A question about the genealogy of Jesus

[Dusk]

I've been reading the Gospel of St. Matthew and I'm confused about something.

It lists the family tree of Jesus right back to Abraham and goes like this in the ESV:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram, 4 and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king.


And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

The following passage then says:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

My confusion is this... Mary and Joseph were what today would be classed as engaged to be married, and they hadn't slept together in any way (as Mary was still a virgin)... so how could the genealogy in the above passages possibly relate to Jesus? He was a product of God (through the Holy Spirit) and Mary, and as Jesus had nothing to do with Joseph (he was only the step-father of Jesus in reality), how could his (Joseph's) family tree have anything to do with Jesus? The only way that it could have affected Jesus is if Joseph and Mary had indeed slept together before marriage (which scripture says that they didn't do) and conceived a child the human (mortal) way. Or... if the genealogy was relevant to Mary instead of Joseph.

I'm just not seeing how it affects Jesus, hence my looking like this

Can anyone explain it to me?

 

[Catherineanne]

I've been reading the Gospel of St. Matthew and I'm confused about something.

Can anyone explain it to me?

Mary and Joseph were related, in that they were both descendants of David. Matthew gives Joseph's line, Luke gives Mary's. Both are relevant because even a step father of the Messiah has to have the right ancestry. As Joseph's adopted son, Matthew shows that the Lord acquires his pedigree as well, whether a blood relation or not.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html

GENEAOLOGY
Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin” [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].
​

 

[Dusk]

Ah... that makes sense (I haven't got to Luke yet )

Thank you.

 

[Catherineanne]

Ah... that makes sense (I haven't got to Luke yet )

Thank you.

You are most welcome. I knew vaguely that there was a link, but it was useful to revisit this myself as well.

 

[Bro_Sam]

I've been reading the Gospel of St. Matthew and I'm confused about something.

It lists the family tree of Jesus right back to Abraham and goes like this in the ESV:

The following passage then says:

My confusion is this... Mary and Joseph were what today would be classed as engaged to be married, and they hadn't slept together in any way (as Mary was still a virgin)... so how could the genealogy in the above passages possibly relate to Jesus? He was a product of God (through the Holy Spirit) and Mary, and as Jesus had nothing to do with Joseph (he was only the step-father of Jesus in reality), how could his (Joseph's) family tree have anything to do with Jesus? The only way that it could have affected Jesus is if Joseph and Mary had indeed slept together before marriage (which scripture says that they didn't do) and conceived a child the human (mortal) way. Or... if the genealogy was relevant to Mary instead of Joseph.

I'm just not seeing how it affects Jesus, hence my looking like this

Can anyone explain it to me?

In that culture, an adopted son, such as Jesus was to Joseph, was considered the same as a natural born son and so Jesus would have inherited Joseph's geneaology.

 

[Dusk]

I never knew that, Bro Sam... thanks for telling me

 

[Catherineanne]

I never knew that, Bro Sam... thanks for telling me

You might like to note, while you are at it, that Luke often gives us a much needed female perspective to the gospel. Tradition says that he was a physician, and this would explain why he knows so much about women, and how they see the world. It is from him that we learn most about the birth and early life of the Lord, and about the women among Christ's followers.

This is why we get the Lord's male line from Matthew, and the female from Luke. Tradition says Luke was told this directly by Mary, and even that he painted her portrait. That might just be wishful thinking, there is no way of knowing really, but certainly he tells us many things that the other gospels don't.

 

[Dusk]

Wow, that's really interesting. Thank you Catherineanne

 

[Supreme]

Don't the genealogies in Luke and Matthew contradict each other...?

Personally, I believe the genealogy of Jesus to be an attempt by the gospel authors to trace Jesus' roots back to David and Adam and Eve. The former is plausible (I believe Jesus had to be a descendent of David to fulfill promises made in the Tanakh), but I don't honestly believe that Jesus' almost perfect genealogy goes back to Adam and Eve. It doesn't help either that I don't believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

 

[Catherineanne]

Don't the genealogies in Luke and Matthew contradict each other...?

Personally, I believe the genealogy of Jesus to be an attempt by the gospel authors to trace Jesus' roots back to David and Adam and Eve. The former is plausible (I believe Jesus had to be a descendent of David to fulfill promises made in the Tanakh), but I don't honestly believe that Jesus' almost perfect genealogy goes back to Adam and Eve. It doesn't help either that I don't believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve.

Clearly, if Adam and Eve are allegorical, then none of us can construct a literal genealogy, ending with them. However, we can all still say that we all come from them, not in a literal, but in a figurative sense.

Therfore, it may be that respectable pedigrees in First Century Judaism always tried to link back to Adam and Eve, and that at a certain point convention takes over, and we can allow for a certain amount of poetic licence.

If you look at our own royal family you will see the same thing. As far back as records go, we can trace them to William the Bastard, and far further back, through the Anglo Saxon and Viking lineages. But you will find that those A/S and Viking lineages will always claim ultimate descent from Odin. If you are giving a King his pedigree, you can't say, at this point we don't know, so there were probably just peasants. You say, Odin. Or, if you are Matthew, you say Adam and Eve. This is not a lie to him, because everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, as far as he is aware. He just has to fill in the gaps.