==============================================================
Comments by R.
>(a) Matt. Is Joseph’s, Luke is Mary’s
>(b) (Jesus was of virgin birth — this is from the documents) AMEN
>(c) The Messiah and His coming has nothing to do with the seed of any man, nor for that mater his genalogy. But His human body grew from the seed of a woman descendant of the Family of David. This declaration does not mean that Jehoiachin would have no children, for in 1 Chr 3:17 -18 some are named (cp. Mat 1:12). By divine judgment this king was to be “recorded as if childless,” i.e. no physical
descendant would occupy a place in the list of Israel’s kings. Consequently, if our Lord Jesus, who is to occupy David’s throne (Luke 1:32 – 33), had been begotten by Mary’s husband, Joseph, who was of the line of Jehoiachin (Mat 1:12, 16), it would have contradicted this divine prediction. Christ’s dynastic right to the throne came, through his foster father
Joseph, from Jehoiachin, but the physical descent of Jesus from David came through Mary, whose genealogy is traced to David through Nathan rather than through Solomon (cp. Luke 3:31 with Mat 1:17).
>(Luke 1:27 KJV) To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
>(d) (Isa 7:14 KJV) Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (not by a man’s seed)
>(e) Isa 7:14: NOTE; This prediction of the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ is not addressed only to the faithless Ahaz, but to the whole “house of David” (v. 13).
The objection that such a far-off event as the birth of Christ could be no
“sign” to Ahaz is, therefore, not valid. It was a continuing prophecy addressed to the Davidic family
>(f) (Mat 1:1 KJV) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
>(g) Mat 1:1: NOTE; There are two genealogies of our Lord – here and at Luke 3:23 – 38.
The genealogy in Matthew begins with Abraham, founder of the Hebrew nation, and concludes with Joseph, the husband (not father) of Mary. Luke’s genealogy begins with Joseph and carries the Messianic line back as far as Adam. Matthew inserts historical data, Luke does not. The list in Matthew is divided into three sections. The last individual in these genealogies in the O.T. records is Zerubbabel
(Mat 1:13; Luke 3:27). There are some omissions, as between Jehoram and Uzziah (Mat 1:8) for which see 2 Ki 8:24 and 1 Chr 3:11. Women are mentioned in the Matthew genealogy, contrary to usual custom (cp. 1 Chr 1 – 8). Verifying v. 1 – 17
1 Sam 16:1 – 14; 2 Sam 7:12 – 29; Ps 132:11
Gen 12:1 -4; 13:15 – 18; 15:1 – 6; 17:1 – 8; 22:15 – 18
As in the genealogies of the O.T. (Gen 5; 1 Chr 1 – 9), certain generations are omitted here in order to make the arrangement uniform. Cp. 1 Chr 3:11 – 12; Ezra 7:1 – 5. The list may have been put in this form for purposes of memorization. Memorization is aided by the fact that each of the triads of names concludes with an important era in Israel’s history, i.e. David’s reign, the Babylonian captivity, and the advent of the promised Messiah.
>(h)I think you will find it easier to understand if you realize this is the
genealogy of Mary and not that of Joseph
>(i) (Genealogy is traced through the male — comment from the documents) But the Son of God is through the seed of a woman even Satan thought he had made it impossible for God to keep His promises..
>(j) Joseph was the head of the household not the father of Jesus and the legal line to David. Mary was the physical line to David.
>(k) (Jechonias was not to have offspring as mentioned in Matthew — form the
documents)
No offspring would set upon the throne of David as King. But he had children ; This declaration does not mean that Jehoiachin would have no children, for in 1 Chr 3:17 -18 some are named
>(l) (Messiah must be a physical descendent of David. Jesus is not! — comment form documents) Do you still think so???
>(m) (Elizabeth was Mary’s cousin. Elizabeth was of the house of Levi {Aaron}, not David — comment from document) The word cousin or suggens in the Greek means; suggenes, soong-ghen-ace’; from G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); or a fellow countryman:–cousin, kin.
My reply related to :
Mr. R.,
Now, some comments — referring to the genealogy of Jesus. By the way, I am not trying to convince anyone to believe anything against their will — I am actually trying to get different viewpoints to topics of interest to me. If you find that you want to stop these critical analyses just let me know — I will do likewise. I find few Christian people like to debate Bible topics and many of them read mostly Bible commentaries, disregarding the Bible itself, so I appreciate your communications.
Comment #1: I don’t see anywhere in Luke that the
genealogy there, is Mary’s. In both Matthew and Luke the last person before Jesus is Joseph, so to me it says this is Joseph’s genealogy. To me a book that says one thing and it means something quite different is deceptive. If this book is divine I would think it would be openly truthful without resorting to hidden meaning. If it means Mary instead of Joseph it should say so.
Why should God complicate his Word for man with complicated meanings — life for ordinary mortals is complicated enough — it just produces conflict between people.
If Luke’s genealogy was that of Mary all Bibles should now be altered to say Mary instead of Joseph, otherwise it is a deception.
Comment #2: Luke 1:27 and Luke
2:4 indicate Joseph is of the House of David, so I would conclude that the Book of Luke is talking about Joseph’s lineage, not Mary’s.
Comment #3: 1 Chron. 22:9 — If
Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary — it traces the lineage through Nathan, but 1 Chr. 22:9,10 says the Messiah must come through Solomon, the brother of Nathan. If Mary was a virgin and if this is Mary’s genealogy, then Jesus could not have been the Messiah.
Comment #4: Why couldn’t you
reverse the genealogies? You could say Matthew’s genealogy was of Mary and Luke’s genealogy was of Joseph? — What a mix up — saying that words mean something other than what they say. — you could do this for the whole Bible to make it agree with anyone’s ideas!
Comment #5: Different topic: In
Matthew, 41 generations are listed instead of 3 times 14 or 42 generations as is expected in Matthew 1:17 — another complication.
The Bible may have to be changed in more than one place so that it says what it is supposed to say, not what it does say. A person usually makes changes with any other book that does not explain things simply and correctly, why not the Bible?.
Any comments about the comments?
Naturalism and Religious Experience 