Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Contrary Accounts of Jesus' Genealogy. | Rom 1:3 | heartfire | 40615 | ||
I would like to know why the genealogy of Jesus differs markedly between the account of Matthew (Matthew 1: 1-17) and Luke (Luke 3: 23-38). Matthew claims that Jesus was from King Solomon's line, whilst Luke claims he was from Nathan's (another son of David's) line. All the names are different from King David onwards, until Shealtiel and Zerubabbel. Then, they differ again. There aren't any tallying names from David to Shealtiel and from Zerubabbel to Joseph. I refuse to accept that it was a simple error, because Christianity is based on the fact that the Bible is the Truth, the absolute Truth and nothing but the Truth. Besides, if this was an error, then how would I know that there aren't any more errors in the rest of the Bible? |
||||||
2 | Contrary Accounts of Jesus' Genealogy. | Rom 1:3 | meusing | 40616 | ||
The accounts are not contrary when you consider that Matthew's (through Solomon - royal) is that of Joseph, while that in Luke (through Nathan - legal) is that of Mary the mother of our LORD. Nathan was the older brother and had a legal right to the throne and his line produced the Virgin Mary. Solomon the younger brother took the throne and his line produced Joseph Jesus' step-father. Matthew in giving the royal line mentions Jechonias. Now, Jechonias and his decendants had a curse placed on them in Jeremiah 22:30 "... no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." not one of his seven sons (I Chron. 3:17,18) ever posessed the throne. However Nathan's line had no curse on it. Therefore Jesus is eligible for the throne through the leagal line of Nathan, and adopted by Joseph into the royal line as the royal heir. He was the seed of David accoring to the flesh (Mary). and when Joseph married Mary as D. G. Barnhouse said Joseph "took the unborn child under his protecting care, giving Him the title which had come down to him through his ancestor Solomon, the LORD Jesus became the leagl Messiah, the royal Messiah, the uncursed Messiah, the true Messiah, the only possible Messiah." Man's Ruin page 47. |
||||||
3 | Different Claims On Joseph's Father | Rom 1:3 | heartfire | 40930 | ||
Ah, I see. Thanks a lot! But still, both Matthew and Luke trace it back to Joseph. It doesn't seem to be the case, from the use of English, that one traces to Mary while the other traces to Joseph. The Amplified Bible says this of Matthew 1:16 "Jacob, the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called the Christ." Luke 3: 23 of the same version says, "Jesus Himself, when He began [His ministry], was about thirty years of age, being the Son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli..." Hence, both say that Joseph's father was two different people. Unless in the Jewish custom, Mary's father would be also equated to Joseph's father because husband and wife are made one flesh. But I am not sure of that, so it would be very nice if anyone would confirm or correct that notion. Thanks a lot once again! |
||||||
4 | Different Claims On Joseph's Father | Rom 1:3 | Scribe | 40936 | ||
This is pretty simple actually. The problem comes from 'misreading' one small part. 23 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, At first you think it is saying Joseph is the son of Heli, but it is really saying Jesus is the son of Heli, in the same sense that he was supposed to be the son of Joseph, but we know that He was born of a virgin. So it could be said like this.. Jesus was the son of Joseph, and Jesus was the son of Heli, and Jesus was the son of Matthat, and Jesus was the son of etc, until you get to Adam and see that Jesus was that seed of the woman that would bruise the serpents head. Matthews point is not tracing Joseph to David, and Lukes Mary to David, that has been said but I don't see it. The obvious truth when you read the accounts is that Matthew stops at Abraham and that is what Matthew is pointing out, through Joseph's lineage, and Luke goes to Adam through Mary's. "Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent’s head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary". |
||||||