Jews for Jesus

Issues Issues Volume 5 Number 6 The Genealogy of the Messiah

The Genealogy of the Messiah

In 1982, Reader's Digest decided to make the Bible easier to read. Translators, paraphrasers and a variety of religious entrepreneurs have been providing more and more modern versions of the Bible to keep pace with our rapidly deteriorating use of the English language. Reader's Digest went one step further, condensing the Bible—excising what they considered extraneous"—providing an abridged version called The Reader's Digest Bible.

Among the passages deemed "unnecessary" were the many genealogies. Yet, the frequency with which genealogies appear in the Scriptures is evidence of their importance. Genealogies established one's Jewishness, one's tribal identity, one's right to the priesthood and one's right to kingship.

From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men's names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.

In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David.

The Jewish Scriptures as Background to the New Covenant

The pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures is followed by the New Testament pattern where two genealogies are found: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Of the four gospel accounts, only those two deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an adult, so it is natural that only Matthew and Luke would have a genealogy. While they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus, each tells the story from a different perspective.

In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, but Miriam (Mary) plays a passive role. Matthew records angels appearing to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Miriam. Matthew records Joseph's thoughts but nothing is recorded about Miriam's thoughts. On the other hand, Luke's Gospel tells the same story from Miriam's perspective. From the context of each Gospel, it should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke is that of Miriam.

The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Y'shua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew's Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke's Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David's throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David's throne. On the other hand, Luke's Gospel gives the real line, showing that Y'shua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David's throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.

Kingship

To understand the need for these two genealogies, it is important to understand the two requirements for kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. These were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.…

One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David's throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria's throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; 11 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14 8-12).

With the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus' right to the throne of David can be resolved.

Matthew's Genealogy

In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun "her" in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, "A mother's family is not to be called a family." Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Y'shua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.

First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah's coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew's main point.

Matthew's genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The "Jeconiah link" is significant in Matthew's genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

As I live," declares the LORD,
"even though Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim
king of Judah were a signet ring on my right
hand, yet I would pull you off…
"Is this man Jeconiah a despised, shattered jar?
Or is he an undesirable vessel?
Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
and cast into a land that they had not known?
"O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD!!
"Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man [Jeconiah] down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David, Or ruling again in Judah.'

No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David's throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. Neither could he claim the right to David's throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew's genealogy, then, is to show why Y'shua could not be king if he were really Joseph's son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew's viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph's son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

Luke's Genealogy

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband's name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article ("the") before a proper name ("the" Matthew, "the" Luke, "the" Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article "the" with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Miriam's.

Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: "…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…," because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: "Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…".1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Y'shua was "supposed" or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam's name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in versees 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David's son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam's son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.

In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke's genealogy did not include Jeconiah's line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Y'shua's public ministry, recorded his genealogy.

However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Y'shua to the throne of David, for they too did not have Jeconiah's blood in their veins. Why Jesus and not one of the others? At this point the second biblical requirement for kingship, that of divine appointment, comes into the picture. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah, only one received divine appointment. Luke 1:30-33 states:

And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Miriam; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Y'shua. He 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; and His kingdom will have no end.'

On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David."

While Matthew's genealogy showed why Y'shua could not be king if he really were Joseph's son, Luke's genealogy shows why Y'shua could be king. When he returns, he will be king.

Two things may be noted by way of conclusion. First, many rabbinic objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument goes, "Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through his father, he cannot be Messiah and King." But the Messiah was supposed to be different. As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the "seed of the woman," although this went contrary to the biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." Whereas all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother. True, this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles. In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King. Could the Messiah be anyone less?


Endnote 1A.T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels.

The above article is one solution to the problem of the curse on Jeconiah. For an alternate solution, see "The Problem of the Curse on Jeconiah in Relation to the Genealogy of Jesus"

Share this post:

Submit to FacebookSubmit to TwitterShare on Google+

Add comment

  • If your comment does not pertain to this specific article/blog please click here to send us a message. Comments not related to this article will not be posted.
  • We reserve the right to delete vulgar, racist, or hateful content, as well as inappropriate and off-topic posts.
  • Comments containing links will not be approved.
  • For extended discussions, use our forums.
  • Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.


Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
+1 # Shlomo 2014-12-05 19:58
Hi, Kevin and all. I am a Jew who believes in Jesus as Messiah ben Joseph who will return as Messiah ben David to rule. Jewish Midrash and even Talmud speak of Messiah ben Joseph who preceeds Messiah ben David. He is the one who is "pierced" for our sins (Zechariah). The Davidic line from which Jeshua descends is the genealogy of Luke, his human father being Joseph ben Heli, not Joseph ben Jacob whose genealogy is given in Matthew. The difference between Jewish and Christian interpretation is we Jews see only the Father as God. Jeshua--Jesus-- as a spirit being is the firstborn son of God and the rest of creation came after. He is therefore not God the Son as there is no such thing in scripture. It is the result of church councils beginning in 325 AD through the middle of the 8th century--a 400 plus years period it took to come up with their doctrine of the Trinity. A true Jew cannot accept the Trinity. For us God is not three persons. God is one person, the Father our King.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Eric Camil 2014-12-05 18:56
Relating to Jesus Genealogy I thought it would be good to mention Luke 2:4. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Kevin 2014-11-21 01:30
I understand your article, and I asked the question on your leave a message javascript or html5 form, but it was lost, so I am writing it again.

How can Jesus be of any blood line of any human since humanity from Adam is corrupt? Didn't God The Father just place Him in Mary's womb? I mean He is human for sure, just like Adam, but with no genetic early parents? And since the life is in the blood, he really couldn't even share her (Mary's blood) right?

Help me worth through this. I love Jesus, and believe all He says about Himself and all that the Bible says. I just feel in the dark about how to read those genealogies with regard to His Davidic kingship.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Eric 2014-11-21 19:09
Brother Kevin,
Shalom,

Relating to corruption please keep in mind that it is God who places the Spirit in us Ecc12:7 “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” It is also God who gives us the Faith we receive so we have an opportunity to believe in Him. Neither that Faith, nor Spirit that God gives us is corrupt because it is from Him, we do not receive these from our parents. Also John 3:34 says that Jesus was given the Spirit without measure.
I don’t understand the answers given on the geology to Jesus and I am Ok with that. I don’t accept the adoption theory because there is no scripture to support it and we know even if a Cohen adopts a son he still does not gain the right to be a priest because he is no of that blood.

Agape
Eric
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Eric 2014-11-21 19:16
Brother Kevin,

I Also wanted to share please do not struggle with the unknown. Scripture even tells us not to debate these things. Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”

I have learned to accept there are many questions which can’t be answered. I am comfortable with that, because Jesus is so real in my life and the life of others. In fact I don’t mind telling people I don’t have all the answers and no one does. I hate when people try to answer a questions with either scripture or logic that makes little sense and I believe it actually harms them from later recognizing the truth. People need to admit they sometimes don’t have the answer.

This is Ok.

Agape
Eric
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dakota 2014-12-03 17:41
Kevin,

I can answer your question about the blood of Jesus. It's simple: Jesus was born into human flesh in a PRE-Adamic state. Remember, Adam was not born sinful; Adam merely became sinful.

Also, I believe it was accepted in Biblical History that it is the father who passes down the sin nature, not the mother.

Therefore, when Jesus was sent by the Father, he was living in a human state that had "not yet" been corrupted by the fall. He was living in human flesh as if He were in His perfect state.

Let me know your thoughts,

Dakota
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Eric Camil 2014-12-03 23:52
Dakota,

Interesting thoughts thank you. A question though. Can you point to the scripture that says the sin nature is passed on by the father? I am not sure that is correct. Remember it was Eve that sinned and became corrupt before Adam.

This of course always brings up the question, what if Adam would have never eaten of the fruit after Eve did?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Benjamin 2014-12-10 17:48
Quoting Dakota:
Kevin,

I can answer your question about the blood of Jesus. It's simple: Jesus was born into human flesh in a PRE-Adamic state. Remember, Adam was not born sinful; Adam merely became sinful.

Also, I believe it was accepted in Biblical History that it is the father who passes down the sin nature, not the mother.

Therefore, when Jesus was sent by the Father, he was living in a human state that had "not yet" been corrupted by the fall. He was living in human flesh as if He were in His perfect state.

Let me know your thoughts,

Dakota

All this is irrelevant. Joseph did not impregnate Mary. The gospels trace all that lineage and after all that Joseph did not impregnate Mary. PLease try and be logical and dont defend yourself with a lot of rhetoric.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Benjamin 2014-12-10 18:01
I as a Jew dont believe that another Jew is divine. Jesus is not a deity. When Moses approached the Burning Bush God the Sovereign of the Universe warned him to approach carefully He said "No one may see My Face and live". So whose face did Jesus have? In Isaiah God says "My Glory I will not give to another". God cannot be contained in the womb of a woman. No amount of rhetoric will justify that.
Also human sacrifice is an abomination. If you are saying Jesus was God then you have it wrong. God is not mortal. He cannot be born, H does not die and cannot be resurrected. There is nothing logical about your argument.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Eric Camil 2014-11-12 22:16
Shalom and two questions.
Why is Luke's genealogy from David to Jesus 15 generations longer than Matthew's and what does this mean?

Also since Since Matthew lists that Jesus descended through Solomon but Luke claimed that Jesus descended through Nathan, David's other son (who was not a king). Does this eliminate Jesus' genealogy through Luke leaving only Matthew?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Robin Palmer 2014-11-12 21:41
Why would Luke include a genealogy based on a supposition?

And why would anyone suppose that Jesus wasn't the son of Joseph the son of Jacob per Matthew?--as the people of Nazareth "supposed," amongst whom Jesus' was raised.

The expression "as was supposed" in Luke's genealogy may be more appropriately translated "according to custom," or common law. Jesus was the son of Joseph the son of Heli by common law adoption.

I think "VL" is on to something. Why did Pilate grant the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea? Because he was Jesus' adoptive father and the disposition of the body was his right and legal obligation.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Eric 2014-11-21 18:43
Robin, I have heard the adoption scenario before but first there is no scripture to support it. Secondly, we know that even adopted children did not inherit rights from their adoptive father anyway. The sane as if a Cohen adopted a son, the son would still not be considered a priest because he was not actually from the Cohen line by blood..
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Dr T 2014-10-16 06:25
Well done for a short article. Keep up the good work. Blessings from India!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # charles 2014-10-01 12:23
This is a smile problem but as usual, those that want to believe something will go to great lengths to cover up the truth.

Jesus was born of a virgin the gospels claim. Both Matthew and Luke says that god is Jesus father, and no matter how you cut it, that goes against bible prophesy. The messiah, as prophesied, would come from the kine of David, the male line. If god was Jesus' father, then the prophesy fails. Its really that simple.

Its comical watching people try and rectify obvious failures in the bible like this. The genealogies don't match because there were more than one set running around at the time. That's why Paul mentions it.

"Avoid genealogies and debates about the law" (Titus 3:9). Why mention genealogies? Because Christians made them up as both the Gospels prove conclusively, and there were competing accounts that didn't match.

Simple really the bible has flaws as any honest person will admit.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Dennis Johnson 2014-10-18 06:34
Charles, this was a thorough and logical article, and the Talmud verifies that Luke is Mary's genealogy. He fully explained the irony of why she is not mentioned in her own genealogy. The article explains well that Messiah was prophesied to be seed of the woman. If God was Jesus' father, the prophecy fails?? Wouldn't that prove His divinity and sinless perfection, and that He really is Savior? I had doubts, but now I know Him.

My observation is that people go to great lengths to destroy or discredit the Bible, but they always fail. The evidence for it being God's word is literally staggering and overwhelming. Personal, archaeological, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, etc, etc. Seek and you will find. I hope you will find Him. God bless.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
# Guest 2014-12-03 21:00
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # Karen 2014-07-25 16:53
This really cleared things up for me as I begin my study of Jesus the Messiah. I have a family member who is studying to become a Jew soon.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-4 # Shlomo 2014-03-15 20:38
Shalom! The unspoken reality is Jeshua of Nazareth had a human father as indicated in Luke. In extra canonical writings he is called Joseph Pandera, from a derrogatory account called Toledot Jeshu. He was the son of an apostate Jew. He became a Roman soldier. He forced himself on Miriam after she was betrothed to the other Joseph. Miriam was sent to Nazareth. That city was set aside for women who had been raped by the Roman occupiers. That is why the question, "Can any good come out of Nazareth?" To take away her stigma, Joseph married Miriam anyway and adopted Jeshua. But the undertone of the NT is Jeshua was a mamzer, not entitled to sit with the elders because of a wrong interpretation of what constituted a mamzer. That is why the rabbis (Pharisees) were so harsh towards Jeshua. The gentile church rejected this reality to make Miriam a virgin and Jeshua a god, ignoring Luke's genealogy. They thought Jeshua couldn't be Messiah Son of God if he had a human father.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # VL 2012-12-26 16:46
Tony, thanks for the reply, I came across this a few months ago and I beleive it to be correct. I totally agree that it's not common knowledge to the majority of beleivers, but I think you would have to agree that it solves the problem of Yahshua being of the correct line of King David. I would take it that you agree with the basis of the article that Yahshua could not be the legal son of Mary's husband Joseph, being a desendent of Jeconiah. Therfore, a suitable legal father was needed for Yashua, Mary the daughter of Heli, was clearly suitable to give birth to the Mesiah, because we all know she did, so this tells us, her family was in line to be the King of Israel, but it was going to be a desendent her brother Joseph of Arimethea. Obviously, the adoption papers in Luke3:23-28 state's that Yahshua was the son of a "Joseph", the son of Heli, but it could not be referring to Mary's husband Joseph, because he was ruled out in his family lineage in Mathew, being a desendent of Jeconiah.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # VL 2012-12-09 02:07
The genealogy in Luke is that of Joseph of Aramethea, he adopted Yahshua as his son thereby allowing Yahshua to be of the correct line of David to be King of Yisrael. Joseph of Aramethea was actually Miriam's twin brother and Yahshua's blood uncle. This is also why Joseph was able to claim Yahshua's body after the crucifiction, he was next of kin.
Luke 3:23-38
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Rich Robinson 2012-12-10 17:24
That's a very idiosyncratic theory, not sure I know of anyone who would agree with that one.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Tony 2012-12-24 15:32
VL, you have said this in two different threads as if you are stating a known fact. Personally, i have never heard this. Please give your reason and backup your claim with evidence.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Tich 2014-02-07 14:05
There is no Biblical evidence to support that theory at all.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Eric 2014-11-21 19:26
VL,

This is interesting. can you point me to the scripture which says
Joseph of Arimathea adopted Jesus and when this occurred please?

Thanks

Eric
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # aurora cachola 2012-12-07 17:52
I am thankful that you have enlightened many points of Jesus roots. I agree with you. But if I may so add that in Mark & John they were writing a picture of Jesus as the Servant (Mark's) & as the God (John's). Servants have no record of their descent much more with that of God who has no beginning & no end. Therefore both books need to do away the genealogy of Jesus.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+3 # Tim Wood 2012-11-20 18:48
Matthew 1's purpose is not to disqualify Jesus from kingship but the exact opposite. As he isn't from the cursed line, he proves that he qualifies for kingship with the virgin birth account that immediately follows the genealogy and so he is the Son of David via Mary, who was descended from Nathan.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Mordechai 2012-11-20 17:12
1. Matthew says "Jehoram the father of Uzziah," when he was really his great-great-grandfat her because Matthew skipped Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah. Why? to get to 14. He may have the right, but he can't ten say 14 if the true number is 17.
2. That's kind of my point. Matthew says this is Jesus' lineage, but it really isn't. Matthew says Joseph was from a kingly line, but he was really from a cursed line. Luke says straight out Mary (or Joseph) wasn't from a kingly line. Jesus is thus left with no family ties to kingship. What's incredible is that Matthew would spend an entire chapter disqualifying Jesus from kingship at the beginning of the gospels.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Rich Robinson 2012-11-20 18:29
Sure, he can make the list easy to remember 14 - 14 - 14 and skip some generations. It's a mnemonic, not a history chart.
And yes, that's my question to you - if the genealogies so blatantly disqualify Jesus, why the heck are they there?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+1 # Rich Robinson 2012-11-19 17:17
Genealogies often skip generations, e.g. son of can mean grandson of. Commentator Craig Keener: "Creating patterns like three sets of fourteen made lists easier to remember. Some commentators have argued that Matthew uses fourteen generations because the numerical value of David’s name in Hebrew letters is 14."
Re: point 2 - you tell me. Why bother with the genealogy at all? Why mention Joseph? But there it is. Shift your paradigm.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Mordechai 2012-11-18 19:22
1: Matthew says that from David to the exile was 14 generations, but he skips kings. Why does he says 14 if he clearly skips people?
2: Matthew begins with “This is the genealogy of Jesus,” yet the author seems to say it’s not his genealogy at all. If we need the virgin birth to avoid Jeconiah’s line, why bother with the genealogy? If tribal identity only follows the father (Numbers 1:18), how could the author say Jesus’ national and tribal affiliation follows Mary? And if that’s the case, why is Joseph mentioned at all in either line? To say Matthew shows why he couldn’t be king while Luke shows why he could does not solve the question because if Mary is from Nathan (although Luke says Joseph is from David, and not Mary--Luke 1:27), she couldn’t transmit kingship since it’s not Nathan’s to give. If Joseph is from Jeconiah, none of his kids could sit on the Davidic throne. If these lines are accurate, Jesus is inherently disqualified from messiahship.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # Tim Wood 2012-10-27 17:37
This is a really good article that clears up the many misconceptions about the the two genealogies.

The only part I would disagree with, is where he says Son of Abraham means Jesus was a Jew. Galatians 3 says all believers are Sons of Abraham but that doesn't make Gentile believers Jewish, and replacement theologians like Stephen Sizer twist Galatians 3 to show how the church supposedly fulfills the promises of Abraham and perpetuate the lie that God has finished with Israel.

I would say that Son of Abraham means Jesus is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in which "in your seed, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed' Gen 22:18 Though other aspects of this covenant are still to be fulfilled. We know Jesus is a Jew because he was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which is what scripture teaches what a Jew is.

I stand to be corrected!

God bless
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+2 # W. Matthew Whayland 2013-03-01 22:31
We Gentiles are "heirs" not because of any ontological virtue of ourselves, but solely because the gracious Father chose to graft us into Israel.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Shalom 2012-05-29 21:47
Whoa, Amy! Don't be so quick to condemn!


Read again what was said carefully --- and make sure you read Scripture carefully, too! The genealogy in question makes no mention whatsoever of the Tamar of whom you are thinking (who was the daughter of David and who was horribly abused by her evil half-brother Amnon).


...Rather it refers to the Tamar who was the daughter-in-law of Judah and who deceived him into having sex with her because he did not give her his third son Shelah to be her husband. She indeed willingly and knowingly engaged in sexual sin, unlike King David's poor Tamar, who in the account of Scripture was a righteous and godly young woman.


And I do hope you finish reading the article --- it's very interesting.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Thomas Miller 2012-01-02 09:37
This is truly a wonderful service for the Body of Christ. The understanding of the written Word flows with life. Thank you very much!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+6 # Matt Sieger 2011-02-10 07:46
Amy, There are two Tamars in Scripture. You are thinking of the one in 2 Samuel 13, who was attacked by Amnon son of David. The Tamar that Matthew refers to in the genealogy and which the author of this article is talking about is the daughter-in-law of Judah in Genesis 38. That really was a case of incest. So now maybe you can return to the article and read all of it!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
-1 # Amy F 2011-02-10 05:18
I enjoyed this article up until the line that Tamar was guilty of the sin of incest. Having read that story many times, it seems a true shame that she is being blamed for being the victim of a premeditated and planned attack. How the author has arrived at the idea that she is guilty of a crime, I cannot fathom. Sadly, for me, I cannot finish reading an article, no matter how well delineated, after reading that harmful line. Sincerely, Amy
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Yizrael 2008-08-03 10:18
I have this feeling, that maybe Zechariah 12:12 has something to do with this genealogy. Joseph - Solomon Mary - Nathan Elizabeth (Mary's cousin) - priestly line of Aaron All sounds very common. Any input on this?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
+4 # Andy Shafer 2006-10-08 16:01
Thank you for including this article! I was looking for the answer to this problem;, after seeing several articles online that refuted Jesus' right to David's throne. All the pieces fit together with this explanation. Thank you very much!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
Jews for Jesus | 60 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 | Phone: 415-864-2600 | Contact Us
Copyright © 2014 Jews for Jesus. All Rights Reserved.

Social Networks

Jews for Jesus Social Networks
Jews for Jesus on Facebook Jews for Jesus on Facebook Jews for Jesus on Twitter Jews for Jesus on Youtube