Jesus lineage could you please explain it to me

[Sri]

I know there is an answer can someone help me. The prophesied Jewish messiah was supposed to be from the line of David. Mark, the earliest gospel, made no mention of the lineage of Jesus. The later gospels, Matthew and Luke, both include genealogies that trace Jesus' lineage back to David.

The interesting thing about these genealogies is that they trace the line through Joseph and not through Mary, even though both authors claimed that Jesus had no father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Why would his lineage be traced through what amounts to a step dad?

Also, the genealogies are different. Luke traces Jesus all the way back to Adam and Matthew traces him back to Abraham, . In Matthews case, he skips 3 generations that are documented in I Chronicles in an effort to make his fourteen generation point work out in 1:17.

 

[ghendricks63]

There's a lot more differences in them than just those. Joseph's father is different between them. Matthew lists 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus and states that is "all" off them, Luke lists 56 in the same span. The geneologies are totally different. They cannot both be inerrant. No creative explanation can bring them into harmony. The only explanation is to drop the man made concept of biblical inerrancy.

 

[Tim Myers]

Wish you would have posted this in Unorthodox Theology........

 

[ghendricks63]

Wish you would have posted this in Unorthodox Theology........

Why in unorthodox? This seems like a perfectly valid question for this forum to me.

 

[Sri]

ghendricks63 your not explaining it.

 

[ghendricks63]

ghendricks63 your not explaining it.

Really? What were you wanting me to do...explain how they can be so different but yet both be right? Sorry but I cannot do this because it is not true.

 

[n2thelight]

I know there is an answer can someone help me. The prophesied Jewish messiah was supposed to be from the line of David. Mark, the earliest gospel, made no mention of the lineage of Jesus. The later gospels, Matthew and Luke, both include genealogies that trace Jesus' lineage back to David.

The interesting thing about these genealogies is that they trace the line through Joseph and not through Mary, even though both authors claimed that Jesus had no father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Why would his lineage be traced through what amounts to a step dad?

Also, the genealogies are different. Luke traces Jesus all the way back to Adam and Matthew traces him back to Abraham, . In Matthews case, he skips 3 generations that are documented in I Chronicles in an effort to make his fourteen generation point work out in 1:17.

This may help.......

Matthew 1:1 "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham."
This would be the book of the pedigree of Jesus Christ. We will see that the New Testament is a replay of the Old Testament. In II Samuel 7:12; the prophet Samuel gives record that the Messiah shall come from the seed of David. "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom."
Samuel the prophet is telling David that when he is dead and gone to be with his fathers, God will "set up", as to place one on a throne, a seed or children of his.
II Samuel 7:13; "He shall build an house for My name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever."
In this prophecy that was written to David, that in his pedigree one would come that would establish His kingdom, and that kingdom would be forever; and that person to come is Jesus Christ. And so it is.
Matthew 1:2 "Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;"
Jacob's name was changed by God to Israel, and though the seed line of the scepter was coming through Judah [Judas], he also had eleven other brothers, and the offspring of Judah and all his brothers are called the whole house of Israel. They are the Israelites that grew from one family of twelve brothers, to twelve tribes [later thirteen], and in captivity in Egypt grew into a nation that Moses would later lead to the promised land.
Genesis 48 records how the Abrahamic covenant, or blessings were passed to Joseph, but the scepter and law giver rights went to Judah. It is from Judah, the son mentioned in Matthew 1:2 that Jesus Christ would come, and this establishes His right of Ruler ship.
The word "begat", in the Greek means to engender. It shows the "father to son relationship"; to sire. This then, is the following of the family tree directly from Abraham to Jesus, as years would go by.
We will see a difference in the spelling of names between the Old Testament, and the New Testament, and this is because the New Testament is from the Greek form, while the Old testament, the Hebrew language.
Matthew 1:3 "And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;"
Matthew 1:4 "And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;"
Matthew 1:5 "And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;"
Matthew 1:6 "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;"
Matthew 1:7 "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;"
Matthew 1:8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;"
Matthew 1:9 "And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;"
Matthew 1:10 "And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;"
Matthew 1:11 "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethern, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"
Matthew 1:12 "And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;"
Matthew 1:13 "And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;"
Matthew 1:14 "And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;"
Matthew 1:15 "And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;"
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ.

Well we have gone through this long genealogy, and now we have found that this is the genealogy of Joseph, the husband with Mary. Joseph was not the father of Christ, but the husband of Mary. Mary had already conceived by the Holy Spirit of God when Joseph married her. We know that Almighty God was the father of Jesus Christ. So we see that Joseph's genealogy has nothing to do with the pedigree of Jesus Christ, with the exception of one thing. This blood line is the adopted lineage of Jesus Christ, through His adopted father Joseph.

If you have an adopted son, you could be German, and your adopted son could be Jewish. There is no connection whatsoever, as far as bloodline is concerned. Therefore the bloodline in this first chapter has nothing to do with the bloodline of Jesus Christ.
However, when we see through this adoption, we get a better view of what Christianity is all about. Those that believe upon Christ, are automatically the stones raised [children] unto God. The actual date of Jesus birth is represented to be December 25, However this is assumed, and placed there for the convenience for the old Roman Empire. Lets go to Luke 1:5 and see what the scriptures have to say about this.
Luke 1:5 "There was in the days of Herod, the King of Judeas [a wicked king], a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth."

Zacharias was John the Baptist's father. Elisabeth had to be a full blood daughter of Aaron to be a priest's wife, this is to say, a full blood Levite. What is important in this verse is the identification of the birth of John the Baptist through the feast date that John's father [Zacharias was serving. The "feast of Abia" was the eighth of the ministration in the Temple [I Chronicles 24:10], and occurred twice a year.
The conception of John the Baptist was the night following the feast date, or to place that to our calendar, June 24, 5 B.C. Now lets skip on to verse thirty six, in documenting Jesus genealogy. Luke 1:36; "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. If Elisabeth is a full blood Levite, and Mary is her cousin, then Mary is also of the blood line of Aaron. We see also that there was a marriage, because the actual genealogy is given in Luke 3:24-38.

In Luke 3:23; "And Jesus Himself begin to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," The phrase, "as was supposed", should read, "as reckoned by law", or in another way to put it, "to lay it down by law". If you are married, then your spouses mother is your mother in law. Do you get the point. This genealogy given in the next fifteen verses is Mary's genealogy.
There is one point that should be pointed out, because there is an error made by an Kenite scribe, and that error is because Cainan simply does not exist here in the Massorah text, Cainan was Ham's son that was cursed by Noah. In Genesis 11:13 we read, "And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters."

This was the custom that if there were no sons born to a family, then the lineage would be passed on to the daughters husband, in that marriage, as by law. Therefore Joseph took on the genealogy of Mary. Then through Joseph the seed, or genealogy would continue; the seed of the family. There is another thing to pay attention to here; Do you see any "begats" in this lineage? Of course not, because this is Joseph's lineage by his legal wife, it is his wife Mary's lineage. This lineage is by law, and not by siring, through the marriage. This bloodline is through the tribe of Judah.
Mary's father was of the tribe of Judah, and he married a Levite, therefore Mary was a mixture between the tribe of Levi, and Judah. So we see that Jesus was of both houses, that is to say the King line, and also of the Levitical priest line of Aaron. This is the priest line after the order of Melchizedeck, the king of the elect [just], as also given in Genesis14:18-20.

When our Lord comes as the King of kings and Lord of Lord, he carries the full title by lineage of the authority that God gave to Abraham, and passed on to Jesus Christ.
So we can see by all this that the conception of Jesus Christ on December 25, is not His birth. There is no problem with this, for this also establishes that God began to dwell with man at the time of conception. The spirit of the baby [soul] in Elisabeth [John the Baptist] was six months maturing; and when Mary entered the room following the conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, John leaped at the presence of the Christ in the womb of Mary.

Matthew 1:17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
This genealogy is divided up into three parts. These divisions are the periods marking the times before, during and after king David's families.

matthew1

 

[ghendricks63]

This may help.......

Great information about how and why the geneologies were so important. But to the issue of conflicting accounts...nothing here answers that question.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I don't know to what degree it's possible to reconcile/synthesize the two genealogies. Though I might argue that Matthew, being in many ways a sort of appeal to the messiahship of Jesus is emphasizing that in his; whereas I'm often drawn to treat Luke's account as a more straight history.

I don't know if it's necessary to reconcile/synthesize the two genealogies. Just accept they are different for their own different and respective reasons and purposes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ghendricks63]

I don't know to what degree it's possible to reconcile/synthesize the two genealogies. Though I might argue that Matthew, being in many ways a sort of appeal to the messiahship of Jesus is emphasizing that in his; whereas I'm often drawn to treat Luke's account as a more straight history.

I don't know if it's necessary to reconcile/synthesize the two genealogies. Just accept they are different for their own different and respective reasons and purposes.

-CryptoLutheran

I can agree with that in principle so long as I am not one arguing that the scriptures are inerrant. From my perspective one of them simply must be mistaken. They are mutually exclusive for the reasons I have already pointed out.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Good question, one I never considered before. I found this snippet at Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

...most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

 

[ghendricks63]

Good question, one I never considered before. I found this snippet at Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

...most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

I really don't see this as an answer since BOTH geneologies specifically go through Joseph and list his father with no indication that they are jumping tracks. What is represented here is a very creative effort to somehow reconcile very contradictory accounts with absolutely no scriptural backing of any kind. This is common among inerrancy advocates in dealing with the scores of biblical contradictions. Whatever possibly can be imagined, no matter how implausable, must be true because the possibility of the Bible not being perfect simply cannot be tolerated. Of course this claim of perfection is purely man made in the first place. The Bible makes no such claims about itself.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

It is possible in Luke's account Heli is the father of Mary, but according to Jewish traditions Joseph is mentioned in the geology. In reality Jospeh is the son-in-law of Heli.

BTW, if the Bible is not infallible then that gives everyone permission to toss out those parts they don't particularly like, which is essentially what the world does to day - each person dreaming up the religion that fits their fancy and "establishing their own righteousness". We either have to accept the Bible as is, or reject it entirely. We can't pick and chose what we think is "authentic" and toss the remainder in the trashcan.

 

[ghendricks63]

It is possible in Luke's account Heli is the father of Mary, but according to Jewish traditions Joseph is mentioned in the geology. In reality Jospeh is the son-in-law of Heli.

BTW, if the Bible is not infallible then that gives everyone permission to toss out those parts they don't particularly like, which is essentially what the world does to day - each person dreaming up the religion that fits their fancy and "establishing their own righteousness". We either have to accept the Bible as is, or reject it entirely. We can't pick and chose what we think is "authentic" and toss the remainder in the trashcan.

Yes that is the traditional argument for inerrancy...because we will simply, in purely selfish fashion, pick what suits us.

I categorically reject this line of reasoning for a couple of reasons.

1 - God has demonstrated His desire to work with and through imperfect people time and again and compiling the bible is no different in this sense.

2 - Since even among inerrant literalists there are diametrically opposing viewpoints on the meaning of key passages of scripture, it is not valid to claim that it is only through this belief in inerrancy that truth exists.

3 - I see the extreme fundamentalist as already picking and choosing what they think is relavent for today and what is not. The end result is just as much picking and choosing and tossing the rest into the figurative trash can. For instance...the argument for eternal damnation requires ignoring literally volumes of biblical references indicating otherwise. How is this different than what you accuse us of doing?

4 - There are so many discrepancies in the bible that cannot simply be cleverly explained away. Many serious students of the bible have completely rejected Christianity outright when they have been told they must in faith accept the imperfect bible as perfection and not question it.

I know I said a couple...but the longer I type the more reasons I can come up with...LOL.

There may be some who do just as you say and simply throw the parts of the bible they don't like into the trash so to speak. But then...those who are insincere in their faith do this no matter which way they believe. I have found the bible to be so much richer and more meaningful since I gave up the superstition of inerrancy.

 

[Sri]

thankyou

 

[ittarter]

There's a lot more differences in them than just those. Joseph's father is different between them. Matthew lists 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus and states that is "all" off them, Luke lists 56 in the same span. The geneologies are totally different. They cannot both be inerrant. No creative explanation can bring them into harmony. The only explanation is to drop the man made concept of biblical inerrancy.

I'm guessing that, back in the day, multiple genealogical records were available and different lines popularized. The gospels of Luke and Matthew are generally accepted to have originated from different geographical locations, which, prior to the digital and information age, restricts their respective research bases into such topics.

Sri,

The interesting thing about these genealogies is that they trace the line through Joseph and not through Mary, even though both authors claimed that Jesus had no father and was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Why would his lineage be traced through what amounts to a step dad?

I would suggest that this is best explained by pointing to a time BEFORE the virgin birth was canonized as orthodox theology, when Jesus' messianic role (according to Hebrew prophecy) was the larger issue people were trying to address. As time went on Hellenistic ideas prevailed in the increasingly Hellenistic church, and the virgin birth replaced Davidic lineage as the main line of explanation regarding Jesus' origins.

 

[granpa]

Truth Or Tradition - Why two genealogies of Jesus Christ? difficulties, contradiction, controversy

 

[Terry McDermott]

I know Joseph was the legal heir to David's throne, and when he adopted Jesus, he then became the legal heir. So when he was proclaimed King of the Jews, it was so.

Mary as we know was also from the line of David.

 

[Terry McDermott]

The linage in Matthew shows that Jesus is the true King and David's legal heir as I stated.

The linage in Luke shows that Jesus was the son of Mary, which shows that he was a human when he lived on Earth. He is both the Son of God and the Son of Man.

This is the reason for both geneologies.

 

[ghendricks63]

The linage in Matthew shows that Jesus is the true King and David's legal heir as I stated.

The linage in Luke shows that Jesus was the son of Mary, which shows that he was a human when he lived on Earth. He is both the Son of God and the Son of Man.

This is the reason for both geneologies.

Perhaps...the bible does not state this though so it is conjecture.