Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RnMomof7
Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, Luke is Mary's. what is interesting is In Mary's her line is traced back to the first man..this shows that Jesus is God and Man; the second Adam.

I still don't see where you guys get this stuff. My Bibles have no reference to a genealogy of Mary. Where is it? Clearly one ends with Joseph, the other starts with Joseph. Both refer to him as the father of Jesus!

286 posted on 12/27/2001 6:45:05 AM PST by reboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies ]


To: reboot
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke have their similarities and their differences. Through the Lucan genealogy goes back to Adam and that of Matthew goes only to Abraham,they are both in absolute agreement in the generations between Abraham and David. It is with the Son of David that he great differences begin,for Luke traces the our Lord's ancestory from David through Nathan,whereas Matthew uses the royal line through Soloman .It is true that the names Shealtiel,Zerubbavbel,and possibly Matthat appear subsequently in both,but otherwise the lists are entirely different. Indeed in one ,Jacob is spoken of as Joseph's father;whereas in the other.Heli is presumably so presented.

Two views have been maintained by equally godly and learned scholars. some believe both genealogies are of Joseph,but that the one in Matthew gives the legal desendants of David to establish our Lords claim to the Davidic throne,while Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph actually belonged. The seconnd list,then, is spoken of as the collateral line and is eligible for royal duty when the legal line is incapacitated or becomes extint.

A far simpler solution,and in all probability ,the true one ,is that since every individual has two genealogies-one through his father and one through his mother-so Matthew presents Joseph's and Luke presents Mary's genealogy-so Matthew presents Joseph's genealogy (the Lords foster father,not His actual father),whereas Luke presents Mary's genealogy. This view is supported by linguistic and historical evidence and is held by many students of the Bible. In addition, appeal may be made to Num 27:1-11 and 36:1-12 to give scripitual precedent for the substitution of Joseph's name in Lk 3:23.At the same time it avoids the judgement spoken of in Jer 22:28-30

(Scofield notes)

289 posted on 12/27/2001 7:08:55 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

To: reboot
I still don't see where you guys get this stuff. My Bibles have no reference to a genealogy of Mary. Where is it? Clearly one ends with Joseph, the other starts with Joseph. Both refer to him as the father of Jesus!
Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
(I might add some people STILL think so..........)
300 posted on 12/27/2001 2:07:21 PM PST by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

To: reboot
I still don't see where you guys get this stuff. My Bibles have no reference to a genealogy of Mary. Where is it?

Go to Luke 3: 23-28; the genealogy of Christ through Mary is given (also see Gen. 5:1-32; 11:10-26; Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chron. 1:1-4, 24-27, 34; 2:1-15; and Matt. 1:2-6).

303 posted on 12/27/2001 2:16:26 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

To: reboot
The genealogy of Joseph is found in Matthew's gospel. Matthew's genealogy begins with Abraham and comes down to the Lord Jesus Christ through David and through Solomon. The legaltitle to the throne came through Joseph.

Luke's genealogy is different. It is given in reverse order from Matthew's. Luke goes back to David and then back to Adam. Luke gives Mary's story, and this is clearly her genealogy. The royal blood of David flowed through her veins also, and Jesus' bloodtitle to the throne of David came through her.

Two things about this genealogy should be noted. First, Dr. Luke makes it clear that Joseph was not the father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli [Luke 3:23]

The word sonas it is used in this genealogy is not in the better manuscripts. Joseph was not the son of Heli. The word son is added to indicate the lineage through the father (the man) who was the head of the house. In other words, the genealogy is listed according to the man's name. In Matthew, where it is giving the genealogy through Joseph, it states that Jacob begat Joseph.

The second important thing to notice is verse 31 which reads:

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the sone of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David [Luke 3:31].

Matthew traces the line of Christ through David's son, Solomon. That is the royal line. Luke traces the line of Christ through David's son, Nathan. Mary had the blood of David in her veins. Jesus Christ is the Son of David.

Luke reveals Jesus Christ as the Son of Man and the Savior of the world. His line does not stop with Abraham, but goes all the way back to Adam who was the first "son" of God--the created son of God. But he fell from that lofty position when he sinned. Jesus Christ, the last Adam and the Son of God, is come to bring mankind back into that relationship with God which Adam formerly had and lost. This relationship is accomplished through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Excerpted from Thru the Bible by J. Vernon McGee.

304 posted on 12/27/2001 2:51:59 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson