1. How can
Yeshua have TWO contradictory genealogies (Matt. 1) and (Luke 3)? And
inheritance through the father?
genealogy is that of Yosef, the son of Ya'akov, the descendant of
who would LEGALLY pass the throne to Yeshua, and Luke's Genealogy is
of Miriam's (descendant of Natan), which shows that Yeshua is
the descendant of David, to fulfill the prophecy that Messiah would be
of David's seed.
the father. Messianic Jewish scholar David Stern notes in his Jewish
"Yosef's behavior shows that he accepted Yeshua as his son. According
to the Mishna, "If one say, 'This is my son, 'he is to be believed"
Batra 8:6). The Gemara explains that he is believed "as regards the
of inheritance" (Bava Batra 134a). Thus Yeshua, as legally acknowledged
is entitled to inherit the throne of King David from Yosef, a
of David (v. 8). (This point is made by Phillip Goble, How to
Yeshua in Your Rabbi's Bible, New York: Artists
for Israel, 1986.)
2. If Yeshua
is the Son of God, how can He be the Son of David? Messiah is supposed
to be physically from King David!
Messiah Yeshua was adopted by Yosef, He was still physically descended
from David, on His mother's side, through Nathan.
Glenn Miller, of
"There are TONS of references to Jesus as being in the lineage of
throughout the NT, and NOT just in the genealogies.
3. How can Yeshua
be the Messiah?! Yehoiakhin is in His genealogy!
In Zechariah's Song - Luke 1:69
The blind man at Jericho - Mt 9:27;
The Canaanite Woman (a foreigner!) - Mt 15:22
The questioning crowd in Mt 12:23
The massive crowd at the Triumphal
Entry - Mt
Apostle Peter - Acts 2.25ff
Apostle Paul - Acts 13.22ff; Romans 1.3; 2
Apostle John - Revelation 5:5; 22.16"
How then, can we even have a
Messiah, since according
to Jewish tradition, Messiah descends from Jehoiakhin? If someone tries
to lay claim to the Jehoiakhin argument against Yeshua, then he/she
have to admit that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, who is
descended from David, all the while marrying a husband physically
from King Shlomo to meet the requirements!
descends from Jehoiakhin
Genesis, Toledot (8th-9th c.)
alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before
Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the
the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From
Rabbi A. J.
Rosenberg on Jeremiah 22:24 (20th c.)
Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, translated by Samuel A. Berman (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav,
1996), p. 182.
calls to our attention that in the prophecy of Haggai (2:23), God says,
"On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you like a
for the King Messiah will be like a signet ring on God's right hand, so
to speak. Just as the name of the owner of the ring is engraved on his
signet ring, through which he makes himself known, so will God's name
known in the world through the King Messiah, through whom His miracles
will be known. He says here that, though, in the future, Coniah will be
the signet on My right hand, for the Messiah will spring from his seed,
now I will remove him
Curse Was Canceled
p. 183. Malbim is an acronym for Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michale, a 19th
rabbi and commentator. 22:24.
Sanhedrin 37a, Soncino Talmud
R. Johanan said: Exile
atones for everything, for it is written,
"Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not
prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon
the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah." a
after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of
same is Assir-Shealtiel his son etc.b [He was called] Assir,c
because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, d
God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. . . Another
Shealtiel, because God obtained e [of the
absolution from His oath."f
Leviticus Rabbah XIX:6 (5th-6th
a. Jer. XXII, 30 .
b. I Ch. II, 17. Notwithstanding the curse that he should
be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.
c. ASYR, imprisoned.
d. AL ShTLV, a play on ShALTYAL.
e. ShAL AL, 'God asked."
f. Which He had made, to punish Jechoniah with childlessness.
R. Shabbethai said:
He [Jeconiah] did not move thence before the Holy One, blessed be He,
pardoned him all his sins. Referring to
this occasion Scripture has said: Thou art all fair, my love, and
is no blemish in thee (S.S. IV, 7). A Heavenly Voice went
said to them: 'Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your
backslidings' (Jer. III, 22).
For more on this subject,
both with Biblical and Traditional Jewish support, see Rachmiel
of the Curse on Jeconiah in Relation to the Genealogy of Jesus"
which I have cited.
--Soncino Midrash Rabbah
vol. 4, p. 249
Why does Matthew
delete names from his list?! And isn't that deceitful?!
A. Why does Matthew delete
names from the text?
Nazarene scholar, James Trimm,
observes in "A
Kabbalistic look at Mt. 1:1-18":
Hidden in the
B. Is this practice
1. Yeshua the son of DAVID
(DVD = 14) then
three sets of 14 generations are listed (Mt. 1:18) showing on a SOD
that Yeshua is the son of 14/David.
2. There are 3 sets of 14
because 3 * 14 = 42 showing us on a SOD level that Messiah is the son
ELOAH (ELOAH = 42).
3. The genealogy runs
thus showing us that he is ADAM KADMON
(the Notarikon of Avraham, David, Messiah is ADAM)
The Hebrew text of Mattityahu
1:1 begins with ALEF
and ends with MEM
these two letters keep showing up in important pairs:
Aharon & Moshe
Ester & Mordecai
Eliyahu & Moshe (the two
witnesses of Rev. 11?)
The middle letter is BEIT and
stands for the word
BEN (son). The Son spoke of is the middle pillar of the Godhead.
The First and last letter spell
EMA (Mother) and
the first and middle letter spell AV (Father) thus showing that the BEN
(Son) is the combination of the EMA and the AV and is the middle pillar
of the EMA and the AV.
As we have seen, Matthew's
genealogical listing is purposefully constructed the way it is, and It
not deceitful to omit names from the list, compare Ezra 7:2 and 1
Glenn Miller observes:
Let's look at the
between the two genealogies:
1.Matt uses 41 names;
Luke uses 71!
The main difference between the two
is that Matt's has
a rhetorical/pedagogical structure to it. In other words, it was
for memory-retention (common practice in his day -- cf. Keener, Bible
Commentary--NT loc. cit.). The omissions are simply to make the list
to learn and/or memorize.
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
4.Matt's order descends; Luke ascends.
5.Matt starts with Abraham; Luke ends at Adam.
Matthew has a fondness for
'threes'. He has three
temptations, illustrations of righteousness, miracles of healing, "fear
not"s, questions, prayers in Gethsemane, among others. And the "14" in
the "3x14" structure of the genealogy is typically attributed to the
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
Son of David).
His word choice for 'begat'
simply means 'progenitor'
and allows considerable gaps to exist WITHOUT it being an inaccuracy.
my great-great-great-grandfather 'begat' me, in Matt's word-choice.)
What this means is that
'omissions' in Matthew are
NOT 'problems' at all.
Luke's Genealogy is Miriam's, then why is Yosef's name there?
genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish
tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar,
Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun "her" in verse
refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a
The Talmud states, "A mother's family is not to be called a family."
John W. Haley notes,
Unlike Matthew, Luke
follows strict Jewish procedure
and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women.
if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but
to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of
husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are
2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) (Emphasis mine.)
"This theory shows us in what way Christ was the
"Son of David." If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was
strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through his
reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent,
through his mother. . . This theory affords a very simple explanation
of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress;
therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her
father's family as his son. So that Joseph was the actual son of Jacob,
and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew sets forth Jesus' right
to the theocratic crown; Luke, his natural pedigree. The
latter employs Joseph's name, instead of Mary's, in accordance with the
Israelite law that "genealogies must be reckoned by the fathers, not
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John W. Haley, pg. 325-326
Jewish folk had numerous provisions
for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more
situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership
was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less
Moreover, there is
an article in
the Greek text that disconnects Joseph's name from the genealogy.
to David H. Stern,
One of the more
concise statements of how this would
apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III.
(Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and
the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no
sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to
the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8,
accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"
passages in the OT that refer to these
various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These
practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good
of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in
de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases,
for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of
and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).]
What this 'nets
out to' is that Joseph 'married into'
Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage
In other words,
the the physical-gene did NOT come
FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was
to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out
that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already,
hence, quite a number of overlapping genes).
A literal translation of the Greek text starting a v. 23 would be "And
Yeshua himself was beginning about thirty years, being son, as was
of Yosef, of the Eli, of the Mattat of the L'vi" etc. The questions
here are: What does it mean to be "of" someone? And which person is
described as being "of the Eli"?-Yosef or Yeshua?
" . . .Yeshua is
"of the Eli"
in the sense of being his grandson; while Yeshua's relationship with
is portrayed in the words, "son, as was supposed"-implying not actually;
". . . Luke's
language also distinguishes Yosef from
Yeshua's direct ancestors by not including the word "the" before
in the original Greek. "By the omission of the article, Joseph's name
separated from the genealogical chain and accorded to a place of its
(F. Rienecker, Praktishces Handkommentar Zu Lukas Evangelium)
p. 302, as cited in A Jewish Christian Response by the
Jew Louis Goldberg)."
original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's
name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Miriam's.
translations of Luke 3:23 read: "...being supposedly the son of Joseph,
the son of Eli...," because of the missing Greek definite article
the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows:
the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli...".1 In other
the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that
Y'shua was "supposed" or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was
really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The
of Miriam's name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on
How can Zerubabbel
and Sh'alti'el be in BOTH genealogies? That proves Yeshua is physically
Glenn Miller explains,
Shealtiel and Zerubbabel I find intriguing. The argument [made] here is
that THEY are descendants of the 'bad Jeconiah' and THEY show up in
the legal AND the physical lineage's of Jesus. And, if the prophecy in
Jeremiah is taken to mean a long-range restriction (which I do NOT
is the case, see above), then we clearly have a problem in the Lukan,
lineage of Jesus.
But let me ask
question here. Why do we believe the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of the
lineage's are THE SAME PEOPLE? Think about it:
THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE IN
ARE THEIR NAMES!
They have different children.
They are descended from different
sons of David.
Their chronological placements
on a time line could differ by as much as a CENTURY! (depending on how
the omissions in Matthew are accounted for, and on what the average age
of childbearing was.)
hardly be a strong
argument for their identity:
1. Zerubbabel was a
common name from the early Persian period (539-331bc.), As shown by
inscriptions from Babylon (see ZPEB , V. 1057)
2.The genealogies themselves
have numerous names that repeat WITHIN the genealogy (e.g. Joseph,
Judah) without being the same individuals; These names could also be
3.The names in the genealogies
are standard, common, everyday names. We have NUMEROUS people named
Amos, Nahum, etc. in the OT accounts. There is just NO REASON to
the S+Z of Luke with the S+Z of Matthew. (And even the pattern of
doesn't carry much weight--families often honored prominent people this
What this means
is that the
S+Z of Matthew are the S+Z of Jeremiah, and that the S+Z of Luke (whose
genes DO reach to Jesus) are a different set, descended from Nathan and
not through Solomon-thru-Jeconiah.
Matthew's genealogy is that of
Yosef's (descendant of Shlomo), who would LEGALLY pass the throne to
and Luke's Genealogy is that of Miriam's (descendant of Natan), which
that Yeshua is PHYSICALLY the descendant of David.