-
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.
I took a quick glance at my software in the Old T, and found 5 different meanings for the word watch. The very first one is in Genesis..may the Lord watch between you and me...
~H6822
[FONT=Arial (Arabic)][FONT=Arial (Arabic)][FONT=Arial (Arabic)]צָפָה
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]tsâphâh
tsaw-faw'
A primitive root; properly to lean forward, that is, to peer into the distance; by implication to observe, await: - behold, espy, look up (well), wait for, (keep the) watch (-man).
Total KJV occurrences: 36
This sounds like a seer to me. The gift of the prophetic. The shepherds were watching sheep but the wise men, the stars.
We tend to put down study of the stars dont' we? Meaning the church as a whole. Wonder why?
~H6822
[FONT=Arial (Arabic)][FONT=Arial (Arabic)][FONT=Arial (Arabic)]צָפָה
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]tsâphâh
tsaw-faw'
A primitive root; properly to lean forward, that is, to peer into the distance; by implication to observe, await: - behold, espy, look up (well), wait for, (keep the) watch (-man).
Total KJV occurrences: 36
This sounds like a seer to me. The gift of the prophetic. The shepherds were watching sheep but the wise men, the stars.
We tend to put down study of the stars dont' we? Meaning the church as a whole. Wonder why?
B
at times it does seem to be the case, yet I think it's that some really Love the hidden mysteries that can be found and are willing to leap in faith to find it. As well I believe God designed the bible as so, not everything is written some theories rely on other unsolved mysteries to be solved yet when one is known the door opens to even more answers to those mysteries.
Huh that's pretty cool the first mentioning is Lord watch between you and me
the living bible is amazing indeed.
Huh that's pretty cool the first mentioning is Lord watch between you and me
the living bible is amazing indeed.
I think geneologies in Scripture CAN be very exciting. Look at how the geneology is Genesis 5 reveals The Gospel!
[FONT="]The Composite List[/FONT]
[FONT="]Now let's put it all together:[/FONT]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #dddddd"]Hebrew[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #dddddd"]English[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Adam[/TD]
[TD]Man[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Seth[/TD]
[TD]Appointed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Enosh[/TD]
[TD]Mortal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kenan[/TD]
[TD]Sorrow;[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mahalalel[/TD]
[TD]The Blessed God[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jared[/TD]
[TD]Shall come down[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Enoch[/TD]
[TD]Teaching[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Methuselah[/TD]
[TD]His death shall bring[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lamech[/TD]
[TD]The Despairing[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Noah[/TD]
[TD]Rest, or comfort.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
[FONT="]The Composite List[/FONT]
[FONT="]Now let's put it all together:[/FONT]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #dddddd"]Hebrew[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #dddddd"]English[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Adam[/TD]
[TD]Man[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Seth[/TD]
[TD]Appointed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Enosh[/TD]
[TD]Mortal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Kenan[/TD]
[TD]Sorrow;[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mahalalel[/TD]
[TD]The Blessed God[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jared[/TD]
[TD]Shall come down[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Enoch[/TD]
[TD]Teaching[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Methuselah[/TD]
[TD]His death shall bring[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lamech[/TD]
[TD]The Despairing[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Noah[/TD]
[TD]Rest, or comfort.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
B
Yes Sir, that's quite amazing these gems, I agree the genealogy of both OT and NT are packed full of mysteries and deeper learnings, once i thought what could possibly come from a bunch of names listed one after the other. on the surface it doesn't seem to be much to it, but how vastly I was mistaken about the genealogies. I assume a lot of folks view the geno's as mundane, I can understand that from just looking at the outer cover of it, but boy does the genealogies pack a lunch full of mysteries.
B
Stonesoffire mentioned Jacob and Joseph earlier in a post, upon viewing this, I've learned the Jacob that God changed his name to Israel, Jacob had twelve sons, the twelve tribes of Israel, Joseph was Jacob youngest son the last generation of Jacob son of Isaac.
In the generations of King David's son Solomon, the last generation in that lineage is Joseph who father was also named Jacob, this might be small detailed but I still love these little shining gems.
In the generations of King David's son Solomon, the last generation in that lineage is Joseph who father was also named Jacob, this might be small detailed but I still love these little shining gems.
You heard it before? Well, it is Biblical
In fact, it was because Joseph was the first from Rachel's womb that Jacob favoured him and incurred the jealousy and wrath of his other sons, and contributed greatly to their desire to do him harm, conspiring to kill him but settling instead on selling him as a slave to Ishmaelites traveling to Egypt, and this is how the Hebrews eventually ended up in slavery in Egypt as well, for after Joseph's eventual success as the second most powerful man in Egypt, and saving everyone from famine, as the Hebrews later prospered there, Egyptians became threatened by their numbers and forced them into slavery for over four hundred years, until the coming of Moses.
In fact, it was because Joseph was the first from Rachel's womb that Jacob favoured him and incurred the jealousy and wrath of his other sons, and contributed greatly to their desire to do him harm, conspiring to kill him but settling instead on selling him as a slave to Ishmaelites traveling to Egypt, and this is how the Hebrews eventually ended up in slavery in Egypt as well, for after Joseph's eventual success as the second most powerful man in Egypt, and saving everyone from famine, as the Hebrews later prospered there, Egyptians became threatened by their numbers and forced them into slavery for over four hundred years, until the coming of Moses.
B
You heard it before? Well, it is Biblical
In fact, it was because Joseph was the first from Rachel's womb that Jacob favoured him and incurred the jealousy and wrath of his other sons, and contributed greatly to their desire to do him harm, conspiring to kill him but settling instead on selling him as a slave to Ishmaelites traveling to Egypt, and this is how the Hebrews eventually ended up in slavery in Egypt as well, for after Joseph's eventual success as the second most powerful man in Egypt, and saving everyone from famine, as the Hebrews later prospered there, Egyptians became threatened by their numbers and forced them into slavery for over four hundred years, until the coming of Moses.
In fact, it was because Joseph was the first from Rachel's womb that Jacob favoured him and incurred the jealousy and wrath of his other sons, and contributed greatly to their desire to do him harm, conspiring to kill him but settling instead on selling him as a slave to Ishmaelites traveling to Egypt, and this is how the Hebrews eventually ended up in slavery in Egypt as well, for after Joseph's eventual success as the second most powerful man in Egypt, and saving everyone from famine, as the Hebrews later prospered there, Egyptians became threatened by their numbers and forced them into slavery for over four hundred years, until the coming of Moses.
8Now these are the names of the sons of Israel, Jacob and his sons, who went to Egypt: Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn. 9The sons of Reuben: Hanoch and Pallu and Hezron and Carmi. 10The sons of Simeon: Jemuel and Jamin and Ohad and Jachin and Zohar and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman. 11The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. 12The sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah (but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan). And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. 13The sons of Issachar: Tola and Puvvah and Iob and Shimron. 14The sons of Zebulun: Sered and Elon and Jahleel. 15These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan-aram, with his daughter Dinah; all his sons and his daughters numbered thirty-three. 16The sons of Gad: Ziphion and Haggi, Shuni and Ezbon, Eri and Arodi and Areli.
Once you look at where these names are in genealogy clearly a person can see that this is mentioning the younger Jacob from in generations of Nathan. Clearly many have not seen this mishap in translations.
Verse 1-7 of Genesis chapter 46 are of the older generation Jacob and from verse 8- on is of the younger generation Jacob.
That is following Joseph's success in Egypt; during the famine is when Jacob moved all the rest of his family to Egypt, at the behest of his son, Joseph, who was still the second most powerful man in the land. I am not getting how you are saying it is an older Jacob before Abraham? It is speaking of Abraham's grandson Jacob, through Isaac.
B
Cool yes you are correct, I was focusing on Er and few more that are mentioned later on in the geno of Nathan, but it appears as well there was yet another person named Er though he died in Canaan.
though indeed my bust Joseph was the eleventh tribe, I can safely throw out the window my view about what I said.
though indeed my bust Joseph was the eleventh tribe, I can safely throw out the window my view about what I said.
B
Not sure how much weight there is in this, but I have read where some think Benjamin was Joseph son.
Biblical scholars regard it as obvious, from their geographic overlap and their treatment in older passages, that originally Ephraim and Manasseh were considered one tribe, that of Joseph. According to several biblical scholars, Benjamin was also originally part of this single tribe, but the biblical account of Joseph as his father became lost.
The description of Benjamin being born after the arrival in Canaan is thought by some scholars to refer to the tribe of Benjamin coming into existence by branching from the Joseph group after the tribe had settled in Canaan. A number of biblical scholars suspect that the distinction of the Joseph tribes (including Benjamin) is that they were the only Israelites which went to Egypt and returned, while the main Israelite tribes simply emerged as a subculture from the Canaanites and had remained in Canaan throughout.
Biblical scholars regard it as obvious, from their geographic overlap and their treatment in older passages, that originally Ephraim and Manasseh were considered one tribe, that of Joseph. According to several biblical scholars, Benjamin was also originally part of this single tribe, but the biblical account of Joseph as his father became lost.
The description of Benjamin being born after the arrival in Canaan is thought by some scholars to refer to the tribe of Benjamin coming into existence by branching from the Joseph group after the tribe had settled in Canaan. A number of biblical scholars suspect that the distinction of the Joseph tribes (including Benjamin) is that they were the only Israelites which went to Egypt and returned, while the main Israelite tribes simply emerged as a subculture from the Canaanites and had remained in Canaan throughout.
Here’s a take on the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke from a Jewish perspective – I’m just cutting and pasting the pertinent points:
“From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men’s names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.
The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Yeshua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.
In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun “her” in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, “A mother’s family is not to be called a family.” Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Yeshua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.
First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah’s coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew’s main point.
Matthew’s genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names.
According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.
The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem.
Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.
In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, “the” Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Miriam’s.
Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…,” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…”.1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Yeshua was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam’s name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:2).
Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in verses 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David’s son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam’s son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.
In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke’s genealogy did not include Jeconiah’s line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Yeshua’s public ministry, recorded his genealogy.
However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah.
On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”
(from “jewsforjesus.org”)
From the above, as well as the myriad theories and explanations out there, the sort of ‘hidden’ meanings and symbolism (as described by PennEd in an above post), the discrepancies in the actual lines, etc., etc. I think something starts to become more and more apparent with respect to these two lines.
Namely, that neither genealogy is meant as an actual legitimate line of descent for Jesus. They are both simply written into their respective narratives for their pure symbolism and these ‘hidden’ meanings. Unless a given person was of royal descent, genealogies (or, actually, pedigrees/lines of descent would be the better term(s)) were simply not kept. Going back to one’s great-grandparents was likely more than sufficient to prove one’s heritage/Jewishness/hereditary claims to property, etc.
In this respect, it really doesn’t matter who one assigns a particular line to; both to Joseph, or one Joseph the other Mary – it’s really irrelevant since neither is either Joseph’s or Mary’s actual line of descent; they’re symbolic only.
The Bible itself does not even record the name of Mary’s parents. There is only one place I’m aware of that specifically gives their names; the Protoevangelium of James, and even there her father’s name is given as ‘Joachim’, not ‘Heli/Eli’ (or ‘Jacob’ depending on which line you use). It seems unlikely given Jewish tradition and the name discrepancy that either would be Mary’s line. An often overlooked solution is that one line is Joseph’s paternal, the other his maternal (though in keeping with tradition, her name is not mentioned, just her husband’s).
If one belonged to a particular family ‘group’, it’s quite possible one would know that one is a descendant of David (or any other notable person), though the actual line to get there would have been long forgotten with the passing of several generations. Thus, Joseph, or even Mary for that matter, could have been a legitimate descendant of David. Matthew and Luke just help the reader to ‘fill in the blanks’ as it were. Kings lists/pedigrees however, are a completely different matter and were typically recorded - it was also they way time (years) was kept (regnal dating), so to keep such lists served many purposes.
The symbolism and many meanings derived from the two lines is poignant and interesting, but I personally do not believe that either one was intended to be the factual line of either individual.
“From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men’s names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.
The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew’s Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke’s Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David’s throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David’s throne. On the other hand, Luke’s Gospel gives the real line, showing that Yeshua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David’s throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.
In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun “her” in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, “A mother’s family is not to be called a family.” Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Yeshua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.
First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah’s coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew’s main point.
Matthew’s genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names.
According to Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David’s throne. Neither could he claim the right to David’s throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.
The purpose of Matthew’s genealogy, then, is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph’s son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew’s viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem.
Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.
In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, “the” Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Miriam’s.
Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…,” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…”.1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Yeshua was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam’s name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:2).
Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in verses 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David’s son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam’s son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.
In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke’s genealogy did not include Jeconiah’s line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Yeshua’s public ministry, recorded his genealogy.
However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah.
On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.”
(from “jewsforjesus.org”)
From the above, as well as the myriad theories and explanations out there, the sort of ‘hidden’ meanings and symbolism (as described by PennEd in an above post), the discrepancies in the actual lines, etc., etc. I think something starts to become more and more apparent with respect to these two lines.
Namely, that neither genealogy is meant as an actual legitimate line of descent for Jesus. They are both simply written into their respective narratives for their pure symbolism and these ‘hidden’ meanings. Unless a given person was of royal descent, genealogies (or, actually, pedigrees/lines of descent would be the better term(s)) were simply not kept. Going back to one’s great-grandparents was likely more than sufficient to prove one’s heritage/Jewishness/hereditary claims to property, etc.
In this respect, it really doesn’t matter who one assigns a particular line to; both to Joseph, or one Joseph the other Mary – it’s really irrelevant since neither is either Joseph’s or Mary’s actual line of descent; they’re symbolic only.
The Bible itself does not even record the name of Mary’s parents. There is only one place I’m aware of that specifically gives their names; the Protoevangelium of James, and even there her father’s name is given as ‘Joachim’, not ‘Heli/Eli’ (or ‘Jacob’ depending on which line you use). It seems unlikely given Jewish tradition and the name discrepancy that either would be Mary’s line. An often overlooked solution is that one line is Joseph’s paternal, the other his maternal (though in keeping with tradition, her name is not mentioned, just her husband’s).
If one belonged to a particular family ‘group’, it’s quite possible one would know that one is a descendant of David (or any other notable person), though the actual line to get there would have been long forgotten with the passing of several generations. Thus, Joseph, or even Mary for that matter, could have been a legitimate descendant of David. Matthew and Luke just help the reader to ‘fill in the blanks’ as it were. Kings lists/pedigrees however, are a completely different matter and were typically recorded - it was also they way time (years) was kept (regnal dating), so to keep such lists served many purposes.
The symbolism and many meanings derived from the two lines is poignant and interesting, but I personally do not believe that either one was intended to be the factual line of either individual.
Actually the Bible does say that Jesus was born of Mary but differently -- "made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). That would indicate that while His conception was supernatural, Mary's ova were involved.
However getting back to the OP, the modern translations should have followed the KJV in using the word "generation" instead of genealogy, since those are two different Greek words -- geneseos (Mt 1:1) and genealogia (1 Tim 1:4). While they are closely related and mean ancestry, "generation" is far broader than "genealogy" (check Strong's Exhaustive Concordance).
Also, Matthew was very selective in his ancestry, and tried to introduce the symmetry of 14 generations x 3. Since 7 is the number of Divine perfection, 14 = 2 x 7 indicating that God's hand was involved in this ancestry.
Also, although Jesus is mentioned as "the son of Mary" in Matthew, Joseph is the one in the line of royal descent from David and Solomon. Luke reinforces Joseph's importance in Luke 3:23. But since we know from Matthew 1:16 that Jacob was the actual father of Joseph (because Jacob BEGAT Joseph), it is also clear that Heli would be the father of Mary, and Joseph is called "the son of Heli" ( where the term "the son" is broader than the actual son). Even though Mary had descended from Nathan, who was the older brother of Solomon, God had chosen Solomon as the king who would perpetuate the line of David, and from whom Messiah would come ( 1 Kings 1:46-48):
And also Solomon sitteth on the throne of the kingdom. And moreover the king's servants came to bless our lord king David, saying, God make the name of Solomon better than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne. And the king bowed himself upon the bed. And also thus said the king, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which hath given one to sit on my throne this day, mine eyes even seeing it.
However getting back to the OP, the modern translations should have followed the KJV in using the word "generation" instead of genealogy, since those are two different Greek words -- geneseos (Mt 1:1) and genealogia (1 Tim 1:4). While they are closely related and mean ancestry, "generation" is far broader than "genealogy" (check Strong's Exhaustive Concordance).
Also, Matthew was very selective in his ancestry, and tried to introduce the symmetry of 14 generations x 3. Since 7 is the number of Divine perfection, 14 = 2 x 7 indicating that God's hand was involved in this ancestry.
Also, although Jesus is mentioned as "the son of Mary" in Matthew, Joseph is the one in the line of royal descent from David and Solomon. Luke reinforces Joseph's importance in Luke 3:23. But since we know from Matthew 1:16 that Jacob was the actual father of Joseph (because Jacob BEGAT Joseph), it is also clear that Heli would be the father of Mary, and Joseph is called "the son of Heli" ( where the term "the son" is broader than the actual son). Even though Mary had descended from Nathan, who was the older brother of Solomon, God had chosen Solomon as the king who would perpetuate the line of David, and from whom Messiah would come ( 1 Kings 1:46-48):
And also Solomon sitteth on the throne of the kingdom. And moreover the king's servants came to bless our lord king David, saying, God make the name of Solomon better than thy name, and make his throne greater than thy throne. And the king bowed himself upon the bed. And also thus said the king, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which hath given one to sit on my throne this day, mine eyes even seeing it.
Last edited: