Mthew 1.1 to Mathew 1.17

[Merlin]

What exactly is this long list of genealogy for?

 

[Aqualung]

It's to help prove to the jews that jesus was in fact the messiah. He was a son of David, like the prophets said he would be. The genealogy was to show the readers of these things.

 

[dan]

Matthew's list is to show that Christ is a descendent of David and the promised Messiah. Matthew's whole book is to convince the Jews that Christ is He that should come, thus all the quotes of prophecy from the Old Testament. John's book, on the other hand, is directed at members of the Christian faith, specifically converts from outside Judaism. He speaks more of the love of God.

 

[Linus]

It's to help prove to the jews that jesus was in fact the messiah. He was a son of David, like the prophets said he would be. The genealogy was to show the readers of these things.

Bingo. That prophecy actually comes from God Himself originally. God told David that his descendant would establish an eternal kingdom.

2 Samuel 7:12When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

But yes, the prohets do confirm it.

 

[Merlin]

It's to help prove to the jews that jesus was in fact the messiah. He was a son of David, like the prophets said he would be. The genealogy was to show the readers of these things.

It actually proves that Joseph was decended from David. But as Jesus is not related to Joseph (virgin birth remember), how does it help? Now if it was Mary's genealogy, it would be different.

 

[Aqualung]

It actually proves that Joseph was decended from David. But as Jesus is not related to Joseph (virgin birth remember), how does it help? Now if it was Mary's genealogy, it would be different.

I think one of the gospels has mary's genealogy. I'm not sure though.

 

[Merlin]

Matthew's list is to show that Christ is a descendent of David and the promised Messiah. Matthew's whole book is to convince the Jews that Christ is He that should come, thus all the quotes of prophecy from the Old Testament. John's book, on the other hand, is directed at members of the Christian faith, specifically converts from outside Judaism. He speaks more of the love of God.

Are you suggesting he was 'bending things' for effect?

 

[Aqualung]

Are you suggesting he was 'bending things' for effect?

He didn't bend anything. He just focused on things that John didn't. Like if I were tell the story of my father, I might focus more on his humour (because I really think he's a funny guy and that's a thing I want others to see) while some one else might focus on his artistic abilities because they want to convince other artists that he could draw. That's not bending, it's just focusing, because both aspects are equally true.

 

[Linus]

I think one of the gospels has mary's genealogy. I'm not sure though.

Genealogies of both parents are given. Both apear to be through Joseph, but since Mary, as far as I know, had no brothers, hers is given through Joseph as well. I believe that was the custom of the time.

 

[dan]

It actually proves that Joseph was decended from David. But as Jesus is not related to Joseph (virgin birth remember), how does it help? Now if it was Mary's genealogy, it would be different.

In the ancient Jewish culture it didn't make one ounce of difference if he wasn't his real father. The laws of the time made Joseph Jesus' father irrespective of the fact that he did not sire Him. Legally, socially and religiously he was Christ's father.

 

[dan]

Are you suggesting he was 'bending things' for effect?

No, he was highlighting things for the benefit of the various audiences. Aqualung's analogy is accurate. All the books contain truth, but some omit things that won't matter to the audience, and thus and so.

 

[Aqualung]

Genealogies of both parents are given. Both apear to be through Joseph, but since Mary, as far as I know, had no brothers, hers is given through Joseph as well. I believe that was the custom of the time.

Oh, is that what it is? I seem to remember something of the sort in at least one gospel, but I couldn't remeber exactly what had happened.

 

[Linus]

Oh, is that what it is? I seem to remember something of the sort in at least one gospel, but I couldn't remeber exactly what had happened.

Yes. I believe Matthew gives the genealogy directly through Joseph's bloodline, and Luke gives it through Joseph via Mary's bloodline by the custom I mentioned earlier.

 

[Merlin]

In the ancient Jewish culture it didn't make one ounce of difference if he wasn't his real father. The laws of the time made Joseph Jesus' father irrespective of the fact that he did not sire Him. Legally, socially and religiously he was Christ's father.

Blood line has always mattered

so was Jesus related to David both through his mother and his step father

 

[Bennettresearch]

What exactly is this long list of genealogy for?

Hi Merlin,

I see a deeper question here than that. If Jesus was born of a virgin, then what does it matter if Joseph was a descendant or not? And so there is something problematic with geneolgy that is represented as being irrelevant. Does this mean the Jesus was really Joseph's son? No one really explains that very well.

 

[may]

Mary the mother of Jesus. She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary’s husband Joseph as the "son of Heli." Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli."—Lu 3:23.


​

Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David’s throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 1:32; Ac 13:22, 23; 2Ti 2:8; Re 5:5; 22:16

 

[Merlin]

Mary the mother of Jesus. She was the daughter of Heli, though the genealogy given by Luke lists Mary’s husband Joseph as the "son of Heli." Says M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): "In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7)." It is undoubtedly for this reason the historian Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli."—Lu 3:23.​

Mary was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David. Hence it could be said of her son Jesus that he "sprang from the seed of David according to the flesh." (Ro 1:3) Through his adoptive father Joseph, a descendant of David, Jesus had a legal right to David’s throne, and through his mother, as the "offspring," "seed," and "root" of David, he held the natural hereditary right to "the throne of David his father."—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 1:32; Ac 13:22, 23; 2Ti 2:8; Re 5:5; 22:16

Now I am completely confused. Was the whole genealogy list that of Joseph, or was it that of Mary?​

Also, are you actually saying that any child born into any biblical Jewish family, even if the child is effectively illegitimate, is considered to be in the direct bloodline of the father?​

Finally, if the bloodline is dependent on the Father as you say, and we know the father was definitely not Joseph, then the baby cannot be related to David.​

 

[dan]

Now I am completely confused. Was the whole genealogy list that of Joseph, or was it that of Mary?​

Also, are you actually saying that any child born into any biblical Jewish family, even if the child is effectively illegitimate, is considered to be in the direct bloodline of the father?​

Finally, if the bloodline is dependent on the Father as you say, and we know the father was definitely not Joseph, then the baby cannot be related to David.​

It is considered to be in the bloodline of the father if there was no adultery or other sin. Since this was pretty much the only instacne of this happening, it is pretty convenient. The thing is, had the nations of Israel and Judah been a united and independent nation, as God wanted, Christ would have legally been their king. Irrespective of the legitimacy of Joseph's biological relationship to Christ, the law would make Christ the king of the Jews (using the term Jews loosely).

 

[Merlin]

It is considered to be in the bloodline of the father if there was no adultery or other sin. Since this was pretty much the only instacne of this happening, it is pretty convenient. The thing is, had the nations of Israel and Judah been a united and independent nation, as God wanted, Christ would have legally been their king. Irrespective of the legitimacy of Joseph's biological relationship to Christ, the law would make Christ the king of the Jews (using the term Jews loosely).

does anyone yet understand this? WE now have a bloodline that does not require any biological relationship to the father?

Where do you get the authority for your first sentence? ("is considered to be in the bloodline of the father if there was no adultery or other sin."). Where is that written please?

 

[Bennettresearch]

does anyone yet understand this? WE now have a bloodline that does not require any biological relationship to the father?

Where do you get the authority for your first sentence? ("is considered to be in the bloodline of the father if there was no adultery or other sin."). Where is that written please?

Hi Merlin,

It is really confusing because of the demand upon Jesus to further the tradition of the Jews. Jesus, being the New Covenant, was expected to validate the expectations put upon Him from the Old Covenant. The Gospels do a lot to let us view this clash. Jesus was apparently willing to validate what He thought was right and to invalidate that which He saw was wrong. After He died, things went back into a sort of default mode by the presentation of a monlinear progression from Old to New Testament. This is where the schools of thought about the Gospels have come to question them. The Form-Critical school tries to separate what Jesus really said from words that may have been put in His mouth by the Gospel writers. There seems to be a contradiction that is hard to resolve. It seems that it was more important ot tie in Jesus with the blood line of David than to give us an account that makes any sense. The claim is virgin birth. The geneology speaks of Jesus being a direct descendant. Which is it?