyou on 12:37 am on May 28, 2002
I recently had the joy of God using me to bring a lost soul from India to salvation. Upon his request I sent him a bible, in which he claimed it was the greatest gift he ever recieved.Like everyone who reads the bible this person had a question to ask me. I`m not exactly sure how to answer the question, nor am I sure what the answer is. I am hoping someone here will be able to help me.
The question is: In Matthew 1:1-16 Jesus does not belong to Joseph, just Mary. And Mary is not from the line of David (or is she), so how can Jesus be from the line of David?
I will check back for any responses. However, if someone would like to e-mail me an answer, that is fine as well. My e-mail address is: [email protected]
Thank you everyone for your time.
The answer is simple. Under the Law, one can only marry a person belonging to his own lineage. To marry Joseph, Mary and Joseph must belong to the same house/line.
Thought I would bring this discussion to the front as we are currently talking about this in another discussion. There might be something here that helps.
Jesus scripturally, must be of the seed of David; from bible prophecy the Messiah must come FROM THE SEED OF DAVID or he is not the promised Messiah.
However, Jesus was not physically, biologically, a descendant of Joseph.
He was however, physically, biologically, a descendant of Mary which corresponded to him being physically, biologically, a descendant of David i.e. OF THE SEED OF DAVIDThat is, scripturally, he was of the SEED of David via his mother alone.
GOD caused the conception of Jesus. The GOD who made the first Adam of the dust of the earth, is the same GOD who made the Last Adam [of the ovum] of a woman [Gal 4.4]; miraculously making a male human altho' a woman solely has the X chromosome.
Jesus, is legally the son of Joseph as both genealogies show, giving him right to the throne of David.
Jesus, is biologically, according to the flesh the son of David through Mary in fulfillment of 2 Sam 7.12, 1 Chr 17.11, Psa 132.11, Acts 2.30, 13.23, Luke 1.69, Rom 1.3, Psa 89.29,35-37, John 7.42 + all the other verses you quoted.Lastly, here are some websites that go into some detail about Christ's genealogies. …
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Nov. 17 2004,15:09)
For example, to say that Yeshua is the physical descendant of Mary alone, (as T8 has quoted from Adam Pastor), requires that we prove that Mary is indeed of the seed of David. (Luke 1:5,36 seem to suggest otherwise.) It ALSO requires proof that a genealogy can be legally traced through the mother alone. (Deuteronomy 25:5-6 seem to suggest otherwise.)Shouldn't a clear prophecy of God have a clear fulfillment in the Messiah?
Adam Pastor,
Any further thoughts from you, or are you content with your original answer?
Greetings Whatistrue …
I am content with my original answer.
Years ago, I used the standard line that one genealogy was Mary's whilst the other was Joseph's. I also assumed that Joseph was biologically, a descendant of Coniah; hence his lineage was cursed, so Jesus couldn't have been his son, even if there was no virgin conception.
However, whilst researching the matter I came across an article in Smith's dictionary (I believe) which led me to read a book by Lord A. Hervey …
which caused me to have another look at the evidence.The main premise of these books were that
1) Jewish Genealogies are listed through men only, and that it is really supposition, that one or both genealogies in the Gospels are Mary's2) The Bible appears to speak of Joseph in a positive light when calling him, a Son of David, to the point, that it goes out of its way to point out that Joseph is of David's lineage;
e.g. (Mat 1:20) … the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
(Luke 1:27) To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
(Luke 2:4) And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)This would suggest that Joseph's actual lineage hadn't been accursed at all
3) That is, although Coniah/Jechoniah was truly cursed that none of his biological descendants could indeed sit upon the throne of David; the legitimate royal lineage was continued outside of the curse. Coniah was imprisoned for 30+ years. His contemporaries would be fully aware of the curse and the command of GOD.
[Jer 22.28-30] Therefore, another of the lineage of David, in this case, of the lineage of Nathan, namely Neri
[Luke 3:27-31, Zec 12:12]; would have raised up seed via Coniah's queen, which would have continued the royal line. The progeny, the royal seed, would have been considered the king's children altho' Coniah didn't literally father them. Hence, the people listed in both genealogies as descendants of Coniah are not necessarily biological descendants, but rather descendants via a levirate marriage.
As you know, levirate marriages are a scriptural and Jewish legal practice.
(Bear in mind, would anyone have assumed that Coniah would have ever been freed; surely at that time especially being in captivity, it was important that the royal lineage be preserved)4) Hence, Matthew whose Gospel's predominant aim, is to present Jesus as the King of the Jews, is showing the royal firstborn ancestorial line of Joseph through Zerubbabel through Coniah through Solomon to David; whilst Luke's Gospel, presenting Jesus as the ultimate 'Man'; is tracing Joseph's actual bloodline through Zerubbabel through Neri through Nathan to David;
5) Because it is proclaimed throughout the NT without hesitation, that Jesus is of the seed of David (e.g. Matt 1.1, 21.9, Mark 10.47, Rom 1.3, 2 Tim 2.8, etc); Bible readers are to assume that Mary must indeed be of this lineage, because of GOD's promises e.g Psa 132.11, 2 Sam 7:12-14, etc
Most probably, both Mary and Joseph, are of David's lineage via Nathan!6) Matthew and Luke who narrate Christ's virginal conception, therefore, are more interested in presenting the facts that Jesus truly has right to the throne of David.
7) Remembering that genealogical records were extant at the time of Christ's ministry; no one, not even his enemies protested to the fact that he was indeed of the seed of David. So, the records must have verified this.
___
The above premise, makes a lot more sense to me. It explains to me … Why Joseph is spoken of, positively. … why the fact he is of the lineage of David is mentioned … Why Matthew's genealogy lists Coniah altho' he was cursed.
Mary being a woman, would not have been listed in a Jewish genealogy; she is no exception. Indeed, she is the mother of Christ, no doubt about that. Nevertheless, there is no need to list her in a genealogy, because it was more important to show Christ's right to the throne through Joseph, Christ's legal father.
Like I said, the above makes a lot of sense to me.
Because it shows just how legal and Jewish, the Gospels' genealogies are, and why they are there in the first place.
And also, how wondrously GOD works to fulfill His promises.Incidentally, sometome back, I came across this fascinating genealogy:
If the facts concerning Neri(ah) & Tamar, can indeed be verified, that is:
Quote
21. JEHOIAKIN, called “The Captive” (“Assir”), also referred to as [Je]Coniah in scripture, reigned three months Year 598/597 BC (2 Ki 24:8; 2 Chr 36:9). 2 Ki 24:8 says he was 18 on his accession, … he is known to have been married with at least one child, Zedekiah, at the time of his succession (1 Chr 3:16). Too, some cuneiform tablets discovered at Babylon by archaeologists mention [Je]Coniah by name as well as his sons [“step-sons”], indicating that his sons [“step-sons”] were already born at the time he was taken captive, which points to his marriage to a widow with children. He married Tamar, his cousin, her second marriage, the daughter of the late crown-prince, Johanan, his uncle…
21. Neri[ah], who, by his wife, Tamar, daughter of the late crown-prince, Johanan, was the father of (22) Shealtiel, the step-son of his mother’s second husband, King [Je]Coniah, his acknowledged heir. Here, Tamar is a pivotal figure who transfers the title of the throne from the main-line [the Solomonic line], of which she was [technically] the heiress, to a secondary-line of the royal house, the Nathanite-line.
This would be a wonderful conclusion to the whole matter.
It should also convinced a lot of people who have rejected the virginal conception, of the integrity of this wondrous miracle as recorded by Matthew and Luke.Yours In Messiah,
AdamQuote Mary being a woman, would not have been listed in a Jewish genealogy; she is no exception. Indeed, she is the mother of Christ, no doubt about that. Nevertheless, there is no need to list her in a genealogy, because it was more important to show Christ's right to the throne through Joseph, Christ's legal father. Adam Pastor,
You have asserted several times now that Joseph is Yeshua's legal father, but you have yet to show me from Hebrew law how this could be so. As you well know, Levirate marriages apply in the case of a deceased husband. (See Deuteronomy 25:5-6.) Neither Joseph, nor God, was dead, so that law does not apply in this case. What Hebrew law are you referring to?
Look …
I have left you some links to look at & research … I suggest you do the homework. I did, and came to my conclusions.
Do your own homework
Hi,
I think it is fair to ask why God chose a virgin birth for Jesus. I expect it was very important to exclude any othe claims to paternity of Jesus.
We know the veil of the temple is representative of the flesh of Jesus. If you look up Exodus it is described as being made of 3 colours. Red for man, Blue for God and Purple for the religious interface between God and Man.
So to fulfill this prophetic view it was necessary for the flesh of Jesus to come from God and Man. Do you agree?Nick,
I always thought that Yeshua's body was a symbol for the entire temple. Where are you referencing that his flesh was symbolic of only the veil?
Adam Pastor,
I have read the links that you have posted, and I have done my homework. That's how I was able to come up with my questions. Given that you have already done your homework, I am asking you to help me resolve an issue that I do not fully grasp. I am simply asking for the Hebrew law that you are using to determine Joseph's legal fatherhood. Personally, I can not find it.
Hi Whatistrue,
Hebrew. 10.19f ” Since, therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way which he inaugurated through the veil, that is, his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the House of God let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in clean water”So the body is the veil but Jesus is the priest who goes through the veil and tears it [in his death and as literally happened at his death in the temple at Jerusalem] to allow total access to the Father, symbolised by the Holy Place, for all who are born again into the kingdom.
Jeus is the cornerstone and capstone of the building we all together form as a temple.Eph 2. 20f
psMat 27.50″ And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.And behold the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook:and the rocks were split,..”
Nick,
Good work. I completely overlooked those verses. I am not sure how the various colors of the temple curtains apply to the geneology of Yeshua, but it is something to consider.
Nick,
There doesn't seem to be a passage that confirms your description of the temple curtains. All the references that I have seen talk about curtains that each contain the colors blue, purple, and scarlet. I do not see anything that suggests that the veil of the temple is purple only. Do you have a specific reference for this?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
