Why NOT Christ Lineage through Joesph's boodline, Instead of Judah's

What are the most serious of these descrepencies?Submit the three which you regard as the most troubling.

1) Luke does not match Matthew.
2) Matthew goes through a cursed line.
3) Both got through Joseph, who is NOT Jesus's father. That violates Jewish law when it comes to the Royal lineage.4) The trial of Jesus violates Sandahred law when it comes to the amount of time a trial should take place for a capital case, the day a trial can take place (sabbath and high holy days), the due process of law that is required of a capital case.
5) The execution method is not one that is allowed under Jewish law.
6) The character of pontius pilate is 100% at odds with the records we have about him from that time period.Other things too.

Ramoss,My comments will be brief and not exhaustive. Firstly, because of the medium of this forum, and secondly because I don’t know everything about the subject. That is true, that there are differences in the two geneologies.
Luke’s purpose differs from Matthew’s purpose. Matthew’s purpose is to establish Jesus as the royal Jewiash King and stresses His thoroughly Jewish roots back to Abraham (Matt. 1:2). Matthew’s gospel mentions ”the Christ” to emphasize this where as Luke’s geneology does not mention ”Christ”.Luke on the other hand wanted to establish the universality of Jesus manhood. He therefore traces Jesus ancestry back to Adam, the first man created by God. So first I would point out that the two stresses of the two gospels are responsible for the two difference approaches to the geneology of Jesus.Mark’s gospel (whose account is the simpliest) retains no geneology at all because Mark emphasizes that Jesus was a servant; a slave like Savior. A slave does not need a geneology.And John has no geneology because John stresses that Jesus is God incarnate. For God to have a geneology is a joke. He is from the beginning, He is eternal.Some of the differences between Luke and Matthew are:1. Matt uses 41 names; Luke uses 71!
2. Matt has a VERY specific structure (3 sets of 14 names); Luke's is a simple list
3. Matt has four women (most foreigners); Luke has none
4. Matt's order descends; Luke ascends.
5. Matt starts with Abraham; Luke ends at Adam.Some scholars feel that Matthew’s geneology was designed in a rhetorical / pedagogical structural style for memory-retention. This was supposed to be a practice common in his day. Not only in his geneology, which has three man sections of a pattern of fourteen names, but Matthew displayed elsewhere a fondness for groups of three:Three temptations,
Three illustrations of righteousness,
Three miracles of healing,
Three "fear not"s,
Three questions,
Three prayers in Gethsemane,
among other groupings of threeMatthew’s 41 names as opposed to Luke’s 71 is made allowable by his usage of the word ”begat which simply means ”progenitor’ and allows for considerable gaps to exist without it being an inaccuracy. For example - “My great - great - great grandfather ”begat’ me.Matthew’s scheme of 3 x 14 causes him to arrive at 42 generations. (David is mentioned in connection with closing one section of 14 generations and opening another section so his name is repeated twice).
The 42 generations. Forty is a biblical number often associated with trials, temptations, and sufferings - (Heb. 3:9; Matt. 4:2; 1 Kings 19:8). Forty-two us a number associated with rest and satisfaction after trial. The children of Israel traveled through 42 stations before they entered the good land for rest. The millennial kingdom will come as a rest after 42 months of the great tribulation (Rev. 13:5).Matthew’s thought may be to portray all the Jewish generations of trials, temptations, and sufferings issued in the 42nd generation when Christ comes to be rest and satisfaction to the believers.Matthew 1:17 concludes his geneology with this summary:”Thus all the generations from Abraham until David are fourteen generations, and from David until the deporation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, fourteen generations” However, the listing is according to spiritual priorities rather than strict head count with no regard to spiritual priorities.Matthew’s scheme also displays three distinct sections of 14 generations. Which me may call:
1.) The section of the fathers from Abraham to David.
This is the age before the establishing of the kingdom.
2.) The section of the kings.
This is the age from King David to the deportation to Babylon.
3.) The section of civilians
This is the age from the deportation to Babylon until Christ’s birthAccording to biblical history there are actually forty five generations.
By deducting from these generations three cursed generations and the one improper generation, then adding one by making David two generations (one, the age before the establishing of the kingdom, and the other, the age of the kingdom), the generations total to 42 of 14 generations each.Details on the three dropped cursed generations and the dropped improper generation are not elaborated on in this post.It has been pointed out that Matthew’s structural scheme can attributed to the rabbinic usage of gematria--usage of letters for numbers. In this case, the name "David" in Hebrew has a number-count of 14 (fitting for a section on the Son of David).My opinion is that time accounting in the Bible often according to God’s prioities and not man’s priorities. That should be evident by the dropping of generations which were associated with unworthiness or a curse. This does not mean that every one included in the count was faultless by any means.This post does not deal with all descrepencies between Matthew and Luke. But it does highlight some differences in purpose.
I may speak to more specific problems in another post for space sake. It is late and perhaps I can write something about this tomorrow. Perhaps you will allow me to continue at another time with this issue.
Its late for me.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-04-2006 11:57 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 12:01 AM

quote:

---

That is true, that there are differences in the two geneologies. Luke's purpose differs from Matthew's purpose. Matthew's purpose is to establish Jesus as the royal Jewiash King and stresses His thoroughly Jewish roots back to Abraham

---

It sounds as if your position is that the genealogies were invented to serve these purposes. Although it is not one of the differences you choose to discuss, Matthew traces Jesus' ancestry thrugh Solomon while Luke traces it through Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14). The genealogies have no points of agreement between David and Shealtiel and Zerubbabel - and none after those two, until Joseph.These differences make it impossible to honestly claim that both genealogies are correct.

Paul K, I am not finished yet.The New Testament is "propoganda," in its most basic sense. The word propoganda has a negative connotation to many English speaking people in this century. But actually the word propoganda does not necessarily mean dishonestly.That Luke had a purpose to emphasize in his propoganga and Matthew had a purpose to emphasize in his, should not be surprizing.John's gospel has an emphasis in it in reaction to gnostic opposition to the life and teaching of Jesus.I have no problem with Luke or Matthew highlighing elements of the geneologies to bring out their particular priorities.I will speak to the issue you mentioned shortly. You could do the research yourself or you can wait for me to catch up. Or you can just decide that the case is closed in favor of your complaints. I am not convinced of that as of yet.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 04:35 AM

luke's is FIFTEEN GENERATIONS longer. matthew sacrifices a few names to get things to work out in some nice number. it's missing four generations when compared to chronicles.loads and loads of problems here. perhaps you can answer this for me, then, because i've been wondering it. traditionally, the messiah is to come from the line of david, right? the royal line? doesn't that have to go through the cursed line? (this seems to be the position of matthew, anyways).

---

אָרַח

being that the gospels are entirely built to be political, i could see it as being nothing more than propaganda, the thing is its hard to seperate the man jesus from the built up jesus that the bible presents.just to ask how do you know that the two linages are for differient purposes? prahaps one of the authors copyed the other since they do not resemble each other at all except in general facts
I'm thinking this line of thought is just to make up for the fact that christians can't answer it so they make something up

I am aware of the usual pretext for dismissing the difference - that Luke is giving Mary's genealogy. However they give no reason to even accept that as a valid reason. Supporters of this view also have a tendency to misrepresent what the Bible says on levirate marriages as I have discussed here on earlier threads.In short the usual excuse is ad hoc, and unreasonable. If you have an alternative explanation I trust that you will offer evidence that establishes that your reading is reasonable, and is not motivated solely by a need to deny the clear contradictions produced by taking the two genealogies at face value.

Continued reply to Ramoss: Matthew 1:11 reads ”And Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon”The geneology in Matthew records that ”Josiah begot Jeconiah.” However, 1 Chron 3:15-16 says, “The sons of Josiah . the second Jehoiakim . and the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son”. One generation - Jehoiakim - was omitted from the geneology of ”the Christ”. This must have been because he was made a king by Pharoah of Egypt and collected taxes for Pharoah:”And Pharoah Neco made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the place of Josiah his father and changed his name to Jehoiakim. And he tool Jehoahaz and brought him to Egypt, and he died there.

​

And Jehoiakim gave silver and gold to Pharoah, but taxed the land to give the silver according to Pharoah’s word. He exacted the silver and the gold from the people of the land, from each man according to his estimation, to give it to Pharoah Neco.” ( 2 Kings 23:34,35)Jeconiah is mentioned in the geneology of Matthew but is not reckoned a king, because he was born during the captivity and was a captive (2 Chron. 36:9-10 - Jehoichin is Jeconiah).According to the prophecy in Jeremiah 22:28-30 we have this sentence on his descendents:“Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered container? Or is he a vessel no one delights in? Why are he and his seed thrown away and cast into a land which they do not know?

​

O land, land, land, Hear the word of Jehovah: Thus says Jehovah, Write down this man as childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For none of his seed will prosper by sitting on the throne of David or by ruling again in Judah.”Christ being a descendent of Jeconiah would disqualify Him to inherit the throne of David. Although some students think that the phrase ”will not proper in his days” limits the curse. My present position is that the curse is not limited and Christ would have been disqualified.The very next chapter of Jeremiah, however, says that God would raise up a Sprout to David:”Indeed, days are coming, Declares Jehovah, When I will raise up to David a righteous Shoot; And He will reign as King and act prudently and will execute justice and righteousness in the land.” (Jeremiah 23:5).It is interesting to me that right after God pronounces that Jeconiah’s descendents will not be the messiah king that He assures Israel Jeconiah’s misfortune will not prevent God from fulfilling His promise. Nothing has stopped Him from eventually fulfilling all of His will.
This prophecy confirms that the Messiah would be a descendent of David, although not a direct descendent of Jeconiah, and would inherit the throne of David. The prophet Jeremiah must have seen the problem but faithfully recorded God’s word regardless.Matthew 1:12 reads ”And after the deportation to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Salathiel, and Salathiel begot Zerubbabel” . Compare this record with 1 Chron. 3:17-19, which says:”The sons of Jeconiah . Salathiel . and Pedaiah . and the sons of Pedaiah were, Zerubbabel . ”The Zerubbabel of Matthew 1:12 was the son of Salathiel’s brother Pedaiah. Zerubbabel was not Salethiel’s son but was Salathiel’s nephew, and became his heir. Perhaps this was a case in accordance with Deutoronomy 25:5-6:

​

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and he has no son, the wife of the deceased man shall not become the wife of a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her and take her as his wife, and he shall do the duty of a husband’s brother for her. “In this geneology of Matthew there is no mention of the brothers of any kings. However, here the brothers of Jeconiah are mentioned, proving that Jeconiah was not reckoned as a king in this geneology.For now I would say that some differences in Luke and Matthew lists as to size and structure are explained due to a the pedagogical/rhetorical technique of Matthew. I am still exploring supposed points of convergence between the two geneologies. I have some questions about where similar names in fact proves that Luke and Matthew are talking about the same people.D.A. Carson writes in ("Matthew" in Expositor's Bible Commentary, on p.63):
”After Zerubbabel, Matthew relies on extrabiblical sources of which we know nothing. But there is good evidence that records were kept at least till the end of the first century. Josephus . refers to the "public registers" from which he extracts his genealogical information (cf. also Jos. Contra Apion I, 28-56 . ). According to Genesis R 98:8, Rabbi Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David because a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.19-20) cites Hegesippus to the effect that Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96) ordered all descendants of David slain. Nevertheless two of them when summoned, though admitting their Davidic descent, showed their calloused hands to prove they were but poor farmers. So they were let go. But the account shows that genealogical information was still available.
While no twentieth-century Jew could prove he was from the tribe of Judah, let alone from the house of David, that does not appear to have been a problem in the first century, when lineage was important in gaining access to temple worship. “Some researchers say that we do not have adequate grounds to dispute the post-Zerubbabel genealogies. (There is no reason to suppose that the biblical OT genealogies in the post-Zerubbabel case are exhaustive, either.)The gospel writers seemed very candid about revealing the major reasons for the religious opposer’s rejection of Jesus’ claims. I don’t know why Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John would not relate that public records led the priests, lawyers, and scribes to question Jesus’ ancestry back to David. Here would have been a good place for us to see that their records gave them ground to reject Jesus as a descendent of David:”Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, Saying, What do you think concerning the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David’s.

​

He said to them, How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies underneath Your feet?

​

If then David calls Him Lord, how is He his son? And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone from that day dare to question Him anymore.” (Matt. 22:41-46)Do you mean to tell me that the lawyers in the crowd could not answer one word? Why did they not at that time point out that He was not a descendent of David regardless? Elsewhere we see that some objected that the Nazareth should not be expected to produce any prophet. I don’t know why His ancestry was not brought up as a problem by those lawyers who had a way of checking.There are some unknowns difficulties about the two geneologies which we can site as potential problems. I think the possible solutions are many. And we don’t have enough information today to reject of them is not valid. Matthew 1:16 says ”And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Luke 3:21reads:(Correction: Apparently Luke does mention "Christ" contrary to what I may have written above or in another post).”And He, Jesus, when He began [to minister,] was about thirty years old, being, so it was thought, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli” Matthew’s geneology says that ”Jacob begot Joseph,” but Luke 3:23 says, “Joseph, the son of Heli.” It has been said that Luke’s words ”so it was thought” or as some translations say ”as was supposed” means according to law (Jewish).Joseph was not actually the son of Heli but was reckoned his son according to the law. Joseph was the son-in-law if Heli, Mary’s father. This may have been a case according to Numbers 27:1-8 and 36:1-12. A regulation was made by God that if any parents had only daughters as heirs, the inheritance would go to the daughters, who would then have to marry a man from their own tribe in order to keep their inheritance within the tribe.I believe that even such a regulation in the Old Testament is related to the geneology of Christ, showing that all Scripture is a record of Christ and that He is central to the entire divine revelation of the Bible.This message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 07:25 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 07:27 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 07:30 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 07:33 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 07:35 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 01-05-2006 07:37 AM

You still haven't established a Davidic bloodline for Jesus.Thought I'd point that out for you.Brian.

Brian,I have not yet been convinced that "BLOODLINE" in your terms is a requirement that the Jews expected according to this X and Y chromosome business.I mean what did they know about X and Y chomosomes, really?

quote:

---

Matthew’s geneology says that ”Jacob begot Joseph,” but Luke 3:23 says, “Joseph, the son of Heli.” It has been said that Luke’s words ”so it was thought” or as some translations say ”as was supposed” means according to law (Jewish).

​

Joseph was not actually the son of Heli but was reckoned his son according to the law. Joseph was the son-in-law if Heli, Mary’s father. This may have been a case according to Numbers 27:1-8 and 36:1-12. A regulation was made by God that if any parents had only daughters as heirs, the inheritance would go to the daughters, who would then have to marry a man from their own tribe in order to keep their inheritance within the tribe.

​

I believe that even such a regulation in the Old Testament is related to the geneology of Christ, showing that all Scripture is a record of Christ and that He is central to the entire divine revelation of the Bible.

---

Since the regulation is not related to genealogies and does not establish that a man may be considered the son of his wife's father for the purposes of genealogy it clearly plays no part. (Indeed, it is clear that the future husbands of women in this situation would remain in their own tribe).So, you need to present evidence that Joseph could be presented as the son of Mary's father in a genealogy and evidence that that is in fact the case. Do you have such evidence, or is it merely an ad hoc invention concocted to deny the clear inconsistencies betwen the genealogies provided by Luke and Matthew ?

Bloodline is simply a direct descendant of a male. Nothing to do with x and y nonsense.FACT, Jesus was not a direct descendant of Solomon,whom the LORD had promised the Messiah would come from. Another fact is that Jesus simply could not have been the Messiah, it is all there i nbalck and white, you just need to read it with an open mind.Whoever wrote Matthew's gospel made a huge error in his understanding of Isaiah 7:14, in his urgency to try and make Jesus something special he effectively negated Jesus' messianic claims.If you wish to keep Jesus as the messiah, by ignoring huge chunks of the Old testament, then feel free.Anyway, you still haven't established a bloodline from Jesus to Solomon, or indeed to David.Good luck, keep trying it may be in there somewhere. [Abe]Where in the entire Bible is there a genealogy that goes through a man's father in law? What would be the point!!BrianThis message has been edited by Brian, 01-05-2006 07:55 AM

Brian, Where is this stated? Please quote it for me. You might be right. But I don't recall such a verse.Where is it that the Messiah has to be a direct descendant of Solomon?

Hi,Post 20 on this very thread, it was addressed to you. Have a read through it when you have time.Brian.