The genealogies of Christ "the son of David"

[Enoch111]

There are many lessons to be learned from the genealogies of Christ.

1. God treats genealogies as very significant in His plan of salvation, as well as in Bible chronology and the history of the Israelites. Thus we have the books of Chronicles.

2. Genealogies are scattered throughout the Bible, and the genealogies of Christ to a large degree are already embedded in the Old Testament (OT).

3. Christ is (a) the Son of God, (b) the Son of Man, (c) the seed (descendant) of Abraham, and (d) the son (descendant) of David. For the Jews it was important that their Messiah be “the son of David” or the descendant of king David, showing that He was legitimately in the royal line from the tribe of Judah. Jacob had prophesied this on his death bed: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh [Christ] come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be. (Gen 49:10) And God has established the throne of David as an eternal throne under Christ.

4. An overview of the genealogy of Christ is as follows: Adam-->Seth-->Noah--> Shem--> Heber--> Abraham--> Isaac--> Jacob--> Judah--> David--> Christ

5. We find numerical perfection within the genealogies, since both the number 10 and the number 14 have spiritual significance:
(a) There are 10 generations between Adam and Noah (both inclusive). The key people are Seth and Noah.
(b) There are 10 generations between Shem and Abraham (both inclusive). The key people are Shem and Abraham, but Eber (Heber) is important because the Hebrews are descendants of Heber.
(c) There are 14 generations between Abraham and David (both inclusive). The key people are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David and the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are within these generations.
(d) There are 14 generations between Solomon and Jeconiah (both inclusive).
(e) There are 14 generations between Jeconiah and Jesus (both inclusive). Obviously the key person here is Jesus of Nazareth (who was actually born in Bethlehem, the city of David).

6. We also find anomalous information in the genealogies of Christ. Mathew’s genealogy takes note of the fact that four women (who should normally have not entered into the picture) are presented: (a) Tamar (the mother of Pharez, born out of wedlock); (b) Rahab (the mother of Boaz, probably Rahab the harlot); (c) Ruth (the mother of Obed, a Moabitess); and (d) Bathsheba (the mother of Solomon, born out of wedlock). Which tells us that God is no respecter of persons.

7. Both the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were necessary, since the first gives us the lineage of Joseph (the legal foster father of Jesus descended from Solomon, and whose father was Jacob), and the second gives us the lineage of Mary (who descended from Nathan with Joseph her husband shown as the “son” of Heli, Mary's father). As we see in Scripture, the Jews regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph the carpenter. As we also see, Hebrew genealogies went from father to son.

8. When comparing the names in the Old Testament with those in the New, one will find discrepancies in the spellings. The reason for that is that the King James translators did not translate the names from the Greek but simply transliterated them (as seen in the Greek). For example, in Luke 3:36 we have Sem (Σὴμ) for Shem and Noe (Νῶε) for Noah. It would have been preferable to translate them for the sake of consistency.

9. Luke’s genealogy for Christ is unique in several respects:
(a) It takes Christ’s genealogy back to God but in reverse, since it starts with Jesus (the last in the line). (Adam was a “son” of God in the sense that he was a direct creation of God, just like the angels, who are also called “sons of God” in the OT). On the other hand the genealogies in the OT and in Matthew follow the normal order with the oldest ancestor first.
(b) It adds “Cainan” between Arphaxad and Sala (Shelah).
(d) Since it is in fact Mary’s genealogy, it starts with Nathan after David, and shows the line of Nathan.
(e) It shows Neri as the father of Salathiel, whereas the OT and Matthew show Jechoniah as his father. There is some question as to whether Levirate marriage entered into the picture.
(f) While there are 13 generations between Salathiel and Jesus in Matthew, there are 22 generations in Luke for that period (almost double). It could be that some of the ancestors did not live very long.
(g) It is noteworthy that after Nathan, several ancestors are named after the tribes of Israel. Thus we have 4 Josephs, 2 Judahs, 2 Levis, and 1 Simeon.

In view of all this we can understand why Christ is called "the last Adam", "the seed of Abraham", "the son of David", and "the lion of the tribe of Judah".

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all. good topic.

There are many lessons to be learned from the genealogies of Christ.

Yes Christ, but NOT "JESUS". for Jesus has no beginning, or any End, but Christ has a beginning and a end, (naturally).

as said, "Christ" came through the Genealogies of David line or lineage, or to be clear, the Son of God, (that Flesh which was born, came by way David line Leaglly, meaning being "BORN" in David house). but the son of Man was not born, no mother, no father, everlasting, no beginning, and no ending.

and yes, #6 is true, for these women was GENTILES, except for Rahab who was not a harlot, but an Isealite, sent forth with her family before the rest of her Nation came into the promise land. and Ruth who was a Kinswoman to the Nation of Israel, was just that. all these women had contact with God.

also correct #7, shows both line of David, kingly and priestly lines.

and lastly, yes JESUS is trace back to himself, the Father of all mankind, (John 1:3, and Isaiah 44:24). Amen.

PICJAG.

 

[DNB]

7. Both the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were necessary, since the first gives us the lineage of Joseph (the legal foster father of Jesus descended from Solomon, and whose father was Jacob), and the second gives us the lineage of Mary (who descended from Nathan with Joseph her husband shown as the “son” of Heli, Mary's father). As we see in Scripture, the Jews regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph the carpenter. As we also see, Hebrew genealogies went from father to son.

Hi Enoch111, nice exposition, good work.
Just a question please, someone posed this to me on another forum (you may have heard it before), which I couldn't answer. That is, we know that it's speculated that Matt & Luke's genealogies are defining both Joseph & Mary's lineage, respectively. And, that they both lead to to the tribe of Judah and David.
But, if Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, as is stated in Luke also, and that both Zechariah and Elizabeth were Levites, does that put to question whether Luke's genealogy is actually referring to Mary's lineage, or not?

Luke 1:5-5
1:5. In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.

Luke 1:36-36
1:36. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

I personally, don't have an answer, outside of speculating an inter-tribal marriage between the ancestors of Mary or Elizabeth? Or, that there are considerable gaps in the genealogies of Matt & Luke, in that they are both Joseph's ancestry?

Thanks!

 

[Enoch111]

But, if Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, as is stated in Luke also, and that both Zechariah and Elizabeth were Levites, does that put to question whether Luke's genealogy is actually referring to Mary's lineage, or not?

Here is a good answer to your question:

"First, the King James translation of the term syngenis as “cousin” (Luke 1:36) is unwarranted and somewhat misleading to those who normally interpret the word to mean “first cousin.” The Greek term syngenis simply means “relative” (NKJV, NASB, NIV) or “kinswoman” (ASV, RSV). It is “a general term, meaning ‘of the same family’” (Vincent, 1997). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth may have been first cousins, or they may have been fourth cousins. All we know for sure is that they were kin.

Second, Mary and Elizabeth could have been from different tribes and still have been first cousins. It may be that their mothers were sisters. Their mothers could have been from the tribe of Judah or Levi. As commentator Matthew Henry noted: “Though Elisabeth was, on the father’s side, of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), yet on the mother’s side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah” (1997).

However Mary and Elizabeth were related, tribal heritage among the descendants of Jacob was passed down through fathers, not mothers (cf. Ruth 4:18-22); children were always of their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Thus, Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, respectively, by way of their fathers’ ancestry, and not necessarily of their mothers’."

How Were Mary and Elizabeth Related?

 

[DNB]

Here is a good answer to your question:

"First, the King James translation of the term syngenis as “cousin” (Luke 1:36) is unwarranted and somewhat misleading to those who normally interpret the word to mean “first cousin.” The Greek term syngenis simply means “relative” (NKJV, NASB, NIV) or “kinswoman” (ASV, RSV). It is “a general term, meaning ‘of the same family’” (Vincent, 1997). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth may have been first cousins, or they may have been fourth cousins. All we know for sure is that they were kin.

Second, Mary and Elizabeth could have been from different tribes and still have been first cousins. It may be that their mothers were sisters. Their mothers could have been from the tribe of Judah or Levi. As commentator Matthew Henry noted: “Though Elisabeth was, on the father’s side, of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), yet on the mother’s side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah” (1997).

However Mary and Elizabeth were related, tribal heritage among the descendants of Jacob was passed down through fathers, not mothers (cf. Ruth 4:18-22); children were always of their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Thus, Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, respectively, by way of their fathers’ ancestry, and not necessarily of their mothers’."

How Were Mary and Elizabeth Related?

Excellent Enoch111, thank you very much, ...that was actually my speculation, and which I did offer as an explanation on the forum that I mentioned (although it was at the top of my head, so i wasn't very assertive about it).
Thank you again, this reassures me that my understanding has some merit, and that it's a viable resolution!