The Genealogy of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus).

     This article is about the Genealogy of Yeshua (Jesus), but first we need to understand genealogies and how the Hebrew's understood it within the scriptures.  To start off there are two observations that can be made about the genealogies in the Hebrew scriptures.

1)      1)       The male line is traced.

2)      2)       Only men's names appear.

     Women's names are not given and neither are their descendants, except for only maybe a passing mention of their names. The father was the one who determined the nationality and tribal identity and this is even held today in our society the daughters take on the names of their fathers ... etc.  It seems that biblically only the fathers tribal identity and nationality is what is necessary. Also, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The scriptures state every name from before David דוד(Adam to David) and every name after David דוד (David to Zerubbabel). This is sometimes referred to the messianic line because the messiah was to be of the house of David בית דוד In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah because as the "Seed of the Woman" (Gen. 3:15), Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the "Seed of Abraham"  (Gen. 22:18), The messiah had to come from the nation of Israel and as the "Seed of Judah" he had to be of the tribe of Judah ("the rod out of the stem of Jesse" (Isa. 11:1, 10)), and as the "Seed of David" he had to be of the family of David, "the priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), the "Immanuel," "the virgin's son" (Isa. 7:14), "the branch of Jehovah" (Isa. 4:2), and "the messenger of the covenant."  The Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) fulfilled all of these requirements.

     Now lets look at the pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures. It also is clear that the same pattern used in the Old testament is used in the New testament where two (2) genealogies are found Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. These two books, gospels deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an adult, so this is why Matthew and Luke have a genealogy listed. Lets next take a look at the two genealogies, they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus but it seems each tells the story from a different perspective.

     In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, and Mary plays a passive role. In Matthew, an angel appeared to Joseph (Matthew 1:20) and there is not record of an angel appearing to Mary. Matthew records Josephs thoughts but nothing of Mary's thoughts. On the other hand in the Gospel of Luke it tells the story from Mary's perspective. It is very obvious that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph and the genealogy of Luke is that of Mary.

     So, why are there two genealogies? Why was there a genealogy for Joseph since yeshua (Jesus) is not the real son of Joseph? I have heard this answer before "Matthews Gospel gives the royal line whereas Lukes Gospels gives the real line." To understand the need for these two genealogies we need to understand the kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures.  These were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.  One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with the capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital Samaria. The obvious question that follows is what are the requirements of the throne for these two kingdoms? The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David's throne unless he was a member of the house of David בית דוד . So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to fail (Isaiah 8:9-15).

Isaiah 7:5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, (KJV) Isaiah 7:6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: (KJV) Isaiah 8:9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. (KJV)  Isaiah 8:10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us. (KJV)  Isaiah 8:11 For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, (KJV) Isaiah 8:12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. (KJV)  Isaiah 8:13  Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. (KJV)  Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (KJV)  Isaiah 8:15  And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. (KJV)

     It is clear in verse 8:11 that he should not have part with these people (those or anyone wanting to do away with the house of David) and also verse 8:15 that they will stumble, fall, be broken, snared and taken, their conspiracy is doomed to fail!  The requirement of the throne of Israel was either prophetic sanction or divine appointment. and everyone who attempted to rule Samaria's throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39, 15:28-30, 16:1-4, 11-15, 21:21-29, 2 Kings 9:6-10, 10:29-31, 14:8-12).

     Now with the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus' right to the throne can be resolved! Lets look at Matthews genealogy. In Matthews's genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom, he mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba. (Matt 1:3,5,6) It is 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.  Matthew however I believe has a reason for naming the four women and no others. Lets consider these four women for a second.

1)      1)       Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth were gentiles and it is probably true of Bathsheba as well, since her husband was Uriah the Hittite. This could possibly be a hint that salvation is coming also to the gentiles.

2)      2)       Three of these women were guilty of sexual sin. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery (2Sam. 11:3-4), Tamar guilty of incest (Gen. 38:15-19) and Rahab was guilty of prostitution (Joshua 2:1).  Matthew (1:1-17) traces the genealogy of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus, by going back and working forward until his time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (Verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (Verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (Verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (Verse 16). This is significant in Matthews genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30.

See Jeremiah 22:24-30

     Basically, no descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to sit in the throne of David. Until Jeremiah the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited even more. Now, one had to be not only of the house of David but also apart from Jeconiah's curse. So, according to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins (that is if Jesus was born from Joseph). He would not have been qualified to sit on David's throne.  It also means 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, and he also could not claim the right to David's throne by adoption by Joseph since because through Joseph one could not be heir to the throne!  The next logical question would be is "what is the purpose of Matthew's genealogy?" The purpose then is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph's son because he was born from a virgin, Mary.  The purpose was not to show the royal line. This is so because immediately Matthew gives the account of the virgin birth after the record of the genealogy. It seems from Matthews viewpoint this is a valid solution to the Jeconiah problem. So, Matthew concludes that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse but, Jesus was not Joseph's son because he was born from the virgin Mary accounted in Matthew 1:18-25.  With the mention of the virgin birth of Yeshua (Jesus) we need to take a short examination of the scripture verse in Isa. 7:14 which describes the virgin birth.

The virgin Birth

 I quoted directly out of the Tanach, Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore, my Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the maiden will become pregnant and bear a son, and she will name him Immanuel."  Isaiah 7:14 "lachen yiten adonay lachem ot hineh ha'almah harah v'yoledet ben v'karat shmo immanuel"

According to Rashi's commentary this message is prophetic! and not referring to Isaiah the prophet!  Lets next look at a few definitions:

Definitions obtained from: Langenscheidt Hebrew Dictionary Langenscheidt Publishers, Inc. 46-35 54th Road, Maspheth, N.Y.  11378

Almah - (alma) f, pl. alamot, -  "maiden, young marriageable woman;"

Harah - (hara) f, horah, harah, pl. horot, harot - "to conceive, to be pregnant"

     Now from interpretation this verse can be read as is and still understand that it is referring to a virgin birth (virgin i mean as that had never known a man).  First, it is a disgrace for a Jewish man to marry a woman who had played the harlot and gotten pregnant etc.  Leviticus 21:14  "A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife."  It is commanded to not marry such women, but to marry  the virgin women.  Now the question arises whether Isaiah should have used the world tula for instead of almah meaning young marriageable woman?  The point i am trying to make is that according to the law for a woman to be marriageable she must have her virginity.  So in effect, Isaiah was saying that this woman would not only be marriageable but also a virgin according to the law!  This can be seen also in the book of Matthew when Joseph had found her (Mary) to be pregnant already, and rather than make it public he was going to put her away privately. Matthew 1:18-19, Joseph saw that she was pregnant and so wouldn't dishonor himself by taking her to be his wife.  But, then an angel from the Lord came and told him this child is of the Holy spirit Matthew 1:20, so he did as the Lord had commanded him to do.  Joseph took Mary to be his wife. Take an honest look at the scriptures and you will see Isaiah 7:14 to mean this same thing.  I encourage you to look this up for yourself to see that i have made the correct assessment!

Lets Continue now with the study:

     There is a second genealogy located in the book of Luke (Luke 3:23-38) which we will now look at. Luke seems to follow strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women, unlike Matthew. But this raises a question? If by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of the woman how would one trace a woman's line back? The answer is "He would use the name of the husband!"  There is also possible OT (Old Testament) precedents for this practice in Ezra 2:61 and in Nehemiah 7:63.  This raises a second question? If someone studies a genealogy how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife? Since in either case the husbands name would be used? Here is where the problem lies with the English language because the answer is not a difficult one!  In English it is not good grammar to use the definite article ("the") before a proper name for example: "the" Matthew or "the" Luke or "the" Mary, however it is very 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 article from Josephs name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Mary. In addition, 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..." (A.T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels.) 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 Mary. The absence of Mary's name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Mary and not Joseph and refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

     Also, a difference between Mathews genealogy, Luke starts his account from the present (his time) and works his way back to Adam. It comes to the family of David verses 31-32 and the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So like Joseph, Mary was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph she came from David's son Nathan and not Solomon. Mary was a member of the house of David but apart from Jeconiah, and since Jesus was Mary's son he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.  Understand the messiah didn't have to be from the first born of David. The inheritance can be passed down through either one of his sons, just as the inheritance was passed down through Jacob rather than Esau, Esau being the first-born and Jacob the second.  Secondly, we need to look at the concept of women receiving the inheritance of their fathers rather than the son. There is precedence for this in the law Bamidbar 27:4-11 (Numbers 27:4-11) and Bamidbar 36:1-13 (Numbers 36:1-13)

See Numbers 27:4-11 and Numbers 36:1-13

     According to the Torah in Bamidbar pinchas 27:6-11 (Numbers 27:6-11) Hashem (The Name, God) gave a commandment concerning inheritance as a decree of justice to the children of Israel. The daughters of zelophehad spoke because their father had no sons and he had died in the wilderness because of his sin 27:3 there was no one to pass the inheritance on. God declared that if this was the case the inheritance should be passed on to the daughters, fathers brothers, or closest relative to keep the land within the family. In like manner when Jeconiah was cursed there was no one to pass on the line to the throne of David therefore in this case as well the inheritance was passed onto the second son Nathan and on up to Mary the mother of Jesus. Jesus indeed had the right to sit on the throne of David.  There were other members of the house of David that were apart from Jeconiah. These descendants could equally claim the throne of David because they didn't have Jeconiah's blood in their veins. So another question might be why Yeshua (Jesus) and not one of the others? This is where divine appointment comes into the picture; this is the second biblical requirement for kingship. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah only one received divine appointment Luke 1:30-33 states:

 

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.  31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.  32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:  33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

It is very clear that by the word of the angel from the Lord, Yeshua (Jesus) was divinely appointed to the throne of David according to verse 32.

Conclusion

     Two things should be noted in conclusion of this study. First, many rabbinic objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument goes something like: "Since Jesus was not a descendent of David through his father, he cannot be Messiah and King." But the Messiah was supposed to be different. As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the "seed of the woman," although this went contrary to the biblical norm. (Note: the precedence set in the law of inheritance being passed onto the daughters of Israel.) The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 "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 verse declares that the Messiah was going to be born from a virgin, a woman who has not known a man sexually! Whereas all others received their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother.  The father normally determined Jewish nationality and tribal identity, but with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would be entirely from his mother. True this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

     In conclusion I want to leave you all with a thought... A thought about these genealogies, they present a sort of fourfold picture of the messiah through four titles.  In Matthew 1:1 he is called the "Son of David" and the "Son of Abraham." In Luke 3:38 he is called the "Son of Adam" and the "Son of God." So what does this say? Well, as the Son of David, it means that Jesus is King, as the Son of Abraham Jesus is a Jew, as the Son of Adam Jesus is a man, and could be tempted just like we are and, as the Son of God Jesus is God!  This picture of the Messiah as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King, Could the messiah be anything less?

MATSATI (IRC #Hebrew, Undernet)