Hello Paul, and anyone else who can help me. At about minute 2:45 you refer to the legal genealogy documents being kept in the temple, can you reply with some historical references to these records being archived in the temple? I am searching for historical evidence to show that this teaching is true, I find many modern day commentators and pastors that repeat "The official genealogical records were kept in the temple" but I never hear any of them give historical evidence to show that this is true. Julius Africanus (160-240.a.d.) Does write about Herod destroying genealogical records but to the best of my knowledge the temple is not mentioned. Please understood my motive for asking, it is not to be antagonistic. I too am a bible teacher and I would love to share with the study group that anyone before the destruction of the temple could go to it to verify Matthew's genealogical record of Jesus Christ. But I need evidence that this is accurate before teaching it. Thanks
Confused...How will Jesus come from the loins of David through Joseph? Unless, that is, the genealogy leads to Mary, Jesus's mother, from David. Being that God forgives us all so wouldn't Jesus be born to the least worthy of us to show His Truth...The Jew's blood leads to Cain. They were the Canaanites.
@@itiswritten9423 Oh. I was wondering about Joseph's lineage. Can't really fine info about it. Didn't realize Joseph was in the line of David. If you have info on a video I can watch let me know.
this was a direct Geneology through Mary, not Joseph. even though Joseph, Mary's husband also was descended from King David). The correct translation is "father of Mary(not husband). If the “Joseph” in Matthew 1:16 was the father of Mary, not her husband, then there would be 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, just like Scripture says there is: 1) Shealtiel, 2) Zerubbabel, 3) Abiud, 4) Eliakim, 5) Azor, 6) Zadok, 7) Akim, 8) Eliud, 9) Eleazar, 10) Mattan, 11) Jacob, 12) Joseph (the father of Mary), 13) Mary, 14) Jesus. That Matthew contains Mary’s genealogy and Luke contains Joseph’s genealogy makes sense because Mary’s genealogy in Matthew does not mention Joseph, her husband, who was not part of her genealogy anyway, nor does Joseph’s genealogy in Luke mention Mary, who had nothing to do with his genealogy. In Mary’s genealogy in Matthew, four other women are mentioned, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “Uriah’s wife,” emphasizing the role that women play in a genealogy. Joseph’s genealogy in Luke does not include any women but does include two of his ancestors who were also named Joseph. There is still one important thing to resolve. Most versions translate Matthew 1:16 to say that Joseph was the “husband” of Mary, not the “father” of Mary. However, we believe that “husband” is a mistranslation. The Greek word translated “husband” is aner, and means an adult male. Usually when aner is used with the phrase “of [a woman’s name], such as in “Joseph, the aner of Mary,” it refers to the woman’s husband. But there is good evidence that in this verse aner should be translated “father.” First, translating it “husband” creates a contradiction in the Word of God because then there are not 14 generations from Babylon to Christ. Second, it creates a confusing situation in the Word because both Matthew and Luke then refer to Joseph’s genealogy, such that Joseph ends up with two different fathers. Thankfully, the Aramaic text of Matthew has good evidence that Matthew 1:16 should read “father.” In the Greek text, both Matthew 1:16 and 1:19 use the word aner (“man” or “husband”). Matthew 1:19 clearly refers to Joseph as the “husband” of Mary because it speaks of Joseph thinking of divorcing her. However, the Aramaic text of Matthew does not use the same word in Matthew 1:16 and 1:19, but has two different words, and thus makes a distinction between the two men. In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is gavra, which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband,” while in Matthew 1:19 the word is bala, which is “man” or “husband.” Thus the Aramaic text preserves the truth that there is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16, the “mighty man” of Mary, and the “Joseph” of verse 19, the “husband” of Mary. Once we realize that “Joseph” is the name of both the father and the husband of Mary, the Word of God fits together perfectly. Both the genealogies of Mary and Joseph are in the Bible so that everyone could see they were both descendants of David and thus Jesus was indeed, “the Son of David.” Scripture also shows in other places that both Joseph and Mary are from David (Joseph: Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4. Mary: Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3). Luke contains the genealogy of Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph, and never mentions Mary, who was not part of Joseph’s genealogy. Matthew contains the genealogy of Jesus through his mother Mary, and never mentions her husband Joseph. Joseph has two ancestors also named Joseph in his genealogy, while four other women are included in Mary’s genealogy. Last but not least, the three sets of fourteen generations mentioned in Matthew are all complete when we realize Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is Mary’s father.
Dustin Hoover Yes, interesting isn’t it. In a way, he is not a descendent of David, only through “adoption”. (Joseph is legally his father, but indeed as Christians believe, not physically).
Dustin Hoover Hi Dustin you ask the same question I am asking. I found a genealogy of Jesus that Mary had a father who was a descendant of king David through the line of King Solomon her father was also called Joseph. So Mary was in reality a descendant of David so her son Jesus inherited his grandfather’s genealogy.
i could listen to you teach all day long. excellent.
Best explanation I have heard... Praise the Lord
Outstanding!!
Hello Paul, and anyone else who can help me.
At about minute 2:45 you refer to the legal genealogy documents being kept in the temple, can you reply with some historical references to these records being archived in the temple?
I am searching for historical evidence to show that this teaching is true, I find many modern day commentators and pastors that repeat "The official genealogical records were kept in the temple" but I never hear any of them give historical evidence to show that this is true. Julius Africanus (160-240.a.d.) Does write about Herod destroying genealogical records but to the best of my knowledge the temple is not mentioned.
Please understood my motive for asking, it is not to be antagonistic. I too am a bible teacher and I would love to share with the study group that anyone before the destruction of the temple could go to it to verify Matthew's genealogical record of Jesus Christ. But I need evidence that this is accurate before teaching it.
Thanks
Matthew says Mary's geealogy
Luka says joshep s genealogy
David is the archtype of the Messiah and Abraham is the archtype of the Father (GOD)!
If it can't be read literally the ain't that something
Confused...How will Jesus come from the loins of David through Joseph? Unless, that is, the genealogy leads to Mary, Jesus's mother, from David. Being that God forgives us all so wouldn't Jesus be born to the least worthy of us to show His Truth...The Jew's blood leads to Cain. They were the Canaanites.
Mary is also from the tribe of David
@@itiswritten9423 Yes I know that. But Joseph? It wasn't from his sperm. That was my question. :)
@@cccarter9858
But Joseph was his adoptive father and since both Joseph and Mary are from the David line, then Jesus is from David's line
@@itiswritten9423 Oh. I was wondering about Joseph's lineage. Can't really fine info about it. Didn't realize Joseph was in the line of David. If you have info on a video I can watch let me know.
this was a direct Geneology through Mary, not Joseph. even though Joseph, Mary's husband also was descended from King David). The correct translation is "father of Mary(not husband). If the “Joseph” in Matthew 1:16 was the father of Mary, not her husband, then there would be 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, just like Scripture says there is: 1) Shealtiel, 2) Zerubbabel, 3) Abiud, 4) Eliakim, 5) Azor, 6) Zadok, 7) Akim, 8) Eliud, 9) Eleazar, 10) Mattan, 11) Jacob, 12) Joseph (the father of Mary), 13) Mary, 14) Jesus.
That Matthew contains Mary’s genealogy and Luke contains Joseph’s genealogy makes sense because Mary’s genealogy in Matthew does not mention Joseph, her husband, who was not part of her genealogy anyway, nor does Joseph’s genealogy in Luke mention Mary, who had nothing to do with his genealogy. In Mary’s genealogy in Matthew, four other women are mentioned, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and “Uriah’s wife,” emphasizing the role that women play in a genealogy. Joseph’s genealogy in Luke does not include any women but does include two of his ancestors who were also named Joseph.
There is still one important thing to resolve. Most versions translate Matthew 1:16 to say that Joseph was the “husband” of Mary, not the “father” of Mary. However, we believe that “husband” is a mistranslation. The Greek word translated “husband” is aner, and means an adult male. Usually when aner is used with the phrase “of [a woman’s name], such as in “Joseph, the aner of Mary,” it refers to the woman’s husband. But there is good evidence that in this verse aner should be translated “father.” First, translating it “husband” creates a contradiction in the Word of God because then there are not 14 generations from Babylon to Christ. Second, it creates a confusing situation in the Word because both Matthew and Luke then refer to Joseph’s genealogy, such that Joseph ends up with two different fathers.
Thankfully, the Aramaic text of Matthew has good evidence that Matthew 1:16 should read “father.” In the Greek text, both Matthew 1:16 and 1:19 use the word aner (“man” or “husband”). Matthew 1:19 clearly refers to Joseph as the “husband” of Mary because it speaks of Joseph thinking of divorcing her. However, the Aramaic text of Matthew does not use the same word in Matthew 1:16 and 1:19, but has two different words, and thus makes a distinction between the two men. In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is gavra, which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband,” while in Matthew 1:19 the word is bala, which is “man” or “husband.” Thus the Aramaic text preserves the truth that there is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16, the “mighty man” of Mary, and the “Joseph” of verse 19, the “husband” of Mary.
Once we realize that “Joseph” is the name of both the father and the husband of Mary, the Word of God fits together perfectly. Both the genealogies of Mary and Joseph are in the Bible so that everyone could see they were both descendants of David and thus Jesus was indeed, “the Son of David.” Scripture also shows in other places that both Joseph and Mary are from David (Joseph: Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4. Mary: Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3). Luke contains the genealogy of Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph, and never mentions Mary, who was not part of Joseph’s genealogy. Matthew contains the genealogy of Jesus through his mother Mary, and never mentions her husband Joseph. Joseph has two ancestors also named Joseph in his genealogy, while four other women are included in Mary’s genealogy. Last but not least, the three sets of fourteen generations mentioned in Matthew are all complete when we realize Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is Mary’s father.
So Jesus is legally descended from Joseph? But not physically since he was born of a virgin?
Dustin Hoover Yes, interesting isn’t it. In a way, he is not a descendent of David, only through “adoption”. (Joseph is legally his father, but indeed as Christians believe, not physically).
IngeChristine do you by any chance know how that correlated with numbers 1:2 and the clan laws? Was adoption considered legal clan rights to tribe?
R Z hi
Can you unpack that?
Dustin Hoover Hi Dustin you ask the same question I am asking. I found a genealogy of Jesus that Mary had a father who was a descendant of king David through the line of King Solomon her father was also called Joseph. So Mary was in reality a descendant of David so her son Jesus inherited his grandfather’s genealogy.
IngeChristine I think adoption is relevant to the character of God in relation to mankind and their opting out off his will