Jesus Genealogy – تناقض سجل نسب يسوع المسيح في انجيل متي ولوقا


In the biblegospels, there are two genealogies… for Jesus Christ One provided by Matthew and the other by Luke A lot of people don’t even realize the two genealogies are totally different… from each other But first, before we jump into the discrepancies… Let’s first ask the question; why is Jesus genealogy even important? Important, because, both Matthew and Luke… each is trying to prove… that Jesus of Nazareth, is the same Christ figure.. that was prophesied about. The Christ of the Jews. Who is supposed to come from Kind David’s seed, and from the tribe of Judas Matthew and Luke are trying to prove through their lists of Jesus genealogy The Jesus of Nazareth is indeed The awaited Christ of the Jews The problem as I mentioned is.. the fact that the two genealogies are full of discrepancies When you mention that to any Christian believer… the common response that you will get is.. Do you think you discovered something new? “That is an ancient question from thousands of years ago… And has been replied to and has been refuted You discovered nothing! True. I know it is not a new discovery. I know it has been asked hundreds of years ago But the responses were all illogical and that’s what I’m going to talk about in this video This question was asked long time ago… because it was the main reason that the Jews were not convinced that Jesus came from the seed of David and neither he was the Christ.. nor he came from the tribe of Judas. And it is the same reason… That made both Matthew and Luke write about Jesus genealogy in their gospels in an attempt to prove the opposite and claim the Jesus is indeed the Christ and “prove” that he was from David’s seed and Judas’ tribe If we started looking at the two genealogies and the differences between the two, we will first notice that Matthew in chapter 1 mentioned that Joseph’s father is a man named Jacob While Luke mentioned Joseph’s father as Hali And this is just the beginning. This is just the first name on the list Some of the responses that are not even worth looking into or responding to but unfortunately I have to address anyway that some of the characters in the old testament had two names So why not consider that Hali and Jacob are the same person True. But this is not the case here Because if you look at the rest of the genealogy’s lists You will find that the rest of the names and also the number of generations from Hali or Jacob to the top are totally different The names of the grandparents and ancestors of.. both Hali and Jacob are completely different So the idea that Hali and Jacob are possibly the same person who is Joseph’s father… is absolutely illogical and not true But there are other responses to the differences that are worth looking and and respond to The most common response between modern scholars and apologetics That Luke traced Jesus Genealogy through his mother; Mary. While Matthew traced it through his expected father Joseph This apologetic response is coming from the fact that in the Greek language there is no term for Son in Law And because Luke was writing in Greek so he used the term Son instead of Son in Law But in Hali is actually Mary’s father, and not of Joseph’s But it is just the term in language that made it appear that Joseph is his son and not exactly his son in law and it is not a real discrepancy between Matthew and Luke that in one Hali is Joseph’s father and in the other Jacob is Joseph’s father This apologetic response cannot be true for two reasons The first is that Luke himself never mentions this at all You may think; Does Luke really need to mention it? Yes, of course, he had to mention that for 2 reasons… First, because the common thing in Jewish traditions that the genealogy is determined and traced through the father’s lineage So if Luke decided to go against tradition and provide the Mother’s lineage He would have mentioned it And the more important reason for Luke to have mentioned that is that Luke himself started his gospel in chapter one by saying that there are a lot of people making up stories and writing inaccurate accounts about Jesus and the details that he knows about better and when he found that those stories are going around he decided to write his own account with detailed accuracy So, really, if Luke did actually decide to provide the genealogy through Jesus’ mum; Mary and against the social norm and Jewish tradition as to go through the dad’s lineage it would have made sense for him to mention it in his gospel Not only that but this apologetic response also cannot be true because Luke himself wrote in his gospel in chapter 1:27 and in 2:4 confirming that it was Joseph himself that was from the seed of David and the tribe of Judas And let alone that never mentioned anything about Mary’s lineage However he might have left a hint, if you have an eye for detail, reading Luke’s gospel that may be Mary could have been from the tribe of Leviticus and not from the tribe of Judas that is because she is related to Elizabeth, who was the wife of Zachariah the priest So if there is any hint about Mary’s lineage it is pointing toward Leviticus and not Judas tribe but this is just a mere possibility and we are still not sure about Mary’s lineage the sure thing is that Luke never talked about Mary’s lineage in his writings at all. And in all his writings he keeps talking about Joseph’s lineage And finally, just by simple logic If Luke is providing Jesus genealogy for a particular conviction that is that Jesus is the awaited Christ according to prophecies coming from the tribe of Judas and the seed of David why would he go against the Jewish traditions of the father’s lineage and trace it from the mum’s side Some people try to provide an answer to that why the mother could still work in passing her lineage to her son by going back in the old testament and dig for stories that are not related to the topic at all and try to shoehorn it in just to make sense of the mum’s lineage claim These people say that there is a story in the book of Numbers talks about the daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher they went and asked Moses after their father’s death if they can get their father’s inheritance since they don’t have male brothers Moses went and asked God. And God answered Moses saying “This is what you tell Israel” if a man is deceased and has no sons his belongings and inheritance go to his daughters But how is that story related to the genealogy and tribal lineage? it doesn’t make sense that the mum can pass on the tribal lineage in the same sense of physical belongings and inheritance. Or that Mary could pass her lineage to her son Jesus The story doesn’t talk about lineage or genealogy it strictly talks about physical inheritance It doesn’t work that a woman can inherit tribal lineage from her dad and passes it on to her son and even if this could have been possible at the slightest and a mum could pass the lineage to her son and that triggered Luke to trace the genealogy through Jesus’ mum; virgin Mary based on a weird random story from the old testament that just may be there could be that possibility it may be true It wouldn’t even work except in one case that Mary’s dad was deceased and she did not have any brothers. And only in that case she could have passed on the lineage from her father to her son and there is no evidence that was the case and Luke didn’t even reference that passage So if Luke may have felt that due to that story in the old testament he is justified to provide the mother’s lineage instead of the father’s lineage as a tribal evidence, he would have mentioned or referenced that in his gospel But all this is just a desperate attempt from people trying to address the differences between Luke and Matthew’s genealogies But even in that, they often forget that even if a woman inherited anything from her father if she gets married in any man from another tribe her inheritance goes to the husband and becomes an ownership of the other tribe and no longer hers so even if that whole story was true Mary still cannot pass her tribal lineage to Jesus It has to come from Joseph And also after all this, there is a much greater problem in Luke’s genealogy that the lineage goes from King David, through his son, Nathan But according to the prophecies in the old testament The Christ has to come from King David through his son Solomon not Nathan YES, the prophecies are super clear on that The Christ has to come from David and Solomon together That means, that this provided genealogy according to Luke doesn’t prove anything because after all, Luke provided a lineage through Nathan to prove that Jesus is the Christ that is nothing in accordance to prophecies and makes it zero evidence for Jesus being the awaited Christ In this leads me to move on to the genealogy according to Matthew Matthew on the other hand said that Jesus’ lineage came from King David through his son Solomon Great? Isn’t it? But when you have a closer look at Matthew’s account The first thing that you will notice is that Matthew’s genealogy is a lot less (in names and generations) than Luke’s genealogy exactly 16 names less Meaning that Luke provided 16 more generations than Matthew If we consider an average of 20 years per generation that means we are talking about more than 300 years of lost or missing generations Matthew’s genealogy since it starts from David through Solomon makes his list of names totally different from that of Luke’s to the extent that we cannot compare the 2 lists and trying to find the missing names that Matthew skipped over The 2 genealogies took two complete different directions but we can compare Matthew’s genealogy however the genealogy provided in the old testament in the book of Chronicles Table on the screen compares Matthew, Luke and Old Testament genealogies So let’s compare Matthew to the genealogy that is of the old testament From the first look on the book of Chronicles Chapter three you will notice that Matthew dropped 4 names of his list Why is Matthew dropping 4 whole generations from his list? One of the unreliable responses to that is that the 4 generations that Matthew dropped were evil kings that Matthew did not want to mention This doesn’t make sense Because Some of the names Matthew still mentioned in his list were still evil kings So why mention those and not the others So the question still remains; why these 4 in particular that he dropped there is a bigger problem in Matthew’s genealogy Matthew then continues and says that after the Babylonian exile there was a king named Jeconiah who gave birth to Shealtiel And Shealtiel gave birth to Zerubbabel But if you go back to the genealogy in the book of Chronicles You will find that Zerubbabel is not the son of Shealtiel Shealtiel did not give birth to Zerubbabel Shealtiel in fact died without giving birth to any sons or daughters So, his brother, Pedaiah according to the Jewish law married his sister in law (Shealtiel’s wife) to give birthkids for his deceased brother so in reality Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah not Shealtiel’s And perhaps this is one of the main reasons that led the historian Eusebius of Caesarea One of the important early church fathers and is known as The Father of Church History comes up with the apologetic approach defending the difference between Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies saying that Matthew traced the lineage of Jesus through the biological fathers While Luke traced the traced the lineage of Jesus through the traditional fathers according to Jewish traditions And in general, that is the common consensus within the eastern and orthodox churches Their apologetic stand to defend the difference between the 2 genealogies of Matthew and Luke Is that one followed the biological line and the other followed the traditional line Solved? Logical and satisfactory response? Right? No. Not really Because even that apologetic response does not address the differences properly The reason that this apologetic approach is still unsatisfactory is that both Matthew and Luke mentioned that Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel And neither of them mentioned Pedaiah… as the actual biological father of Zerubbabel as per the book of Chronicles And there is more to the problem as you continue reading Matthew and Luke’s genealogies you will find that Luke mentioned Zerubbabel gave birth to Rhesa While Matthew said Zerubbabel gave birth to Abiud But when you check them both against the book of Chronicles and have a look at Zerubbabel’s offspring You will find that Zerubbabel didn’t have a son neither with the name of Rhesa as Luke said, nor with the name Abiud as Matthew said The name Abiud in some translations may appear as Obadiah But still, Zerubbabel did not give birth to a son with the name Obadiah If you continue reading in the old testament you will find that after a few generations, one of Zerubbabel’s great great great grandsons was called Obadiah Was that the one Abiud that Matthew meant to mention in his list? And even if he was the same person that means that Matthew still skipped a few more generations Five generations to be precise between Zerubbabel and Obadiah going back to the average 20 years rule for every generation That Matthew skipped another 100 years worth of generations After that, the rest of the names in Matthew’s list from Abiud and up until the birth of Jesus Christ appear scattered randomly in the old testament but they were never related to each other at all And the point that Matthew is skipping generations is not a trivial point that we can overlook Why isn’t it? And why can’t we ignore it? Because Matthew himself is counting the generations Matthew said in his gospel that that there were 14 generations from Abraham to King David And from David to the Babylonian exile another 14 generations And from the Babylonian exile to the birth of Jesus another 14 generations if you multiply 14 x 3 what do you get? 42 But Matthew provided only 41 names in hist list and not 42 So beside the fact that he is skipping names and generations even the number of names he provided is inaccurate Ok. Why Matthew is doing this? Matthew is trying one way or another to shoehorn the number 14 in Jesus genealogy And that is for 2 reasons First, because the name David has a numerical value in the Hebrew language and that is 14 Plus the fact that number 7 in the bible is a sacred number and symbol of completion 14 generations from Abraham, and King David came 14 generations from David, and the great Babylonian exile occurred 14 generations from the exile, and Jesus of Nazareth came an obvious attempt from Matthew to prove he is the messiah – A big thing that happens after every 14 generations But hey Matthew, you forgot. You’re not providing 14×3 you only provided 41 names not 42 The one last problem in Matthew’s genealogy is that even though he did fall in the same trap of Luke’s providing a genealogy that went through King Solomon instead of Nathan yet he fell into a bigger and more problematic trap Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus goes through king Jeconiah Jeconiah, the father of Shealtiel King Jeconiah is a cursed king in the old testament God cursed him and said that his kingdom will not last and his offspring shall not rule after him And the idea that the messiah, the greatest king of all, will come from Jeconiah’s seed is a very unaccepted idea in the Jewish mind The conclusion at the end is that the 2 genealogies of Matthew and Luke are far more problematic that just some discrepancies The idea that each of them is providing a version of Jesus genealogy to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is awaited messiah and Christ who came from the tribe of Judas and the seed of David is presented corruptly Simply because both versions did not fulfill the prophecies Both provided genealogies that are full of errors and totally inaccurate The 2 genealogies according to Matthew and Luke failed to convince the Jews to prove that Jesus Christ came from the tribe of Judas the seed of David, or even that he was the messiah of the prophecies

50 Comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *