Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Check this out ... This is a great study in regard this topic. I did this study myself many years ago, but here i will post this commentary from bibletools.org which sums it up very well ...
Quote:
These two chapters, both giving genealogies of Jesus, at first appear to be contradictory. Actually, however, they complement each other.
The genealogy in Matthew 1 is clearly that of Joseph, Mary's husband. Matthew records it for legal purposes. He is writing to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Jews' custom in keeping records is to trace descent through the father. Legally, the Jews of Jesus' day looked on Jesus as a son of Joseph (John 6:42). Also, Joseph's lineage is given to emphasize the fact that Jesus had been born of a virgin. Because of a curse that God placed on one of Joseph's ancestors, Jesus could never sit upon the throne of David if Joseph had been His natural father.
Jechonias (Matthew 1:11-12), called Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24-30, was so evil God cursed him and his descendants, saying, "Write this man down as childless, . . . for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah" (verse 30). Jeconiah, as his name is spelled in the Old Testament, had children (I Chronicles 3:17), but he was childless insofar as none of his descendants ruled as king over Judah.
How, then, could Jesus be a descendant of David and qualify to sit on the throne? Enter the genealogy in Luke 3, which is Mary's. According to Jewish usage, Mary's ancestry is given in her husband's name. The original Greek merely says Joseph was "of Heli" or Eli (verse 23). In fact, since Joseph's father is said to be Jacob in Matthew 1:16, Heli is most probably Mary's father. Joseph, then, is his son-in-law.
Unlike Joseph's lineage, there was no block in Mary's genealogy to Jesus sitting on the throne of David. Mary's descent from David comes through his son Nathan, not Solomon or one of David's other children (Luke 3:31). To fulfill His promise to establish David's throne forever, God honored Nathan by making him the ancestor of the promised King who would sit on David's throne throughout eternity (Luke 1:31-33).
But how could Mary transmit David's royal inheritance—the right to the throne—to her Son, since all inheritances had to pass through the male line? According to Israel's law, when a daughter is the only heir, she can inherit her father's possessions and rights if she marries within her own tribe (Numbers 27:1-8; 36:6-8). There is no record that Mary had any brothers to inherit her father's possessions and rights. Thus, Joseph became Heli's heir by marriage to Mary, inheriting the right to rule on David's throne, even over Judah. This right then passed on to Jesus.
Both genealogies had to be recorded to establish Christ's right to rule on David's throne. Joseph's genealogy shows that Christ was a legal descendant of Jeconiah and thus legally could not sit on the throne of David in the nation Judah by inheriting the right solely through Joseph.
Further, the genealogies prove the virgin birth: The curse on Jeconiah's line would have passed on to Christ if He were Joseph's natural son, but He was not—He was the Son of God the Father, begotten by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was Mary's son descended from Nathan. Jesus can inherit rule over Judah because of Mary's marriage to Joseph, whose genealogy shows he was Heli's son-in-law.
If jesus had been Joseph's natural born son, he would not have been able to claim the throne of david, plain and simple.
I'm not familiar with this argument. Chapter and verse, please?
The chapters and verses are noted above in the commentary. Study the genealogogies of Joseph and mary and youll see joseph was the descendant of Jechonias ...
I haven't the time to read through the whole thread to find out whether or not anyone has mentioned this ... Should't we take into account the ancient hebrew culture and traditions in regard what a young marriagable woman entails? If she was young and had never consummated a marriage (i.e was marriagable) that pretty much means she had never had sex. In hebrew tradition a deflowered bride was not desireable if you catch my drift.
Yep, it's been mentioned:
Don't forget, that "marriageable" in that day and time not only meant to be of a certain age, but to also be a virgin. If you were not a virgin, you were not "marriageable".
I'm trying to determine if you give any credence to anything other than that one Greek word in relation to what the Bible has to say about Mary being a virgin, because there are many indirect references to the fact that she was a virgin....It says that Joseph was going to put her away privately (because he knew HE hadn't done it!....and because non-virgins were not "marriageable"), and that after the angel told him to marry her and he did, he did not "know" her until after Jesus was born. And when the angel visited Mary and told her what was going to happen, she said, "How can this be, seeing I know not a man?"
In this ridiculously promiscuous day and age, people find it hard to understand that "unmarried" or "marriageable" used to mean "virgin"! The thought just never even occurs to some people.
There are two references, one in Paul and one in John, that appear to reference, albeit indirectly, the virgin birth:
Galatians 4:4 states, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,..." The phrase "made of a woman" is an interesting one, since both Old and New Testament follow geneologies through the Father, the Great Exception being Gen. 3:15. This verse reverberates with Jn. 1:14, where we are told that the Word was made [same Greek word] flesh and dwelt among us. The relation of these two verses and the thought behind reinforce the sense of Paul's declaration: He was made of woman, not made of woman and man.
The second reference is in 1 John 5:6, "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." Jesus' physical birth opened the birth canal, so that he was born not only by water (the water sac) but also blood - the breaking of the hymen which would normally have taken place upon loss of virginity, but in Mary's case had not yet occurred.
As a side note, the word "virgin" in Is. 7:14 is 'almah, which means a marriageable woman (or in some cases, a marriageable man). This was synonymous for virgin, since a woman who was not a virgin and not married was either designated widow or was not marriageable and in danger of stoning. It was a discreet term, like nursing for breastfeeding or love-making for intercourse, but the sense was clear, as Hebrew scholar Dr. R. L. Harris points out: "There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.) The New Testament word parthenos should be interpreted by its use in the New Testament, where it appears 14 times in 13 verses. All references seem to fit best with the term "virgin, but fully half of the refernces could ONLY be to a virgin. 1 Cor. 7:25 - 37 clearly refers to a virgin yet under the authority of her father, while 2 Cor. 11:2 loses all sense if it does mean virgin pure and chaste. Rev. 14:4 uses the word to refer to men who were virgins, that is, the Scripture explains, they had not had sexual relations. W. E. vines say, ""a maiden, virgin," e.g., Mat 1:23, signifies a virgin-daughter in 1Cr 7:36-38 (RV); in Rev 14:4, it is used of chaste persons. "
There are only two references to the birth of Jesus in the NT, that which is in Matthew and Luke, so, yes, I confirm my agreement that the argument should progress to the definition of the original Greek. My stance is that the word parthenos cannot unequivocally be translated to mean virgin in the modern sense of the word.
a virgin: an epithet of several Greek goddesses, esp. of Athena
NT writers often used words that were already in circulation that had meanings themselves bound to the culture.
In this case, Koine Greek, and the word rightfully is translated as - a virgin.
I'm not familiar with this argument. Chapter and verse, please?
If the Luke genealogy proves Mary's descent from David, then why would the writer of Luke not point this out?
They both did. At the end of the Book of Numbers an interesting loophole emerged. A man died without a son, leaving 4 daughters. They came to Moses complaining that they would lose the family land since there was no son to inherit it. Moses sought the Lord Who decreed that if there was no son in a family daughters could inherit family land providing they married within their own tribal clan. In effect they had to marry a cousin to keep the land in the "family." This made sense since land was allotted first by tribe then by clan then by family. Marrying within the clan kept the families in close proximity and preserved the tribal allotment. (Num. 36 1:13)
Now compare the 2 genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and you'll discover that Mary and Joseph were both of the tribe of Judah and descendants of David. Joseph descended through Solomon, the royal but cursed line, while Mary's line was through Solomon's brother Nathan.
Here's the tricky part. Mary had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family's land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel's king, but Joseph could secure Mary's right of inheritance.
When Mary accepted Joseph's offer of marriage she preserved her family's land and also made good her son's claim to the throne of Israel. Jesus was in the royal succession through Joseph but escaped the curse since he wasn't Joseph's biological son. But He was a biological descendant of David's through his mother and therefore of the "house and lineage of David."
This whole issue revolves around the facts that (a) God has bound Himself to His own laws and (b) He keeps His word; facts that should give you great comfort. God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind (Num. 23:19). Legally, a virgin birth was required to produce a sinless man who would be qualified and able to serve as our Kinsman Redeemer, and God longed to redeem us. A virgin birth was also required to sidestep the blood curse on the royal line, fulfilling God's promise to David that a biological descendant of his would sit on the throne of Israel forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
