GREENLIGHT said:
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 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.
it is realy confusing!!!!!!!
That's because they are two different geneologies.
The geneology in Matthew is the geneology of the royal line from David down to Joseph (the husband of Mary). However, because God cursed the royal line after Jeconiah (Jer.22:30) none of Jeconiah's physical descendents (including Joseph the husband of Mary) were ever allowed to sit on the throne of David (which is why the Idumean, Herod the Great, was king of Israel at the time of the Messiah's birth and not Joseph, the husband of Mary).
If you read most modern translations then in the case of both geneologies it will probably say '
so and so'
the son of '
so and so'. However, if you read the Authorised Version of 1611 (a.k.a. the 'King James Version') then you will find that the geneology in Matthew says '
so and so'
begat '
so and so' whereas the one in Luke says '
so and so'
the son of '
so and so'. This is because the the words used in the original Hebrew for
begat and
the son of are different.
The archaic English verb '
to beget' literallly means 'to give rise to', 'to be the cause of', 'to bring into being' and not simply 'to give birth to' which is how most people tend to understand it. Whilst this understanding is not incorrect, the verb 'to beget' can and does have a much broader application than simply 'to give birth to'.
In the case of Matthew's geneology it is the royal line to the King of the Jews ['Where is he that is born the King of the Jews?' Matt.2:2] This geneology is that of Jesus' royal title of inheritance in Joseph. His right to the throne of David which had passed - over the generations - in direct succession to Mary's husband. Of this the angel Gabriel testifies, saying 'Joseph, thou son of David, fear not!' (Matt.1:20).
The 'book of the generation' is the record of the proper royal succession. As such it does not necessarily show an unbroken line of descent from father to son. It is the legal line of title, a line of inheritance. It is a question of the one to whom prior right pertains.
For example, suppose a king - an only son - having no issue, or only female issue, should die in battle, having neither sons nor brethren the crown might pass to his surviving uncle, and thereafter to that uncle's son. Yet in the geneology the names of the king, the king's uncle and the king's cousin (the uncle's son) would all be connected in succession by the word '
begat'. A royal geneology therefore shows the passage of the crown, which must always pass to the nearest qualifying male of the blood-royal: but by no means is that necessarily a son.
So it came to pass that the long neglected title to the throne of David came to Joseph not by direct descent but by proper legal succession. That is what the geneology in Matthew is all about, and why the formula of connection from one heir to the next is '
beget, give origin, produce. A much more broadly based word for succession than that indicating '
the son of' which allows no lattitude at all. '
Beget' may refer to a son; but just as easily it might be used of an uncle, a nephew or a cousin. It is wholely a question of an heir to the throne
produced by the incumbent who begets, 'gives rise to', a successor. He has
begotten him
to that throne.
The legal form of royal geneology traces the crown from generation to generation irrespective of the
exact personal relationship one king and the next in line. To do so the record uses the broad formula '
begat', not 'to give birth to a son' but '
to give genesis, constitute a new king.
Of course, usually this will be a son, but at least in one case the nephew was succeded by his uncle; this would be indicated by '
begat' just the same as if the nephew were followed by his own offspring. The thing to grasp is that such a royal geneology is the
ancestry of the crown. And that is precisely what we have in Matthew's geneology from 'David the king' onwards.
Luke's geneology however, is Joseph's physical geneology, therefore Heli was Joseph's real, flesh and blood, father.
Hope this clarifies things a bit?
Simonline.
And in case you're wondering, the Messiah is able to circumvent Jeconiah's curse by virtue of the fact that he is
not Joseph's physical heir, but
is Josephs legal heir and therefore the rightful heir to the throne of Israel [being a
physical descendent of David through his mother's side].
)
