> General Discussions

Question regarding genealogy of Jesus

(1/3) > >>

Bradigans:
 
I'm in a dilema here. Someone posed me a question, and I don't know what to say. The question is why is the geneology leading up to Jesus from David according to Matthew 1:6-16 different from the geneology leading up to Jesus from David in Luke 3:23-31. To begin with, one starts off with Solomon and the other starts off with Nathan. Solomon and Nathan are two different sons of David. Is this an error in the KJV Bible? I'm not certain if I can put all of this here, but here is some of what this guy said:
ONLY TWO COMMISSIONED
 
Of the four Gospel writers, God "inspired" only two of them to record the genealogy of His "son." To make it easy for you to compare the "fathers and grandfathers" of Jesus Christ in both the "inspired" lists, I have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. See below. Between David and Jesus, God "inspired" Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His "son." But Luke, also "inspired," gathered up 41 forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH and that, too, a "supposed" father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?
 
 
GENEALOGY FROM DAVID TO JESUS
 
 
 
FULFILLING PROPHECY?
Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside" But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says — THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors trip and fall on the very first step.
Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynaecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.

javajoe:
The way I have had this explained to me was that one geneology was through the family of Mary, and the other geneology was through the family of Joseph.

Hope that helps!

skydreamers:
Joe, I heard that before too so I looked it up on the internet and this is what I found:

Matthew 1 and Luke 3:

    The genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament have various purposes:
 
    1.  Matthew 1:1-17: Lists the ancestors of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, and presents the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, who descends directly from Abraham, Judah and David, until Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17)... writing for an audience of Jewish Christians, is eager to identify Jesus as a descendant of David, and thus the Messiah, the true heir of David’s kingdom. He also wants to identify Jesus as a descendant of Abraham, and thus one of the covenant people and heir of the promises... he lists the ancestors of Joseph, from the tribe of Judah, the legal father of Jesus .
   
Matthew lists 42 ancestors, Thus there were 14 generations in all from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile to Babylon, and 14 from the exile to the Christ (Mat.1:17).
   
There have been many attempts to see in Matthew’s use of three groups of fourteen, a symbolical meaning, some related to Daniel’s seventy weeks’ of years (14x5=70).
   
Most ancestors were holy and important people... but some of us would have been ashamed of ancestors who were criminals, murderers, prostitutes, adulterous... the gospels are very candid and honest in presenting the true ancestors of Jesus Christ.
   
He lists 5 women, something very strange in Jewish genealogies. One of them a pagan, Ruth. Another an adulterous, Bathsheba. Two prostitutes, Tamar and Rahah. And finally, the most blessed among women, the Mother of Jesus, Virgin Mary.
   
Six patriarchs who were promised that Messiah would be their seed: Abraham-Isaac-Jacob-Judah-David-Zerubbabel... but, out of the 6 patriarchs, 3 were definitely not the firstborn of their brothers: Jacob (Gen 25:25-26), Judah (Gen 29:31-35) and David (I Sam 16:11-13).
   
Rehab and Ruth and Tamar were not Jews, thy were gentile. Christ did have Gentile blood. Jesus was not a 100% Jew.

    2. Luke 3:23-38: Lists the ancestors of Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus, also from the tribe of Judah. Jesus is the descendent of Abraham, Judah and David on both His father's line and his mother's line. (Luke 3:23-38).. Luke is writing for an audience that is predominantly Gentile, to the Greeks. So he takes Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to the beginning of Genesis: “the son of Adam, the son of God”.
    Luke lists 74 ancestors, up to Adam. 

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/genealogy-jesus.htm

You can find more info by googling genealogy of Jesus in bible.

Peace,
Diana

Kat:

Hi Bradigans,

Here is a email answer to your question.

http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3811.0.html -----

Dear Josh:
    Apparently, Luke's account IS Mary's genealogy.
    King James reads:  "...the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23).
    Rotherham:  "...the son of Joseph of Heli."
    Concordant:  "...being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat, of Levi.
     
    Now then, "son of" is clearly not in the Greek, and so it is not necessarily fitting that
    it should be supplied by the translators in this case.
     
    Joseph in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is not the "son of Heli" but rather Jacob (Matt. 1:16).

    And so this could be a case such as we find in Deut. 25:5-6--"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her HUSBAND'S BROTHER shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.  And it shall be, that the firstborn which she bears shall succeed IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel."

    And so Heli may have been a "son IN LAW" rather than "a son." And this could be Mary's genealogy back to Solomon where they apparently merge again with Joseph's line. It is quite complicated. Theologians have made a life study of the genealogies, and their are several theories extant.

    Don't ask me any more questions on genealogy, as I really do have more important things to write about, but it is an interesting question.

    God be with you,

    Ray

Bradigans:
Just wanted to say, thanks everybody, this really helps. Keep me in your prayers...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page