The Geneology of Jesus

[Angell]

Hello everyone and thank you for giving me a venue to ask questions. I have placed an introduction post but for those who have not seen it, I am a Buddhist. I have great respect for Jesus as a teacher but do not see Him as a Messiah in the same way that Christians do. Anyone however, that points the way to truth is a messiah (re: liberator or savior from illusion) in my opinion and in that context I do believe Jesus qualifies. How then could I believe in Jesus as a bringer of truth and not be Christian? The answer to that simply lies in my interpretation of the Bible. For those to whom it is of interest, I first read and studied the Bible as a child relying on James 1:5-6 and Matthew 18:3-4 to encourage, guide and strengthen my convictions.

There have been questions I have never been able to find satisfactory answers to however, and it is my hope that I can find answers here. That I could not answer them is proof of nothing - as it would be if no one here can answer them for me. In other words, I will not take an absence of a reason as proof that it is wrong. I am not looking to challenge your beliefs, just understand them better. And now, to the question:

Matthew begins the geneology of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16. In Matthew 1:17 we are told that there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David and verses 1-6 are consistent with this. Matthew 1:17 goes on to tell us that there are fourteen generations from David to the carrying away of Babylonia. Verses 6-11 are also consistent with this. Lastly, Matthew 1:17 tells us that there were fourteen generations from the carrying away of Babylonia to the Messiah. Verses 12-16 do not show this to be the case.

Fourteen three times is forty-two, but I count forty-one. Moving on to Luke 3:23 we once again examine the geneology of Jesus - this time in reverse order from Jesus back to Adam who was the son of God. If however we count from Jesus back only to Abraham, we count fifty-six generations which of course, is neither forty-one or forty-two. Would someone explain this to me?

My stumbling across this was actually the result of a sermon I heard in Arizona. I had travelled with an evangelist through the southwest setting up tents for approximately six months many years ago, perhaps thirty or more, and he suggested we go back to the Bible and study those passages we skipped over as there was something in there for us. I was just a boy at the time who found the 'begats' rather boring. I'm quite certain now that he was referring to people who skipped over passges that spoke to their sins but be that as it may be, I took him literally and ended up with this question.

I'd like to thank you all, in advance, for any time you are able to give this question.

[Adstars]

Hello everyone and thank you for giving me a venue to ask questions. I have placed an introduction post but for those who have not seen it, I am a Buddhist. I have great respect for Jesus as a teacher but do not see Him as a Messiah in the same way that Christians do. Anyone however, that points the way to truth is a messiah (re: liberator or savior from illusion) in my opinion and in that context I do believe Jesus qualifies. How then could I believe in Jesus as a bringer of truth and not be Christian? The answer to that simply lies in my interpretation of the Bible. For those to whom it is of interest, I first read and studied the Bible as a child relying on James 1:5-6 and Matthew 18:3-4 to encourage, guide and strengthen my convictions.

There have been questions I have never been able to find satisfactory answers to however, and it is my hope that I can find answers here. That I could not answer them is proof of nothing - as it would be if no one here can answer them for me. In other words, I will not take an absence of a reason as proof that it is wrong. I am not looking to challenge your beliefs, just understand them better. And now, to the question:

Matthew begins the geneology of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16. In Matthew 1:17 we are told that there are fourteen generations from Abraham to David and verses 1-6 are consistent with this. Matthew 1:17 goes on to tell us that there are fourteen generations from David to the carrying away of Babylonia. Verses 6-11 are also consistent with this. Lastly, Matthew 1:17 tells us that there were fourteen generations from the carrying away of Babylonia to the Messiah. Verses 12-16 do not show this to be the case.

Fourteen three times is forty-two, but I count forty-one. Moving on to Luke 3:23 we once again examine the geneology of Jesus - this time in reverse order from Jesus back to Adam who was the son of God. If however we count from Jesus back only to Abraham, we count fifty-six generations which of course, is neither forty-one or forty-two. Would someone explain this to me?

My stumbling across this was actually the result of a sermon I heard in Arizona. I had travelled with an evangelist through the southwest setting up tents for approximately six months many years ago, perhaps thirty or more, and he suggested we go back to the Bible and study those passages we skipped over as there was something in there for us. I was just a boy at the time who found the 'begats' rather boring. I'm quite certain now that he was referring to people who skipped over passges that spoke to their sins but be that as it may be, I took him literally and ended up with this question.

I'd like to thank you all, in advance, for any time you are able to give this question.

Hello Angell.

I understand your confusion. You are under the impression that the generations talked about a physical generations of Parent offspring. offspring, offspring ect ect. But you may not be aware that there was a standard generation number of years in the Bible. So a generation can be two different things. In Matthew it is talking about the number of years between these events, in the book of exodus we read:

Numbers 32
13 So the LORD’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was gone.

So if we take the 40 years and multiply it by 14 we come to 560 years

So there where 560 years between Abraham and David And 560 years between David and the carrying away Babylon. Then there where another 560 years between Babylon and Jesus.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Angell]

Hello Angell.

I understand your confusion. You are under the impression that the generations talked about a physical generations of Parent offspring. offspring, offspring ect ect. But you may not be aware that there was a standard generation number of years in the Bible. So a generation can be two different things. In Matthew it is talking about the number of years between these events, in the book of exodus we read:

Numbers 32
13 So the LORD’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the LORD was gone.

So if we take the 40 years and multiply it by 14 we come to 560 years

So there where 560 years between Abraham and David And 560 years between David and the carrying away Babylon. Then there where another 560 years between Babylon and Jesus.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstars,

I am very grateful that you elected to respond; thank you so much for doing so. I can see how you could arrive at this conclusion, and you may well be correct. To my thinking though, this is a bit of a stretch. I am not trying to be contrary, but as was stated repeatedly in another recent thread in the forum above this one:

"Like Andrew said, you can make do numbers do whatever you want them to do. I didn't even bother to read through all that was written in the first four posts (as if I've got the time to read through all of that) and I suspect the rest of this thread will be a good source of laughter and fun."

I chose this particular quote because the poster quoted another poster, showing at the least, a minimum of consensus between members. I am aware that there are two different uses of the word 'generation' within the Bible but if we are free to choose whichever suits our purposes to prove our point - or to make the equation tenable...well, I'm reasonably certain that you can see my point.

Honestly, all I am searching for through life is truth. In such a search, use of the subjective (in this case, we must use this definition of 'generation' instead of this one without a reason why save for, that's the only way it could make sense) is dangerous. For one who believes the Bible implicitly already, I can see how this would be acceptable in this case - in fact, if I believed the Bible in the way that you do, I would no doubt make the same argument. But can you see how it may fall short of evidence for one for whom this remains simply speculation?

[jayne]

There are 41 generations listed in Matthew instead of 42 because he leaves out someone significant – Jehoakim. Why did he leave him out of the list?

Well, in Jeremiah 36, God tells Jeremiah to write down His words and read them to the people concerning their vile behavior and their need of repentance and what could possibly happen to them as a consequence.

Jeremiah did what God said and he dictated the words to his scribe. Jehoakim, the king at that time, got ahold of the scroll – had someone read it to him and threw the scroll containing God’s warning in the fire. Neither he or his attendants showed any fear of God nor repentance – so says the Bible. So, God tells Jeremiah that no one that is a blood descendant of King Jehoakim will sit on the royal throne of Israel.

That is probably why Matthew left him out. He didn’t even want the man’s name mentioned. And there is no problem with Jehoakim's literally being in that bloodline, merely not mentioned because while Joseph, Mary’s husband IS a blood descendant of Jehoakim, Jesus is not. Joseph is Jesus’ legal, not blood, father.

Why are there more generations in Luke’s genealogy?

Matthew was writing to the Jews. They were certainly looking for the Messiah and they knew he had to have a certain “pedigree”. Being a legal descendant of Abraham was the first thing that they were looking for.

So, Matthew starts with Abraham and moves forward to Jesus.

But Luke is writing to the Gentiles. They have no need of Messiah-credentials. All they need to know is that Jesus is God.

So, Luke begans with the unnamed Mary, and traces her ancestry backwards from Jesus to Abraham and even further than that all the way back to God, Himself. And hers is the literal bloodline. And because she did not come from David’s son, Solomon, but David’s son, Nathan – she is not a part of that wicked bloodline that God said would never have anyone on the throne, but she is still – going further back a daughter of Abraham. Because Luke traced the lineage beyond Abraham and traced Jesus bloodline maternally through Mary – he lists more generations than Matthew.

[Angell]

Jayne,

Wow. I have asked literally hundreds of people and contrary to what many might have thought at the time, I was not looking to discredit but to understand a seeming anomoly. Your response in regards to the discrepency I found in Matthew was particularly enlightening and I'm beyond grateful to you for that. As for Luke, I had speculated many years ago that this was the case (Mary's bloodline) but waited to hear it from a Christian. It was not so much baiting, just that I was guessing and I didn't want to create an answer for them that they could just nod their heads afterwards and say, "Yes, that's it exactly." I've asked this question hundreds of times over decades, and you are the first to have given such a plausible answer.

I was going to ask you for some verses referencing Jehoakim to let you know that I was interested in reading more on the subject but the truth is, I don't need you to do my homework, I've got a world wide web and a search engine and know how to use it and so I'm off to do so now. Thank you again. I shall have more questions as time goes on and I hope you feel moved to respond in the future.

Angel

P.S. I know I can't receive rep but I don't know if I can give it...but I tried and it seemed to take.

[jayne]

Jayne,

Wow. I have asked literally hundreds of people and contrary to what many might have thought at the time, I was not looking to discredit but to understand a seeming anomoly. Your response in regards to the discrepency I found in Matthew was particularly enlightening and I'm beyond grateful to you for that. ................. I've asked this question hundreds of times over decades, and you are the first to have given such a plausible answer.

Perhaps you've been asking the wrong people. None of this is new with me. I've been taught for decades about Matthew's vs. Luke's genealogy by a lot of fine folks - as well as studied it on my own.

As far as Jehoakim being the one who was missing, I didn't discover that on my own, but I did read about him to refresh myself as to his horrible behavior and can only surmise about Matthew leaving him out.

You said that all you were looking for in life is the truth. Keep reading the Bible. It says that we can KNOW the truth and that it will set us free. I believe that "Truth" is Jesus.

[Adstars]

Adstars,

I am very grateful that you elected to respond; thank you so much for doing so. I can see how you could arrive at this conclusion, and you may well be correct. To my thinking though, this is a bit of a stretch. I am not trying to be contrary, but as was stated repeatedly in another recent thread in the forum above this one:

"Like Andrew said, you can make do numbers do whatever you want them to do. I didn't even bother to read through all that was written in the first four posts (as if I've got the time to read through all of that) and I suspect the rest of this thread will be a good source of laughter and fun."

I chose this particular quote because the poster quoted another poster, showing at the least, a minimum of consensus between members. I am aware that there are two different uses of the word 'generation' within the Bible but if we are free to choose whichever suits our purposes to prove our point - or to make the equation tenable...well, I'm reasonably certain that you can see my point.

Honestly, all I am searching for through life is truth. In such a search, use of the subjective (in this case, we must use this definition of 'generation' instead of this one without a reason why save for, that's the only way it could make sense) is dangerous. For one who believes the Bible implicitly already, I can see how this would be acceptable in this case - in fact, if I believed the Bible in the way that you do, I would no doubt make the same argument. But can you see how it may fall short of evidence for one for whom this remains simply speculation?

Hello Angell

Your reply to me seems to be confirming that you believe you have already found the "truth" in buddhism. Because once you had your question answered you immediately went into a defensive position whereby you talked about the two different interpretations of generation and how people will grab onto the interpretation that suits their belief.

So you laid down a challenged probably with confidence that it could not be answered and then when it was answered you grab the defensive position of, Oh well both interpretations are defendable so i am still justified in my rejection of the Answer that was given me. And i can just throw in the statement that you guys only believe your position because it suits you (ie your grasping and are dishonest in your answer)


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Angell]

Adstars,

My sincere apologies if I offended you; it was not my intention.

Your reply to me seems to be confirming that you believe you have already found the "truth" in buddhism.

Yes, this is true. I would not have self identified with Buddhism in my original post had I not. However, that does not mean the Bible, and more importantly, the words of Jesus Christ are not true. How foolish would a person be, when faced with the question of eternity, of not thoroughly exploring the words of a man that millions claim not only has the truth but is, in fact, Truth incarnate?

Because once you had your question answered you immediately went into a defensive position whereby you talked about the two different interpretations of generation and how people will grab onto the interpretation that suits their belief.

Has it not been your experience that people will grab on to the interpretation that suits their belief?

So you laid down a challenged probably with confidence that it could not be answered...

That is not true. I am certain that you get alot of that around here however. It is my hope that as you get to know me better that you will see that this is not the case.

...and then when it was answered you grab the defensive position of, Oh well both interpretations are defendable so i am still justified in my rejection of the Answer that was given me.

It seemed a stretch for me (and perhaps only to me), to apply a generational definition of time rather than a physical generation when the physical generations were being listed. I could be wrong. If I am, then it is an honest mistake on my part. I had no intention of rejecting whatever was offered me.

And i can just throw in the statement that you guys only believe your position because it suits you (ie your grasping and are dishonest in your answer)

It would be a mistake to think of all Buddhists (you guys) as the same. Not all of us are the same, just as it would be unwise to lump all who call themselves Christians together. I am disappointed that you believe me to be dishonest and saddened that I was not able to communicate my sincerity.