Contradiction?

[Jesi]

If Jesus was the son of Mary and the Holy Spirit, how can we say that he was a descendant of King David? If Joseph wasn't his father, then he did not descend from King David, like the gospels say.

Also, why do Matthew and Luke give two different geneologies for Jesus?

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Matthew gives the line of Joseph as whether a natural or adopted child geneology for the Jews was recognised only through the fathers lineage and would not have accepted the prophetci fulfillment of OT scripture unles this were true.
Luke gives the geneology through Mary who also was a descendant of the line of David possibly because he wrote to explain things to the gentiles and was a gentile himself showing that truly Jesus was a biological descendant of David through his mother Mary.

 

[Jesi]

Matthew gives the line of Joseph as whether a natural or adopted child geneology for the Jews was recognised only through the fathers lineage and would not have accepted the prophetci fulfillment of OT scripture unles this were true.
Luke gives the geneology through Mary who also was a descendant of the line of David possibly because he wrote to explain things to the gentiles and was a gentile himself showing that truly Jesus was a biological descendant of David through his mother Mary.

But Mary is not mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus in the book of Luke. How can you assume that Luke is giving her genealogy and not a contradictory version of Matthew's text?

And I always thought that genealogies were only traced back through the males?

 

[Jesi]

also, I've read about a curse put on Jeconiah in Jeremiah, who was an ancestor of Joseph according to Matthew's list. If Jesus is Joseph's adoptive son, and the genealogy of Joseph applies in proving that Jesus is a descendent of David, why does the curse on Jeconiah that says " write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days: for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." in Jeremiah 22:30?

Since I still see no evidence that the genealogy in Luke is of Mary and not Joseph, I do not see how these two lists are not contradicting one another.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli but the translation can also be son in law, in Matthew it gives Jacob as Josephs father.

Mary and Elizabeth were related on the mothers side if you study the text translation, Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, a levite. Mary through the line of Judah. These tribes often intermarried.

I'll try and dig out some other background and translation stuff as I don't have to hand right now.

 

[MikeMcK]

If Jesus was the son of Mary and the Holy Spirit, how can we say that he was a descendant of King David? If Joseph wasn't his father, then he did not descend from King David, like the gospels say.

Also, why do Matthew and Luke give two different geneologies for Jesus?

What you're forgetting is that, in the Hebrew culture in which the Gospels were written, there was no distinction between an adopted son and a biological son. Both were sons and both were recorded in, and known by, the same genaeologies.

There are two in Matthew and Luke because one is for Mary's line, one is for Joseph's line, in keeping with this tradition.

And I always thought that genealogies were only traced back through the males?

Traditionally, yes, but the writers were trying to illustrate a point.

 

[Jesi]

[quotes]What you're forgetting is that, in the Hebrew culture in which the Gospels were written, there was no distinction between an adopted son and a biological son. Both were sons and both were recorded in, and known by, the same genaeologies[/quote]

well, maybe that's good enough for the Hebrews, but I say, if he isn't a direct desendant of David, it simply doesnt fulfill the prophecy. Adoption doesn't substitute for blood relation.

If the Luke genealogy is for Mary's family, they should really make that clear in the Bibles. Every translation just skims over that idea, which leads me and others to believe it is a contradiction.

 

[MikeMcK]

well, maybe that's good enough for the Hebrews, but I say, if he isn't a direct desendant of David, it simply doesnt fulfill the prophecy. Adoption doesn't substitute for blood relation.

If the prophecy was made in the context of the Hebrew tradtion, then it is only logical to interpret it it the context of the Hebrew tradition.

If the Luke genealogy is for Mary's family, they should really make that clear in the Bibles. Every translation just skims over that idea, which leads me and others to believe it is a contradiction.

In all fairness, how much time and effort have you put into studying it?


[/quote]

 

[Jesi]

In all fairness, how much time and effort have you put into studying it?

I never stop studying Coming here and asking questions is part of studying. How long it took me to look over several bible verses and get confused doesn't really matter...

 

[Jesi]

If the prophecy was made in the context of the Hebrew tradtion, then it is only logical to interpret it it the context of the Hebrew tradition.

that would make sense, but since the prohecy say that he has to be in the bloodline of David, and Joseph was supposedly not his father, it seems to me like he isn't in the bloodline of David, unless you believe that Mary was a descendant of David, which I am still not sure of.

 

[Shimshon]

Heli

Meaning: elevation
father of Mary and father-in-law of Joseph in the line Jesus Christ's royal ancestry (Luke 3:23)
ALSO SEE:

• Mary, mother of Jesus
• Joseph

23 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,

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,



Heli was the father of Mary. This is recorded and historical fact. This being fact, verse 23 then means that Joseph was the son (in law) of Heli. Heli could not be Joseph's blood father. Because that would be a true contradition of scriptural truth.

Matthew 1
16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Both Heli and Jacob come from David. And yes, an adoptive son is a son like all the rest. God has adopted those who were not his and called them his own. This is the heart of grace. And the heart of God. Which David had.

Jesus has both Ruth and Rahab in his blood line.

Salman Rahab, Boaz Ruth, David Bathsheba, Soloman Sheba........

All cases of adoption. Rahab...gentile, Ruth....gentile, Bathsheba.....adultery, Sheba.....gentile.

All cases where God said you who were not set apart for me now will be part of me. What was unholy is made clean, those who were not my people, are now my people. The gentiles.

God adopted the whole world, all who will come. Come one come all and drink from the fountain of life eternal. It is free.

All you have to do is come, with a willing heart.

 

[Jesi]

well thank you Shimson, that really makes a lot more sense.

 

[MikeMcK]

that would make sense, but since the prohecy say that he has to be in the bloodline of David, and Joseph was supposedly not his father, it seems to me like he isn't in the bloodline of David, unless you believe that Mary was a descendant of David, which I am still not sure of.

Sounds like you've got your mind made up. Good luck in your search.

 

[Jesi]

Sounds like you've got your mind made up. Good luck in your search.

thanks for being soooooo helpful.....

 

[Rafael]

This may or may not be helpful:

Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23
Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

 

[Jesi]

that WAS very helpful. thank you so much, Rafael!

 

[*Rob*]

God bless you jesi and Good luck with your future studying, we are always welcome to answer your questions

 

[Jesi]

God bless you jesi and Good luck with your future studying, we are always welcome to answer your questions

thank you this site is really a great research tool. I don't expect any of it to change my core beliefs, but it does help to have several perspectives on most dillemmas.