Web hosting Custom Email SiteBuilder

The Generations of Jesus In Matthew

The genealogy cited below is the one given in Matthew, chapter one. Some of the names and words have been emphasized because I want to address some points in relation to them. Though I know it's rather boring to read a genealogy, I still recommend you read it.
 

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;
3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
7 and Solon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;
8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;
9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;
10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;
13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations. (ASV)

Please note v. 16 in which Matthew stipulates that Joseph is also the object of this genealogy. The verse states, after having gone through a series of names that "Jacob begat Joseph" and that Joseph was Mary's husband. As we will see, Luke gives another name, Heli, as the father of Joseph and also gives a different genealogy.

V.1 states explicitly that this is "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ." So this, according to Matthew, ties Jesus to Joseph, in turn tying him to king David, presumably because Joseph was a son of David. However, Joseph was not Jesus' father.  Furthermore, this genealogy uses the word "begat" for every successive generation, which further indicates that it is based on a blood connection. This cannot possibly be Jesus' genealogy if Jesus wasn't "begotten" by Joseph.

As well, it makes no sense to say Jesus was Joseph's adopted son to make the connection, since a king's genealogy was always based on a physical connection and since the promise was through David's "seed", that is, through his physical descendants. Read any of the Judean king's genealogies in the OT and you will never find an adopted son inheriting the throne of Judah. It was always a blood relation.

There's another important point to discuss, i.e., that the promise made to David concerning the succession to his throne was to come through his son Solomon, his second with Bathsheba; the first one having died as a result of one of David's "sin" against the Biblegod. In this respect, Matthew follows Solomon's line, but unfortunately Luke doesn't. He has Jesus' genealogy running through Nathan, who was never a king in Judah. More on that in the essay on Luke's genealogy.

Since it is claimed that Jesus was the product of a miracle birth we have to ask ourselves: Why does God make the mistake of inspiring Matthew to write a genealogy which is useless? How can an omniscient being do this? It is argued by some that Joseph is used merely to establish a "legal" connection to David, since Jesus was his legally adopted son. What precedent do those who claim this have? Do they have chapter and verse to back this up? No, they don't, so their argument falls: It's speculation based on circular reasoning, pure and simple.

This is just another example of the desperate lengths to which Fundamentalists will go to salvage the obvious errors made here. It is mere speculation which has no basis in fact. I challenge any Christian to find one adopted son who inherited David's throne in Judah, just one. I won't be holding my breath waiting.

Jeconiah the cursed king

Now, read v. 12 and notice who is mentioned therein: King Jeconiah. This king was cursed by God  and told in no uncertain terms:

Jeremiah 22:30  Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

Jehoiachin
Succeeded his father Jehoiakin (B.C. 599) when only eight years of age, and reigned for one hundred days 2Ch 36:9 He is also called Jeconiah Jer 24:1 27:20 etc., and Coniah Jer 22:24 37:1 He was succeeded by his uncle, Mattaniah Zedekiah (q.v.). He [Jehoiachin] was the last direct heir to the Jewish crown. He was carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, along with the flower of the nobility, all the leading men in Jerusalem, and a great body of the general population, some thirteen thousand in all 2Ki 24:12-16 Jer 52:28 After an imprisonment of thirty-seven years Jer 52:31,33 he was liberated by Evil-merodach, and permitted to occupy a place in the king's household and sit at his table, receiving "every day a portion until the day of his death, all the days of his life" Jer 52:32-34 (Emphasis mine, as well as name added iEmphasis mine, as well as name added in brakets)

So, Matthew has Joseph descending from a king who was cursed and told that none of his "seed" (descendants) would prosper sitting on David's throne. This disqualifies Joseph from ever being an heir to the throne of David, let alone his "adopted" son, Jesus. But there's more.

When fourteen is not fourteen

Why does Matthew, supposedly under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, tell us that there are three sets of fourteen generations in this genealogy? This isn't so, because there are some names missing in his genealogy. Matthew deliberately leaves out Kings Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim and a few more, so his statement that these are all the generations is dead wrong. How could an omniscient being make such a mistake?

Moreoever, one of the names which Matthew omitted was none other than Jehoiakim, the father of Jehoiachin (AKA Coniah, AKA Jeconiah) who, as it happens, was also cursed of God. It is said of him that he would have no one to sit on the throne of David:

Jeremiah 36:30 Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. 31 And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not.

Moreover, his son Jehoiachin is also cursed along with his "seed," i.e., all his male descendants: "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and r sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." (Jer 22:30) Thus the curse on Jehoiakim is not just on his sons and servants, but on all his male descendants as well. How much more specific does "God" have to be to convince his Fundamentalist followers?

Some Fundamentalists argue that some of the names are often dropped in biblical genealogies because of the way some of these people behaved during their lives, being disobedient to God and such. This is mere opinion, i.e., an argument by assertion. If this was really the case, then why was Jeconiah included? He was disobedient and he was cursed by God. As the old adage goes: "Any port in a storm."

The adopted son quibble

Another quibble, and an even more incoherent one, is to state that Joseph provides the blood connection to David, but  that since Jesus was his adopted son, he is then not under the curse of kings Jehoiakim and Jeconiah, because he is not physically tied to them through Joseph. How convenient!

The problem with this puerile apologetic is that the Fundamentalits want to have their cake and eat it too. If Jesus is a legitimate son of David through Joseph, then he is also a legitimate recipient of the curse. If not, why not? As well, Luke lists Shealthiel (Salathiel) as Jesus' ancestor. Shealthiel happens to be the son of Jeconiah, who was cursed of God and told that none of his seed would prosper on David's throne.

If we admit, for the sake of argument, that Luke's genealogy is based on Mary, then Jesus is also under that curse because he is, of necessity, physically related to Mary, his mother. In this case, this silly "legitimate but not in the bloodline" defense of Fundamentalists is destroyed.

A word here about Luke's declaration that Shealtiel is the son of Neri. This name is nowhere associated with Salathiel in the OT scripture, but this doesn't stop Fundamentalists from dreaming up an apolgetic to try and stave off Sceptic's attacks on this blunder of Luke's. The following is what Esaton's Bible Dictionary has to say about Salathiel, the Hebrew spelling of Shealthiel.

Salathiel
"Whom I asked of God," the son of Jeconiah Mt 1:12 1Ch 3:17 also called the son of Neri Lu 3:27. The probable explanation of the apparent discrepancy is that he was the son of Neri, the descendant of Nathan, and thus heir to the throne of David on the death of Jeconiah (comp.) Jer 22:30

Conclusion

So what do we have here? We have a "genealogy" of Jesus which is based on a man who was not even related to him, Joseph. We have two kings included in this genealogy who were cursed by God and told that none of their descendants would sit on David's throne, thus disqualifying Joseph, or any of his sons, adopted or otherwise, from sitting thereupon. We have Matthew, under Holy Ghost "inspiration," telling us that there were exactly 42 generations (3 sets of 14) in this genealogy when we know full well there were more; and I haven't even gone into the differences between the genealogy of Matthew and that of Luke's. One has to wonder:

How can Jesus be Israel's Messiah and sit on David's throne when some of his alleged ancestors are said to have been cursed by God and told that none of their "seed" would sit and prosper on Israel's throne?

Why would an omniscient God inspire a writer to include a genealogy which is totally useless in proving that Jesus is David's son?

If Matthew was a Jew, then why did he even bother to include his genealogy, when he was supposed to know, being a Jew, that David's son was to be a physical descendant and not an adopted son who had cursed kings in his lineage?

Why does Matthew's genealogy have 42 (14x14x14) names when we know that there were more which he didn't write in, including Jehoiakim, another cursed king?

And finally, why are there two contradictory genealogies of Jesus?

The only honest conclusion one can come to is that this so-called "generation of Jesus Christ" is no such thing. This makes divine inspiration impossible if "God", who is alleged to have inspired it, is said to be omniscient. If Matthew was writing his gospel for Jews, as it is often claimed, then it's no wonder so many Jews, who know their Scriptures, rejected Jesus as Israel's Messiah.

-- BACK --