Matthew vs Luke

[duxrow]

The differences between the genealogy of Matthew and Luke is rooted in two of the sons of King David -- Solomon is the son in the King Line of Matthew, and Nathan is the son in the Priest Line of Luke.

1. Mary had no brothers (like Zelophehad of Nu26:33), and her FATHER "Joseph of Jacob" is a match for the Genesis Joseph with coat of many colors. It helps to recognize how Jacob means supplanted (take the place of..) Gen 27:36.

2. Mary's father, as well as her husband, was named Joseph. Like we know God as our heavenly Father, but also as "thine maker is thy husband", Isa54:5.

3. Like the 19 names preceding Abraham, so the 19 names of David's Dynasty (David to Jeconiah) preceded the carrying away to Babylon. So the 3x14 of Mt1:17 leaves 5 to be added to middle column.
19+14=33 -- David was generation #33, and then another 33 to Jesus!

[duxrow]

That Joseph in Genesis was NOT in the father-to-son generations of Jesus, and neither is the husband of Mary! Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is followed by Judah#23, and leaves ten more to reach David#33! ..:p

Except for Melchizedek, the Old Testament kings were not permitted to usurp the duties of the Priests (Saul and Uzziah refer), but now the New Covenant calls us to be “kings and priests” — Rev1:6, 5:10. :specool:

[duxrow]

That Joseph in Genesis was NOT in the father-to-son generations of Jesus, and neither is the husband of Mary! Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is followed by Judah#23, and leaves ten more to reach David#33! ..:p

Except for Melchizedek, the Old Testament kings were not permitted to usurp the duties of the Priests (Saul and Uzziah refer),
but now the New Covenant calls us to be “kings and priests” — Rev1:6, 5:10. :specool:The Genealogy in Matthew is from Abraham to Jesus via Solomon.

It's the King Line, because it includes 19 kings, and Jesus is our "King of Kings". Rev 17:14.

:dizzy: The (reversed) Genealogy in Luke is from the "supposed" Daddy (Mary's husband) to Adam via Nathan. (no mention of Solomon or Mary or Jesus there..) SO NATURALLY YOU CAN'T JUST COUNT NAMES! Amen? :thumb:

[dpenn]

The differences between the genealogy of Matthew and Luke is rooted in two of the sons of King David -- Solomon is the son in the King Line of Matthew, and Nathan is the son in the Priest Line of Luke.

1. Mary had no brothers (like Zelophehad of Nu26:33), and her FATHER "Joseph of Jacob" is a match for the Genesis Joseph with coat of many colors. It helps to recognize how Jacob means supplanted (take the place of..) Gen 27:36.

2. Mary's father, as well as her husband, was named Joseph. Like we know God as our heavenly Father, but also as "thine maker is thy husband", Isa54:5.

3. Like the 19 names preceding Abraham, so the 19 names of David's Dynasty (David to Jeconiah) preceded the carrying away to Babylon. So the 3x14 of Mt1:17 leaves 5 to be added to middle column.
19+14=33 -- David was generation #33, and then another 33 to Jesus!

duxrow,

You seem to have pulled off some kind of Houdini thing on me following Joseph's coat of many colours. I have heard the Zelophehad argument for the Luke line, suggesting that Mary had no brothers, and Joseph would have then been adopted by her father and take on her family name.

Are you aware that Chuck Missler holds to this view, but then explains how the line of Solomon was broken, when Jehoichin (son of Jehoiakim) had a curse on him and his descendants through Jeremiah 22:24,30:

"As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah".

Missler suggests that because of the curse on Coniah (aka Jehoiachin), Solomon's kingly line for fulfilled prophecy was broken. Don't worry, enter David's other son born to Bathsheba: Nathan. So now the bloodline to Mary, the mother of Jesus, is still from King David.

I am not sure of this, but it is at least plausible.

Sorry, I had to edit my confusion. I recall working out the #33 for David, but couldn't see how you got another 33 to Jesus. I tried this from both genealogies and didn't come up with 66.

dp

[duxrow]

:yo:Sorry dpenn, but I don't agree with Missler 'suggestion' about King Line being broken -- does he mention the Priest Line at all?

Jehoiachin, or Jeconias, or Coniah, was the final king in the dynasty of David (the Line was broken then and no more kings of Judah,.. the King Zedekiah doesn't countj) and his son Assir#52 was never a king, but HE IS IN THE father-to-son line which leads to Jesus in Mt 1:16.

1Chr3:17 KJV is good, but v.19 is the Wrong Zerubbabel (see Ezra 3 and 5 for the right one), and Salathiel also known as Shealtiel (KJV margin).

Once you arrive at Assir#52, it's just fourteen to Jesus#66. (but some versions transliterate Assir as captive or prisoner, so you never even see the name Assir). :sEm_oops:

Truly, I wasn't aiming for 66, but when that number came up it led me to believe how Jesus the Word was COMPLETE and we didn't need more books, but had the CORRECT count! Then the BWForum led me to the Triple 22 and kind of clinched it for me. I thank Richard for that..

[dpenn]

:yo:Sorry dpenn, but I don't agree with Missler 'suggestion' about King Line being broken -- does he mention the Priest Line at all?

Jehoiachin, or Jeconias, or Coniah, was the final king in the dynasty of David (the Line was broken then and no more kings of Judah,.. the King Zedekiah doesn't countj) and his son Assir#52 was never a king, but HE IS IN THE father-to-son line which leads to Jesus in Mt 1:16.

1Chr3:17 KJV is good, but v.19 is the Wrong Zerubbabel (see Ezra 3 and 5 for the right one), and Salathiel also known as Shealtiel (KJV margin).

Once you arrive at Assir#52, it's just fourteen to Jesus#66. (but some versions transliterate Assir as captive or prisoner, so you never even see the name Assir). :sEm_oops:

Truly, I wasn't aiming for 66, but when that number came up it led me to believe how Jesus the Word was COMPLETE and we didn't need more books, but had the CORRECT count! Then the BWForum led me to the Triple 22 and kind of clinched it for me. I thank Richard for that..

duxrow,

I find this quite interesting, although genealogies are always difficult. I have a few questions:

1. I have counted from Assir to Jesus in Mat 1, and I only get 8, not 14, making it 60.

2. Where do you get a priestly line from Judah in Luke, before Jesus, where believers become priests and kings in Christ?

3. How do you reconcile the genealogy in 1 Chr 3 and Matthew 1? Maybe that is where I am losing your train of thought, and a few more headcounts skipped in Matthew. It is obvious that Matthew skips Jehoahaz (aka Shallum 1 Chr 3:15) and Jehoiakim. But beyond these two, I don't see any other obvious men skipped in Jehoiachin's generations. I am not even certain that this is a different Zerubbabel, but you may be right.

dp

[duxrow]

duxrow,

I find this quite interesting, although genealogies are always difficult. I have a few questions:

1. I have counted from Assir to Jesus in Mat 1, and I only get 8, not 14, making it 60.
2. Where do you get a priestly line from Judah in Luke, before Jesus, where believers become priests and kings in Christ?
3. How do you reconcile the genealogy in 1 Chr 3 and Matthew 1? Maybe that is where I am losing your train of thought, and a few more headcounts skipped in Matthew. It is obvious that Matthew skips Jehoahaz (aka Shallum 1 Chr 3:15) and Jehoiakim. But beyond these two, I don't see any other obvious men skipped in Jehoiachin's generations. I am not even certain that this is a different Zerubbabel, but you may be right
dpYes, dpenn, I find it very interesting, a real challenge to sort out the mis-spellings and double-names. Prov 25:2 FOR SURE! The four columns of 19+14 helped convince me - http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/GenChrt.htm

1. The name Assir is not found in Mat - v.11 would normally have it, but subj changed there. Spelling of names prob difference from Heb to Gr.

2. Both Solomon and Nathan were 'from Judah', being sons of David. Solomon in Mat, and Nathan in Lk.

3. The first 'skip' is at 1Chr3:11 Ahazia his son, Joash his son, Amazia his son, those 3 are skipped, and right at 39/40 juncture.

[dpenn]

Yes, dpenn, I find it very interesting, a real challenge to sort out the mis-spellings and double-names. Prov 25:2 FOR SURE! The four columns of 19+14 helped convince me - http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/GenChrt.htm

1. The name Assir is not found in Mat - v.11 would normally have it, but subj changed there. Spelling of names prob difference from Heb to Gr.

2. Both Solomon and Nathan were 'from Judah', being sons of David. Solomon in Mat, and Nathan in Lk.

3. The first 'skip' is at 1Chr3:11 Ahazia his son, Joash his son, Amazia his son, those 3 are skipped, and right at 39/40 juncture.

duxrow, I am going to get this straight sooner or later.

1. I have already noted Matthew skips Jehoahaz (aka Shallum 1 Chr 3:15) and Jehoiakim, these two.

2. I agree, and further, they were both sons of Bathsheba.

3. But, I do not see these 3 skipped in Mat 1. The spellings are slightly different, but I don't see any other names missing.

I hope we aren't slipping into an infinite loop, :lol:

dp

[duxrow]

Feel your pain, dp, BTDT, but don't be discouraged--see it as a challenge, when you commit.

1Chr KJV 3:15 "And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum". THE PEDIGREE goes thru the 2nd son only! (Jehoiakim), and then to Coniah/Jeconiah.. Not shallum.

I assume you're using the KJV..

Matt1:9 KJV And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;(Note: these four(4) names: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, are found in Isaiah 1:1 and Hosea 1:1. Maybe the spelling gets to you. Uzziah#43 sometimes is Azariah.

Have you looked at my chart? I could dig it out from past posts on this forum, but easier just to refer you to: http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm

[duxrow]

Noah had 3 sons, but the pedigree was thru Shem (not Ham or Japheth). Same here with Josiah--the father to son line only thru Jehoiakim. (dp, it Seems like I always think of better answer after I've mailed a first response). :sEm_blush8:

[dpenn]

Feel your pain, dp, BTDT, but don't be discouraged--see it as a challenge, when you commit.

1Chr KJV 3:15 "And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum". THE PEDIGREE goes thru the 2nd son only! (Jehoiakim), and then to Coniah/Jeconiah.. Not shallum.

I assume you're using the KJV..

Matt1:9 KJV And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;(Note: these four(4) names: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, are found in Isaiah 1:1 and Hosea 1:1. Maybe the spelling gets to you. Uzziah#43 sometimes is Azariah.

Have you looked at my chart? I could dig it out from past posts on this forum, but easier just to refer you to: http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm

duxrow,

I am with you all the way to David #33. But have you ever thought about the following:

There must have been a significant reason why the story of the daughters of Zelophehad was recorded in the Bible. There is no mention of any brothers of Mary, the mother of Jesus, so it isn't that far fetched that she would fit into that category. And there has to be an obvious reason why the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are so different. So in Luke, if Joseph (who was in the bloodline of Solomon) was to marry Mary (who was in the bloodline of Nathan), under the conditions of the law of Zelophehad's daughters, then Joseph would be, in essence, adopted by her father, as his son, to raise up children in his name (thus Joseph, son of Heli). And if Matthew simply recorded the would-be kingly, royal line, down from Solomon to Joseph, as would be the case if Joseph was "actually" His father, so Joseph's father would be his blood-line father (thus Joseph, son of Jacob).

And as both genealogies are hypothetical, not real, that is, Joseph was not the father anyways, it is not out of place to refer to him as already married to Mary (this marry Mary phrase has quite the ring to it doesn't it? :)). It soon moves on to the more important substance of why He was born. There is clear biblical evidence that Jesus was conceived by God the Holy Spirit, and baby Jesus was, in fact, the Incarnate Son of God, so that one baby was fully God and fully man, one person, but two natures. So I am not totally hung up on this anyways, even though I would like nothing better than to understand every jot and tittle of the Bible.

I was forced to edit and delete some of what I wrote, as your link, for the most part, won me over, after I had already saved it.

Your genealogical tree is very impressive. It is possibly closer to the truth then where I was headed. But I would not remove Jehoahaz (aka Shallum) from the list. I would remove Mary though, as it is obvious that the lists include only the males. Obviously, Mary is the key human player in all of this, so I hope this is not misconstrued to suggest I do not place her in high esteem here.

Thus, the ever-pervasive 66 proves itself again. Of course, if this numerical bubble is shown to be false, I am quite prepared to accept that.

I have enjoyed digging into this subject. Till later,

dp

[duxrow]

Agree, dp, about Zelophehad and 5 daughters. "Neither male nor female", Gal 3:28, so maybe it was finally "father to daughter".. You think?

Anyway, As Richard would say: 'Nice chatting'. /s/ dux

[dpenn]

Agree, dp, about Zelophehad and 5 daughters. "Neither male nor female", Gal 3:28, so maybe it was finally "father to daughter".. You think?

Anyway, As Richard would say: 'Nice chatting'. /s/ dux

duxrow,

It is not clear to me what you mean by "Neither male nor female", Gal 3:28 in light of these genealogies, nor the "father to daughter" remark, unless you are merely referring to the case of Zelophehad's daughters acquiring a genealogical inheritance of their father. I still don't see your priestly line of Nathan, though. And I am sure there was more to the curse of Jeremiah on the line of Jehoiachin, then you are willing to admit. But wouldn't that be a mind bender if the line of Jesus actually came through Nathan, not Solomon? There must be more to the two lines that I am just not seeing yet, but I am not comfortable with assuming what is not stated.

I am glad we were able to chew on this one for awhile,

dp

[duxrow]

duxrow,

It is not clear to me what you mean by "Neither male nor female", Gal 3:28 in light of these genealogies, nor the "father to daughter" remark, unless you are merely referring to the case of Zelophehad's daughters acquiring a genealogical inheritance of their father. I still don't see your priestly line of Nathan, though. And I am sure there was more to the curse of Jeremiah on the line of Jehoiachin, then you are willing to admit. But wouldn't that be a mind bender if the line of Jesus actually came through Nathan, not Solomon? There must be more to the two lines that I am just not seeing yet, but I am not comfortable with assuming what is not stated.

I am glad we were able to chew on this one for awhile, dp
2 points, dpenn. First, the pedigree goes Father-to-Son for more than sixty generations (no misses and no copycats!), before arriving (IMO) at a father-to-daughter Mary. Not likely, I think, unless deliberate by our Holy Ghostwriter.

Second, the PRIEST LINE. Melchizedek was first King-Priest, but after that the kings weren't allowed to usurp the duties of the priest (Saul and Uzziah pertain).

The Luke genealogy includes names that are linked to Priests, and notably the extra Joseph's that would be in the pedigree of Mary's husband. Plus, the NT practice of carrying on "the family Name" is found in Luke.

Luke 1:61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called. (John Baptist)

Don't mean to be condescending in this matter, dp, but I have no way of knowing whether you've already considered this data, and I DO think it's important and leading to the Triple22.

All the best, /s/ dux

ps: Think it was Scofield who first reported on the Coniah curse, but I disagreed then because it didn't correct the Matthew impression of Mary's husband as father of Jesus. :eek: