Replies

About the lineage of Jesus differing in Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 1:1-17:

Hebrew (and even Greco-Roman) culture was very male-headship oriented and patristic. To have Mary’s lineage in Luke go to Joseph (saying “son” as opposed to our modern “son-in-law”) would of been a convention of the day (think about it, why do we even use the term “in law”...as in the older way of thinking, “in law” property, inheritance, really everything owned by the wife, became the property of her husband upon marriage).

Various early sources, and tradition, tells us Luke was a medical doctor. In that culture only medical doctors would regularly...in their practice...have interaction with women outside of their own family.

Think of Arab culture today...and they still interact this way. Therefore scholars have noted that in Luke there is more mention of Jesus’ dealings with, and honoring of, women...and stories only the women would of known, than in any other Gospel.

Tradition also has it that Luke—not being among the original 12 Disciples, and a Gentile....did historical research and interviews with Mary and other eyewitnesses—probably after Matthew was written. Being a Doctor too, he would be aware that Mary’s was definitely Jesus’ true biological geneology. It makes sense than that the geneology he gives is Mary’s, not Joseph’s. It also makes sense that a geneology was actually provided for historical purposes—as Luke seems to approach things more like (but not exactly like) a modern historian.

Of course Luke’s lineage too, like Matthew, goes through David-—showing Jesus from both sides, is a direct descendant of Israel’s most illustrious, godly and ideal King, from whom—according to all the prophesies—the Messiah would come.

Matthew on the other hand, was written for a Jewish audience originally (as the Bishop indicates above). As such it was very important to prove, legally....that Jesus had the royal right to be the Messiah. Matthew’s geneology, though not genetic (in that God the Holy Spirit, not Joseph is Jesus’ father)is Jesus formal, Royal Lineage.

According to all the prophesies about the coming King, Jesus would have no right to be the Messiah—unless he had a direct male lineage from David. So to our way of thinking this is nonsense—since Joseph was not his biological father—but to the 1st Century Jewish mind, this royal-legal-lineage was vital—and Matthew puts it first thing, to prove to his skeptical readers, that Jesus had the royal right to be the King, as a direct descendant of David.

Interestingly, Jeremiah 36:30 is a curse pronounced on the wicked King Jehoiakim—a descendent of David in Joseph’s line (NOT Mary’s)(and the last King of Judah):

“Therefore this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David”

This can be understood as becoming literally true, in that Jesus—biologically—was not a descendant of Jehoiakim—hence none of Johoiakim’s descendents were ever king again—as King Jesus became the rightful, & eternal, heir to King David.