><>🕇
<><
son of Heli
Luke 3:23
3:23 son of Heli. Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16), so this verse should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.” Thus the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin (see note on Jeremiah 22:24-30 and 33:15-17).
https://www.icr.org/books/defenders/6063
><>🕇
<><
Bible verses about Joseph, the Son of Heli
(
From Forerunner Commentary)
Luke 3:23-38
How do we know that the Luke 3 lineage is Mary's? We do not know it for certain, but that conclusion is the most reasonable. One factor is, again, the purpose of this particular gospel. Luke wrote primarily to Gentiles, and he stresses
Jesus' humanity throughout his book. The evangelist thus gives our Savior's natural, biological family tree to show He shares humanness with the common man. He is not just the Jews' Messiah, but He is also the Gentiles' Messiah! So Luke's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, rather than stopping at Abraham as Matthew's does.
Another factor is that Luke had to deal with a virgin birth. What a unique situation for a genealogist! Luke had to determine, therefore, what points would matter to a Gentile. Would he be concerned with Jesus' Davidic ancestry? Not initially. Would he care that Jesus is a Jew and an Israelite? Maybe. Would he desire to know if Jesus was a man like he was? Certainly! Thus, Luke would record a line of descent that showed His universality to every man, and this would go through Mary, Jesus' link to humanity.
Some raise objections to this on the basis of verse 23, particularly because it says, "Joseph, the son of Heli." Notice, though, that Luke does not use the word "begot" as Matthew does. In fact, he uses no word at all, just a marker to denote possession. So the phrase literally says, "Joseph, of Heli."
Some say, then, that this connotes a levirate marriage because Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob. Levirate marriage, however, was fairly rare, so this is an unlikely stretch. Others argue that this is Jesus' "priestly" lineage, but this is even less probable, since it shows Judah, not Levi, as an ancestor (see
Hebrews 7:14).
Bullinger, in his
Companion Bible, gives a more likely explanation: "Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt. 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heli's daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so
according to law." At that time, Jewish law traced inheritance and descent through the male, not the female line. Thus,
Luke 3:23 would be clearer if translated as, "Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli," or "Joseph, the legal son of Heli."
No matter which we choose, it traces Heli's line from that point on back to Nathan, the son of David. There is no stigma or disqualification in Solomon's name being absent from the list. In messianic terms, David's name is the vital one.
Richard T. Ritenbaugh - Berean
https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/6201/Joseph-Son-Heli.htm
><>🕇
<><
JOSEPH, WHEN HE MARRIED MARY, BECAME THE SON OF HELI ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES AND COULD LEGALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE GENEALOGY.
Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed
due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s.
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/whats-in-a-fathers-name/
><>🕇<><
Women in Ancient Israel. The Court of the Women in the Temple (Bible History Online)
"The rabbis taught that women were not to be saluted, or spoken to in the street, and they were not to be instructed in the law
or receive an inheritance."
><>🕇
<><
Thus Joseph's name appears on Mary's geneology list because Joseph was the legal heir to the Property of Heli, because of his marriage to Mary. Joseph, then had the legal right to call himself Son of Heli, because of that inheritance law. While it does not say specifically that Jesus did inherit the property from Joseph, it seems to imply it. Either Joseph NAMED HIM, or Joseph died without naming a male heir, leaving the automatic inheritance going to the eldest son, Jesus. Jesus in turn by saying while He was dying on the cross, Woman behold thy son, and to John, behold thy mother, was passing that birthright inheritance on to John, and it says that from that hour on, John took Mary to his home. Having been given the birthright inheritance by Jesus, to the property of Joseph. Joseph had the right to sell the property to support Mary. Confusing? NO, just a different culture than we have in America. Was it in Genesis or elsewhere in the Bible? No, that comes from studying Rabbinic Law as it relates to Bible times. Most of what I learned about that, came from ZOLA LEVITT's teachings.
I was stationed in Turkey up overlooking the Black Sea when I was in the Air Force in 1969 - Feb, - 1970. I saw a LOT of Cultural Differences, and we got a lengthy orientation lecture, to head off any potential accidental offensive blunders. One thing I filed in my memory quick, was not to enter any house with a bottle on the roof. That was a sign to let people know that the father was wanting an unmarried man to come marry his daughter. Did not need a shotgun wedding.
3
