Saturday, September 13, 2014

Luke's genealogy

Matthew's focus is on the royal throne succession (he follows the OT list of the kings of Judah down to the exile), whereas Luke traces Joseph's ancestry not through Solomon the king but through another son of David who did not become king. Is Luke's then more a biological genealogy, as against an official throne list presented by Matthew, the two lists coming together briefly in Shealtiel and Zerubbabel and then again with Joseph? R. T. France, Luke (Baker 2013), 57. 


  1. It was Mary's genealogy. Who has Luke been talking about previously? Just because "Joseph" is stated, it reflects what was supposed in the normal course in the culture. Luke lists the physical descent from Adam, a necessity for representation (substitution). To fulfill Gen. 3.15, Christ needed to be uniquely 'born of a woman' as opposed to male and female. This is one of the 'proofs' that Paul notes in Gal. 4.4: the Savior needed to be of the physical line of David and also virgin born according to Gen. 3.15.

    This may go against Federal Headship but ultimately a Natural and Representative scheme are not mutually exclusive.

  2. The kingly line of David through Mary is what I had previously work to understand the difficulties. So Jesus had a king line of inheritance through Joseph and Mary. Because of the sins of Jehoiachin in Jeremiah 22:28-30, this line direct line of decedents was cursed not to be king again.

    Verse 30 This is what the Lord says:
    “Record this man as if childless,
    a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
    for none of his offspring will prosper,
    none will sit on the throne of David
    or rule anymore in Judah.”

    So Jesus is the adopted son of the Kingly line and also has a decent though an uncle, by Nathan also of the kingly line but not cursed.
    I like the arguments marked by (4.)

    In finish, Jesus was of the Davidic line.

    Your post testifies to this truth, but does not spell it out.
    It is titled "Luke's Genealogy" , is "biological genealogy".

    I like that Christian people will take the sense of the truth and be blessed by it. Others who are controverts, get hung up on simple definitions. Our God brings truth to the nations! Epistemology vs. Revelation.

    1. Some, like Michael Brown, argue that the curse was reversed.

      Objection 5.12. “Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is a descendant of King Jehoiachin. God cursed both this king and his offspring, saying that none of his descendants would ever sit on the throne of David.”

      Answer: “There are some Bible teachers who argue that only Jesus is qualified to be the Messiah because of the curse on Jehoiachin. In other words, it is argued that the Messiah should have come through the royal line of Jehoiachin but that king’s descendants were disqualified from sitting on the throne. Therefore, it is only through the virgin birth that the curse of Jehoiachin’s descendants can be bypassed. In reality, however, there is no need to raise this argument, since the curse on Jehoiachin may only have referred to his own sons and, more importantly, the Hebrew Bible gives strong indications that he repented and the curse was reversed. This understanding of the text is actually confirmed by Rabbinic tradition.” (See Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 4, pp. 97-102)

  3. In his commentary on Matthew, France makes the further observation that "royal lines can sometimes differ from strict paternal succession where, for instance, a royal figure is childless or the eldest son proves unsuitable so that succession passes to a brother or nephew or some less immediately related member of the wider family" (33).