Jesus' Lineage

[Honeybee88]

Why are the two lineages of Christ in Matthew and Luke different?

[Trusting Jesus]

That's a very good question with a very complicated answer! Very simply put, one folows Mary's lineage and the other follows Joseph's. They both come through the line of David.

There is a much, much longer more complicated answer full of Jewish law etc, but that is the condensed version!

<>< ><>

Nathele

[O'Dannyboy]

That's a very good question with a very complicated answer! Very simply put, one folows Mary's lineage and the other follows Joseph's. They both come through the line of David.

There is a much, much longer more complicated answer full of Jewish law etc, but that is the condensed version!

<>< ><>

Nathele

But Jesus was not the son of Joseph so Marys lineage would be the only one to apply.

[EricH]

Joseph was Jesus' legal (though not biological) father. In the Hebrew culture this had significance. It establishes His legal right to the throne of David. The geneaology in Luke could also be that of Joseph's depending on some translation issues

[jadams_4040]

Joseph was Jesus' legal (though not biological) father. In the Hebrew culture this had significance. It establishes His legal right to the throne of David. The geneaology in Luke could also be that of Joseph's depending on some translation issues

Not his biological father would be a question to discuss? Being as the Holy ghost visited mary then she became pregnant,Did that actually mean it was not Josephs biological child, or does it mean that joseph was indeed the biological father but the child was created by God thru the Holy Ghost? { it required Joseph for the physical purposes}.

[nebula]

... or does it mean that joseph was indeed the biological father but the child was created by God thru the Holy Ghost? { it required Joseph for the physical purposes}.

The Text clearly states that Mary and Joseph had no physical union until after Jesus was born.

I do not understand, then, what you might be asking.

[jadams_4040]

... or does it mean that joseph was indeed the biological father but the child was created by God thru the Holy Ghost? { it required Joseph for the physical purposes}.

The Text clearly states that Mary and Joseph had no physical union until after Jesus was born.

I do not understand, then, what you might be asking.

Could you give a refferance? I,m not argueing your statement, i just really would like a refferance to read for myself in order to comprehend? {thank you}

[Guest shiloh357]

Joseph was Jesus' legal (though not biological) father. In the Hebrew culture this had significance. It establishes His legal right to the throne of David. The geneaology in Luke could also be that of Joseph's depending on some translation issues

Not his biological father would be a question to discuss? Being as the Holy ghost visited mary then she became pregnant,Did that actually mean it was not Josephs biological child, or does it mean that joseph was indeed the biological father but the child was created by God thru the Holy Ghost? { it required Joseph for the physical purposes}.

No, because Jesus was conceived when Mary was a virgin. If Joseph had participated, Mary would not have been a virgin. She was alsoa virgin when she gave birth.

[jadams_4040]

Joseph was Jesus' legal (though not biological) father. In the Hebrew culture this had significance. It establishes His legal right to the throne of David. The geneaology in Luke could also be that of Joseph's depending on some translation issues

Not his biological father would be a question to discuss? Being as the Holy ghost visited mary then she became pregnant,Did that actually mean it was not Josephs biological child, or does it mean that joseph was indeed the biological father but the child was created by God thru the Holy Ghost? { it required Joseph for the physical purposes}.

No, because Jesus was conceived when Mary was a virgin. If Joseph had participated, Mary would not have been a virgin. She was alsoa virgin when she gave birth.

Wow! how did i not think of that? Virgin, Duh!

[Guest shiloh357]

Jesus was not the literal first-generation son of Joseph, but that is really irrelevant where ancient Jewish geneaologies were concerned. The term "son" in ancient Jewish culture applied to different kinds of relationships. It can refer to kinship without literal "sonship." For example: in 1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15, we find a man name Jair who was a very distant son-in-law of Manasseh, but we find that he was called the "son of Manasseh" (1st Kings 4:13) Here is another example: In 1st Chronicles 3:17-19, Zerubbabel was the nephew of Shealtiel, but he is called the "son of Shealtiel" in Ezra 3:2, Nehemiah 12:1 and Haggai 1:12.

The same would go for Jesus' relationship to Joseph as Joseph's adopted son. There are two geneaologies in the New Testament relative to Jesus. The one in Matthew shows Jesus' royal right as a descendant of David through Solomon to throne of David as King of Israel. The other, Luke shows Jesus as the descendant of Jesus through Nathan and is in reality the geneology of Mary. It is clear from the text that the two geneaolgies from Luke and Matthew are not of the same person.

The problem is that in ancient Jewish geneaologies, the women are never mentioned, as geneaologies were mostly for the purpose of establishing property rights and women were never mentioned in ancient Jewish geneaologies since at that time, they were not allowed to own property. The husband was the one who to whom the inheritance passed. Therefore, any claim to a peice of property had to be demonstrated by lineage otherwise, one was considered a foreigner dispossessed from the land. So, geneaological records and their accuracy were something of a priority in that time period.

So there is no contradiction in claiming that Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Joseph. Jesus demonstrated clearly in teh New Testament that He is both. The two geneaologies of show Jesus as having the royal right to the throne of David (Matthew) and the legal right to the throne as a physical son of David (Luke). As for the Jewish people today, one thing needs to be taken into consideration. They are still waiting for the Messiah, but the Temple records as to who belongs to what tribe is currently lost. If a Jewish man were to come on the scene today and proclaim himself to be the Messiah, how would they set about establishing his identity as a son of David? That alone argues heavily for a first-century Messiah.