Discerning Bible readers may notice some differences in the genealogy of Jesus when studying Matthew 1 compared to Luke 3. But what do these differences mean, and more importantly, what did they mean to someone who may have read the text thousands of years ago? In this video, Frank explains why we can still say that the Bible is inerrant despite these variations. Check it out!
???? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? (????????????-????????????????????????????????????????) ????
? Website: https://crossexamined.org/donate/
? PayPal: https://bit.ly/Support_CrossExamined_PayPal
???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????
? Facebook: https://facebook.com/CrossExamined.org
? Twitter: https://twitter.com/Frank_Turek
? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drfrankturek/
? Pinterest: https://pin.it/JF9h0nA
????? ???????????????????????????????????? ?????
? Website: https://crossexamined.org
? Store: https://impactapologetics.com/
? Online Courses: https://www.onlinechristiancourses.com/
????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ?????
? iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
? Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
? Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
? Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#Skeptics #QuestionsAboutTheBible #InerrantBible #Bible #Christianity #Christians #Apologetics #Theology #Apologetics #CrossExamined #DrFrankTurek #QuestionsAndAnswers #CrossExaminingIdeasAgainstTheTruthOfChristianity
The geneologies in Matthew & Luke do not conflict or contradict. They are of Mary & Joseph. The genealogical list in Matthew, from David to Jacob-Heli (spanning about 1000 years), contains 27 generations of 40 years each, so as to comply with the 40 year royal generational standard. Luke, on the other hand, gives 40 generations of a more comprehensible 25 years each. Hence, Luke places Jesus in the 20th generation from Zerubbabel, whereas Matthew places him in the 11th generation from Zerubbabel. SUMMARY: Matthew--27 generation of 40 years from Solomon. Patriarchal-- Zerubbabel's father's line. Luke--40 generations of 25 years from Nathan. Matriarchal--Zerubbabel's mother's line. Solomon and Nathan were both sons of David. Their lines converge at Zerubbabel and then diverge. Zerubbabel had two sons, Abiud and Rhesa. Matthew goes from Abiud, Mary' line. Luke goes from Rhesa, Joseph's line. Also, Mary and Joseph were related. Joseph was Mary's great-aunt Gadat's son. Mary's mother was Hannah. Her father was Joachim, the Elias Patriarch. Joseph's mother was Gadat. His father was Heli the Jacob Patriarch. His community distinction was 'Jacob'. His title was 'Jacob', so he would be called Jacob-Heli. Joachim's mother was Sabartia (Sabrath). Joachim's father was Matthat the Zadok. Heli's father was Matthan (descended from Mattathias (Tobias), the Temple governor.
@BigGoy101 Says:
The reason the genealogy is different is because its made up by the authors.
@COSMOS_AND_SUPER_ULTRA_MIND Says:
☝👏👏👏👏👏👍👍
@elestir Says:
Both of the genealogies are of Joseph and although they differ, they are at the same time both correct. How is that possible you ask? Answer is simple, yet shocking. There were two different Josephs (and also two different Marys and Jesus children). This explanation also solves many other seeming discrepancies between Matthew and Luke (such as only Matthew speaking about flight to Egypt, and only Luke speaking about census taking place, but there are more).
@sethsz3577 Says:
The potential answer to this question lies in Deuteronomy 25:5-10
@ajgibson1307 Says:
God bless
@ManKzin Says:
The first time someone asked me about I knew that one was Mary's and the other Joseph's, kinda common sense. Plus it explains why one has more people than the other one, which is due to timing of birthday from generation to generation. I think I was a teenager when someone tried to get me on that one. 😅
@Charles-tv6oi Says:
Didn't one of Joseph's genealogy somehow threw some traditional law cross over , or so? Not really into this yet. Bible says not to focus on things more than law n obeying
@Charles-tv6oi Says:
No. See InspiringPhylosophy
@jesusjosedech883 Says:
Amen ✝️🛐❤️🙏
@samuelcallai4209 Says:
ok, terrible
@morielrorschach8090 Says:
Well... he started off with a functional and rational answer... and then just backpeddled.
Luke traces tribal genealogy through his adopted father Joseph. He wasn't a biological father, but he still a member of the tribe of Judah because tribal identity relates his father's tribe. "... being, as was commonly held, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli..."
Matthew traces his biological genealogy through Mary. This one's a bit tricky because verse 16 is mistranslated "Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born." The phrase "Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας" "Ton Andra" is being used like the the Hebrew "ish." It just means "The man of," which can indeed refer to one's husband, OR it can refer to one's father. This is Jacob, who fathered Joseph the FATHER of Mary... Not the same Joseph the husband of Mary. Two different people with the same common name.
.... And these are probably literal generations, not skipping around generations "Because... uhhh... the number 14 means... something?"
Yes, the number of generations is different. They share a lineage through Judah and David. There were 41 generations between David and Joseph (Jesus' adoptive father), and 27 generations between David and Mary.
That may LOOK like a huge difference... but it's really not all that much, when you do the math. David lived about 1000 years before Jesus. Down Joseph's line, 41 generations means the average age of each father when THAT child was born was 25. Down Mary's line, 27 generations means the average age of each father when THAT child was born was 37. Perhaps down David's line had a lot more "first born sons" and down Mary's line had a lot of "younger sons." both are totally believable.
@blade5819 Says:
I want to offer help on the two genealogies: Mathew's genealogy talks about Joseph and shows his legal lineage (If he married Mary his legal son was Jesus, it might not work like that in today's world but it did then !Joseph is not biologically related to Jesus!) Luke's lineage goes further to show the Human lineage (if you look at genesis you will find no mention of Cainan son of Arphaxed but in Luke you do, there is more info on why Cainan isn't in genesis but basically he restarted idolatry and was excluded from any mention, this is fine detail by Luke to show the human lineage precisely, now Luke's genealogy *MUST* be Mary's. Why? for starters if you trace both lineages back to King David you notice each lineage splits into David's *two sons* Nathan and Soloman, so logically this cannot be the same genealogy; secondly, the law was so to not mention woman in inheritance, an old testament law told that if a man did not have a legal son, his daughter's husband would be his legal inheritance, e.g Joseph-Mary's husband. These 2 genealogies give Jesus a double claim to the throne of David. feel free to ask questions.
@josephvacanti Says:
Is it possible that the genealogy in Matthew's gospel was put there to prove that Jesus could NOT have a royal ancestry through Joseph's line back to David, because of the presence of Jeconiah in that genealogy, Jeconiah having been cursed by God, so that none of Jeconiah's descendants would ever sit on the throne of Israel (Jeremiah 22:28-30), thus making the point that Joseph's line was NOT an unbroken royal line that could validate Jesus' right to the throne? Such would allow us not only to dismiss any concern about Joseph not being Jesus' biological father but would force the reader to focus on God being Jesus' Father because we would know to depend solely on the genealogy that lacks Jeconiah's inclusion as well as any connection to Joseph, the genealogy in Luke's gospel which traces the line of The Second Adam, through His mother, straight back to The First Adam, naming Jesus' true Father, God, as the Father of the First Adam and therefore of the entire line.
@incredulouspasta3304 Says:
I'm confused about which genealogy is supposed to be Mary's? They both trace through Joseph.
_"and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah."_ - Matthew 1:16
_"He (Jesus) was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat..."_ - Luke 3:23
@1962mrpaul Says:
His first point is flat out wrong. BOTH blood lines trace Joseph’s lineage. Matthew 1:16 “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.”
Luke 3:23 “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,”.
That Matthew and Luke have different theological agendas (Turek’s 3rd point) is closer to the bullseye.
@KeyVyers Says:
One of the genealogies is of Mary's family line and the other is from Joseph's yes that's common sense bud
@bereananalytics6789 Says:
For being so smart, why is stupidity still reigning? Read Eusebius. NOT Marys bloodline!
@Christian_Maoist. Says:
Norman Gissler.... The guy who went after Mike Licona's job because he thought the story of the saints in Matthew was a metaphor? What a joke
@YehoshuaNarratives Says:
Truth cannot be hidden!
@markhorton3994 Says:
One problem with your argument. Both genealogies are the line of Joseph. Your claim that one is Mary's ancestry is mistaken. The only reference to Mary's ancestry that I know of is the her (distant?) cousin Elizabeth is " of the daughters of Aaron" Luke 1:5 ie a Levite and beyond that daughter of a priest.
Mathew 1:16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Luke 3:23 And Jesus Himself began to be about 30 years old being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli
I use the KJV for wider acceptance.
Your analysis that the two genealogies are included for different purposes and in accordance to practice of the time not necessarily complete is, of course, correct. (just my opinion, I have no formal relevant training and absolutely no authority)
@briemuss05 Says:
I’ve never understood the problem here. We all have 2 genealogies and they are both obviously different. 🤦🏼♂️
@NewCreationInChrist896 Says:
Resurrect Rapture LORD Resurrect Rapture.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 👑
@layeekromah4799 Says:
I'd like to add to the genealogy answer. Tracing the earthly bloodline from Mary and Joseph proves our Lord Jesus has a double claim over the throne of David. Thus, He's called the son of David.
@dontdoitbro5495 Says:
this is what happens when the internet discredits your tribesman bible and u have to spend the rest of ur life being cognitively dissonant
@antichrist_revealed Says:
You used the wrong term in your title. Jesus does not posses the lineage or genealogy. He was not the son of Joseph. You should have stated Jesus's and not Jesus'.
@sierraclark6129 Says:
Jesus Christ is waiting for you with His arms open wide!😁
@sleepe361 Says:
I think when you really put thought into the fact that when God flooded the earth the last time. And only 8 people survived it by the the salvation of God regardless of who anyone is or think they are or who you think or see anyone friendsor family literally it's God over all even myself. It puts everything in perspective in how it's not that hard to see how many people are gonna be deceived by someone else or by themselves if they don't come to truly know God genuinely and you see this right now from a spiritual perspective and understanding in Christ who we are in him and who we are or were without him before being saved. Because it's only genuinely by the holy spirit that anyone can and will have spiritual discernment,understanding and the genuine work of the holy spirit in a person.
@sleepe361 Says:
Sometimes i genuinely feel as if to many people spend more time and effort on trying to solve who God is and trying to find answers and run around in their own intelligence searching for understanding that i believe only show's a person by the holy spirit if you're truly and genuinely regenerate spiritually in Christ i believe what he wants you to know spiritually is revealed to a person as they are growing and being taught by the holy spirit through sanctification truly it is a real work by the holy spirit in a person. That i question sometimes when a person is supposedly a person if God but you see that they are struggling to understand certain things spiritually,but yet claiming to be saved? But don't see the fruits of the spirit in certain people and they don't know it or see it themselves. I see alot of people who are very intelligent and have a very good understanding from a academic perspective but not so much from a spiritual perspective and i truly believe that's a huge deceiving problem with alot of people and they don't notice it. True spiritual growth in sanctification is truly only by the holy spirit. This is why the apostles we're looked at as ignorant people and not intelligent people and probably weren't as the king's and rulers in a worldy sense or depend on theirow understanding,but were wise in God and had understanding by the spiritual power of God literally,and that's all that matters. God Over Everything!!
@sleepe361 Says:
How does anyone know who in these comments are brothers and sisters in Christ genuinely?? Or is that just another thing said like the word love and just say it and use it however you think feels and think love is??...
@tsapp2831 Says:
The genealogy is not a contradiction either. The blood curse from Jeremiah 22 is closely tied to this issue. In fact, when we examine closely the blood curse on the royal line, the virgin birth becomes a requirement. Notice that the genealogy given in Luke comes down through Heli, who is the father-in-law of Joseph. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is of the House and lineage of David: of the House of David legally, and of the lineage by blood. That lineage is not the bloodline through Solomon, but through Nathan, the second surviving son of David and Bathsheba. In other words, Luke takes a left turn and goes to another son—not Solomon, but Nathan. There is some amazing hidden message in the genealogy here as well as Genesis chapter 5 . Here you go.
Adam= man
Seth= appointed
Enosh= mortal
Kenan= sorrow (but)
Mahalalel = The Blessed God
Jared = shall come down
Enoch= teaching
Methuselah= his death shall bring
Lamech= the despairing
Noah = comfort rest. Written by Chuck missler.
@oreally8605 Says:
Atheisum: Deciving billions and Making the world 🌎 a better place to go to Hell from.
@ME911119 Says:
This does not answer the question. That is sad.
@ME911119 Says:
What an straight up lie. The son jacob who begotten joseph is tracing the bloodline of mary???????? What does the bloodline of mary have to do with that geneology.
@Glorious716 Says:
✝️❤️🔥🙏🏽
@falsehoodexterminator2336 Says:
Different genealogies mean historical errancy of the New Testament. If God is perfect then how can he inspire different people with different accounts of history? Did he forget? This isn’t the only problem in the Bible. There are literally countless issues like this.
So in conclusion, The New Testament has nothing to do with God or his message. It was written by unknown men and/or women to control masses and make money off of them by implementing tithe.
@nothingbutthetruth613 Says:
It's so amazing how apologists will consistently avoid this huge problem. There are so many problems with this. The point of the genealogies was to show how jesus came from David. Neither genealogy shows this. Mary's line comes from Nathan according to Luke and the bible is clear it will go through Solomon, not Nathan. So Mary's line is automatically disqualified. That is besides the fact that it doesn't go through the mother, but the father. As far as Joseph's line, we know you Jacaniah was cursed and no descendant of his will be the messiah. Well, that also disqualifies Joseph's line. That of course besides the fact that tribal affiliation never comes through a father who adopted you, but from your birth father as is clear from Numbers. Therefore, jesus, who supposedly had no father let alone one who comes from David, can obviously not be the messiah. But let's even put aside all these issues and ask a more fundamental question. If they are 2 different lineages, why do we need to know both of them? How can anyone believe this is not a blatant contradiction?
@legologos2980 Says:
If you want your mind really blown understand that there is actually four genealogies given….one for each gospel. Matthew Give Jesus’s lineage back to David to show he is the son of David and king. Mark gives the lineage of a servant. He was the suffering servant and you don’t care about the lineage of a servant. Luke gives his lineage all the way back to Adam to show that he is the son of man and second Adam. And John gives his lineage as deity showing He is the Son of God…..NOTE: The reason for the distinction between Mary’s line and Joseph’s…..Jeconiah was cursed by God for his evil deeds and his seed would never sit on the throne of David. So when it gives Joseph’s lineage it highlights the fact that his blood never sits the throne. This is a fulfillment of prophecy. But Jesus As the adopted son has all rights as the firstborn and eldest even though he was adopted by Joseph. If you want a further trip transliterate all the names in order as they are given and he will see an entire history of salvation.
@legologos2980 Says:
If you wanna blow your mind even more there’s actually four genealogies given one per gospel. Matthew gives Krauss genealogy showing that he is king. And the son of David. Mark gives his genealogy as a servant you don’t care about a servants genealogy. Luke killed his genealogy as a man all the way back to Adam showing is the second Adam and Son of man. And John gives his lineage as deity.
@Matthew_Holton Says:
It means the authors of Matthew and Luke did not compare notes. They both draw heavily from Mark, but obviously not from one another otherwise they would have not made such a mistake in their fictional story creation..
@Rood67 Says:
The other point between Matthew and Luke is to whom they were written to / for.
We sit and look at the “four Gospels” of Jesus; however 2,000 years ago; these were aimed at specific groups of people.
Imagine explaining a computer in a few notes to one’s grandparents vs giving CPU, RAM, and GPU specs to a fellow geek gamer.
Or, explaining wine as this is sweet like the grape juice Baptist use for communion vs this is like drinking sand paper but if you swish it around a bit you can pick up subtle hints of oak and muskrat urine to a wine snob.
The genealogy listed is different because Matthew is tracing back through Joseph to David and Luke is tracing through Mary back to David. Then both continue back to Adam. Again written to different groups of people. If you won’t accept Jesus through Joseph’s ties to David, we’ll here’s His ties through Mary.
@essequamvideri Says:
🙏🇺🇲🙏🌍
@babhag5481 Says:
Dear Christians, please advise...
Who's biological father of Jesus...?
Joseph definitely is not, correct?
Tribal line passes down through the biological father only.
Joseph has no effectual paternity to Christ
Jesus was Jewish because his mother was Jewish but the mother is not considered for tribal line. It’s the law.
There is no biblical evidence that Mary was of David’s line but it wouldn’t matter anyway. Just her Jewishness counts.
@kinggenius930 Says:
There are plenty of things in the Bible that show it is not inerrant
@DTH1661 Says:
Shalom and blessings. Just to add to Frank's mention of the number 14 in the genealogy in Matthew 1. If you look at Matthew 1:17 it mentions 'David' and generations. The Hebrew letters Dalet Vat Dalet (DaViD) have the numerical values of 6, 4 and 6 adding up to 14. Confirming Yeshua's lineage with Kind David and the tribe of Yehudah. The beauty of the word of YHWH. Every blessing.
@colinmatts Says:
Does the holy spirit have DNA?
@OdiiAriwodo Says:
Agreed. A son-in-law is even today in some cultures treated exactly as if he is a son. In Numbers 27:1-11, a man who had no sons would be inherited by his daughter(s). However, so that that inheritance would not be lost to his clan or tribe, his daughter(s) would marry their clansmen or tribesmen to keep it in the family. It's easy enough to see that both lineages in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 diverge after David, so they were still in the same Tribe of Judah and clan of David the King. It may be that what happened was that Joseph married Mary to keep her father's inheritance within the tribe according to the law. If he did so, the inheritance would be under his name rather than hers. That is, as is still the case in many cultures today, he would be treated as the legal heir to Mary's father. That is what is reflected in the genealogies. Rather than Mary's name, we would find Joseph's. As to which genealogy was the legal one and which was the natural one for Joseph, the context of each genealogy suggests that the natural one for Joseph was the Matthew 1 one since the story was being told about him and the one in Luke 3 was the legal one since it was telling the story of Mary specifically.
@hmmm3232 Says:
He should listen to Tovia Singer. He clears up Matthew pretty well. 😉
LATEST COMMENTS