Thank you so much for this video! So clarifying! Thank you for offering this explanation to the faithful, it is so important that we understand what the Scripture really says, and we would never get such in-depth explanation from an ordinary homily! For us, who cannot afford to or do not have the means to study theology or exegesis, such videos are wonderful resources for self-learning! God bless you!
This video was amazing. I enjoyed it so much and it gave me so much light into a topic I was always confused. Thanks very much for such an excellent explanation, Dr. Bergsma. You have no idea how much this helps me. May God bless your work.
This is such a blessing to finally find a logical explanation of the genealogy differences in Luke and Matthew. I have found so many studies that just don’t make sense. Some “ experts purport that Matthews list is of Mary and Luke is of Joseph . There is very little agreement on the reasons for one being from the Law and one being through Blood or biology. Thankyou so much for 5he clarity you brought here in your video.
How do you feel about St. Augustine‘a theory that Joseph may have been adopted and so both genealogies are actually St. Joseph’s, but one is via St. Joseph’s biological father and the other his legal/adopted father?
I had high hopes for this long video, that it would provide a scholarly and biblical response. I thank God for YourTuber NathanH83 and his videos "The two Genealogies of Jesus: According to Eusibius" and "The Curse of Jeconiah" Those two videos provide a more biblical and God glorifying answer to the mystery of the dual Genealogies of Jesus.
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not contradict or conflict. They are of 2 people, Joseph and Mary. The genealogical list in Matthew, from David to Jacob-Heli (spanning about 1000 years), contains 27 generations of 40 years each, so as to comply with the 40-year royal generational standard. Luke, on the other hand, gives 40 generations of a more comprehensible 25 years. Hence, Luke places Jesus in the 20th generation from Zerubbabel, whereas Matthew places him In the 11th generation from Zerubbabel. SUMMARY: Matthew, 27 generations of 40 years from Solomon--Patriarchal, Zerubbabel's father's line. Luke, 40 geneartions of 25 years from Nathan-Matriarchal, Zerubbabel's mother's line. Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David. Both lines converge at Zerubbabel, then diverge. Zerubbabel had 2 sons, Abiud and Rhesa. Matthew goes from Abiud, Mary's line. Luke goes from Rhesa, Joseph's line. Mary and Joseph were also related. Joseph was Mary's great-aunt Gadat's son. Mary's mother was Hannah. Her father was Joachim (Yonakhir), the Elias Patriarch. Joseph's mother was Gadat & his father was Heli, the Jacob Patriarch. He held the traditional distinction of 'Jacob' in his patriarchal capacity in the community. So his title would be 'Jacob', & he would be called Jacob-Heli. Joachim's mother was Sabartia (Sabhrath). His father was Matthat the Zadok. Heli's father was Matthan (descended from Mattathias (Tobias) the temple governor. Jesus actually was the biological son of joseph. In Matthew, Mary was found with child by the Holy Spirit (pneuma hagion), a title of Joseph in the celibate state, during his betrothal period. According to the rules of procreation of dynastic marriage, sex was only allowed in December. Joseph & Mary came together in June, the month that the betrothal ceremony was held in. So, if Joseph followed the stricter rule, he would break off the betrothal, leaving the child to be brought up as one of the orphans adopted by Essenes. He was advised by an 'Angel of the Lord' Simeon/Simon the Essene, the Abiathar-Gabriel to take the intermediate way, to marry Mary, leaving both of them in an honorable state, but to treat rhe child as the son of Mary, not his son. Joseph went through the wedding ceremony, combining both weddings of the Essenes, the 1st one beginning the 3 year probationary period) allowing sex, the 2d (the binding one) when the woman was 3 months pregnant. Since there was a rule that there must be no intercourse during pregnancy, 'he knew her not'.
Isaiah 6 13 And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste. But as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.” Isaiah 11 1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, Isaiah 4 2 In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, Isaiah 7 10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11“Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Matthew was quoting the prophecies from the book of Isaiah as it is 1 The genealogy of Jesus ( KIng of Judah) Mary’s prospective from Math 1 chap 1-17 Abraham - Jesse - David - Solomon - Mary - Jesus 2.The birth of Jesus Christ from virgin Mary Math 1 18 - 25 3. The branch of Jesse was Jesus according to the prophecy. So he called as Nazarene. - Math 2 23 Jews raised an allegation on Jesus, as he was Samaritan born to a Jewish mother and to a non Jewish father. So Luke tried to disprove that allegation. So he mentioning that Mother Mary was married to a Jewish person showing that he is a Jew going to Bethlehem to register both their names in census mentioned in Luke 1 27 & Luke 2 4-5 and mentioned the Genealogy of Jesus in Joseph’s perspective in Luke 3 23 - last
They’re both correct except one small error in Matthew’s account. A scribal error in fact... Matthew 1:16 should read:16And Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
He is saying that Heli is Joachim who is Mary the BVM father. Joseph father of Jesus is the adopted son (son in law) of Joachim. Luke follows Mary blood line.
@@sliglusamelius8578 But in Luke it says "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of JOSEPH, the son of HELI"-Luke 3:23 Here there's is no connection to Marys line, its still Josephs. No one in history records genealogy by mentioning son in laws, and Jewish traditions are strict with their bloodline so they keep it strictly blood. There's many more internal inconsistencies in the Bible but that's for you to wrap your head around. May Allah guide you.
@@kibriaali2906 False. Family ties and inheritance rights were often through adoption. Adoption in the ancient world was very common and necessary, there being early deaths and infertility issues. That is very obvious from history. As for contradictions, the harmonization of the gospel accounts is easy enough when you study them in detail. The fact that there are four accepted accounts that have much consistency in the story makes for a truthfulness. Biographies are never exactly the same, if they were, you would cry "collusion". They didn't collude. Deal with that.,
I also think Jesus, as the source of humanity, is in every person, and so every one is made according to His Image and Likeness even under the fallen state of the world. I think His 'genealogy' accounts are not meant to present historical line of families of St. Joseph or St. Mary the Mother of God, but to make people aware that not only Jesus belongs to the house of Israel, born into the covenant, but also He is part of all men and women in the eternal plan of God for salvation. "And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” - Matthew 12 : 49-50 -
Based on the principle of Isaiah 28:10, a prophecy of (4) certain families mourning at Christ's crucifixion in Zechariah 12:12 - 13, I believe identifies the parental lineages of Jesus the Christ. The 'House of David' & the 'House of Nathan' (from the Matthew & Luke genealogies) would be of Joseph's father & mother, respectively; and The 'House of Levi' & the 'family of Shimei" would be of Mary's father & mother, respectively.
That would be very interesting, because we're certainly told that Elizabeth, Mary's cousin - mother of John the Baptist - was a Levite. If they were paternal cousins, that would make Mary the same. It may be worth adding that the Koran, which is now thought to have taken its Christology and Mariology from Syriac Christian tradition, calls Mary 'sister of Aaron'. There are two theories about this. One is that it just completely mixed Mary/Miriam up with the Miriam who was sister to Aaron and Moses. The other is that this 'sister of Aaron' was another way of saying she was a Levite.
Except for the KJV most of the major English translated Bibles use 'relative or kinswoman' rather than 'cousin'. Even more interesting in the Hebrew from footnotes from Thayer's Lexicon that 'word' would mean 'your uncle's wife or aunt' from Lev. 18:4. Thus Mary's father was the brother of Zacharias, the husband of Elizabeth. @@Sam-bc6sr
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: Isaiah 11:1 KJV A branch shall grow (not grafted one) out of his (David) roots. If we take Matthew's genealogy as Joseph Mary's husband and representing Jewish kings, scripture says that Jesus would come and sit on the thrown of the David, proclaiming Jesus as king as he was the son of Joseph, it gives a meaning that the branch (Jesus) was grafted to the roots of David. But scripture says Jesus as the descendant of David. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; Acts 2:30 KJV According to the above verse he was not a grafted branch to David's root, but a branch grown out of the root of David So the kingship of Jesus is not the adapted one. It was not by Joseph the adopted father It was throw David as he is the fruit of the David So Matthew is telling about the genealogy of Mary not of Joseph the husband of Mary. Other side Luke is representing the genealogy of Joseph the husband of Mary . And no one in this genealogy acted as kings. Jesus being ( supposed) the son of Joseph- Luke 3 : 23 45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. - John 1 45 22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? Luke 4 22
Have to disagree with the last part, namely the "Mary's Genealogy" thing. The reasoning behind this seems to be that the speaker wants to avoid the Curse of Jeconiah. But little does he seem to know that the Jeconiah in Matthew's genealogy is *another* Jeconiah, just as the Jesus, Son of Eliezar, in Luke's "genealogy" is *another* Jesus. Julius Africanus is quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. While either Africanus or Eusebius (probably Eusebius) confuses two names from Luke 3, the point remains that Jacob was the biological father of Joseph but then he died and his brother, Heli, inherited his wife. Now Heli is the legal father of Joseph. The genealogies are perplexing because of the Curse of Jeconiah already, no need to stirr it any further with Heli's name. The tradition that was invoked for Mary, similarly gives us the answer of why the two fathers, and the Curse of Jeconiah doesn't apply to Jesus because he is simply not in his line.
Uh, you don't know about Levite marriages? Ruth was a righteous gentile, and Boaz was the kinsmen redeemer. In Genesis 38, Tamar was considered more righteous than Judah, because after Judah mourned his dead wife got him to fulfill his duty as kinsmen redeemer. She did not trick him into adultery, but caused him to fulfill his duty as the next kinsmen redeemer to continue the family line. Remove your 21st century filter before you analyze this.
Re-read the biblical statement concerning God's view of marital status and of widow status and of a prostitute status. Of course that union was illicit. The word of God says Tamar was married to... Then once she noticed that her Father in Law will not allowed the marriage with the last son left from the family she disguise herself into a prostitute in order to mate with her father in law. She went from being a married woman to a widow then from a widow to a prostitute that's illicit to God's view that is the reason it been recorded like this.
It's not "lineage" per se that qualifies a contender to claim Messiahship, but Royal Lineage. In 2 Kings 11:1-3 the daughters of the King were not threatened by Athaliah because only males are Royal Seed (therefore Mary is excluded). Jesus' father would have to be a direct descendant of David's to be "Son of David". Don't get me wrong, I believe Jesus is the Messiah, but the NT genealogies are bogus in making that determination. I believe what Peter believed in Acts 2:30, that Jesus is the fruit of David's loins (not from someone else - see Rom 1:3 in the Greek text).
False. The text is not tampered with. Mary's "sister" is Mary, wife of Clopas, her sister in law. Greek doesn't have a word for sister bs sister in law or cousin. Why would she have a sister named Mary!? That's makes zero sense.
@@sliglusamelius8578 I did not say the text is tampered. I said a certain "interpretation" means tampering with the text. Luke gives a genealogy from Joseph to Adam (to God), not from Mary to Adam.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Also, you assume one possible interpretation of John to be true. There might be three woman mentioned, Mary's sister also being called Mary (not totally impossible but unlikely) or four: the Virgin Mary, her sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalena.
@@str.77 I have heard three reasonable theories on the genealogies. How would we prove any one particular case? I am agnostic about it, but the Mary lineage proposed here makes sense. Brant Pitre disageees, and he is no idiot, but his idea is that the genealogy is based on Joseph having a biological (he died young supposedly) and an adopting father. Who knows? Prove your case!
@@str.77 She doesn't have a sister named Mary lol. That is silly. In John, at the foot of the cross, there is mary wife of Clopas and mother of James and Joses, Jesus' adelphos (cousins! Not blood brothers).
Simpler way to look at it is the paternal line including the adoption as a father like say joseph the terror of demons, The other one is the maternal line like the kingship is passed down in the viking Scottish Irish Picts etc did Afterall when you boil it down the only one you can be sure of parentage is the mother like Mary is the Mother of the Father of fathers in the person of Jesus ergo the mother of God is she AKA the Queen Mother and the Mother in heaven is still having issues with it
I think the geonology in Matthew is for St Joseph. St Joseph is from the line of Solomon. The kings were from the line of Solomon. If there was no captivity St Joseph would have been a king. So Jesus is King. The geonology of Luke is for Mother Mary. She is from Nathan, son of David. Mother Mary and Joseph are both from the line of David.
Ask the Jews..he allegedly performed his wonders under their noses and in their own backyard..so you would think that if Yahweh had a boy, they'd be the first to know about it..but they were totally gobsmacked..they didn't even know he was in a relationship..thank God the Christians were there to bring it to their attention otherwise it would have gone completely unnoticed...
God said to Ahaz, the king of Judah that I will help you. But Ahaz did not believe God. To make you believe I will surely show you a sign if you want, God said to Ahaz. When Ahaz pretended before God saying I don't ask any sign from you, but still not trusting god’s word, He is wearying God with his actions. So God himself wants to show a sign to Ahaz, the king of Judah, (which is as deep as hell or as high as Heaven ) means a great sign happened never before and after in the history of mankind. I am going to raise a king in Judah from a virgin , who will obey my words Isaiah7 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. This was going to happen only in kings of Judah, and the name of Ahaz was also mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew. 1 9 and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; So the genealogy was mentioned in the gospel of Matthew 's was of Mary's not of Joseph's
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Matthew 1:17 KJV If we conclude and consider that Jacob begot Joseph is the one who married Mary and she gave birth to Jesus Jacob , Joseph and Jesus Then the generation count from Abraham to Jesus is 41 If we consider Joseph as the father of Mary , Jacob, Joseph, Mary and Jesus Then the count of Generations from Abraham to Jesus is 42 Which one is the correct one Considering Joseph as husband of Mary or Considering Joseph as father of Mary, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel. Isaiah 7:14 KJV You may please think of stem of Jesse Why it was told like that. Joseph the father of Mary ended up with daughters , there were no sons to him, So the prophecy was fulfilled right here JESUS CAME OUT OF HIS MOTHER MARY WOMB, SO ACCORDING TO BODY HE THE DESCENDANT OF David , to sit on his Throne and to rule the world.
Really doesn't matter. He has no earthly father as stated in both books. Therefore, he cannot be a decentent of David thru Solomon. The male provided the tribal connection the women provides that the child is Jewish.
You may not read this: The genealogy of Jesus is not in Matthew or Luke, it is in the Genealogy of Aaron (Levi )and Amminadab's Daughter Elisheba (of Judah) (Exodus 6:23-25) the Zadok priesthood, (Numbers 25:7-14) Phinehas received the Covenant of everlasting Priesthood, and the covenant of peace. Mary the mother of Jesus is a Daughter of Aaron's lineage ( no blood to David.) Matthew & Luke's == Genealogy of Joseph goes to Amminadabs son Naasson = but his Daughter Elisheba wife of Aaron. I mean no disrespect bettor reread your Bible. Aaron had a Genealogy with the Zadok priesthood as Jesus ( the Meichi Zadok.) May G-D give you eyes to see == Shabbat Shalom
Both Mathew and Luke's geneologies are correct. Matthew is not being emphatic that Joseph is Mary's husband as we understand the word. Joseph is also Mary's father's name. Mathew gives Mary's lineage, but because she's female, they don't use begat to say she was fathered by Joachim (Joseph). In the Greek, they use Em, which can be used for man of the house, man, husband of the house (in other words father). Mary's father's name is Joseph. Joseph is also her husband's name. Mathew includes the number of generations (14) to provide the context, to avoid confusing husband of the house (father) with husband of the woman (spouse). I remember this from childhood, my pastor demonstrating by the geneologies why Jesus would have been considered the best heir to the throne of David, because Jesus was perceived publicly as the son of Joseph and Mary, so he would have been able to claim descent from David on both sides (except for His immaculate conception). I'm surprised anyone can call themselves a Bible scholar if they don't know this. It was common knowledge when I was a kid. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but ever since the First Century, scholars have understood this. Education in this country needs to be improved. Seriously.
You literally proved nothing. Alternative cases for this conundrum have plenty of support going back many centuries. This country really needs to improve education so that people can see alternative points of view unless and until they can adduce better evidence. So far, I have heard three theories that could be true.
Both genealogies end in Joseph, not Mary. Joseph as the father of Mary is totally made up. PS. You might want to inform yourself about what "immaculate conception" means.
This is all wrong. Matthew's list doesn't mean Jesus is in line for the throne, as the names preceding him were not necessarily those who were first born of their fathers, and even if they were first born there is no rule which says those who were second and third born couldn't be king, Solomon being case in point. Christ's kingdom is also not of this world, so it is irrelevant whether he was descended from kings or not. As for Luke's list, the idea that this is Mary's line and that Heli was Joseph's father in law is just an argument from expediency and silence: it is not justified positively. Further, females were not included in genealogical lines: to the Jew the heritage was through the father only. The fact is, Matthew's list is the actual genealogy of Christ Luke's list is not a genealogy, but something else. We know this positively because one man can't have two fathers, and Shealtiel has a different father in Matthew's list than he does in Luke's list.
It is irrelevant who the first-born is. David wasn't a first-born and neither was Solomon. The customs of a backward island im northern Europe are irrelevant to, as you put it, Bible.
Those are clearly two different genealogies of two different families, which have almost nothing in common after David, or more precisely, the one in Luke is a paternal genealogy that focuses on St. Joseph as the biological father of Jesus Christ, and doesn't mention St. Mary at all, while the one in Matthew is a maternal genealogy that focuses on St. Mary, since it only mentions St. Joseph as the husband of St. Mary, for legal reasons, and the genealogy ends with St. Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ.
Or perhaps even lie. Apologists for the conflicting genealogies of Jesus presented by (Mathew 1:1-17) and (Luke 3:23-38) have made the argument that the intentions of Mathew and Luke were never to present an accurate record of Jesus's family line but to TELL A STORY. Luke wanted to show that the line of Jesus encompassed all of humanity thus went all the way back to Adam. Mathew wanted to underscore the nobility of Jesus so his genealogy emphasized royal associations. These apologists admit (without apology) that both genealogies are pure fiction invented off the cuff to make a point totally unrelated to the universally understood purpose for a genealogy which is to present a record of a person's ancestry. This creative twisting of reality is another reason why it is so difficult (impossible) for an ordinary person to interpret the Bible's message. The Bible was written by dozens of people with differing perspectives, levels of education, and psychological balance, all of which must be understood by the reader to grasp the message they are attempting to convey. The Bible was not written by a single God who wanted to convey a cohesive message representing a single perspective.
Apologists for the conflicting genealogies of Jesus presented by (Mathew 1:1-17) and (Luke 3:23-38) have made the argument that the intentions of Mathew and Luke were never to present an accurate record of Jesus's family line but to TELL A STORY. Luke wanted to show that the line of Jesus encompassed all of humanity thus went all the way back to Adam. Mathew wanted to underscore the nobility of Jesus so his genealogy emphasized royal associations. These apologists admit (without apology) that both genealogies are pure fiction invented off the cuff to make a point totally unrelated to the universally understood purpose for a genealogy which is to present a record of a person's ancestry. This creative twisting of reality is another reason why it is so difficult (impossible) for an ordinary person to interpret the Bible's message. The Bible was written by dozens of people with differing perspectives, levels of education, and psychological balance, all of which must be understood by the reader to grasp the message they are attempting to convey. The Bible was not written by a single God who wanted to convey a cohesive message representing a single perspective.
Very informative. May God bless you. May the whole world come to know Jesus and believe in Him.
Dr. Bergsma is a magnificent gift to the Church.
Thank you so much for this video! So clarifying! Thank you for offering this explanation to the faithful, it is so important that we understand what the Scripture really says, and we would never get such in-depth explanation from an ordinary homily! For us, who cannot afford to or do not have the means to study theology or exegesis, such videos are wonderful resources for self-learning! God bless you!
This video was amazing. I enjoyed it so much and it gave me so much light into a topic I was always confused. Thanks very much for such an excellent explanation, Dr. Bergsma. You have no idea how much this helps me. May God bless your work.
Awesome exegesis on our Lord's genealogy. I was pretty mystified about those scripture passages so thank you, Merry Christmas and God Bless you!
Thank you for explaining this so well.
Thank you for this video! Extremely edifying! God bless you always. Viva Christo Rey!
Thank you very much for the explanation.
Thank you very much for this informative video.God Bless.
This is such a blessing to finally find a logical explanation of the genealogy differences in Luke and Matthew. I have found so many studies that just don’t make sense. Some “ experts purport that Matthews list is of Mary and Luke is of Joseph . There is very little agreement on the reasons for one being from the Law and one being through Blood or biology. Thankyou so much for 5he clarity you brought here in your video.
I love this! Thank you! 🙏
Thank you for this beautiful exclamation
Really wish community subtitles were a thing. Is love to help translate this to Spanish. Great explanation, thanks!
Thanks for that video
This really helped me reconcile these two accounts 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Thank you.
How do you feel about St. Augustine‘a theory that Joseph may have been adopted and so both genealogies are actually St. Joseph’s, but one is via St. Joseph’s biological father and the other his legal/adopted father?
Wasn't this uploaded two days ago?
Thanks
I had high hopes for this long video, that it would provide a scholarly and biblical response. I thank God for YourTuber NathanH83 and his videos "The two Genealogies of Jesus: According to Eusibius" and "The Curse of Jeconiah" Those two videos provide a more biblical and God glorifying answer to the mystery of the dual Genealogies of Jesus.
Please also take FIRSTBORN into consideration
Matthew holding the genealogy of First borns.
This genealogy issue is being used by non-Christians as an example of bible contradiction. Thank you for the clarification.
Mmh, Augustus did not inherit a throne but only a name, troops and a lot of money. Rome wasn't a monarchy until Augustus introduced one.
Was Mary descended from Bathsheba?
Thankyou very much
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not contradict or conflict. They are of 2 people, Joseph and Mary. The genealogical list in Matthew, from David to Jacob-Heli (spanning about 1000 years), contains 27 generations of 40 years each, so as to comply with the 40-year royal generational standard. Luke, on the other hand, gives 40 generations of a more comprehensible 25 years. Hence, Luke places Jesus in the 20th generation from Zerubbabel, whereas Matthew places him In the 11th generation from Zerubbabel. SUMMARY: Matthew, 27 generations of 40 years from Solomon--Patriarchal, Zerubbabel's father's line. Luke, 40 geneartions of 25 years from Nathan-Matriarchal, Zerubbabel's mother's line. Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David. Both lines converge at Zerubbabel, then diverge. Zerubbabel had 2 sons, Abiud and Rhesa. Matthew goes from Abiud, Mary's line. Luke goes from Rhesa, Joseph's line. Mary and Joseph were also related. Joseph was Mary's great-aunt Gadat's son. Mary's mother was Hannah. Her father was Joachim (Yonakhir), the Elias Patriarch. Joseph's mother was Gadat & his father was Heli, the Jacob Patriarch. He held the traditional distinction of 'Jacob' in his patriarchal capacity in the community. So his title would be 'Jacob', & he would be called Jacob-Heli. Joachim's mother was Sabartia (Sabhrath). His father was Matthat the Zadok. Heli's father was Matthan (descended from Mattathias (Tobias) the temple governor. Jesus actually was the biological son of joseph. In Matthew, Mary was found with child by the Holy Spirit (pneuma hagion), a title of Joseph in the celibate state, during his betrothal period. According to the rules of procreation of dynastic marriage, sex was only allowed in December. Joseph & Mary came together in June, the month that the betrothal ceremony was held in. So, if Joseph followed the stricter rule, he would break off the betrothal, leaving the child to be brought up as one of the orphans adopted by Essenes. He was advised by an 'Angel of the Lord' Simeon/Simon the Essene, the Abiathar-Gabriel to take the intermediate way, to marry Mary, leaving both of them in an honorable state, but to treat rhe child as the son of Mary, not his son. Joseph went through the wedding ceremony, combining both weddings of the Essenes, the 1st one beginning the 3 year probationary period) allowing sex, the 2d (the binding one) when the woman was 3 months pregnant. Since there was a rule that there must be no intercourse during pregnancy, 'he knew her not'.
Inheriting lines vs. what kind of lines?
Cadet line
@@ln1186 Thanks
Isaiah 6 13 And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste. But as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
Isaiah 11 1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him,
Isaiah 4 2 In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious,
Isaiah 7 10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11“Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Matthew was quoting the prophecies from the book of Isaiah as it is
1 The genealogy of Jesus ( KIng of Judah) Mary’s prospective from Math 1 chap 1-17
Abraham - Jesse - David - Solomon - Mary - Jesus
2.The birth of Jesus Christ from virgin Mary Math 1 18 - 25
3. The branch of Jesse was Jesus according to the prophecy. So he called as Nazarene. - Math 2 23
Jews raised an allegation on Jesus, as he was Samaritan born to a Jewish mother and to a non Jewish father. So Luke tried to disprove that allegation. So he mentioning that Mother Mary was married to a Jewish person showing that he is a Jew going to Bethlehem to register both their names in census mentioned in Luke 1 27 & Luke 2 4-5 and mentioned the Genealogy of Jesus in Joseph’s perspective in Luke 3 23 - last
They’re both correct except one small error in Matthew’s account. A scribal error in fact... Matthew 1:16 should read:16And Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Stop with this nonsense there is no biblical maternal genealogy
@@paul678 so are you trying to convince me, that I didn’t see with my own eyes a textual variant of Matthew that doesn’t state what I just wrote?
So in the two different genealogies Joseph has two dads? Jacob and Heli, or are they the same person?
He is saying that Heli is Joachim who is Mary the BVM father. Joseph father of Jesus is the adopted son (son in law) of Joachim. Luke follows Mary blood line.
@@sliglusamelius8578 But in Luke it says "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of JOSEPH, the son of HELI"-Luke 3:23 Here there's is no connection to Marys line, its still Josephs.
No one in history records genealogy by mentioning son in laws, and Jewish traditions are strict with their bloodline so they keep it strictly blood.
There's many more internal inconsistencies in the Bible but that's for you to wrap your head around. May Allah guide you.
@@kibriaali2906
False. Family ties and inheritance rights were often through adoption. Adoption in the ancient world was very common and necessary, there being early deaths and infertility issues. That is very obvious from history.
As for contradictions, the harmonization of the gospel accounts is easy enough when you study them in detail. The fact that there are four accepted accounts that have much consistency in the story makes for a truthfulness. Biographies are never exactly the same, if they were, you would cry "collusion". They didn't collude. Deal with that.,
No,
Joachim and heli are totally different from each other.
Don't miss guide
I also think Jesus, as the source of humanity, is in every person, and so every one is made according to His Image and Likeness even under the fallen state of the world. I think His 'genealogy' accounts are not meant to present historical line of families of St. Joseph or St. Mary the Mother of God, but to make people aware that not only Jesus belongs to the house of Israel, born into the covenant, but also He is part of all men and women in the eternal plan of God for salvation.
"And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
- Matthew 12 : 49-50 -
Based on the principle of Isaiah 28:10, a prophecy of (4) certain families mourning at Christ's crucifixion in Zechariah 12:12 - 13, I believe identifies the parental lineages of Jesus the Christ. The 'House of David' & the 'House of Nathan' (from the Matthew & Luke genealogies) would be of Joseph's father & mother, respectively; and The 'House of Levi' & the 'family of Shimei" would be of Mary's father & mother, respectively.
That would be very interesting, because we're certainly told that Elizabeth, Mary's cousin - mother of John the Baptist - was a Levite. If they were paternal cousins, that would make Mary the same.
It may be worth adding that the Koran, which is now thought to have taken its Christology and Mariology from Syriac Christian tradition, calls Mary 'sister of Aaron'. There are two theories about this. One is that it just completely mixed Mary/Miriam up with the Miriam who was sister to Aaron and Moses. The other is that this 'sister of Aaron' was another way of saying she was a Levite.
Except for the KJV most of the major English translated Bibles use 'relative
or kinswoman' rather than 'cousin'. Even more interesting in the Hebrew
from footnotes from Thayer's Lexicon that 'word' would mean 'your uncle's wife or aunt' from Lev. 18:4. Thus Mary's father was the brother of
Zacharias, the husband of Elizabeth. @@Sam-bc6sr
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isaiah 11:1 KJV
A branch shall grow (not grafted one) out of his (David) roots.
If we take Matthew's genealogy as Joseph Mary's husband and representing Jewish kings, scripture says that Jesus would come and sit on the thrown of the David, proclaiming Jesus as king as he was the son of Joseph, it gives a meaning that the branch (Jesus) was grafted to the roots of David.
But scripture says Jesus as the descendant of David.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Acts 2:30 KJV
According to the above verse he was not a grafted branch to David's root, but a branch grown out of the root of David
So the kingship of Jesus is not the adapted one.
It was not by Joseph the adopted father
It was throw David as he is the fruit of the David
So Matthew is telling about the genealogy of Mary not of Joseph the husband of Mary.
Other side Luke is representing the genealogy of Joseph the husband of Mary . And no one in this genealogy acted as kings.
Jesus being ( supposed) the son of Joseph- Luke 3 : 23
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. - John 1 45
22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? Luke 4 22
Have to disagree with the last part, namely the "Mary's Genealogy" thing. The reasoning behind this seems to be that the speaker wants to avoid the Curse of Jeconiah. But little does he seem to know that the Jeconiah in Matthew's genealogy is *another* Jeconiah, just as the Jesus, Son of Eliezar, in Luke's "genealogy" is *another* Jesus.
Julius Africanus is quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. While either Africanus or Eusebius (probably Eusebius) confuses two names from Luke 3, the point remains that Jacob was the biological father of Joseph but then he died and his brother, Heli, inherited his wife. Now Heli is the legal father of Joseph.
The genealogies are perplexing because of the Curse of Jeconiah already, no need to stirr it any further with Heli's name. The tradition that was invoked for Mary, similarly gives us the answer of why the two fathers, and the Curse of Jeconiah doesn't apply to Jesus because he is simply not in his line.
I'm surprised that Dr. Burgsman did not take this fact into account
It's the same Jeconiah (or his father). Note that with Zerubbabel that curse was somewhat lifted and in any case, Jesus did not rule Judah as King.
Uh, you don't know about Levite marriages? Ruth was a righteous gentile, and Boaz was the kinsmen redeemer. In Genesis 38, Tamar was considered more righteous than Judah, because after Judah mourned his dead wife got him to fulfill his duty as kinsmen redeemer. She did not trick him into adultery, but caused him to fulfill his duty as the next kinsmen redeemer to continue the family line. Remove your 21st century filter before you analyze this.
Tamar's union with her father-in-law was LICIT not illicit. There was no Law, but it was permitted even after. Read Deuteronomy 25:5.
Fornication is not a licit union. However, Judah's illicit behaviour drove her to that.
Re-read the biblical statement concerning God's view of marital status and of widow status and of a prostitute status. Of course that union was illicit.
The word of God says Tamar was married to... Then once she noticed that her Father in Law will not allowed the marriage with the last son left from the family she disguise herself into a prostitute in order to mate with her father in law.
She went from being a married woman to a widow then from a widow to a prostitute that's illicit to God's view that is the reason it been recorded like this.
It's not "lineage" per se that qualifies a contender to claim Messiahship, but Royal Lineage. In 2 Kings 11:1-3 the daughters of the King were not threatened by Athaliah because only males are Royal Seed (therefore Mary is excluded). Jesus' father would have to be a direct descendant of David's to be "Son of David". Don't get me wrong, I believe Jesus is the Messiah, but the NT genealogies are bogus in making that determination. I believe what Peter believed in Acts 2:30, that Jesus is the fruit of David's loins (not from someone else - see Rom 1:3 in the Greek text).
Where does the 400yrs of slavery fit in the genealogy?
Eusebius has a different explanation.
To make the genealogy im Luke that of Mary, one has to tamper with the text.
And Mary wasn't an only daughter. Her sister is mentioned in the gospels.
False. The text is not tampered with.
Mary's "sister" is Mary, wife of Clopas, her sister in law. Greek doesn't have a word for sister bs sister in law or cousin. Why would she have a sister named Mary!? That's makes zero sense.
@@sliglusamelius8578 I did not say the text is tampered. I said a certain "interpretation" means tampering with the text. Luke gives a genealogy from Joseph to Adam (to God), not from Mary to Adam.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Also, you assume one possible interpretation of John to be true. There might be three woman mentioned, Mary's sister also being called Mary (not totally impossible but unlikely) or four: the Virgin Mary, her sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalena.
@@str.77
I have heard three reasonable theories on the genealogies. How would we prove any one particular case? I am agnostic about it, but the Mary lineage proposed here makes sense. Brant Pitre disageees, and he is no idiot, but his idea is that the genealogy is based on Joseph having a biological (he died young supposedly) and an adopting father.
Who knows? Prove your case!
@@str.77
She doesn't have a sister named Mary lol. That is silly.
In John, at the foot of the cross, there is mary wife of Clopas and mother of James and Joses, Jesus' adelphos (cousins! Not blood brothers).
Simpler way to look at it is the paternal line including the adoption as a father like say joseph the terror of demons,
The other one is the maternal line like the kingship is passed down in the viking Scottish Irish Picts etc did
Afterall when you boil it down the only one you can be sure of parentage is the mother like Mary is the Mother of the Father of fathers in the person of Jesus ergo the mother of God is she AKA the Queen Mother and the Mother in heaven is still having issues with it
I think the geonology in Matthew is for St Joseph. St Joseph is from the line of Solomon. The kings were from the line of Solomon. If there was no captivity St Joseph would have been a king. So Jesus is King.
The geonology of Luke is for Mother Mary. She is from Nathan, son of David. Mother Mary and Joseph are both from the line of David.
Between Judah and Aminadab.
Ask the Jews..he allegedly performed his wonders under their noses and in their own backyard..so you would think that if Yahweh had a boy, they'd be the first to know about it..but they were totally gobsmacked..they didn't even know he was in a relationship..thank God the Christians were there to bring it to their attention otherwise it would have gone completely unnoticed...
Protestants read st. Augustine and you'll deepen your knowledge
God said to Ahaz, the king of Judah that I will help you. But Ahaz did not believe God. To make you believe I will surely show you a sign if you want, God said to Ahaz. When Ahaz pretended before God saying I don't ask any sign from you, but still not trusting god’s word, He is wearying God with his actions. So God himself wants to show a sign to Ahaz, the king of Judah, (which is as deep as hell or as high as Heaven ) means a great sign happened never before and after in the history of mankind.
I am going to raise a king in Judah from a virgin , who will obey my words
Isaiah7 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
This was going to happen only in kings of Judah, and the name of Ahaz was also mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus according to Matthew. 1 9 and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
So the genealogy was mentioned in the gospel of Matthew 's was of Mary's not of Joseph's
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
Matthew 1:17 KJV
If we conclude and consider that Jacob begot Joseph is the one who married Mary and she gave birth to Jesus
Jacob , Joseph and Jesus
Then the generation count from Abraham to Jesus is 41
If we consider Joseph as the father of Mary ,
Jacob, Joseph, Mary and Jesus
Then the count of Generations from Abraham to Jesus is 42
Which one is the correct one
Considering Joseph as husband of Mary or
Considering Joseph as father of Mary,
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 KJV
You may please think of stem of Jesse
Why it was told like that.
Joseph the father of Mary ended up with daughters , there were no sons to him,
So the prophecy was fulfilled right here
JESUS CAME OUT OF HIS MOTHER MARY WOMB, SO ACCORDING TO BODY HE THE DESCENDANT OF David , to sit on his Throne and to rule the world.
Really doesn't matter. He has no earthly father as stated in both books. Therefore, he cannot be a decentent of David thru Solomon. The male provided the tribal connection the women provides that the child is Jewish.
...... in Genesis 10 Gentiles are descendants of japheth
You may not read this: The genealogy of Jesus is not in Matthew or Luke, it is in the Genealogy of Aaron (Levi )and Amminadab's Daughter Elisheba (of Judah) (Exodus 6:23-25) the Zadok priesthood, (Numbers 25:7-14) Phinehas received the Covenant of everlasting Priesthood, and the covenant of peace. Mary the mother of Jesus is a Daughter of Aaron's lineage ( no blood to David.) Matthew & Luke's == Genealogy of Joseph goes to Amminadabs son Naasson = but his Daughter Elisheba wife of Aaron. I mean no disrespect bettor reread your Bible. Aaron had a Genealogy with the Zadok priesthood as Jesus ( the Meichi Zadok.) May G-D give you eyes to see == Shabbat Shalom
Both Mathew and Luke's geneologies are correct. Matthew is not being emphatic that Joseph is Mary's husband as we understand the word. Joseph is also Mary's father's name. Mathew gives Mary's lineage, but because she's female, they don't use begat to say she was fathered by Joachim (Joseph). In the Greek, they use Em, which can be used for man of the house, man, husband of the house (in other words father). Mary's father's name is Joseph. Joseph is also her husband's name. Mathew includes the number of generations (14) to provide the context, to avoid confusing husband of the house (father) with husband of the woman (spouse). I remember this from childhood, my pastor demonstrating by the geneologies why Jesus would have been considered the best heir to the throne of David, because Jesus was perceived publicly as the son of Joseph and Mary, so he would have been able to claim descent from David on both sides (except for His immaculate conception). I'm surprised anyone can call themselves a Bible scholar if they don't know this. It was common knowledge when I was a kid. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but ever since the First Century, scholars have understood this. Education in this country needs to be improved. Seriously.
You literally proved nothing. Alternative cases for this conundrum have plenty of support going back many centuries. This country really needs to improve education so that people can see alternative points of view unless and until they can adduce better evidence. So far, I have heard three theories that could be true.
Both genealogies end in Joseph, not Mary. Joseph as the father of Mary is totally made up.
PS. You might want to inform yourself about what "immaculate conception" means.
yurp
This is all wrong. Matthew's list doesn't mean Jesus is in line for the throne, as the names preceding him were not necessarily those who were first born of their fathers, and even if they were first born there is no rule which says those who were second and third born couldn't be king, Solomon being case in point. Christ's kingdom is also not of this world, so it is irrelevant whether he was descended from kings or not.
As for Luke's list, the idea that this is Mary's line and that Heli was Joseph's father in law is just an argument from expediency and silence: it is not justified positively. Further, females were not included in genealogical lines: to the Jew the heritage was through the father only.
The fact is, Matthew's list is the actual genealogy of Christ Luke's list is not a genealogy, but something else. We know this positively because one man can't have two fathers, and Shealtiel has a different father in Matthew's list than he does in Luke's list.
Eusebius' Ecclestiatical History explains the answer
@@juliuschua5547 Rather, what I've pointed out is correct.
It is irrelevant who the first-born is. David wasn't a first-born and neither was Solomon. The customs of a backward island im northern Europe are irrelevant to, as you put it, Bible.
@@str.77 I already said it was irrelevant who was firstborn.
@@lawrence1318 Then why did you even bring it up?
The curse was lifted in bible cause he repented . God restored him like the people of Niniva after they repented n were not destroyed
Those are clearly two different genealogies of two different families, which have almost nothing in common after David, or more precisely, the one in Luke is a paternal genealogy that focuses on St. Joseph as the biological father of Jesus Christ, and doesn't mention St. Mary at all, while the one in Matthew is a maternal genealogy that focuses on St. Mary, since it only mentions St. Joseph as the husband of St. Mary, for legal reasons, and the genealogy ends with St. Mary as the mother of Jesus Christ.
Neither genealogy is that of Mary. Both clearly end in Joseph.
@@str.77 If you don't know, the genealogy in Matthew ends with St. Mary, as the mother of Jesus, and mentions St. Joseph as her husband.
One genealogy of Blessed Mother Mary and the other St Joseph’s, Her Spouse’s
I fell asleep once I started hearing all those numbers.
I’m sure it was a good video though!
Or Bible writers made a mistakes 🙄
Or perhaps even lie. Apologists for the conflicting genealogies of Jesus presented by (Mathew 1:1-17) and (Luke 3:23-38) have made the argument that the intentions of Mathew and Luke were never to present an accurate record of Jesus's family line but to TELL A STORY.
Luke wanted to show that the line of Jesus encompassed all of humanity thus went all the way back to Adam.
Mathew wanted to underscore the nobility of Jesus so his genealogy emphasized royal associations.
These apologists admit (without apology) that both genealogies are pure fiction invented off the cuff to make a point totally unrelated to the universally understood purpose for a genealogy which is to present a record of a person's ancestry.
This creative twisting of reality is another reason why it is so difficult (impossible) for an ordinary person to interpret the Bible's message.
The Bible was written by dozens of people with differing perspectives, levels of education, and psychological balance, all of which must be understood by the reader to grasp the message they are attempting to convey. The Bible was not written by a single God who wanted to convey a cohesive message representing a single perspective.
There is no prophecy in the Torah about a virgin birth of the messiah
Here's what really happened: Jesus and John the Baptist are half-brothers.
Nope. They are cousins.
Apologists for the conflicting genealogies of Jesus presented by (Mathew 1:1-17) and (Luke 3:23-38) have made the argument that the intentions of Mathew and Luke were never to present an accurate record of Jesus's family line but to TELL A STORY.
Luke wanted to show that the line of Jesus encompassed all of humanity thus went all the way back to Adam.
Mathew wanted to underscore the nobility of Jesus so his genealogy emphasized royal associations.
These apologists admit (without apology) that both genealogies are pure fiction invented off the cuff to make a point totally unrelated to the universally understood purpose for a genealogy which is to present a record of a person's ancestry.
This creative twisting of reality is another reason why it is so difficult (impossible) for an ordinary person to interpret the Bible's message.
The Bible was written by dozens of people with differing perspectives, levels of education, and psychological balance, all of which must be understood by the reader to grasp the message they are attempting to convey. The Bible was not written by a single God who wanted to convey a cohesive message representing a single perspective.