Lucas 3

Lucas 3

Lenski - How Luke could think of appending a genealogy of Joseph after saying that Jesus was only supposed to be a son of Joseph, i.e., a physical son, Luke himself having shown at length that this supposition was wrong, and that Jesus was a physical son only of Mary, has yet to be made clear by those who find the genealogy of Joseph here. (Quoted in Luke MacArthur Commentary) NET Note on as was supposed - The parenthetical remark as was supposed makes it clear that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. Gotquestions (see full note below) says "Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23)." Son of Eli - Heli or Eli, a name of the father of Joseph, about whom nothing is known. SIGNIFICANCE OF ANCESTRY TO THE JEWS John MacArthur discusses the importance of ancestry to the Jews - To the Jews, genealogies were critical. (1) Ancestry determined one's claim on land. And that was based on the original tribal allocation of the land of Palestine. When the children of Israel went into the land of Palestine, God divided up the land and it was allocated according to tribal parcels. Nu 26:34, 35 address the issue that ancestry was very critical in determining anyone's claim on a piece of land. (2) Ancestry determined claims to the right of inheritance. Should a person come along and claim that they had a right to a property, they had a right to servants, they had a right to an estate, they had a right to crops, they had a right to material possessions, the determination of the validity of that claim would be placed upon the genealogy, and could the genealogy verify that claim that was critical for that. We find in the book of Ruth, for example, in chapters 3 and 4 that ancestry provided for the transfer of property. In order to transfer property, to sell property, to pass property, you had to prove that you had the right to do that and that there was some ancestral linkage in the transfer. (3) Ancestry established the basis of taxation. That's why when Joseph and Mary went to be taxed they went to Bethlehem because they were of the house and line of David. And that was the birthplace of that family and that's where they went because that's where their genealogical records were kept. And on the basis of those records, taxation was assessed. (4) Any claim to the priesthood had to be verified by genealogy. You find that, for example in the book of Esther 2:61,62. Anytime somebody made a claim to priesthood, it had to be proven that they were in fact in the priestly line. (5) Any claim to royalty, any claim to being king, Messiah, would have to have been verified, would have to have been proven that this one claiming to be king had lineage directly from the great king who was David himself. So if you claimed a royal pedigree, you had to prove it by your genealogy. So in the theocracy of Israel — a kingdom under the rule of God...led by God-ordained priests and kings — in the theocracy of Israel, genealogies became very critical....And that is why the Jews kept...fastidious genealogical records, and the genealogy of Luke is indicative of that. He had access to the genealogy that he records here because it was likely a matter of the public record, as is the genealogy of Matthew 1. Yes, the Scripture is inspired by God, but inspiration from God does not mean that Luke or Matthew didn't have access to an actual record that was available in the public office and could be verified as the true and accurate genealogy of Jesus Christ. The Jews kept these accurate genealogies even after the Babylonian captivity. You remember in 586 B.C. Judah and Jerusalem was destroyed, the people were taken into captivity for seventy years and the nation really disintegrated at that point. But when they came back at the end of 70 years, one of the things they did along with rebuilding the temple, the city and the wall and reconstituting the nation was to get together all the genealogical records and they kept the records accurately from those ancient times through the captivity until all the records were destroyed in 70 A.D. When the Roman general Titus Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. all of the records were destroyed. And today, much to the chagrin and sadness of the Jewish people, nobody knows their lineage because all the records have been destroyed. They can trace their lineage back into New Testament times, perhaps, but they cannot go beyond that because all the records were destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem. And that, by the design of God, because the system was done with at that point, there was no reason to keep genealogies anymore because the Messiah had arrived. And the purpose for which genealogies were kept was primarily for the Messiah, secondarily for the priesthood. But with the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the priesthood came to an end as well. And so God through the Romans brought a judgment which caused the destruction of those records. But the time Luke wrote his gospel, of course, and at the time that Jesus came, the record was still intact. And it's very important as part of the credentials of the Messiah. If He is to be verified as the King, David's greater Son, who will rule, then He must have Davidic lineage.....The historian Josephus also writes that the Jews kept these genealogical records as a matter of public availability; that people could go into the public record and search out their genealogies. In fact, Josephus tells us that Jews who were caught up in the diaspora, the dispersion, scattered from Palestine all over the world, those Jews that were scattered around would when they had a child send the record of the birth of that child back to Jerusalem, or back to the place where the records for their family was kept in order that that child even though outside the land would be entered into the genealogical record. They wanted an official record to be maintained and it was.... Joseph and Mary...knew their family records went back to David. That's why they went to Bethlehem to be taxed because that was the city of David....they were surely aware of the fact that the prophets had said that the Messiah, the great King, the Christ would come to the house of David.... David had a number of sons and through those sons came many lines and, of course, they multiplied down from David all the way to the time of Christ so that there were many people who could trace their lineage back to David. But still it was a great privilege and a great hope that somebody in their family would be the mother of the great King and the Messiah....many of the Greeks also kept their genealogical records. So they too would understand the role that a genealogy would play, especially when someone claimed to be royal blood and a right to be the king. So the people to whom Luke writes — whether they are Jews or Gentiles — would understand why he includes this ancestry. For us, we look at ancestry as a matter of going back to your roots for emotional, psychological recreational or curiosity reasons, not them...Genealogy then becomes absolutely critical. It isn't the only credential of the Messiah because there were many who could trace their lineage back. As I said, even the Rabbi Hillel was of the line of David. That doesn't make him the Messiah. There were many others in the line of David. That isn't the only credential but it is one that is essential because while it can't affirm you as the Messiah, the absence of it could discredit you as the Messiah. And so it's important for Luke to include the credentials of the Messiah. (From Sermon - The Messiah's Royal Lineage) GENEALOGY OF JESUS IN GOSPELS OF LUKE & MATTHEW Jensen's Survey of the NT - used by permission TWO GENEALOGIES: Matthew Thru Joseph Luke Thru Mary John MacArthur gives a lucid discussion of why Matthew's genealogy is through Joseph and Luke's genealogy is through Mary - it hinges especially on the fact that there are two grandfathers mentioned for Jesus. Read his interesting account... Now there are some differences in the names in the two records (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3)....In Matthew's genealogy and in Luke's genealogy we have different names in the records. Now let me... Let me help you to see what I'm saying. Luke traces Jesus' line back to David through Nathan. Look at Lk 3:31, "Son of Nathan, son of David." Now Nathan was David's third son born to Bathsheba. You remember Bathsheba? Okay, Nathan was her third son...David's third son, I should say, born to Bathsheba. So this line in Luke goes back to David through his son, Nathan. But the first son born to Bathsheba was whom? Solomon. And the genealogy in Matthew goes back through Solomon. So in Matthew's genealogy you go back through Solomon to David. In Luke's genealogy you go back through Nathan to David. So you have two different lines. You have one being all the people who came out of Solomon...another, all the people who came out of Nathan. Secondly, Matthew identifies Jesus' grandfather as a man named Jacob (Mt 1:16). It says Jesus' earthly father was Joseph and his (Joseph's) father was Jacob. But Luke 3:23 says that Jesus' grandfather's name is Eli, or Heli....Now this is a difference. So you've got two sons of David. That's different. And you've got two grandfathers of Jesus, one being Jacob in the genealogy of Matthew, one being Eli in the genealogy of Luke. Both are royal lines because both come out of David. Solomon comes out of David, Nathan comes out of David. You have both those royal lines. Interestingly, from David to Abraham the genealogy of Matthew and Luke are identical. From David back to Abraham, the names are the same. But from David down, the names are completely different. When you read the genealogy in Matthew 1 and you go Joseph, Jacob, you go through a list of names back to Solomon. Then you come here, you read Eli, and you go through a list of names back to Nathan. Those lists are completely different names. So what you have then is two genealogies, right? They have two grandfathers, going back to two sons of David with different names. Very simple, you have two genealogies. You'd be amazed how people struggle to try to explain that. I don't know what the struggle is all about. Everybody has two genealogies like that. One is maternal and one is paternal. In Matthew you have the genealogy of Joseph through his father Jacob back to David through Solomon. In Luke you have the gene...genealogy of Mary through her father, Eli. So Jesus, like everybody, had two grandfathers. He had a paternal grandfather through his father named Jacob. He had a grandfather through his mother named Eli. Now it's very important to note this. What you have then in Matthew is the genealogy of Jesus back through Joseph. In Luke is the genealogy of Jesus back through Mary. Now that is the simplest explanation of the differences in the names. The names are the same once you hit David because all you have to do is go back to David to prove the royal blood. That's where it starts. The names are the same from David to Abraham. They're different because they come through Solomon on Joseph's side, and through Nathan on Mary's side. It's that simple. Now was this important? Absolutely important because: Anybody who ascended to the throne got the legal right to the throne through his father, through his father. Even if there was an adoption the father still made that son a legal son by adoption. And Jesus could only receive the right to rule through His father. Genealogical records were traced through the males. That's why there are no females listed in Luke's genealogy. There are no females listed in the entire seventy-seven names because they come through the males. Even though it's Mary's genealogy, no female is mentioned, not even Mary is mentioned, and I'll explain that in a moment because that was not the form in a classic genealogy..... Jesus, though He was not the human son of Joseph, received His legal right to the throne from His adopted father, Joseph. Joseph was considered the true father of Jesus when he was the husband of Mary, even though Jesus was not His son physically. Because he married Mary whose son Jesus was, he became the legal father of Jesus. Therefore, from Joseph Jesus receives the legal right to the throne. It's interesting, just as a footnote. In that line from Solomon there's a name of a man, Jeconiah. Jeconiah was cursed and the curse on Jeconiah is in Jeremiah 22:24-30 and it says, "Jeconiah is cursed and no son of his will ever sit on the throne of Israel, ever." That's interesting because that's Joseph's line. Isn't that amazing? No son of his ever did sit on the throne. Jesus was not the son of Joseph. He did receive the legal right but he was not the natural child. So the curse was intact. (See another source - What is the curse of Jeconiah?) Now, Luke then gives the genealogy of Mary back through Nathan, Solomon's brother. Matthew gives the paternal, Luke the maternal. Matthew goes Joseph, Jacob, Solomon, David and Luke goes Mary, Eli, Nathan, David. And again, the legal right comes from the father but somebody might want to argue that, somebody might want to say, yeah, yeah, that's the way we've done it, yeah we agree, adoption, etc., etc. But in the case of the Messiah, it's got to be the li... It’s got to be the blood of David, he’s got to be a blue blood. He’s got to have the real stuff. And so, here is the genealogy of Mary which Luke gives under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to prove not only does He have the legal right to rule through His father, but He has the blood of David in his veins because of His mother. So either way, He is a descendant of David. He can be King legally through Joseph. He can be King naturally through Mary. The credentials are clear, they are detailed and they are irrefutable..... Now I take a little time with this because you'll notice something. This is the genealogy of Mary but she's not mentioned. And I think that's what trips up some people. They say, "Is this the genealogy of Mary? She's not mentioned." No, Luke takes the classic form of genealogical record and he keeps it male. There aren't any women named in the entire genealogy, not even Mary. So he has to skip. Now a virgin birth is a one-time deal so there's no formula for how you do this, right? How do you do a genealogy when there was no father? So Luke has to invent a way to do that. He doesn't mention Mary. He wants to stick to the male approach so the first male in the line would be Jesus' grandfather on the maternal side, right? The first male would be Mary's father, and that's Eli, or Heli, so he jumps immediately to that and then traces the line all the way back through Nathan. And he sticks with the typical classic form of genealogical recording through only the male..... What strikes me as curious is, you study the entire New Testament, you never, ever, ever find anyone making the claim that Jesus didn't come from David, never. They never brought it up. It was never an issue. And believe me, they would have wanted it to become an issue but the records indicated that He was in fact as He claimed to be, a Son of David and they couldn't bring it up because it was the truth. Certainly in all their evil imaginations against Jesus, in all their attempts to discredit Him and do away with Him, they would have looked at those genealogical records and, I'm sure they did, and it only was verified that He did indeed descend from David through the line of His father, Joseph, his legal father, and through the bloodline of His mother, Mary, His true human mother. Maybe they would have said, "Well, you know, those believers in Jesus, they claim He was virgin born, that He was virgin born. So maybe that disqualifies the Joseph side of the thing, we'll check on Mary." Well, Mary was from David, too. There never was a denial of that. In fact, in Matthew 21:9, a famous day, we call it Palm Sunday, Jesus came into the city of Jerusalem and the whole population was there. And you know it was the time of the great feast. They were all gathered there. You remember what happened as He came in. This is what they said, "The multitudes” Matthew 21:9 “and those following after crying out, 'Hosanna to the Son of David.'" Never a question, never a question; through His father legally, through His mother naturally. (The Messiah's Royal Lineage) QUESTION - Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different? (from Gotquestions - a resource I highly recommend as conservative, evangelical and thoroughly Biblical). ANSWER - Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah). One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological. Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23). Luke 3:24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph Luke 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 3:23-28 The Genealogy of Jesus - Steven Cole Luke 3:18-20 The Legacy of John the Baptist - John MacArthur Luke 3:23-38 The Messiah's Royal Lineage - John MacArthur MESSIAH'S FAMILY TREE Note that "son" is not in Greek but added throughout this list. MacArthur makes a good point - It is added to help us but it could be grandson. It's the one of so-and-so, then the one born of so-and-so, then the one born of so-and-so. But it leaves us a little bit of leeway to allow for grandsons and great grandsons and to expand the genealogy a little bit. Some names are skipped in the genealogies. Bible Knowledge Commentary: Verses 23-38 list 76 names including Jesus and Adam and excluding God. Contrary to Matthew's genealogy, Luke's genealogy begins with Jesus and works back to God. Matthew began with Abraham and worked forward to Jesus in three sets of 14 generations. Other differences exist between the two genealogies. Luke included 20 names prior to Abraham, and he stated that Adam was "the son of God." In addition Luke's and Matthew's lists from David to Shealtiel (during the time of the Exile) differ. That is because the lists trace different lines. Luke traced David's line through Nathan, whereas Matthew traced it through Solomon. (See The Bible Knowledge Commentary Gospels) Son of Matthat - transliterated from the Hebrew Matthat, meaning gift of God, two persons in the genealogy of Jesus - (1) the father of Eli in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:24); (2) the father of Jorim in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:29) Nothing else is known of him. Son of Levi - transliterated from the Hebr. Lēwī (03878), joining. Of course not the third son of Jacob (Ge 29:34) or a tax collector and one of the twelve apostles, but the Son of Melchi. Nothing else is known of him. Son of Melchi- transliterated from the Hebrew Melchi, meaning my king. The father of Levi (Lk 3:24), father of Neri (Lk 3:28). Son of Jannai- transliterated from the Hebrew Janna, meaning whom Jehovah bestows. Nothing else is known of him. Son of Joseph - Common name in Israel, transliterated from the Hebrew Yōsēph (03130), may God add. Joseph, the name of seven persons in the NT. . Nothing else is known of this Joseph. Luke 3:25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai Luke 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 3:23-28 The Genealogy of Jesus - Steven Cole Luke 3:18-20 The Legacy of John the Baptist - John MacArthur Luke 3:23-38 The Messiah's Royal Lineage - John MacArthur Note that "son" is not in Greek but added throughout this list. Mattathias - Nothing else known. Amos - transliterated from the Hebrew ʾĀmōts (0531). Amos, meaning strong. Nothing else known. Nahum - transliterated from the Hebr. Nachūm (05151), comfort. Nothing else known. Hesli (Esli) - transliterated from the Hebr. Esli, meaning reserved by Jehovah. Nothing else known. Naggai - Nagge, meaning shining. Nothing else known. Luke 3:26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda Luke 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 3:23-28 The Genealogy of Jesus - Steven Cole Luke 3:18-20 The Legacy of John the Baptist - John MacArthur Luke 3:23-38 The Messiah's Royal Lineage - John MacArthur Note that "son" is not in Greek but added throughout this list. Maath - transliterated from the Hebrew Maath, meaning small. Mattathias - Nothing else known. Semein - transliterated from the Hebrew Shimeʿī (08096), renowned. Semei or Shemei Josech - Nothing else known. Joda - Nothing else known. Son of Joseph - Common name in Israel, transliterated from the Hebrew Yōsēph (03130), may God add. Joseph, the name of seven persons in the NT. . Nothing else is known of this Joseph. Luke 3:27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri Luke 3 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Luke 3:23-28 The Genealogy of Jesus - Steven Cole Luke 3:18-20 The Legacy of John the Baptist - John MacArthur Luke 3:23-38 The Messiah's Royal Lineage - John MacArthur Note that "son" is not in Greek but added throughout this list. Joanan - Nothing else known. Rhesa - Nothing else known. Zerubbabel - Mt 1:12. Governor of Judea appointed by the Persians when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile. He supervised the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 3:2, 8). Shealtiel - Salathiel. Most modern English translations use the OT form of the name (Shealtiel, Ezra 3:2). 1 Chr 3:17 identifies Jeconiah as the father of Shealtiel. The judgment on Jeconiah’s line (Jer 22:30) may be reflected here.