heritage line of Jesus

[Sagen]

Hey guys sorry I have been gone for a while:yo: school kinda caught up to me, but I have been keeping myself in a study of the Bible. One of the weird things that I found was that in Matthew 1:1 is the geneology of Jesus and again in Luke 3. However, the geneology is different in both accounts! Approximately after Abraham the line goes completely different except for having a few similarities. I was hoping someone would please explain why this is or has some suggestion to figure out why.:thumb:
Thanks for listening
Sagen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey guys sorry I have been gone for a while:yo: school kinda caught up to me, but I have been keeping myself in a study of the Bible. One of the weird things that I found was that in Matthew 1:1 is the geneology of Jesus and again in Luke 3. However, the geneology is different in both accounts! Approximately after Abraham the line goes completely different except for having a few similarities. I was hoping someone would please explain why this is or has some suggestion to figure out why.:thumb:
Thanks for listening
Sagen
Hi Sagan,

Good to hear from you!

Most folks understand the difference between the two genealogies as because one is the genealogy of Mary and the other is of Christ's stepfather Joseph. I think that is probably correct.

But there are still other difficulties, such as the fact that Matthew says there are three sets of 14 generations, which means that there should be a total of 42 = 3 x 14, but when you count them there are only 41.

One very important thing to remember is that Matthew's geneology is a "schematic" designed on numerical symmetry. A comparison with the OT shows that he deliberately skipped over a few names here and there.

I remember the first time I actually "woke up" to the meaning of the genealogies. It happened after repeatedly reviewing all 66 books so I could complete the Bible Wheel book. Reading the geneologies after being so deeply engrossed in Scripture for so long made every name "come alive" and I realized that the genealogies were repeating the whole story of the Bible in shorthand. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, ... David, Solomon ... just reading their names reminded me of their roles in the great unfolding drama of redemption that culminated in Jesus Christ.

Hope that helps!

Richard

ETA - I corrected my persistant mispelling of genealogy as geneology.

[Victor]

I was thinking about Christ's genealogy the other day. Here in the forum there has been much discussion about the existance of "lost tribes" of Israel in the world because the ten tribes were assimilated by the Gentiles through intermarriage in generation after generation. We come to the simple conclusion that just about everyone in the world today is a descendant of a Israelite.

It occurred to me that by the first century b.C. a similar thing would have happened to the genealogy of David. A lot of Jews by that time would most likely be part of the lineage of David, don't you think? To be considered "a son of David" one would only need to have an ancestor who was part of the David's family line, a set of people that tremendously increases after each generation. So, being a "son of David" wouldn't mean much during those times, would it? Most people were probably 'sons of David'.

Maybe the solution lies in the fact that by "son of David" the Gospels mean "to be a descendant of the royal lineage of David". That would certainly fit with Matthew's Gospel, which is the most emphatic in showing Jesus as "King of the Jews" and that reports the kingship line after David (David, Salomon, Roboam, etc...). But Luke does not use the royal lineage. He records the name of Nathan as a son of David, departing from the royal lineage. So it sounds like Luke is not as much concerned with showing the Davidic character of Jesus' ascent as he is with showing that Jesus is a man, since he goes all the way back to Adam the first man. That fits with the overall gist of that Gospel which emphasizes Christ's humanity and is commonly represented by the Cherub of Revelation 4 with a face of a man.

What do you think?

Victor

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was thinking about Christ's genealogy the other day. Here in the forum there has been much discussion about the existance of "lost tribes" of Israel in the world because the ten tribes were assimilated by the Gentiles through intermarriage in generation after generation. We come to the simple conclusion that just about everyone in the world today is a descendant of a Israelite.

It occurred to me that by the first century b.C. a similar thing would have happened to the genealogy of David. A lot of Jews by that time would most likely be part of the lineage of David, don't you think? To be considered "a son of David" one would only need to have an ancestor who was part of the David's family line, a set of people that tremendously increases after each generation. So, being a "son of David" wouldn't mean much during those times, would it? Most people were probably 'sons of David'.

Maybe the solution lies in the fact that by "son of David" the Gospels mean "to be a descendant of the royal lineage of David". That would certainly fit with Matthew's Gospel, which is the most emphatic in showing Jesus as "King of the Jews" and that reports the kingship line after David (David, Salomon, Roboam, etc...). But Luke does not use the royal lineage. He records the name of Nathan as a son of David, departing from the royal lineage. So it sounds like Luke is not as much concerned with showing the Davidic character of Jesus' ascent as he is with showing that Jesus is a man, since he goes all the way back to Adam the first man. That fits with the overall gist of that Gospel which emphasizes Christ's humanity and is commonly represented by the Cherub of Revelation 4 with a face of a man.

What do you think?

Victor
Hi Victor!

I think those are good insights. It hadn't occurred to me that most of the Jews living at the time of Christ could find at least one ancestor descended from David, so your suggestion makes a lot of sense. I also strongly agree with the distinction between Matthew (King of Judah, face of the Lion) and Luke (Son of Man/Adam) and their correlation with the cherubim. I think those are very insightful ways to look at the differences between the Gospels.

There also is a correlation with the traditional solution that interprets Matthew's geneology as that of Joseph and Luke's as that of Mary, since Luke's Gospel has a unique emphasis upon women, as explain in my article called (as you might expext) Luke: the Gospel of Women (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Luke_Women.asp).

Richard

[alec cotton]

I was just looking at the two genealogies and counting the male names. In mathew I counted 42 names .In Luke I counted 77. Since I hve encountered the Bible Wheel I have become a little less arrogant , a little less certain of my firmly held beliefs. That is the great value of discussion and debate. If we can't debate,discuss or argue then we get bogged down in our own ideas. If two people argue to win,then they both lose. One loses the arguement, the other loses a friend. If they argue to reach a conclusion then they both win because they achieve a common goal. Seven denotes divinity. In Luke ,the genealogy starts with Jesus (The only bgotten of the Father)and ends wih God. So you have !!*7. In Mathew it starts wit a man and ends with a man .In mathew
there are 42 names or 6*7. Iesus is son of man and son of God . If I am wrong I will be delighted when someone shows me where I've gone wrong .In that case I will correct my error and be right.

[eliyahu]

The two geneologies are each edited for different reasons. Many if not all Biblical geneologies are recorded in an edited fashion for various reasons. Mark's geneology is from Mary and Matthew's is from Jospeh. Mathew was written primarily to Jews and from a more Jewish context than Luke. Matthew has reasons for ommitting names from the geneology as Richard (RAM) can explain more readily than I right now. One reason for such editing is that Matthew was not a mathematically and scientificly literal style of writer and should not be held to a modern standard of such. Matthew had a particular purpose behind his geneology, and it was not primarily scientific.

In Mat 1:6, Matthew diverges from Luke through Solomon. Solomon is a direct "son of David." In Luke 3:31 we see the genology come through Nathan instead of Solomon. Nathan was also a direct "son of David," and a brother of Solomon. The promised Messiah was not specifically promised to come through the kingly lineage of Solomon. Remember, that lineage was permanently deposed from Judah's throne When Nubuchadnezar removed and deported king Zedekiah and killed his only sons. See the end of the book of Jeremiah. If the Solomonic line was the Messiah's, than God failed at fulfilling the promise coming through the male line of Davidicly descended kings. The promised "seed of David" was, however, clearly to be a direct descendant of David through any one of his many sons, somehow.

Many Jews only esteemed the lineage of the father and not the mother. Matthew was hence establishing a more Jewish style of evidence for Jesus' credentials to be the "son of David." Luke was written more broadly to include Gentile disciples and not just Jewish ones and therefore recorded Mary's line. Maybe that was more impressive to less discriminating (Gentile) readers. For sure, Luke recieved much extraordinary exclusive information about Jesus' conception, birth and childhood personally from Mary. Matthew did not share all of the same information which Luke provided for various reasons. Maybe Luke wanted to let Mary's witness get a little more attention, being that she was in that sort of culture in which Jews did not esteem the testimony's of women. Luke was probably taking on the tradition of Jesus and just radically and indiscriminately reporting the facts as they were and not doing such through a more cultural, Jewish filture, like Matthew did (and there was nothing wrong with that).

[deb]

Luke’s gospel is for women? He is very female-friendly and I have always loved that about him, but there is not a single woman, including Mary, in his genealogy. Matthew lists four (if my pre-coffee memory is in gear)

Another quirk is that Matthew’s genealogy moves forward to the Messiah, Luke starts with the Messiah and moves back.

Covenants were made with Abraham and David for a 'seed' and what I see is that Matthew shows how the 'seed' has sprung from Abraham and David. To me it looks like Matthew is demonstrating that Joseph had a legal right to the throne of Israel. However that heritage was forfeit after wicked king Jeconiah. (Jer. 22:30f) Even so, the promise to David stood firm. It was just impossible to accomplish through natural means. Nubuchadnezar may have killed the sons but the grandsons did survive for whatever reason. When Zerubbabel came out of Babylon he had at least two sons. The eldest, the legal heir to the throne, is listed in Matthew. The youngest is listed in Luke as (apparently) Mary’s descendent. Thus a legitimate 'seed' of David inherited the throne of Israel through adoption (and angelic intervention).

I’m not sure that 'everyone' had a few drops of Davidic blood at the time of Messiah… though David did try to accomplish that goal… It looks like the royal line of David settled in Nazareth and was known, both who they were and where they were, but nothing was expected of them.

Luke starts with the supposed son of Joseph and goes backward to Noah and Adam. Noah (through his sons) and Adam were given covenant promises for all of mankind. Luke the gentile would find the 'seed of the woman' who would crush the serpents head.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Luke’s gospel is for women? He is very female-friendly and I have always loved that about him, but there is not a single woman, including Mary, in his genealogy. Matthew lists four (if my pre-coffee memory is in gear)

Good morning deb!

I'm glad you stopped by for a visit.

I didn't say that Luke's Gospel is "for" women. That wouldn't make sense to me. My observation was merely that Luke's Gospel has a unque emphasis upon women, by which I mean that he includes many women in his narattive that are not mentioned in the other Gospels:

http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Women.gif

This is not a new observation. Other folks have commented it.

But it is interesting that this pattern breaks down in the genealogies since it is Matthew and not Luke who mentions women in the geneology of Christ. I don't know why that might be ... do you have any ideas?




Another quirk is that Matthew’s genealogy moves forward to the Messiah, Luke starts with the Messiah and moves back.

Yes, and Luke traces it all the way back to Adam (the first man) while Matthew begins with Abraham (the first man chosen by God to begin the Jewish nation). There are very different things being emphasized.



Covenants were made with Abraham and David for a 'seed' and what I see is that Matthew shows how the 'seed' has sprung from Abraham and David. To me it looks like Matthew is demonstrating that Joseph had a legal right to the throne of Israel. However that heritage was forfeit after wicked king Jeconiah. (Jer. 22:30f) Even so, the promise to David stood firm. It was just impossible to accomplish through natural means. Nubuchadnezar may have killed the sons but the grandsons did survive for whatever reason. When Zerubbabel came out of Babylon he had at least two sons. The eldest, the legal heir to the throne, is listed in Matthew. The youngest is listed in Luke as (apparently) Mary’s descendent. Thus a legitimate 'seed' of David inherited the throne of Israel through adoption (and angelic intervention).

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around such "legal" niceties because there is so much that I don't know, and so much that the Bible does not explicitly tell us about such things.




I’m not sure that 'everyone' had a few drops of Davidic blood at the time of Messiah… though David did try to accomplish that goal… It looks like the royal line of David settled in Nazareth and was known, both who they were and where they were, but nothing was expected of them.


Well, after a thousand years of interbreeding within a relatively closed community, it is pretty unlikely that anyone would be excluded from some genetic relation to anyone who successfully reproduced, especially if they reproduced like David. But the relations would not be like those we see in the genealogies which have direct lines down through a long series of kings.



Luke starts with the supposed son of Joseph and goes backward to Noah and Adam. Noah (through his sons) and Adam were given covenant promises for all of mankind. Luke the gentile would find the 'seed of the woman' who would crush the serpents head.

Does this mean that you see Matthew's genealogy as beginning with Joseph, and Luke's with Mary?

Richard

[deb]

I do not know why there are no women in Luke’s genealogy but I suspect that Matthew isn’t as uncharitable toward women as he is often said to be… but that is another study.

'Legal niceties' are another (important) study. The more I learn what every Hebrew child had to know, the more the actions of different historical figures make sense, the more faith makes sense, the more the underpinnings of the work of God makes sense. I’m finding that things can be 'explicitly' understood and have had an amazing number of 'ah-haw' moments because of learning to look through Hebrew eyes (something that has never been natural for me).

It is just a detail that probably doesn’t even need to be mentioned, but I see both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies as beginning and ending with the Messiah. One obviously comes through Joseph, the other apparently comes through Mary. It is a complicated study, I’m not sure I am ready to die on this hill, but it is possible that Levi-Matthew was the son of Mary (in English, Miriam in Hebrew) the mother of Y’shua-Jesus’ sister (translated Mary in English also). As a Publican I would expect him to be a man of details and numbers. As a Hebrew, a man who knows his heritage, especially if he is loyal to the royal line. As a publican, despised by the Pharisees and Zealots, a man willing to see outside of the box. He seems to be older then Y’shua/Jesus, but I’m not sure. (this is a lot of maybes) He or a family member probably heard the story of the Angelic intervention that came to Joseph in a dream. If Mary 2 (Levi-Matthew’s mother) is Mary 1’s sister (Y’shua’s mother), then the pregnancy, the impending divorce, and taking the child and his mother by night would have been well remembered by the sister. An account that young Levi-Matthew would have heard. He may have witnessed the slaughter of innocents knowing that it was his aunt and uncle’s child they were after. His family was probably also in Bethlehem for the censes.

Luke says right up front that he made an investigation to find out the facts. If he is a gentile, as is often said, it would make sense that he would go to public record for his gemology which would legally list only the fathers names. He might not start with Joseph, but with the 'supposed' son of Joseph (the actual son of Mary) and list it backwards down to the original ancestor and the first promise of a Savior.

[Bob May]

Hey guys sorry I have been gone for a while:yo: school kinda caught up to me, but I have been keeping myself in a study of the Bible. One of the weird things that I found was that in Matthew 1:1 is the geneology of Jesus and again in Luke 3. However, the geneology is different in both accounts! Approximately after Abraham the line goes completely different except for having a few similarities. I was hoping someone would please explain why this is or has some suggestion to figure out why.:thumb:
Thanks for listening
Sagen

One begins with Adam (mankind) jesus was fully human.
The other begins with Abraham. The line of Promise.

We as human beings are able to go from one geneology (offspring of fallen man) To children of God through Faith. New creatures. A new creation.
This begins by Faith through Grace. It continues by circumcision (of the heart) which God accomplishes in US.
We believe the promises and our old way of seeing the world around us is changed. This is the offspring as many as the sands of the sea and stars in the sky.
We are in the "Day of the Lord" (Sun or son of Righteousness) New covenant and we are watching it change us.
We all began under Law, cause and effect, carnal.

There is so much to this that it is basically the entire story Old and New Covenants put in a different way.
We are fellow heirs with Christ.
Children of God.
Heirs to The Promise.
Growing into his image etc., etc.

All of these ideas and more are contained in the two geneologies of Jesus.
We are the true "circumcision."
All of these people are "awakenings" to the fact that we have been changed into a new person by Grace through Faith.

PS The "New Covenant" is actually "older" than what we refer to as the "Old Covenant" in that these covenants and promises were given to Abraham BEFORE the Law was given to Moses. And so takes precedence over it.

Bob