- This topic has 933 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi all,
I came across this explanation of the two differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke and thought it was good:Hello Lenny,
I have been a serious Christian for several years. My faith continued to grow as a studied the bible and saw the word of God. As I was one of those “converted engineers”, studying the Bible and reading apologetics were key to my buy-in (and eventually my faith), including the numerous fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies by Christ.
Having the belief that the Bible is the true word of God, I've recently come across an issue with the genealogy that I cannot resolve and it's getting me down. Jesus genealogy was through Solomon as described in the Old Testament (II Samuel 7:12-14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). However, He was also a descendant of Jechoniah. Jeremiah 22:30 states about Jechoniah, “Inscribe this man to be childless…none of his descendants will ever succeed in being a man who sits on the throne of David and ever to rule over Judah.” As the words of the Lord are “none of his descendants”, I cannot for the life of me figure out why this does not disqualify Jesus to be the Messiah told about in the Old Testament.
Please help me with this one. I am looking for a Biblical answer to explain this Biblical dilemma.
Thanks so much,
George
Hi George,
Thank you for writing. The question you ask is fascinating! In fact, it is one of the more interesting dilemmas in the Bible. However, as when you find any problem passage, the solution usually unveils a fascinating truth to the Bible.
First, we will look at the prophecy of the Messiah given to David. We know that the Messiah was promised to be of “the house and lineage of David.” Most people make the error of assuming that those are synonyms. This is not so. The House of David usually refers to the Royal Line. This is the reign of kings that descended from David through Solomon. They ruled over Judah as documented in the books of I & II Kings and I & II Chronicles. Though there were three major revivals in Judah, most of the kings were wicked in the sight of the LORD, culminating with Jehoiachin; also known by the name of Jechoniah or Coniah. Jehoiachin was considered so wicked that the LORD put a blood curse on his descendants, stating that none of his offspring will ever again sit on the throne of David. The curse, as recorded in Jeremiah 22:30, causes a problem, though. Just five verses later, Jeremiah writes of the Messiah,
“Behold the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I shall raise up for David a Righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely.”
What becomes confusing is that David is promised by God the throne to which his son Solomon succeeds him will never end. 2 Samuel 7:16 states, “And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.” Isaiah 11 also makes reference to the Messiah being from David's line by saying He will spring from “the stem of Jesse (David's father)”. Matthew 1:1 and Romans 1:3 confirm that Jesus was in fact a son of David. Luke 1:32 even states that Jesus “will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord GOD will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever.”
So here we have an apparent contradiction. God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite! The problem can be resolved, though, when one realizes that the curse placed on Jehoiachin and his descendents was a blood curse. In other words, the curse would only apply to the physical offspring of Jehoiachin.
We should now look at the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. In studying them, we must remember the different viewpoints of the Gospel writers. Matthew was from the tribe of Levi, and thus always perceived things through the Jewish Law. His Gospel focuses on the Kingship of Christ and how Jesus is the Son of David. There are more citations of prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew (over 100 quotes from the Old Testament) than any other Gospel. Because of this, Matthew starts his genealogy of Jesus at Abraham; the first Jew. He then takes us through David and Solomon, and follows the succession of kings, listing Jeconiah (Coniah or Jehoiachin) until he gets to Joseph.
Luke, however, has a very different interest. He is a physician, and was raised in a Greek society. His viewpoint of the Christ as well as his target audience was very different. He is interested in the humanity of Jesus. Luke constantly uses the title “Son of Man” in reference to the Christ. Being a physician, he notes things like the great drops of blood Jesus sweat in Gethsemane; physical symptoms we don't read elsewhere. His genealogy of Jesus starts not with Abraham, but with Adam, the first man. He also follows the births through Abraham and David, but then does something unexpected. Instead of taking the kingly line, Luke chooses Nathan, another of David's sons, and follows their lineage until he arrives at Eli, who is the father of Mary. You'll notice that verse 23 states “Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” The Greek words used here imply that this assumption is not accurate. In other words, the sentence could read that people thought Him to be offspring of Joseph, but He was physically from Eli's lineage through his mother. The idea of Eli being the father of Mary is found in documents by various early church fathers who held the view, as well as a passage in the Jewish Talmud that states, “Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures…” So, though the Bible doesn't explicitly say that Eli was Mary's father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.
What we must realize is two Old Testament legal technicalities come into play here. The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son. In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Joseph's two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Joseph's brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land.
Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David's throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.
In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli. Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to David's throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line.
So the promise that the Messiah would be of the house of David, as well and David's throne would be everlasting takes on a more clear meaning. Jesus was legally entitled to the t
hrone of David, being the oldest son of Joseph, but was subject to none of the consequences of the blood curse because He was adopted. He was also a direct descendant of King David, and therefore in the lineage of the king. Because all Jewish genealogies are to be reckoned from the father to the son, Luke lists Joseph as the assumed father of Jesus, however he becomes the heir of that line through the rule established with the daughters of Zelophehad. So no contradiction really exists, just a remarkably precise fulfillment of prophecy.
I hope this exploration in Christ's genealogy has strengthened your faith and assurance of the Bible. But, I hope even more that it creates a hunger in you for the Word of God and the fascinating discoveries it holds for those who study it carefully. The richness of this book is beyond compare, and it is my prayer that these discussions will stimulate all who read them to realize the precious gift that we have in it.I found it here:http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con080.asp
LU
Lightenup's source said:
Quote The curse, as recorded in Jeremiah 22:30, causes a problem, though. Just five verses later, Jeremiah writes of the Messiah, “Behold the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I shall raise up for David a Righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely.”
No! Jeremiah was writing of Zerubbabel who was a type of Christ. Judah and Israel were NOT saved from their enemies when Christ took the throne. The Romans destroyed them in AD70 during Christ's reign. Their house was left “desolate.” Zerubbabel led them out from the Babylonian captivity and rebuilt the temple and reinstituted the sacrificial system. It was under Zerubbabel that they dwelt “safely.”
Zerubbabel is the immediate subject of the prophecy and is therefore the “Branch of Righteousness”. Christ is the fulfillment in terms of salvation.
LU's source errs on many points. I thought I would give just one that is obvious.
thinker
Quote (kerwin @ April 29 2009,23:10) I read the top link and it is another Jewish source that labels the genealogy of Jesus to be a fraud. It then goes on to call Matthew a liar for quoting a a saying of the prophets that no one can verify the source of at this time. It then states the Greek translation of the Old Testament is of questionable accuracy. It makes the point that the Hebrew language has a specific word for virgin so why use one that is not specific. The problem with that argument is that English also has a word for virgin but maiden is still used to mean it on occasion.
Still I thought the argument was interesting but I have my doubts Isaiah was calling his son “quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil” Immanuel. I was more interested in chapter 8 verse 8 which also mentions “Immanuel”.
When I have time I will try to look more into it.
Hi GM,
The synagogue of satan will ever work to deny the Messiah.
Listen to true Israel.Quote (thethinker @ May 01 2009,12:15) Lightenup's source said: Quote The curse, as recorded in Jeremiah 22:30, causes a problem, though. Just five verses later, Jeremiah writes of the Messiah, “Behold the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I shall raise up for David a Righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely.”
No! Jeremiah was writing of Zerubbabel who was a type of Christ. Judah and Israel were NOT saved from their enemies when Christ took the throne. The Romans destroyed them in AD70 during Christ's reign. Their house was left “desolate.” Zerubbabel led them out from the Babylonian captivity and rebuilt the temple and reinstituted the sacrificial system. It was under Zerubbabel that they dwelt “safely.”
Zerubbabel is the immediate subject of the prophecy and is therefore the “Branch of Righteousness”. Christ is the fulfillment in terms of salvation.
LU's source errs on many points. I thought I would give just one that is obvious.
thinker
Hi Thinker,
Thanks for your input. I just came across that article. How do you explain the two differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke?
LUWhy judaism rejects Virgin Birth?
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/growth_inspiration_judaism/66915
Please gothrough the link above and submit your comments.
Peace to all
AdamWhy judaism rejects Virgin Birth?
Please gothrough the link above and submit your comments.
Peace to all
AdamQuote (gollamudi @ May 08 2009,13:58) Why judaism rejects Virgin Birth? Please go through the link above and submit your comments.
Peace to all
AdamThey are not completely honest. Judaism goes through the mother's line to establish who is a Jew and since every Jew has a tribe that would tend to mean that those whose father's are non-Jews would belong to their mother's tribe.
There is precedence in the Law of Mosses.
Numbers 27:7(NIV) reads:
Quote “What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them.
The best claim the Jews make is that they don't believe the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isaiah is speaking of the Messiah and since prophecy can be confusing the could certainly misunderstand it.
They also make the case that Mary's line did not contain Solomon and so Jesus cannot be the Messiah and yet scripture tells us that the promise was taken from Solomon because of his sins. It does not say which son of David it was given to.
The Jews are the synagogue of Satan and will place any obstacles before those seeking the truth they can.
To All………The Jews make a point, when they say how could Jesus be given a linage through Joseph, when Joseph was Not his real father. But this is one then they fail to tell you, that a child who was adopted as that persons Son was given a full right in the inheritance also and is accounted as his real child. As far as the blood line connection of Jesus to David it would have to have been through Mary, but that also presents a problem because it appears that Mary was a cousin of Martha a wife of a Levite a priest , so we definitely know there was some Priestly linage their, but the only way he could have had a blood linage to David would have to be through Mary. However that does not do away with his Adoption rights, So Matthew was not wrong in listing His linage through Joseph. And the Jews saying the kingly line did not contiune through Solomon may be right however that does not do away with the fact the blood linage did. IMO
peace and love to all…………………….gene
peace and love………………..gene
Quote (Gene @ May 08 2009,21:22) To All………The Jews make a point, when they say how could Jesus be given a linage through Joseph, when Joseph was Not his real father. But this is one then they fail to tell you, that a child who was adopted as that persons Son was given a full right in the inheritance also and is accounted as his real child. As far as the blood line connection of Jesus to David it would have to have been through Mary, but that also presents a problem because it appears that Mary was a cousin of Martha a wife of a Levite a priest , so we definitely know there was some Priestly linage their, but the only way he could have had a blood linage to David would have to be through Mary. However that does not do away with his Adoption rights, So Matthew was not wrong in listing His linage through Joseph. And the Jews saying the kingly line did not contiune through Solomon may be right however that does not do away with the fact the blood linage did. IMO peace and love to all…………………….gene
peace and love………………..gene
Actually, the Jews say the kingly line does continue through Solomon but I pointed out that God took the kingship of the united kingdom away from Salomon's heirs because of Salomon's sin.There is no problem with it going through Mary's line except possibly if she had a brother. Still I am not sure that would affect it since Solomon was not David's eldest son but he was the one David picked to succeed him.
David himself was not Saul's son but was the one God chose to succeed Saul which means God can choose whomever he wishes to be King and anyone of David's descendants would have satisfied that requirement.
Quote (Gene @ May 09 2009,02:22) To All………The Jews make a point, when they say how could Jesus be given a linage through Joseph, when Joseph was Not his real father. But this is one then they fail to tell you, that a child who was adopted as that persons Son was given a full right in the inheritance also and is accounted as his real child. As far as the blood line connection of Jesus to David it would have to have been through Mary, but that also presents a problem because it appears that Mary was a cousin of Martha a wife of a Levite a priest , so we definitely know there was some Priestly linage their, but the only way he could have had a blood linage to David would have to be through Mary. However that does not do away with his Adoption rights, So Matthew was not wrong in listing His linage through Joseph. And the Jews saying the kingly line did not contiune through Solomon may be right however that does not do away with the fact the blood linage did. IMO peace and love to all…………………….gene
peace and love………………..gene
Good thought provoking post my brother Gene. The problem with Virgin birth is Christians want to show that Jesus was not bitten by original sin and he was literal I mean flesh and blood son of God. I don't agree with these views because of the following reasons:1. Job says whoever born of woman can not be righteous. Even with the socalled virgin birth Jesus can not be considered righteous. If so why at all virgin birth required?
2. If Jesus really shared our sinful nature I don't think any virgin birth was required.
3. If God is Spirit and there is no mortality in Him how can He gives birth to a mortal son ?
As P. T. Forsyth(P. T. Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (London, 1946), 261. Cf. E. Brunner, op. cit., 322f) has pointed out, the product of a virgin birth need not even be preexistent, let alone divine. That the virgin birth does not guarantee either the Incarnation or the deity of Christ can be seen from the fact that it has traditionally been held by both Arians (who deny the deity of Christ) and Adoptionists (who deny the Incarnation), to say nothing of Muslims who also hold it.
John A.T Robinson, for instance, goes further and argues that the virgin birth must inevitably prejudice the genuineness of Jesus’ humanity and His solidarity with us. This claim can take two forms. First, it could be argued that the very fact of a virgin birth in itself removes Jesus from the arena of humanity.
H.R. Mackintosh argues that the sinlessness of Christ means that a unique birth is likely but that this need not have been a virgin birth and that a virgin birth does not in itself guarantee sinlessness. This would seem to be a very fair summary of the evidence. Jesus’ sinlessness certainly gives us no proof of the necessity of the virgin birth. While it may be felt to point to the appropriateness of a virgin birth it does so with far less clarity than the doctrine of the Incarnation.
I believe the so called infant narrations of Matthew and Luke must have been developed stories based on O.T material. I believe Messaih was literal son of Joseph and Mary thereby he became the real man-Messiah who was prophesied in Hebrew scriptures. Please think over.
Adam
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Job says whoever born of woman can not be righteous. Even with the so called virgin birth Jesus can not be considered righteous. If so why at all virgin birth required?
Actually I do not see how a virgin birth is relevant to the question of righteousness.
I am curious to find out the address of the scripture in Job you are referring to. If you could please provide it then I would be grateful.
gollamudi wrote:
Quote Good thought provoking post my brother Gene. The problem with Virgin birth is Christians want to show that Jesus was not bitten by original sin and he was literal I mean flesh and blood son of God. I don't agree with these views because of the following reasons:
Perhaps that is true of some so called Christians but as for myself I see no reason why Jesus was not bitten by curse of the original sin and then set free by God through rebirth in the Holy Spirit as the firstborn of a new creation.
The curse being that human beings were enslaved to sin through Adam's and for matter Eve's sin.
Except for some modern Jewish teaching that may well be false do you have anything to back up your conclusion there was no virgin birth?
Hi brother Kerwin,
Please see my post above since I have added some more thoughts. The verse in Job is 15:14
“What is man, that he should be pure, Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?”gollamudi,
Do you consider this whole passage to be false?
Matthew 1:18-25(NIV) reads:
Quote This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I ask because what the angel of God tells Jesus is important as it is a promise of the Holy Spirit for the people of God.
Hi brother Kerwin,
If Jesus' father is not known here it may prove child of illegitimacy and also because I don't agree with the literal human fatherhood of God to Jesus.gollamudi,
God was not the father of Jesus' flesh but rather of his spirit and then only through the Holy Spirit that came to dwell in him.
Mary could be said to be both father and mother to Jesus as far as the flesh, and for that matter corrupt spirit of man is concerned.
That would mean that Jesus is not illegitimate since he is not a child of fornication. Joseph would have easilly understood that from what the angel told him since the angel basically told him Mary's pregnancy was a miracle of God. That was not my point.
My point is the angel also told Joseph that Jesus would save the people of God from their sins and I wanted to know if you believed that scripture. If so how do you explain believing part of scripture and not the whole.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I never told that I only believe the scripture in bits and parts. Infact I don't believe whole infant narrations of virgin birth since they are not required for the human Messiah and if our Lord shared our human sinful nature.gollamudi wrote:
Quote I never told that I only believe the scripture in bits and parts. In fact I don't believe whole infant narrations of virgin birth since they are not required for the human Messiah and if our Lord shared our human sinful nature.
I make a point of not double guessing God and telling him what is required and what is not. Why does God need angels as he can do anything. The answer is he does not but he chooses to use them. In fact I would say he is more likely to need demons than angels as he cannot be tempted by evil or do evil and so they function in that way for him. Since he chose to provide a sign then he did it for his reasons.
Still I did take another look at Isaiah chapters 7-8 and in 8 I read another scripture that the book of Hebrews quotes. The writer of Hebrews like the writer of Matthew seems to have a strange way of arguing since the straight forward reasoning is not necessary what they used but rather a reasoning where the scripture they quoted is true about Jesus even though it does not appear to be a prophecy of him. I mention this in my thread asking whether the writers of scripture make errors. Both books are supposed to have been addressed particularly to the Jews of that time whom may have understood that type of reasoning.
Isaiah 8:18(NIV) reads:
Quote Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.
compare to:
Hebrews 2:13(NIV) reads:
Quote And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again he says, “Here am I, and the children God has given me.”
Please read Isaiah 8:18 in context and explain to me how it is a Messianic prophecy. If you can do that then you may be thinking like the audience that both the book of Hebrews and Matthew seem to be addressing.
Hi All:
All men including Jesus were born as infants in innocence. The doctrine of original sin is false doctrine. Sin is the transgression of the Law, and a sinful nature is developed as one yields to temptations.
Quote Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. As for the virgin birth, salvation is a gift from God, and that puts all men born of the sperm of man in the same category in need of a saviour. God has intervened and has saved his children through the person of His Son and His Christ.
And yes, the body of Christ is God's own flesh and blood. He does not Himself have flesh and blood, but He has begotten as human Son. Do you not believe that God can do this?
Quote Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own bloodLove in Christ,
MartyHi brother Kerwin,
Here I am quoting the verse from Isa 8:
18 ” Look at me and the children whom the Lord has given me: we are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts who dwells on Mount Zion.”The new Testament writers like you and me were human beings and they could interpret the O.T as per their understanding. They were not extrordinary peolple as many think. They are prone to make errors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and other writers of N.T made mistakes in narrating the incidents of historical Jesus in accordance with O.T material. If you take everything literally like any fundementalist you will end nowhere in the understanding of Bible. People who take virgin birth literally they may have to add many things to Bible.
Please think over
Adam
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
