Why is Moses not in the lineage of Christ?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,642
3,533
113
#21
Interesting.

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." J 1:17

Therefore Moses had to be separated from the lineage of Christ as the law is separated from grace?

This could be the answer I am looking for.

Thanks.
And Moses was forbidden to enter the promised land, but Joshua (Jesus) was chosen to lead.
 

unobtrusive

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2017
916
25
18
#22
Considering how significant person Moses was, why is he outside of Christ' lineage?
Same reason that Joshua isn't, even though, in Hebrew, Joshua and Jesus are spelled the same, "Yeshua." Joshua was of the tribe of Ephraim, and Caleb was of the tribe of Judah, the same tribe as Jesus. Moses was a Levite, and then the priesthood was transferred to Judah, the line of Jesus Christ, on the Mount of Transfiguration.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,450
12,933
113
#24
And Moses was forbidden to enter the promised land, but Joshua (Jesus) was chosen to lead.
Even so, Moses is a type of Christ, and the Exodus represents sinners being delivered from the Kingdom of Darkness through the blood the Lamb. So even though Moses did not enter the Promised Land, he received high praise from God.

1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2
Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.


3
For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.


4
For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things isGod.


5
And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;


6
But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. (Heb 3:1-6)
 
Nov 22, 2013
72
0
6
#25
Moses comes from the tribe of Levi, as is all the priests, even John the Baptist was a Levite. Yeshua hails from the tribe of Judah.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,670
13,128
113
#26
Moses comes from the tribe of Levi, as is *all the priests, even John the Baptist was a Levite. Yeshua hails from the tribe of Judah.
* the priests of the Sinai covenant.

but not Melchizadek, and not Christ, our High Priest.

salvation did not come through Levi, nor from his priesthood.
 
O

OtherWay210

Guest
#27
Nehemiah6

That does not void the fact Christ was of the tribe of levi. Elizabeth had to be of the daughter of Aaron to be married to a Levitical priest.
we cant change scripture. scripture is not in in conflict with itself..

The order of Melchizedek , is not in conflict with the Levi priesthood. Who do you think Christ raised from the tomb ?
 
Last edited:
O

OtherWay210

Guest
#28
A law giver, is of the Priesthood. Listen to scripture.A point you want to make is not relevant
if its not in explained as the bible teaches it .
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,670
13,128
113
#29
Elizabeth had to be of the daughter of Aaron to be married to a Levitical priest.

where do you get that from?
as far as i can recall i've never seen that written in the scripture anywhere.

i am aware that a Levite was instructed only to marry a virgin, and only an Israelite ((Leviticus 21:13-15)), and that in Ezekiel's vision this is extended to allow a Levite to marry a non-virgin Israelite only in the case that they marry the widow of another Levite ((re: Ezekiel 44:22)).

where in the Law is there a command that a Levite man can only marry a Levite woman? maybe i just don't remember it.
 

Ezekiel8

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2017
403
8
0
#31
Here is a mindblower to ponder;

Moses is even the mother, sister, brother, and son of Jesus.

Matthew 12:48-50

[SUP]48 [/SUP]But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
[SUP]49 [/SUP]And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
[SUP]50 [/SUP]For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.


Exodus 4:22

[SUP]22 [/SUP]And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#32
OK, I will rephrase my question:

Why is Moses from the tribe of Levi and not of Judah?

Moses is very clearly an image of Christ (leading people from the slavery to promised land), so it seems strange he is from another tribe.

He also ruled over Israel, if we can say it in this way.
I know this sounds very simple, the Lord God did not chose Moses to be part of the lineage of Christ, but to bring the Law to the Jews and lead them out of Egypt as a Levite, not a Judahite.
 

Waggles

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2017
3,338
1,261
113
South
adelaiderevival.com
#33
OK, I will rephrase my question:
Why is Moses from the tribe of Levi and not of Judah?
Moses is very clearly an image of Christ (leading people from the slavery to promised land), so it seems strange he is from another tribe.
He also ruled over Israel, if we can say it in this way.
But Moses did not lead the children of Israel into the promised land:
another one did - Joshua crossed the Jordan River and conquered Canaan.

Symbolic of the limitations of the Law not bringing people to salvation; hence the need for a
new covenant - a new and living way by the Holy Ghost and not the Law.

Joshua H3091 יהושׁע יהושׁוּע yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua.

Jesus G2424 Ἰησοῦς Iēsous
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord
and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.
 

Waggles

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2017
3,338
1,261
113
South
adelaiderevival.com
#34
For answers to your questions read The Epistle To The Hebrews

11 If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech: and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law,
13 For he of whom these things are spoken is of another tribe, of which no one attended on the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprung out of Juda: in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
15 And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not according to the law of a law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life.
17 For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.
Hebrews 7: DRB
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
2,193
463
83
#35
That does not void the fact Christ was of the tribe of levi.
Christ was not of the tribe of Levi. He was of the tribe of Judah.

Elizabeth had to be of the daughter of Aaron to be married to a Levitical priest.
we cant change scripture. scripture is not in in conflict with itself..

The order of Melchizedek , is not in conflict with the Levi priesthood.
The Levitical priesthood is different from the order of Melchizedek.

Who do you think Christ raised from the tomb ?
God, the Father.

Acts 4:10) Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 13:30) But God raised him from the dead:

Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Gal 1:1) Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Col 2:12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Pet 1:21) Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
 

Zen

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2015
752
16
18
#36
Lineages seem to confuse people. So does the word Israel, and the word Jew.
 

Atlanta_GA

Junior Member
Feb 18, 2017
25
0
1
#37
Be careful with the laws of Moses: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time...But I say unto you"
 

WebersHome

Senior Member
Dec 9, 2014
1,940
32
0
#38
-
Christ was both of the tribes of Judah and Levi.
Mary was related to Judah; Elizabeth was related to Levi. Both those men
were Leah's biological sons (Gen 29:32-35). Ergo: Mary and Elizabeth were
cousins via their grandma Leah.



It would be good if you took time to study the chapter.
You really ought to be a little more circumspect with your choice of words
lest the hapless day arrive when they're turned against you.

/
 
Last edited:

Zen

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2015
752
16
18
#39
All the children of Israel (Jacob) are one people. Levites, Judeans, etc. God is the king of Israel, not just Jews.
 

Kavik

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2017
793
158
43
#40
Keep in mind too that Mary and Elizabeth were simply 'related' to each other somewhere along the line - I don't think anywhere is it stated specifically that they were 'cousins'; that's the general understanding, but they could have actually been more distantly related. I think in John's gospel, the author goes so far as to state that Jesus and John (the Baptist) didn't know of each other, which seems to support a more distant relationship between the two than second cousins.