Looking for An Answer From Among The Learned

K.J.V. ^ | 4/14/13 | Graybeard58

[Graybeard58]

For a long time now, something has puzzled me, not a faith shaking puzzlement but puzzling nevertheless.

The genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus, descended from King David, through his son Solomon thusly:

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

However, in the Gospel of Luke I find that Jesus was descended from King David through his son Nathan, thusly:

3 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, ETC. ETC.

Nathan was the full brother of Solomon, having the same mother (Bathsheba) and the same father (David) but everybody who came after David was different according to the two accounts.

As I said, this isn't "earth shattering" but I've always been curious as to why the two accounts differ.

I will appreciate any answers except the snarky ones. I'm asking because of my confessed ignorance concerning the matter, so take it easy on me.

[Former Fetus]

Most scholars believe that Luke was actually giving the geanology of Mary.

[Craftmore]

Its showing that both Mary and Joseph were of the line of King David.However Each had a seperate line.One from Nathan,one from Solomon.

[Cicero]

I had always heard that one genealogy was through Mary, the other through Joseph. Mary was the biological mother; Joseph was the father by adoption under Jewish law.

One commentator remarks: “Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David).”

[Duke of Milan]

The Matthew genealogy is for Joseph, the LEGAL father of Jesus. However, it is often noted that there was a blood curse on Jechonia that is skillfully avoided by the virgin birth - Nathan’s line that leads to Mary has no blood curse making Jesus both of the royal line(legally) and a descendent of David by Mary and no curse.There is further depth in the symbolism of the writers: Matthew gives the royal line presented to Jews, Luke gives ‘the man’ genealogy, John gives the pre existent one genealogy ‘God incarnate’, and Mark does not contain a genealogy because his is the presentation of ‘the servant’.

[Errant]

The answer to your question and many more awaits you here: http://www.youtube.com/user/aroodawakening/videos?view=1

[WriteOn]

Ask Thomas Aquinas...

[Revolting cat!]

Ask Thomas Aquinas...

I thought I asked you not to reveal my real name! Shoot!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

The geneology in LUKE is through Mary’s side of the family.

Matthew’s geneology is through Joseph’s side and shows Jechoniah in the line. The Prophets said that no son of Jechoniah would ever sit on the throne of Judah.

[tumblindice]

‘Knoweth as many maidens as thou mayest, whilst thou art young.’
Grandpa Hoover, Book of Little Miss Sunshine

[Nifster]

The lineage of Mary and the lineage of the male line from David

[VietVet]

That is a plausable explaination...but that is NOT what the text says.

[21twelve]

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3

excerpt:

The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph—even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted “in” Joseph and under his headship.

I find it difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it. Even though we cannot ascertain at this time a precise explanation does not mean one isn’t forthcoming. After all, archaeological discovers clear up Bible “difficulties” on a regular basis. But, back to our discussion.

*************************************

Off topic a bit, but IIRC one of the geneologies has a certain number of ancestors before David, and an equal number after. Even at the expense of skipping some generations. Which was also acceptable for some reason. With the number of generations being more important. Also interesting that some of the people mentioned are women. And also people that would probably not make the top 20 list of the Most Holiest People of the year.

[imardmd1]

The Christophany Melchizedek, was without father or mother (Heb. 7:3). Though Jesus was born of Mary, No Scripture says that any part of His flesh and blood was of her. Happens today -- a host woman of a being not of her own flesh. However, Jewishness is imparted by the mother of birth, not by the espoused husband. You want fasct, not faith. You'll have to depend on His faith, not yours.

Deeper than you think.

[yldstrk]

It happens today?

[yldstrk]

you mean like surrogate mother?

[Former Fetus]

Those who think that Luke shows the line of Mary, explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Heli,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables.

Since Jesus was born of Mary, it was important for Luke to show that she was also of the line of David.

[Salvation]

21	Luke 3 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,
22	and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
23	Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24	the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jan'na-i, the son of Joseph,
25	the son of Mattathi'as, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Nag'ga-i,
26	the son of Ma'ath, the son of Mattathi'as, the son of Sem'e-in, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27	the son of Jo-an'an, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerub'babel, the son of She-al'ti-el, the son of Neri,
28	the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elma'dam, the son of Er,
29	the son of Joshua, the son of Elie'zer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30	the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eli'akim,
31	the son of Me'le-a, the son of Menna, the son of Mat'tatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32	the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Bo'az, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,
33	the son of Ammin'adab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34	the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35	the son of Serug, the son of Re'u, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36	the son of Ca-i'nan, the son of Arphax'ad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37	the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Maha'lale-el, the son of Ca-i'nan,
38	the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

[imardmd1]

It happens today?

you mean like surrogate mother?

That approach, called Gestational surrogacy employing a donor embryo (GS/DE, can no longer be dismissed as a practicable and/or theological improbability, according to today's medical understanding. From Wiki, "When the intended parents are unable to produce either sperm, egg, or embryo, the surrogate mother can carry a donated embryo (often from other couples who have completed IVF that have leftover embryos). The child born is genetically related neither to the intended parents nor the surrogate mother."

Under Halachic law as set forth at this moment in this Wiki post: "Jewish law states that the parents of the child are the man who gives sperm and the woman who gives birth. More recently, Jewish religious establishments have accepted surrogacy only if it is full gestational surrogacy with both intended parents' gametes included and fertilization done via in-vitro fertilization." This interpretation of Mosaic code is wholly supportable by Scripture.

However, the Roman Catechism states, ""Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral"; a theological opinion that must be held to support the second long-standing theological opinion that Jesus' mother was without sin in her physical makeup.

Prior to our generation, it was not thought that possibly Jesus' physical body did not somehow proceed from his birth host's cellular constitution.

But now, one may well hypothesize that as in the first Adam, when Elohim made mankind of the "dust of the earth" and breathed His spirit into that person (thus creating a living being without sin in its constitution); so in the last Adam The God (in His Creative capacity) may well have implanted a perfectly sinless embryo--one infused with, and most intimately embodying Jehovah Himself--into a humble, obedient, surrogate virginal mother host, at exactly the right time, place, and according to His Plan as conceived from The Beginning.

Eh?

Keep in mind that according to the way we understand the DNA makeup of a human male, his defining Y-chromosome cannot, in the most generous gamete scheme, have come from a female's incompleted cellular construction. It is suggested that this at least was supplied Providentially. Was that genetic science understood by the early logicians? Or was it merely accepted by faith without requiring a necessity of a human-wrought rationalization of The Incarnate Anointed One's Sinlessness?