|
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Because in the Jewish genealogy, the "mother side" is used to trace back the validity of citizenship and thus if a person is considered a true Jew or not. Since Mary was a true descendant of David, her son, Jesus as well as his brothers and sisters were true descendants of David. |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I think your question was answered by amor65 in his answer to the question HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID? I have pasted his answer for you...Because in the Jewish genealogy, the "mother side" is used to trace back the validity of citizenship and thus if a person is considered a true Jew or not. Since Mary was a true descendant of David, her son, Jesus as well as his brothers and sisters were true descendants of David |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus, the Messiah, Deliverer, Son of God and King of Kings, was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus while he was in every way a human being. Jesus was not fathered by any man, since no man had been with Mary (Luke 1:34). And Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband, at first struggled to accept this fact but later accepted it (Matthew 1:19-25). But Jesus had to be 'brought up' or 'brought forth' from the line of David; he Himself had to find his earthly beginnings and achieve his earthly ministry while being of the Kingly heritage of David. God's promise to David is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus as David's 'descendant' of whom it was promised in 2 Samuel 7:16, and in the line of Judah in Genesis 49:10: both fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ! And Luke 3:23-38 shows the 'direct line' genealogy from Mary, the vessel in which God used to deliver His only Son into this world, all the way down to David, and it even goes from David to Adam! And if you look in Matthew 1:1-17, you can see how Joseph, who was the step-father of Jesus, was also in the Kingly heritage, being a descendant of King David. So Jesus was in fact a descendant of David as well as being part of the royal heritage as promised by God. Now you ask: "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matthew 22:41-46) They said to Him, "The son of David." Jesus said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call him 'Lord', saying, "THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET' '? If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son?" Very good question! Here is the answer: Jesus was a descendant of David while he dwelt upon this earth, but He has always been and has always existed as God. He was never created by God but has always existed as part of the Godhead with His Father and the Holy Spirit. In this passage (Matthew 22:41-46), David called upon the Lord during his life, even the Lord Jesus! Now he says, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD'.. This is God the Father in heaven saying to God the Son, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET." So God the Son ascended into heaven to assume His Lordship at God the Father's right hand until the time when Jesus will return to earth in the Second Coming of Christ. So this is how the Lord Jesus is David's Lord (whom David called upon) and also David's son, or descendant, at the same time. I hope that this explanation helps. I use the New American Standard Bible ('95), which is my very favorite translation! |
| |
Mary isn't mentioned |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
1) If it is true that Jewish genealogy traces the Mothers side, then why is the focus on Joseph rather than Mary in the Matthew and Luke genealogies? 2) Where do you find evidence that Mary was a decendant of David? |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus inherited the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, who was of the kingly descent that passed through each the kings of Judah (as in Matthew's genealogy) -- just as we inherit the kingdom of God through adoption as his children (his princes and princesses, if you like). His physical descent was through Mary (as in Luke's genealogy). |
| |
What does Matt 24:34 mean? |
|
|
|
Matt 24:34
|
| |
If you type in "Matt 24:34" at [bible.gospelcom.net] it alternately translates this word as "race". The Greek here is genea, sometimes translated as "men of the same stock" [gnt.greekbible.com]. The English word "genealogy" comes from this Greek word. |
| |
Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
It is pure speculation to consider how many other people may have been around, but there are a number of indications that there were others. There are many people whose existence is indicated in Scripture but whom we know little or nothing about. For example, King David had a son named Nathan, who was identified as an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy, but I don't think there is any mention of him in the Old Testament. Likewise, it is apparent that Adam and Even (as well as their descendents) probably had many children who are not mentioned by name. Those whose lineage has significance for other Biblically related events are listed. God was selective in what he included in the Scriptures. |
| |
How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative.
I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account.
There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
| |
where do blacks come from? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
We are all descended from Noah and his sons, at least on the male side. We don't know the skin color of Noah, his wife, his sons or his sons' wives. The Bible is loudly silent with regard to any importance whatsoever being placed upon general skin color. (The only references that I'm aware of deal with leprosy or other skin conditions, not the skin's natural melanin content.)
The only divisions (so far as I know) that God touches on (other than gender, which is related to completion, fellowship and procreation) in the Scriptures are related to language, genealogy, and beliefs -- with no general distinctions made based on skin color. Furthermore, Biblical Christianity requires a loving transcendence even of these distinctions -- EXCEPT BELIEF.
Faith alone determines our salvation and joint (not individual) adoption into Christ's family as his brothers, sisters and heirs. There are brothers and sisters "from every tongue and tribe and nation" worshipping eternally at the throne of God. |
| |
Why was Abraham called the friend of God |
|
|
|
James 2:23
|
| |
Matt. 1:1 "The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:NASB Why was Jesus called the son of Abraham? |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Dear Brent Douglas, I read with interest your comment that Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli". I never thought of that possible interpretation. My favorite version the NASB, says "being, as was supposed, the son (I would say Son) of Joseph" and I would put your "but actually" the Son of God."as the last words of the lineage. I don't believe that Adam was the son of God. Adam had a son, Seth. God had a Son, Jesus.
I think it was Timothy in the forum who mentioned Romans 5:12 "through one man sin entered into the world"...v.14 "offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who is to come"...the one Man, Jesus Christ."
I was most interested in your "but actually". Later, Ray |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus Himself was... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of.... (Luke 3:23f, NASB)
Thank you for your gracious response, Ray. I'd like to add some additional explanation as to why I'm convinced that Luke gave the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's father rather than through Joseph. After this posting, I'll be taking at least a week off from the list. I hope to get back on and read any responses at that time.
Luke deliberately added the phrase, "... being as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to the beginning of this lineage. It would seem pointless, immediately after pointing out that Joseph was not actually Jesus father, for Luke to proceed with Joseph's lineage. Therefore, it's most reasonable to presume that he will proceed with a different lineage. Perhaps Matthew's account, giving Jesus' royal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph, was already printed. Even if not printed yet, the lineage was almost definitely available in circulation for a historian such as Luke to use, yet he gave a different version. I believe Luke did this in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Messiah was not only the adopted heir to the throne of David but also the natural blood descendant of David according to prophecy.
It's my understanding that New Testament Greek had no punctuation, and that translators seek to use punctuation that expresses the ideas while avoiding interpretation as much as possible. However, since I do not claim the authority of a translator, I will have the audacity to simply add punctuation to the NIV translation. Version 1 is the Luke 3:23b from the NIV with punctuation removed, and version 2 has what I feel is the appropriate punctuation added. Version 3 is as it appears in the actual NIV.
1) He was the son so it was thought of Joseph the son of Heli,...
2) He was (the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son of Heli,...
3) He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,...
Thanks for your patience. |
| |
Luke written in Aramaic or Greek? |
|
|
|
Luke
|
| |
"TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
While the historic evidence favors a Greek origin of Luke, the Textual evidence does not. So either Luke was written in Aramaic, or the original Greek has been lost. Because the existing manuscripts believed to be the Greek version of Luke point to an Aramaic origin. It is likely that the Aramaic version was translated into Greek and became so widely circulated, that any possible "original Greek version" has since been lost to antiquity. The Textus Receptus is a composition of Greek manuscripts that read as the majority of Greek manuscripts read, and if the translated version from Aramaic outnumbered the "original Greek" enough, it would be the version included in the Textus Receptus.
ERRORS IN ONE VERSION ONLY
The name "Cainan" appears in the Greek version of Luke 3:36, which appears to be a mistake. In this passage the name appears but not in the corresponding Masoretic genealogies in Gen. 10:24; 11:12 and 1Chron. 1:18,24. The Old Syriac does not contain this reading, but reads "Elam" a name which appears in the Masoretic genealogy of Gen.10:22 and 1Chron. 1:17 as a brother, who apparently is inserted into this family line based on Deut. 25:5-6.
ARAMAIC POETRY IN LUKE
Also, there's always certain amounts of "loss of thought" in originally writing something in one language that happened in another. Zechariah's
prayer would certainly seem to be originally uttered in Aramaic and displays the value of studying Luke from the Aramaic. A certain level of poetry comes through that does not comes through in the Aramaic version of Luke that does not appear in the Greek version. I have to credit Andrew Roth, author of Signs of the Cross, for the following poetic observance of the Aramaic Luke. But the poetry in Aramaic is so complex, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to have reconstructed it from just a Greek text."
SUMMARY
While evidence can be cited for some translation in both directions, the greater weight of evidence favors the Aramaic text as more authoritative. The evidence suggests it may be possible that Luke was written in Greek, translated to Aramaic, and then translated back to Greek. Or the bilingual Luke may have written in both languages at the outset. This would certainly take care of the reason for the name "Theophilus" in even the Aramaic text. But then the Greek version of Corinthians calls Peter by his Hebrew name of "Kefa", so this is not a conclusive issue. But it seems that there are enough places where the Greek version of Luke shows mistranslation from the Aramaic that its hard to accept the Greek version of Luke as having any original link to an "original Greek" version of Luke. If Luke was originally written in Greek, the Greek version of Luke we have today is not it and the Aramaic version is probably therefore more authoritative."
Part 2 of 2 (Taken from my friend's essay on Luke)
|
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
"...the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage."
Joseph is the descendant of David. Mary is also the descendant of David.
"Luke's entire section [of genealogy] from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy, and Matthew's version represents Joseph's.
"Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage...
"Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named in Luke 3:23 as the representative of Mary's generation. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12" (pp. 1518-1519, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word).
--JVH0212
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."
|
| |
Does Genesis predict Jesus? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
The answer to your question depends on how you define the word "predict". Without doubt the book of Genesis foreshadows the coming of Christ, giving us numerous "types" of Christ, the Saviour to come. I'm not sure who actually coined this phrase but it is an excellent one for this discussion. "What was in the Old Testament concealed, is in the New Testament revealed".
Now along the lines of foreshadowings and types of Jesus to come, first there is the mention of the women's seed who would bruise the head of the serpent in Genesis 3, then there is the typology within the story of Noah and the flood, where on account of Noah, who Peter calls, a preacher of righteousness, God rescues his people, bringing them through the waters (Gen 9). There is the high priest Melchezidek, a type of Christ our high priest to come. There is the promise of a seed to Abraham, and the protection of that seed in the stories of Isaac and Jacob (see the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac). There is possibly a type of Christ in the Angel of the Lord, who rescues Lot and his daughters from destruction in Sodom, and the Angel of the Lord who wrestles with Jacob in the brooke of Jabok, upon his return to Canaan. Some might make a case for Jacob's ladder on which the Angels descended to man, as a foreshadow of Christ's condescension to man. I myself believe there are others in Genesis, but again this depends on your definition of "predict".
Now if we use a very strict definition of the word predict, then Genesis 3, and the Seed of the Women, along with the Seed of Abraham, I guess would qualify as 2 "predictions".
But I must add, it is essential for us to remember that the Book of Genesis, like the rest of the Old Testament, points to Christ in its very essence. In fact, Christ is the fulfillment of all that comes before, and is promised, in the Old Testament. As R.T. France puts it in his commentary on Matthew, "in Christ's coming, the age of preparation (Old Testament), gives way to the age of fulfillment" (the New Testament). France also adds that the essential key to the theology of Matthew's Gospel, is that in Jesus, all of God's purposes have come to fulfillment(as outlined in the OT).
This is eay to see by looking at Matthew's genealogy of Christ, and noticing how the history of Israel is in fact built around that line of descent, all of which points to the birth of Christ.
I hope this helps.
--JCP |
| |
who did cain marry |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
His sister. Generally daughters are not mentioned in the generations. Only sons. Which is why I think daughters were probably born to Adam and Eve AFTER Cain and Abel were born, but BEFORE Seth was born. The genealogy of Genesis begins with Adam to Seth and continues from there.
And the biblical genealogies seems to only follow a certain "line", from Adam to Noah, then to Abraham, then to David, then to Christ. Every "son's" line is not listed in Genesis or after. Only those that were applicable to the birth of the Messiah.
And one thing that I overlooked when first reading Genesis 4:16,17 is that it doesn't state that Cain MET his wife while wandering east of Eden (which I used to think). Simply that he went wandering, and then "knew" her and she conceived. Cain quite probably was married before he killed Abel and was driven away by the Lord. |
| |
were did Joseph fit in |
|
|
|
Luke 3:38
|
| |
"...the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage."
Joseph is the descendant of David. Mary is also the descendant of David.
"Luke's entire section [of genealogy] from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy, and Matthew's version represents Joseph's.
"Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage...
"Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named in Luke 3:23 as the representative of Mary's generation. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12" (pp. 1518-1519, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word).
--JVH0212
"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity."
|
| |
Possibly a niece? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:1
|
| |
Genesis 5:4 states that beside Abel, Cain and Seth that Adam had "other sons and daughters." If you read on through chapter 5 this phrase qualifies every other person listed. The point of the information is not to show the intracies of human relationships but to trace the genealogy of the Messiah (as evidenced by the genealogies in Matthew and Luke) and the nations in general.
Since Adam was alive all the way up through Lamech's birth (the father of Noah) it could be argued that Cain's wife might have been a much more distant relative than an immediate niece or sister. Just because the genealogy comes in chapter 5 AFTER the information about Cain marrying in chapter 4 does not mean all those people came after. He could have married someone that was several generations descended from Adam.
|
| |
history of Mark |
|
|
|
Mark
|
| |
Hello cogic1974!
Here is the "run down" from The Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible..
"AUTHOR: Mark
DATE: 50s or 60s
Authorship
John Mark was the son of Mary, a woman of wealth and position in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Barnabas was his cousin (Col. 4:10). Mark was a close friend (and possibly a convert) of the apostle Peter (1 Peter 5:13). He had the rare privilege of accompanying Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey but failed to stay with them through the entire trip. Because of this, Paul refused to take him on the second journey, so he went with Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts 15:38-40). About a dozen years later he was again with Paul (Col. 4:10; Philem. 24), and just before Paul’s execution he was sent for by the apostle (2 Tim. 4:11). His biography proves that one failure in life does not mean the end of usefulness.
Distinctive Approach of Mark
(1) Mark wrote for Gentile readers in general and Roman readers in particular. For this reason the genealogy of Christ is not included (for it would have meant little to Gentiles), the Sermon on the Mount is not reported, and the condemnations of the Jewish sects receive little attention. As a further indication of his Gentile readership, Mark felt it necessary to interpret Aramaic words (5:41; 7:34; 15:22), and he used Latin words not found in the other Gospels (“executioner,” 6:27; “cent,” 12:42). (2) There are only about 63 quotations or allusions from the Old Testament in Mark as compared with about 128 in Matthew and between 90 and 100 in Luke. (3) This gospel emphasizes what Jesus did rather than what He said. It is a book of action (the word , “at once” or “immediately,” occurs more than 40 times).
Mark and Peter
It is generally agreed that Mark received much of the information in his gospel from Peter. With Peter’s apostolic authority behind the gospel, there was never any challenge to its inclusion in the canon of Scripture.
Date
If one denies the phenomenon of predictive prophecy, then the book must be dated after A.D. 70 because of 13:2, but since our Lord could predict the future, this late date is unnecessary. In fact, if Acts must be dated about A.D. 61, and if Luke, the companion volume, preceded it, then Mark must be even earlier, since Luke apparently used Mark in writing his gospel. This points to a date in the 50s for Mark. However, many scholars believe that Mark was not written until after Peter died; i.e., after 67 but before 70.
Contents
The theme of the book is Christ the Servant. The key verse is 10:45, which divides the gospel into two major divisions: the service of the Servant (1:1-10:52) and the sacrifice of the Servant (11:1-16:20)."
|
| |
Advise on contradictions found in bible |
|
|
|
Ps 25:4
|
| |
"He'-li is Joseph's *mother*"?
Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own).
Joseph is the descendant of David. Mary is also the descendant of David.
"Luke's entire section [of genealogy] from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy, and Matthew's version represents Joseph's.
"Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage...
"Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named in Luke 3:23 as the representative of Mary's generation. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12" (pp. 1518-1519, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word).
|
| |
God's people's land? |
|
|
|
2 Chr 7:14
|
| |
Rom 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
Dear Steve,
Yes, ALL of Scripture is inspired not just the whole of it. And yes, the God-inspired genealogies are profitable for teaching. If not to teach us that Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenants with Abraham and David, they at least teach us that God is interested in genealogy and our personal history. Nothing is too trivial to escape God's interest. The hairs (or lack of hairs) on our head are numbered.
Peace,
Lionstrong |
| |
why difference in family tree of jesus |
|
|
|
Matt 1:16
|
| |
"...the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage."
Joseph is the descendant of David. Mary is also the descendant of David.
"Luke's entire section [of genealogy] from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy, and Matthew's version represents Joseph's.
"Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage...
"Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named in Luke 3:23 as the representative of Mary's generation. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12" (pp. 1518-1519, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word).
|
| |
two parables using symbols in the gospel |
|
|
|
Matthew
|
| |
Curran,
Regarding parables that use alot of symbols in the gospels, how about the parable that is symbolized throughout the whole bible. The Wheat and the tares in Matt 13. The wheat are the good seed, like Adam's geneaology, Gen 5 and the tares, like Cain's genealogy, Gen 4. See Matt 13:36-43.
Hope this helps. Peace. |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The genealogy of Christ according to the First Evangelist descends from Abraham through three series of fourteen members each; the first fourteen belong to the patriarchal order, the second to the royal and the third to that of private citizens. Matthew 1:17, shows that this arrangement was intended; for the writer expressly states: "So all the generations, from Abraham to David, are fourteen generations. And from David to the transmigration of Babylon, are fourteen generations: and from the transmigration of Babylon to Christ are fourteen generations."
First Series
1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esron
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David
Second Series
1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezechias
11. Manasses
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias
Third Series
1. Jechonias
2. Salathiel
3. Zorobabel
4. Abiud
5. Eliacim
6. Azor
7. Sadoe
8. Achim
9. Eliud
10. Eleazar
11. Mathan
12. Jacob
13. Joseph
14. Jesus
By virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).
Brian
|
| |
The Genealogy of Jesus? |
|
|
|
Matt 1:1
|
| |
Matthew chapter 1 gives a record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham but I am a bit confused with this record because it seems to be more the record of the genealogy of Joseph who was the husband of Mary but not the Biological father of Jesus. Therefore, since Jesus has no genetic link to Joseph how could this be a record of his genealogy. I would have understand if it was Mary's genealogy that was traced. Perhaps in God's eyes there is no distinction between a son who is adopted and a son who is begotten. Can anyone shed some light on this? |
| |
The Genealogy of Jesus? |
|
|
|
Matt 1:1
|
| |
Answer...........................................
Matthew was establishing Jesus' right as King of Israel. As Joseph's "adoptive" son, the proof was established. Luke clearly gives Jesus' genetic link through Mary's genealogy in chapter 3.
You can do a Quick Search to get several other posts on this.
Steve |
| |
The Genealogy of Christ |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
The genealogy of Christ is clearly given in Scripture and has been firmly woven into the fabric of orthodox Christian thought for centuries. So why are we making such a to-do about it on this forum? All the while I've labored under the assumption that it has long since been laid to rest. Perhaps I'm all wrong and accordingly confess my ineptitude to second guess this forum. --Hank |
| |
The Genealogy of Jesus? |
|
|
|
Matt 1:1
|
| |
I have wonderd this myself and God gave me an understanding...Joesph married Mary, so that would make them one flesh Gen chapter 3:20-25 so Jesus inherited the genealogy through the lawful marrige this is the only explanation that makes sense to me |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
