GENEALOGY OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

I) INTRODUCTION

A) PURPOSES OF ANCIENT GENEALOGIES

[John Nolland states, [WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY, WORD BOOKS, PUBLISHER, DALLAS , TEXAS, 1989, Vol. 35A, Luke 1-9:20, pp. 169]:

"Ancient genealogies were used for a complex variety of purposes... Genealogies established individual identity; reflected, established, or legitimated social structures, status, and entitlements to office; functioned as modes of praise or delineations of character or even as basis of exhortation...."

[From: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~andysh/genealogy.html]:

"The Jews had carefully maintained genealogical records. These records were preserved in the temple until its destruction in A.D. 70. The Gospel writers had access to these temple records and could accurately trace the genealogy of Jesus from them."

[J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), p. 39]:

The Jews must have consulted the records to see whether the One Who made such claims (of Messiahship) for Himself had the right to make those claims. Had they found any flaw in His descent, they would have been quick to accuse Him of being an impostor. Even though the nation rejected Him, it was not because He was outside the Davidic line and therefore ineligible to claim the David throne. (Ibid)]

An unbiased reading of the biblical genealogies within the context will indicate that they simply attempt to establish our Lord's actual and real biological lineage which was prophesied in Scripture so as to qualify Him for consideration as the true Messiah that was foretold. So if the genealogies are purposed not to give 'accurate history' then they are not genealogies at all but nothing but nonsense.

B) THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CHRIST

[Jer 23:5-6]:

" 'The days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will raise up to David a righteous branch, [descendant] a King Who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In His days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.

This is the name by which He will be called:

The LORD Our Righteousness' "

And our Lord's birth into humanity is in that family line of David:

[Mt 1:11, 16-17]:

(v.1): "A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the Son of David, the son of Abraham: ........................................................

(v.11): and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon .................................................

(v.16): and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine singular = of Mary] was born Jesus, Who is called Christ.

(v.17) Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David. Fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ."

Careful observance of Matthew's genealogy will discover that it is not all inclusive nor intended to be. Matthew could not be claiming that it is all inclusive in view of the fact that the omissions are too obvious for the contemporary Jewish community to miss. Furthermore, in consideration of the great attention over the millennia the Jews have paid toward their genealogical history relative to the preservation of their race, entry into the Temple and the identification of the Messiah as being in the line of David, if any genealogy in the Bible was suspect of NOT being truly biological the bible would not have survived all of these years intact and as originally written. The genealogies of Scripture stand out as highly specific and biological and thus authenticatable at the time each was written. Yet there has not been forthcoming over hundreds of years any trustworthy alternative evidence totally refuting any name listed in any genealogy in Scripture. Perhaps the decrees and sovereignty of God are evident in this number fourteen rather than the contrivance of Matthew.

Due to numerous factions inside and outside of the nation Israel and the many years which have transpired, objectors' ideas of a contrived, non-biological genealogy as a result of a conspiracy of millions of Jews over the ages and the silence of all of their enemies is quite preposterous.

For example in Matthew's genealogy, the six names which have been omitted from the list of actual rulers who sat on the throne of David were known to every historian and scribe when Matthew wrote his book considering their appearance in other chronologies in the OT Bible. It will become evident after careful study that Matthew has omitted certain people for reasons of legitimacy, curse or unacceptable behavior throughout the line.

It is also evident in Matthew's genealogy, upon careful consideration, that Joseph is listed as our Lord's LEGAL but not biological father. Joseph's family line is then traced through the royal line, (the line of actual or potential rulers of Israel), through Solomon to David including king Jeconiah (v.11). Thereby our Lord received Joseph's legal and royal family descendancy according to Scripture. However, in Jeremiah 22:24-30 God prohibits descendants from the wicked king Jeconiah to "....sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

Incidentally, the words which are translated "son" and "father' are not necessarily limited to an immediate descendant but often refer to a descendant of more than one generation, legal or biological. Since there was no equivalent expression in Hebrew or Greek for son-in-law, the word rendered son also sufficed.

In Luke's account of our Lord's genealogy, (Lk 3:23-38), our Lord's human family line is traced through Nathan to David which does not have the prohibition of rulership on it. It is also traced through the male side of the family line of Mary's father Heli. This is legitimate considering Mary's not having any brothers to carry on her line and her marriage within her tribe to Joseph. This thereby enabled Joseph to legally be proclaimed Mary's father Heli's adoptive son in order to continue her line.

John W. Haley states, [Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Whitaker House Books, 1992, 9. 325]:

"It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition [that Luke's genealogy is of Mary's line]. Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 28} cites from the Talmudic writers concerning the pains of hell, the statement that Mary the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures. {Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.} This statement illustrates, not only the bitter animosity of the Jews toward the Christian religion, but also the fact that, according to received Jewish tradition, Mary was the daughter of Heli; hence, that it is her genealogy which we find in Luke....

If Mary was the daughter of Heli, then Jesus was strictly a descendant of David, not only legally, through His reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through His mother....

[Therefore] Mary, since she had no brothers [as evidenced in Jn 19:25-27] was an heiress; therefore her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her father's family, as his son. So that Joseph was the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Heli. In a word, Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown; Luke, His natural pedigree. The latter employs Joseph's name, instead of Mary's, in accordance with the Israelite law that 'genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers."

[Mt 1:15]:

"and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, Who is called Christ" = "ex es egennethe" (from the Textus Receptus a very reliable consensus of the original text) = "out of whom was born" comes after Mary and the relative pronoun "es" = "of whom" is genitive, feminine singular referring to Mary not Joseph. Notice that the verb has changed from "egennesen" = "begat", to "egennethe" =" was born," signifying a different concept: being born of the woman, Mary and not begotten of the man, Joseph]

[Lk 3:23, 31]:

(v. 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, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi.............................

(v. 31): "the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

C.I. Scofield states, (Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, footnote #1 p. 1054):

"....since every man has two genealogies - one through his father and another through his mother - so Matthew presents Joseph's genealogy [the Lord's foster or legal father, not His actual father] whereas Luke presents Mary's genealogy [the Lord's legal genealogy via Joseph's adoptive father, Mary's father, Heli]. 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 Numbers 27:1-11 and 36:1-12 to give Scriptural precedent for the substitution of Joseph's name in Lk 3:23. At the same time it avoids the judgment spoken of in Jer 22:28-30."

Jer 22:28-30 prohibited a descendant of Jeconiah's from ruling Israel. Hebrew genealogies traditionally are constructed from the male side. Although Matthew's genealogy does mention women, notice that the line of the genealogy is strictly through the male names. So our Lord's descendancy was traced through His human mother. It begins with our Lord "being supposedly [but not actually] the [biological] son of Joseph, " thus establishing His legal line through Joseph. Next Joseph is described as "son of [Mary's father] Heli," thus establishing the continuation of the line through Mary. This is legal due to Mary's lack of brothers enabling Joseph to be the legally adoptive son of Mary's father Heli in order to continue her line:

[Lk 3:23-24]:

(v. 23) "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

(v. 24) the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son, of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of [another] Joseph"

["supposedly the son of Joseph" = "enomizeto" = presumably, supposedly. This word was inserted here to reflect the false understanding of most who thought that Joseph was the human father of Jesus Christ by natural birth.

"son" = son = descendant, legal or biological

"son of Heli" = Heli is evidently Mary's father and by Law, due to Mary's lack of brothers, Joseph's adoptive father. Therefore Luke's genealogy is technically on Mary's side which leads to the difference from the genealogy of Matthew]

II) RESOLUTION OF THE 'PROBLEMS' OF THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS

[Dr. M.M.Ninan states, (THE PROBLEM OF THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS

http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/Genealogy/cha2.htm

Email: mm9n@hotmail.com

5708 Rudy Dr. San Jose CA 95124 U.S.A)

A) THE GENEALOGY OF MATTHEW INVESTIGATED

1) INTRODUCTION
Matthew who was deeply rooted in the Jewish traditions, addressed his gospel to the Jews in dispersion around the world who were looking forward to a Messiah. He wanted to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah as foretold in the scriptures and that he fulfilled all the rigid criteria that were laid down by the scriptures for the three fold anointing of Prophet, Priest and King. Jews were highly conscious of their origin from Abraham. "We are the children of Abraham" was the hallmark of the Jewish nation. Hence Matthew starts off with Abraham and traces the line to David.

Anyone can see that six names are missing from the official list, (the usurper to the throne, Athalia, not being considered here as legitimately in the royal line).

Why did Matthew do that? Was it because he wanted to keep the list of dynasty into fourteen generations from Abraham to David and another fourteen generations from David to Captivity and another fourteen from Captivity to Jesus for some contrived theological reason? This ruse would not have been acceptable to any Jew versed in scriptures. Surely Matthew would not try to do that trick and loose his credibility. Hence we should look for the reasons elsewhere which are deep rooted in the Jewish scriptures and traditions.

5) AHAZIAH, JOASH AND AMAZIAH WERE OMITTED FOR A REASON

Let us look into the first three names.

2 Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.

2 Ki 8:26 Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.

Athalia was a grand daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel who need no special introduction to the Bible readers. These two names will cause a shudder through the spine of every Jew, because of their evil acts. According to Deut 5:9 and Ex. 34:7 and Num 14:18 God will punish the sins of the fathers up to the fourth generation.

Deut 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Thus the sins of Ahab and Jezebel was visited up to the fourth generation.

Ahab - Ahaziah - Joash - Amaziah - Uzziah

Deut 5:1 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them.

Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 

Deu 5:6 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Deu 5:7 "You shall have no other gods before me.

Deu 5:8 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

Deu 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Deu 5:10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Deu 5:11 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

In Ex 34 we read

Exo 34:6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,

Exo 34:7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Again in Numbers 14 we read this proclamation of the passing Lord before Moses:

Num 14:18 'The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

Thus because of the great iniquities of Ahab and Jezebel, the punishment was carried over through Athalia in unabated form. In the eyes of God these four generations were counted unworthy of the throne of David.

6) JEHOIAKIM, JEHOIACHIN (JECONIAH, AKA CONIAH), AND ZEDEKIAH WERE OMITTED FOR A REASON:

a) THE PROBLEM OF JEHOIACHIN'S AGE RESOLVED

There is a slight problem here with regard to the age at which Jehoiachin started to reign. While 2 Chr. 36:9 quotes it as eight, 2 Ki. 24:8 puts it as eighteen.

2 Ki 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother's name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem.

This is probably because of the inability to distinguish the slight variation of numbers 8 and 18 in the original. Eighteen could have been more probable because he must have been married by then since 2 Ki. 24:15 mentions the king's wives specifically. But he did not have any children at that time as they are not mentioned in the list of captives. He was probably impotent. Or was he 8 and had early marriage? This is unlikely as child marriage was unknown among the Jews.

So modern scholarship translates it as eighteen.

[The documents are unclear here. But the context indicates 18. A single Hebrew character was not copied in 2 Chr 36:9 making the 18 an 8. Compare this study on the matter for more details

[jehoiachin.htm].

b) GOD'S CURSE AGAINST JEHOIACHIN

Now we turn to the last of the Kings of Judah who were deleted from the dynasty.

2 Chr 36:9 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD.

2 Chr 36:10 In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the LORD, and he made Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem.

The prophecy against Jeconiah (Coniah = Jehoiachin) can be found in Jeremiah 22:24-30

Jer 22:24 "As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off.

Jer 22:25 I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear--to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians.

Jer 22:26 I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die.

Jer 22:27 You will never come back to the land you long to return to."

Jer 22:28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know?

Jer 22:29 O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD!

Jer 22:30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."

Evidently Jesus could not be born in the lineage which was cut off by the Lord and be the King in the line of David. The lineage and Royal line ended with Jeconiah (= Jehoiachin). The *eighteen year old Jeconiah was carried away to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and put in the dungeon of Babylon.

2 Ki 24:15 Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. He also took from Jerusalem to Babylon the king's mother, his wives, his officials and the leading men of the land.

See also 2 Chr. 36:10; Est. 2:6; Jer. 21:20

He was in the prison for 37 years

2 Ki 25:27 In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin from prison on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month.

2 Ki 25:28 He spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.

2 Ki 25:29 So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table.

2 Ki 25:30 Day by day the king gave Jehoiachin a regular allowance as long as he lived.

At the end of this 37 years i.e. at the age probably of 55 years (or 45) he was released from the prison by Evil Merodach. We notice that Jehoiachin was in the dungeon all the days of his youth and came out at a very old age. He could not have had any children at least until 45, till he came out of the dungeons of Babylon. Yet we have a number of sons mentioned in Chronicles:

1 Chr 3:16 The successors of Jehoiakim: Jehoiachin his son, and Zedekiah.

1 Chr 3:17 The descendants of Jehoiachin the captive: Shealtiel his son,

1 Chr 3:18 Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah.

How come this?

In order to understand this we need to look into the Jewish arrangement of maintaining the name of a family through levirate custom.

c) THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE SYSTEM PROVIDES AN EXPLANATION FOR JEHOIAKIM'S SUCCESSORS: JEHOIACHIN AND ZEDEKIAH

The levirate system was a normal practice in most tribes and cultures from ancient times. The specific commandment for this is found in Deuteronomy.

Deu 25:5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

Deu 25:6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

This was not a new law. Lord confirmed and accepted the local practice in this regard and validated it. The fact that this custom was prevalent can be found in the case of Judah’s son in Gen 38:8,11.

Gen 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."

Gen 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

Gen 38:10 What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death also.

Gen 38:11 Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, "Live as a widow in your father's house until my son Shelah grows up." For he thought, "He may die too, just like his brothers."

So Tamar went to live in her father's house.

The concept of brother in this context does not necessarily [have to] be interpreted only as direct brother. From this comes the concept of Kinsman redeemer. This is shown in the story of Ruth (4:3-10) where Boaz is not the direct brother of Mahlon and Chillion, but a close relative.

This practice is still found in the Southern Sudan and other Jewish like cultures. In fact the dead man’s wife may take the nearest relative or if he refuses she may take anyone from the family or even from the tribe. The children born from such relations belong to her husband in name and in inheritance. These laws were made in order to protect the rights of the women. There has to be someone to take care of the widows and her rights to sexual satisfaction. In Sudan where polygamy is prevalent, the master of the house may have several wives, and some of them may be very young. These young women have their right of life and this is guaranteed through levirate system. In some cases the elder son is asked to take his father’s young widows as wives if the father’s brothers are old and unfit for sexual relations. This arrangement also makes sure that the property remain within the family and will not go out to others. The system of levirate was a very powerful method of maintaining the family heritage and property.

Under the circumstances connected with Jeconiah it is therefore legitimate and reasonable to assume that the children who are reckoned to be his are children out of the levirate system. This is to be assumed also on the basis of Jeremiah’s prophecy. We shall take up this again when we come to this in Luke’s genealogy.

B) THE GENEALOGY OF LUKE INVESTIGATED

1) INTRODUCTION

Luke was a physician, who was widely traveled and well placed in society. He was probably a doctor who traveled in the ships. He knew many well placed aristocrats as is indicated in his addressing of the gospel and the book "Acts of the Apostles" to the most excellent Theophilos. Theophilos mentioned here is considered to be Titus Flavious of Clement of Rome who was a cousin of Emperor Domitian who ruled from AD 95 onwards. Flavious was the Roman Consul and was later martyred along with his wife Domitilla for being Christians. It can therefore be deducted that he had very high connections. We have no records to show that he ever met Jesus while Jesus was alive. He was probably a Jew in dispersion and was a free man of great wealth.

Luke had a scientific outlook, which is to be expected from a physician. He has written his books after serious research into the events as he claims in his introduction

Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

Luke 1:2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

Luke 1:3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Luke 1:4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

He had [evidently] known and read all the existing documents on the life of Jesus which were written by people who had seen and heard and lived with Jesus. Luke accordingly may not be considered as an eyewitness. But he had taken the pains to do extensive research in the life of Jesus before embarking upon the venture. The gospel itself clearly exemplifies this claim. Many of the personal stories of Mary, Joseph, disciples, women and other Gentile people are given in greater depth and detail in Luke.

Why did Luke take up the writing, since there were an abundance of such documents? The reason is also given in the introduction: "so that you may know the certainty of things you have been taught." Earlier documents were [evidently] written by eyewitnesses as personal anecdotes and memoirs and were not comprehensive enough to be presented as a gospel to the Gentile world. Others were all personal documents and were written essentially by the Jews and for the Jews. Luke was writing to the Gentiles who did not understand the Jewish traditions and customs. Legalism of the Jews and the custom of counting the lineage by legal right whether by levirate marriage or by kinsman-redeemer marriage or even ghost marriage was not understood by outsiders. Hence it is natural for him to adopt the blood relation as the basis of tracing the lineage. In tracing the lineage, he traces the lineage back to Adam and to God.

[Mantague Stephen Mills states, {'A COMPARISON OF THE GENESIS AND LUKAN GENEALOGIES (The Case for Cainan), A Thesis Presented to Dallas Theological Seminary, April 1978, Chapter II, p. 8}

"Luke claims that the record is an account handed down by eyewitnesses and servants of the word. The term 'servants of the word' warrants study for the word translated servant is 'uperetes' and an examination of its use in the New Testament demonstrates that it usually denotes an officer of rank whose authority is derived from another. (Paul used 'uperetes' to describe his appointment by Christ as an apostle) and this use, at the hand of the same author, indicates that the servants Luke refers to are people with apostolic office who have derived their authority from Christ, or at the least people in authority in the churches who have derived their authority, if not from Christ then from the Apostles). We can therefore safely conclude that Luke's human sources were eyewitness apostles, or at least people holding high office in the early church. Luke makes this point specifically in verse 3 for the adverb translated 'from the beginning' (NASB) is 'anothen' which is more usually used as an adverb of place, consequently a more appropriate understanding is 'from their source.' As Luke was contemporaneous with the apostles no allowance for intermediaries between the original sources and him need be made. This claim then, applied to Luke's gospel, asserts that it represents the authentic, orthodox authorized teaching of the original church. Furthermore Luke claims to have investigated 'everything' so his sources must be widened from purely verbal human sources to documentary sources. This is confirmed in verse 1 for there Luke talks of accounts (narratives) that others have compiled ('anastassomai').

Luke's claim to authenticity is supplemented by an emphatic claim to accuracy for he claims to have investigated everything carefully. The word translated 'investigate' is 'parakolotheo' which carries a connotation not only of investigating but also of understanding. Luke thus makes the impressive claim that he was careful to understand what he wrote and that it was accurate. (The adverb translated 'carefully', 'akrebos' has another primary meaning of accuracy). This claim is further reinforced by his statement that his desire is that Theophilus shall know the certainty 'asphiales' (NASB - exact truth) of the events recorded. Luke's final claim is that his record is in consecutive order for that is the sense of the adverb 'kathexes'. Luke's claims are thus that the gospel he has written is a careful work which he has thoroughly investigated and understood, that it is accurate and that it conveys the certainty (exact truth) of the events reported.

Add to Luke's claims, the pre-supposition of Divine Inspiration, which would axiomatically include guidance in the sources selected, and one has a most positive assertion that the genealogy in Chapter 3 of Luke's gospel is a detailed and accurate one."}

b) EXPLANATION OF THE 'EXTRA' NAME CAINAN IN LUKE'S GENEALOGY

We notice that one name is missing in the Old Testament series which is found in Luke’s genealogy.

Cainan is the son of Arphaxad and Shelah is the son of Cainan according to Luke; while in the Chronicle this name is not found. However in Hebrew traditional lineage this name can be found in the Septuagint......

[The name Cainan is found in certain key papyri manuscript copies and the Septuagint (LXX) as well; the latter of which is an early Greek translation of the Old Testament which dates from about 250 BC. Yet most Old Testament translations favor the Masoretic Text (~500 AD) when it comes to the exclusion of Cainan.

On the other hand, as stated by Mantague Stephen Mills, (op. cit. p. 11), there is much evidence for the name Cainan to be included:

'''The argument to support the authenticity of the Cainan reading in the original manuscript is strong. C. Robert Fetter, who has made a detailed study of this problem, states that Codex Bezae (Uncial D) is the only manuscript of consequence which excludes Cainan....

{Robert Fetter, 'A Critical Investigation of the 'The Second Cainan' in Luke 3:36. Unpublished B.D. monograph, Grace Theological Seminary, May 1956. p. 51.}

Metzger has this to say about Uncial D.

"Different in several respects from all the manuscripts mentioned above (all the papyri and A B C ....

Dating from the fifth or possibly sixth century......

The text is presented in Greek and in Latin....

The Gospels stand in the so-called Western Order (Matthew, John, Luke and Mark)

.... No known manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the normal New Testament text. Codex Bezae's special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences and even incidents. Thus in Luke IV... between verses 4 and 6 it contains the following account 'On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath day, He said to him 'Man if you know what you are doing you are blessed; but if you do not know you are accursed and a transgressor of the law.' "

After listing several other peculiarities Metzger concludes:

"These examples will be sufficient to indicate the characteristic freedom of what is called the Western Text, of which Codex Bezae is the principal representative. More study has been expended upon this manuscript, particularly where the Greek text differs from the parallel Latin text and where one or both differ from other witnesses, than has been devoted to any other New Testament witness. There is still no unanimity of opinion regarding the many problems which the manuscript raises."

Henry Alford has this to say about Codex Bezae:

"The text of the Codex Bezae is a very peculiar one, deviating more from the received readings and from the principal manuscript authorities than any other....

It is closely and singularly allied to the ancient Latin versions, so much so that some critics have supposed it to have been altered from the Latin; and certainly many of the phenomena of the manuscript seem to bear out the idea... in critical weight it ranks the lowest of the leading manuscripts."

The foregoing quotations amply highlight the weaknesses of the witness of D. The text's established freedom from the generally accepted New Testament texts, its lack of concord within itself between the Greek and Latin texts and the obviously spurious addition in Luke chapter 4 (the sentiment of this addition is clearly contrary to the general tenor of New Testament teaching) make it a very dubious witness for the exclusion of Cainan, a matter which can readily be understood as of not much concern to the scribe. The solid support of the papyri X A B LT D A P leave little room for questioning the originality of the reading supporting the inclusion of Cainan and it is little wonder therefore that no variant readings are even listed in the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. The Nestle text does likewise but the text edited by Alford mentions the variant."]

[Dr. Ninan, cont.]

Why was this name not in our Bible and found in Septuagint and tradition? Again we have to look back into Hebrew tradition. If a person died when they are very young before they have a chance to establish a name for himself, the child born to them will be known as the child of the living grandfather. This practice is echoed in the book at 4:17.

1) [Ruth 4:17]:

"The women living there said, 'Naomi has a son.' And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David"

If the son of Arphaxad, Cainan died very young after begetting Shelah, the Jews would refer to him as the son of Arphaxad and not as the son of Cainan. Cainan will not be practically referred to in any legal documents, since he died before he established himself and legally took possession of the properties and rights as a son. But this will not be acceptable to the Gentile world where actual parenthood is always counted. Thus it is interesting that Luke brings his name into the line.

c) JOSEPH, HELI AND MARY

The Zelophehad custom:

Again when we reach the pinnacle of the tree, Luke claims that Joseph is the son of Heli while Matthew puts Joseph as the son of Jacob. Here we have to call for another adoption custom which is widely practiced all over the world. In this custom if a family had no male offspring to provide a lineage, one of the husbands of the girls may be adopted to the heir of the family. They will then be legal heir to the family titles. Mary being the only daughter of Heli, had adopted Joseph according to the law of Zelophahad. This mode of marriage is confirmed by God during the division of Palestine by Moses.

Num 27:1 The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached

Num 27:2 the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said,

Num 27:3 "Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. 

Num 27:4 Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives."

Num 27:5 So Moses brought their case before the LORD 

Num 27:6 and the LORD said to him,

Num 27:7 "What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them.

Num 27:8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter.

Num 36:6 This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father.

Joseph being the family of Judah and of David was therefore adopted in accordance with the law. Hence though Heli was the father of Mary, Joseph the son of Jacob became the son of Heli by adoption."

III) SKEPTICS QUESTIONS ANSWERED:

A) IF THE VIRGIN BIRTH STORY IS TRUE, THEN WHY DO THE GENEALOGIES REPORT JOSEPH AS BEING THE FATHER OF JESUS?

[Dr. Henrietta Mears states: http://www.yfiles.com/duel.html]

"The skeptic asks:

'The New Testament gives a detailed line of descent for Jesus demonstrating that Jesus was born of the line of King David. This is done to meet the prophetic requirement of the Messiah being an heir to the house of David. It is unfortunate that the writer traces Jesus descent from David through Joseph. Joseph isn't the father if we are to believe the story of a virgin birth.'

...In the genealogy in Matthew 1, notice one name, Jechonias (Jeconiah), in verse 11. If Joseph had been Jesus' father according to the flesh, He could never have occupied the throne, for God's word barred the way. There had been a curse on this royal line since the days of Jeconiah. In Jeremiah 22:30 we read, Thus says the Lord: write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days: for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Joseph was in the line of this curse. Hence, if Jesus had been Joseph's son, He could not have sat on David's throne.

[Note that due to the line of Joseph being disqualified to sit on the throne of David, due to Jeconiah's sin; Mary's sons with Joseph born after Jesus would similarly be disqualified; leaving Jesus as the only rightful heir to the throne, not being through the line of Joseph, but through Mary alone]

But we find another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. This is Mary's line, back to David, through Nathan, not Jeconiah (Luke 3:31). There was no curse on this line. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David: And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:30-33).

In Matthew 1:1-17 we have the royal genealogy of the son of David, through Joseph. In Luke 3:23-38 it is His strictly personal genealogy, through Mary. In Matthew it is His legal line of descent through Joseph; in Luke it is His lineal descent through Mary. In Matthew His genealogy is traced forward from Abraham; in Luke it followed backward to Adam, Each is significant! Matthew is showing Jesus' relation to the Jew, hence he goes back no further than to Abraham, father of the Jewish nation. But in Luke is His connection with the human race; hence His genealogy is traced back to Adam, the father of the human family.

In Luke, Jesus' line is traced back to Adam, and is, no doubt, His mother's line. Notice in Luke 3:23, it does not say Jesus was the son of Joseph. What are the words? As was supposed. In Matthew 1:16, where Joseph's genealogy is given, we find that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In Luke it says he was the son of Heli. He could not be the son of two men by natural generation. But notice this carefully - the record does not state that Heli begot Joseph, so it is supposed that Joseph was the son by law (or son-in-law) of Heli. Heli is believed to have been the father of Mary.

The Davidic genealogy goes through Nathan, not Solomon. This too is important. The Messiah must be David's son and heir (2 Sam. 7:12, 13; Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30, 31) and his seed according to the flesh. He must be a literal flesh and blood descendant. Hence Mary must be a member of David's house as well as Joseph (Luke 1:32).]

B) THE TERM BEGOTTEN IS NOT USED IN LUKE'S GENEALOGY SO IT IS SUSPECT OF BEING A TRUE GENEALOGY

[Guy Cramer states, "The Genealogy Jigsaw Puzzle" http://www.yfiles.com/duel.html]:

"The skeptic responds:

'Allowing [the] argument that this phrasing is used to indicate that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, I find it interesting that this entire passage does not use the term begotten all the way back to David and beyond.'

Following [the skeptic's] line of reasoning, these men were all sons-in-law and not sons to the previous generation. Considering that the Israelites did not trace lines of descent through matriarchal lines but through patriarchal lines this seems to be a very tenuous linkage at best.

The original Greek in Luke 3:24 reads: being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat,... notice it does not say son of Heli... sure they could be sons-in-law and not sons but you must take note that it does not say son of Heli...

But if we look at the original Greek of Matthew 1:2 we read that Abraham fathered Isaac, Isaac and fathered Jacob... so here we have a definite patriarchal line.

Matthew was written for the Jews so we have the patriarchal line listed in Matthew 1. Luke was written to the Greeks, a highly feminized culture in the first century so a matriarchal line is possible. Can we confirm that Matthew was written for the Jews? Often Matthew leaves Jewish phrases and customs unexplained, assuming that his readers are familiar with them. And where Luke would say "kingdom of God," Matthew uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven," out of respect for Jews, who never wrote out the word God.

Matthew 1:18-25 even states that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. So the genealogy he gives prior to this is only a legal line of decent.

Sons from Luke 3

Do we have proof that any of the Men listed in the Luke 3:23-38 are not sons-in-law?

First the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 shows in the original Greek that each man is the father of the next. The genealogy in Luke just says that the man "of" the next one all the way to Adam of God. But both genealogies lists the same 12 men from David to Abraham. Therefore, those passages in Luke 3:32-43 are showing the actual fathers and cannot be understood as sons-in-law.

Our question now shifts to the prior men in Luke 3:23-31 were they all sons-in-law?

As mentioned before, the split in genealogies happens with David's sons. Matthew lists the line of Solomon, Luke lists the line of Nathan.

In 2 Samuel 5:13-14 we read "...Also more sons and daughters were born to David. Now these are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon,...

So we know that Nathan was David's son.

If we turn to Zechariah 12:12-14 we read in this Old Testament book a prophecy who will mourn for the Messiah when He is pierced:

"And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves.

It turns out that the pierced Messiah is not the only prophecy in these passages.

If we go back to the genealogy in Luke 3:26, 3:29, 3:31 we find all four of these same names in the proper order. This doesn't mean that the names are one immediately after the other, but If we look at the first two names in Zechariah David and Nathan we do find these are one after the other in Luke 3. The next name in Zechariah 12 is Levi. If we begin at David and then Nathan we have to skip 9 names until we run into Levi. If we skip ahead 17 more names from Levi we find Semei. The Hebrew name in Zechariah 12 is Shimei. This same Hebrew name in the Greek New Testament would be translated as Semei.

I asked James D. Price a Professor of Hebrew, if this was correct. His response: "The Greek language has no "sh" sound, and no letter for "sh". So both the Greek Septuagint and the Greek NT transliterate Hebrew "sh" with "s"." I also asked him, "Can the Hebrew name Shimei be understood as Semei?" His responded, "If you are talking about a Greek translation, yes."

So considering that the Israelites did not trace lines of descent through matriarchal lines but through patriarchal lines, if we look at Zechariah 12:12-14 we find that the author who is an Israelite traces this line through a patriarchal system from David to Shimei.

This only leaves us with 14 generations from Joseph to Semei (not 41 from Joseph to David) in which could have had been sons-in-law in the Luke 3 genealogy. There is no other data in the Bible on these remaining 14 generations to express a dogmatic view on the issue but the information from the prophecy of Zechariah seems to suggest that we should expect only one in the genealogy who is a son-in-law - Joseph.

Zechariah picked four names in correct order from the blood line of the Messiah 500 years before Jesus was born. Zechariah knew from other prophecies the Messiah was to come from the line of David. In 1 Chronicles 3:1-9 we find that David had at least 15 sons. So Zechariah correctly picked Nathan as the line in which the Messiah would come. He also correctly picked the names Levi and Shimei (Semei) to be part of that line in his prophecy. What are the odds?

The skeptic has his answer.

References: 1. Mears, Henrietta C., "What The Bible Is All About", G/L Publications 1953,1954,1960,1966, p. 356-357, 396 Presented by Trinity Consulting"

C) MARY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED TO TRANSFER THE RIGHTS OF HER LINEAGE TO HER SON JESUS SINCE SHE IS A WOMAN

[Phil Luna states, "The Lineage Loophole", http://www.yfiles.com/loophole.html]:

"Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother Mary... However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).

Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.

What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth to take place 1,400 years in advance! Did Mary have any brothers? By Guy Cramer After reading the detailed information above, I asked Phil if he knew of any information on Mary's brothers. He cited numerous non-canonical works such as The Catholic Encyclopedia, the apocryphal book called, the Protoevangelium of James... tradition states that Mary had no brothers.

Curious, I went through the four gospels looking for any reference to collaborate Phil's references.

In John 19:25-27 we read:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His Mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his home.

We see from this passage that Mary had a sister.

Jesus is not saying to His mother "Look at me on the cross" with the statement "Woman, behold your son!" Jesus is telling his mother that John (the only disciple at the cross) is going to care for her. Jesus also tells John that he must care for Mary.

We must acknowledge that Joseph (Jesus' Father) has probably died since we see no references to Joseph after Jesus was 12 years old in Luke 2:41-52.

To understand why Jesus is telling John to care for Mary we must understand the Jewish culture at that time. When an woman with children was widowed she would move back with her father or brother. If her father had also died and there were no brothers then one of her sons might care for her.

In this case, Jesus was the eldest son of Mary and was probably supporting her at this time. He passes the responsibility to John one of His disciples and not a son of Mary.

From the comments of Jesus we can extrapolate that Jesus was caring for Mary, which means that Mary had no brothers (at least none that were alive at this time). Taken with the extra-biblical literature that Mary had no brothers we can assume that she passed the first prerequisite that God had given as law (Num 27:8).

Now we see the reason for two different genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Not only do we see Joseph's line in Matthew 1 but also Mary's line in Luke 3. Both these genealogies show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same tribe of Judah fulfilling the second requirement by Law (Num 36:6). So the reason for God placing two genealogies is to show that Jesus being of Virgin birth came from Mary's line which was not cursed as was Joseph's. Also to show that both Mary and Joseph come from the same line which was a legal necessity if Jesus was to claim Mary's line and not Joseph's cursed line.

We find that on the surface the Bible can be a simple enough to understand but the complexity we are discovering in which it was written is astonishing. Phil Luna is an ordained Assemblies of God minister. He teaches a weekly Bible study verse by verse through the Bible. His favorite area of study is the Hebraic roots of Christianity.

D) MATTHEW'S LINEAGE DOES NOT HAVE EVERY NAME IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE AND IS THEREFORE SUSPECT

[Dr. M.M.Ninan states via email,

[http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/Genealogy/cha1.htm]

Matthew's lineage is certainly not all inclusive. We know for certain that he omitted six names from the list of actual rulers who sat on the throne of David. These names were known to every historian and the scribe when Matthew wrote his gospel and he certainly knew it. So he omits certain people for reasons of legitimacy, curse, unacceptable behaviour etc. The same is applicable through out the line. If he missed 6 during the period of monarchy we do not know how many were missed after the captivity for similar and legitimate reasons. Since we do not have the records we do not also know why. Jews would have been the first to point out such blatant errors and laughed at the history at its inception. The life of the captives in dispersion were so mixed up they certainly must have resorted to levirate marriage. There was no need of a grandfather to adopt (officially I mean) a grandson to be made a legal heir.... Then [this] was considered cultural norm. If an older son died the younger son became heir without any formality. All these factors are to be taken into account especially during the turbulent dispersion era.

Let me give some example.

A is the patriarch

He begets B while A was 25 years old

B begets C while he was 25 years old

B died or was taken prisoner or sold in slavery when he was 30

Then C is the heir to A But he becomes the sole holder of the title of the family only when A dies.

If A died at the age of 90 C comes to his heritage only at the age of 40.

Suppose C died while he was 30 and had a son by 20 called D, the heir to A is now D and we will have missed B and C from the legal line.

For Matthew A (first) to D (second) is just two generations till D's death. The alienation need not be death. It can be socially unacceptable behaviour. It can be simply a disappearance or conviction of crime or marrying outside of the community etc. A recent example of this was King Edward's abdication of the throne of England. In the context of Matthew's presentation this is to be expected.

So the names were omitted as a result of God's judgment. The fact that fourteen names come up in each period of time does not prove out a contrived genealogy unless other names were actually left out for illegitimate reasons creating an error of omission. This is not the case as this study has shown. There is therefore proved no error of omission. It is evident that the decrees and sovereignty of God are testified to in this number fourteen rather than the contrivance of Matthew.

E) OBJECTORS MAINTAIN THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE GENEALOGIES IN MATTHEW, LUKE AND ELSEWHERE IS NOT TO GIVE AN ACCURATE HISTORY WHICH THEY MAINTAIN ARE NOT BIOLOGICAL BUT ARE FALSELY CONTRIVED TO MAKE ONE THEOLOGICAL POINT OR ANOTHER

An unbiased reading of the biblical genealogies within the context will indicate that they simply attempt to establish our Lord's actual and real biological lineage which was prophesied in Scripture so as to qualify Him for consideration as the true Messiah that was foretold. So if the genealogies are purposed not to give 'accurate history' then they are not genealogies at all but nothing but nonsense.

John Nolland states, [WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY, WORD BOOKS, PUBLISHER, DALLAS , TEXAS, 1989, Vol. 35A, Luke 1-9:20, pp. 169:

"Ancient genealogies were used for a complex variety of purposes... Genealogies established individual identity; reflected, established, or legitimated social structures, status, and entitlements to office; functioned as modes of praise or delineations of character or even as basis of exhortation...."

Careful observance of Matthew's genealogy will discover that it is not all inclusive nor intended to be. Matthew could not be claiming that it is all inclusive in view of the fact that the omissions are too obvious for the contemporary Jewish community to miss. Furthermore, in consideration of the great attention over the millennia the Jews have paid toward their genealogical history relative to the preservation of their race and the identification of the Messiah, if any genealogy in the Bible was suspect of not being truly biological the bible would not have survived all of these years intact and as originally written. The genealogies of Scripture stand out as highly specific and biological and thus authenticatable at the time each was written. Yet there has not been forthcoming over hundreds of years any trustworthy alternative evidence totally refuting any name listed in any genealogy in Scripture.

Due to numerous factions inside and outside of the nation Israel and the many years which have transpired, objectors' ideas of a contrived, non-biological genealogy as a result of a conspiracy of millions of Jews over the ages and the silence of all of their enemies is quite preposterous.

F) OBJECTORS MAINTAIN THAT SINCE THE MATTHEW AND LUKAN GENEALOGIES ARE NOT IDENTICAL IN FORM AND CONTENT THIS INDICATES THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE A COMMON SOURCE, AND BOTH ARE INACCURATE AND CONTRIVED AND CERTAINLY NOT BIOLOGICAL

The objectors further point out that Matthew’s genealogy is a narrative, a series of subjects and verbs that begins with Abraham and comes forward to Jesus. By contrast they falsely maintain that Luke’s genealogy is not a narrative, but a series of genitive nouns that begins with Jesus and goes backward to Adam and God.

The truth of the matter is that two authors can use a common source and for each's intended purpose produce biologically accurate, non contrived and truthful documents of differing form and content. Normative rules of language and style permit this diversion. It is furthermore, a false presupposition that both genealogies are intended to relay the same identical lineage in precisely the same manner and therefore must be identical. Neither point of this presupposition is accurate as shown in detail in this study.

Both genealogies have minor grammatical and stylistic differences. Neither can actually be considered much more literary than the other. The simple addition of one word, the verb, "begat" = egennesen" and a few explicatory phrases [do] not make Matthew's style appreciably more literary or novelistic than Luke's. Matthew chose a slightly more narrative form and moved forward historically. Luke chose a shorter, punctuated format similar to the genealogies in Genesis and chose to move backwards in chronology. Both formats are legitimate normative language constructions and cannot be viewed as proving contrivance or inaccuracies. The content is the issue - is each genealogy biologically accurate? Surely one can read about an event in half a dozen different newspapers and find that they all accurately report the event yet are legitimately characterized by differences in style and content.

G) THERE IS A DEFINITIVE LACK OF GENEALOGICAL EVIDENCE TODAY WHICH PROVES THAT GENEALOGIES ARE NOT TO BE BIOLOGICALLY ACCURATE

Objectors to the validity of our Lord's genealogies in Matthew and Luke maintain that except in priestly families, detailed genealogical records were rarely available. Many genealogies were tangled, and even some religious leaders could not trace their own genealogy. Some rabbis taught that clarification would occur in the messianic times when Elijah appeared. Occasionally genealogies were produced by imaginative puns on the words involved rather than from history or tradition. Joshua and Jonah were provided with genealogies by imaginative Midrashic exegesis, as were famous rabbis.

John Nolland states, [WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY, WORD BOOKS, PUBLISHER, DALLAS , TEXAS, 1989, Vol. 35A, Luke 1-9:20, pp. 169:

"Ancient genealogies were used for a complex variety of purposes... Genealogies established individual identity; reflected, established, or legitimated social structures, status, and entitlements to office; functioned as modes of praise or delineations of character or even as basis of exhortation...."

[From: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~andysh/genealogy.html]:

"The Jews had carefully maintained genealogical records. These records were preserved in the temple until its destruction in A.D. 70. The Gospel writers had access to these temple records and could accurately trace the genealogy of Jesus from them."

[J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), p. 39]:

The Jews must have consulted the records to see whether the One Who made such claims (of Messiahship) for Himself had the right to make those claims. Had they found any flaw in His descent, they would have been quick to accuse Him of being an impostor. Even though the nation rejected Him, it was not because He was outside the Davidic line and therefore ineligible to claim the David throne. (Ibid)]

An unbiased reading of the biblical genealogies within the context will indicate that they simply attempt to establish our Lord's actual and real biological lineage which was prophesied in Scripture so as to qualify Him for consideration as the true Messiah that was foretold. So if the genealogies are purposed not to give 'accurate history' then they are not genealogies at all but nothing but nonsense.

H) OBJECTORS MAINTAIN THAT SINCE ISRAEL HAD KINGS AFTER THE EXILE THAT WERE NOT OF THE DAVIDIC LINE, THAT THIS FALSIFIES THE GENEALOGIES IN MATTHEW AND LUKE

Irrelevant and immaterial. The issue is whether or not the Matthean and Lukan genealogies are accurately portraying the legal blood line of David to our Lord. Neither genealogy lists non-Davidic kings nor are such usurpers considered legitimate kings of the Throne of David.

I) THE MATTHEAN GENEALOGY IS ARTIFICIAL BECAUSE IT OMITS SEVERAL NAMES IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT FOURTEEN NAMES EACH FOR THE THREE PERIODS OF TIME DEPICTED. THIS DONE FOR CONTRIVED THEOLOGICAL REASONS

Matthew's lineage is certainly not all inclusive. We know for certain that he omitted six names from the list of actual rulers who sat on the throne of David. These names were known to every historian and the scribe when Matthew wrote his gospel and he certainly knew it. So he omits certain people for reasons of legitimacy, curse, unacceptable behaviour etc. The same is applicable through out the line. If he missed 6 during the period of monarchy we do not know how many were missed after the captivity for similar and legitimate reasons. Since we do not have the records we do not also know why. Jews would have been the first to point out such blatant errors and laughed at the history at its inception. The life of the captives in dispersion were so mixed up they certainly must have resorted to levirate marriage. There was no need of a grandfather to adopt (officially I mean) a grandson to be made a legal heir.... Then [this] was considered cultural norm. If an older son died the younger son became heir without any formality. All these factors are to be taken into account especially during the turbulent dispersion era.

Let me give some example.

A is the patriarch

He begets B while A was 25 years old

B begets C while he was 25 years old

B died or was taken prisoner or sold in slavery when he was 30

Then C is the heir to A But he becomes the sole holder of the title of the family only when A dies.

If A died at the age of 90 C comes to his heritage only at the age of 40.

Suppose C died while he was 30 and had a son by 20 called D, the heir to A is now D and we will have missed B and C from the legal line.

For Matthew A (first) to D (second) is just two generations till D's death. The alienation need not be death. It can be socially unacceptable behaviour. It can be simply a disappearance or conviction of crime or marrying outside of the community etc. A recent example of this was King Edward's abdication of the throne of England. In the context of Matthew's presentation this is to be expected."

So the names were omitted as a result of God's judgment. The fact that fourteen names come up in each period of time does not prove out a contrived genealogy unless other names were actually left out for illegitimate reasons creating an error of omission. This is not the case as this study has shown. There is therefore proved no error of omission. It is evident that the decrees and sovereignty of God are testified to in this number fourteen rather than the contrivance of Matthew.

J) TAMAR IS A CANAANITE WOMAN IN THE LINE OF MATTHEW THUS FALSIFYING THE TRUE BIOLOGICAL GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD

Objectors maintain that, (Mt 1:3), Tamar was the Canaanite wife of Judah’s eldest son, Er, who died prematurely (Gen 38:1-7). When the patriarch Judah refused her the normal considerations of remarriage, she tricked him into fathering her son, who then was incorporated into what was to become the messianic line (Gen 38:8-30). Judah declares her “righteous” (Gen 38:26), a key term in the Matthean story of Jesus’ birth (cf. 1:19).

K) OBJECTORS STATE THAT LUKE PRESENTS MARY AS BEING RELATED TO THE LEVITICAL FAMILY OF ZECHARIAH & ELIZABETH, AND THEREFORE NOT BELONGING TO THE TRIBE OF JUDAH AND THE LINE OF DAVID

Dr. Ninan Mammen states [Email: mm9n@hotmail.com, Sunday, February 15, 1999 6:23 PM]:

"Certainly Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, and Elizabeth was a relative of Mary. It does not follow that Mary was of Aaronic descent. In a patriarchal society descendance is only counted along the male line. If Mary's mother's sister (or father's sister) was married to Elizabeth's father of Aaronic descent (Levite) they are first cousins, but they are of two lineages"

Dr. Ninan Mammen states [Email mm9n@hotmail.com, Monday, February 16, 1999 10:15 AM]:

"The Protoevangelium of James... indicates that Anna was born in Bethlehem. She probably was the sister of Nachariah. If this is true Mary was simply Elizabeth's niece. Elizabeth was married into a Levitical family of Zach while Anna was married into the Davidic family of Heli."

L) OBJECTORS STATE THAT MT 1:17 INDICATES THAT ALL SEGMENTS OF THE GENEALOGY LISTED CONTAINS 14 NAMES, YET THE THIRD ONLY HAS THIRTEEN

Jeconiah is to be counted in both lists, since he lived both before and after the captivity. So, there are literally 14 names listed 'from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ,' just as Matthew says. There are also literally 14 names listed between David and the captivity, just as Matthew claims (Matt. 1:6-12).