Why is Luke’s genealogy different from Matthew’s?
The most common answer is that Luke gave a genealogy to validate Yeshua’s lineage apart from the curse of Jehoiakim. Louis A Barbieri makes the case ‘If Jesus had been a physical descendant of Jeconiah, He would not be able to occupy David’s throne.’ Is this really why? Barbieri continues “Of particular interest is the inclusion of Jeconiah (v 11) of whom Jeremiah said, “Record this man as if childless” (Jer. 22:30) This is further compounded by Rabbi Barney Kasdan’s statement “A strong notable detail is the inclusion of Y’khanyahu (Jeconiah, also known as Coniah or Jecoiachin) in verse 11.” This common position by the Christian community could not make the Anti-missionary posistion any stronger. Is Luke responding to the anti-missionary argument that Yosef’s (Joseph) genealogy is invalid?
Note: Anti-missionaries: Groups or Individuals within the Jewish Community that are trained to create doubt and confusion within the Messianic and Christian world by exploiting the ignorance they have regarding the Hebrew of the texts and Judaism. The activities of Tovia Singer and groups such as Yad L’Achim and Chabad have been very disruptive. Looking at Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 there are two lineages. So was Luke aware of a anti-missionary argument? What is this anti-missionary argument?
- Gerald Segal makes the usual claim. He points to Jeremiah 22:24-30
[As] I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;
He makes the argument that Yeshua is disqualified from the throne because of
a. the curse placed upon יְהוֹיָקִים Jehoiakim, and
b. that the Luke genealogy is invalid because the royal line cannot go through a woman. -reply (2) are you saying that royal heirs cannot have a mother?
This is not what the Babylonian Talmud indicates:
A. R. Hanina says this is derived from the following: And the women her neighbours, gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi.28 Was it then Naomi who bore him? Surely it was Ruth who bore him! But Ruth bore and Naomi brought him up; hence he was called after her [Naomi’s] name. — Tractate Sanhedrin 19b Ruth IV, 17.
B. There are a number of references to foster/stepmothers in the Bible. The Talmud in Tractate Megillah informs us that a verse in the Book of Chronicles, “…his Jewish wife who gave birth to Yered…” is referring to Batya who “gave birth” to Moshe (Moses). The Talmud explains that she is credited with having given birth to him because she raised him. “One who raises a male or female orphan in his [her] home, is credited as if he [she] they gave birth to him [her].” —– http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/17/Q1/
Perhaps it would be best to say that Judaism recognizes all cases of adoption as foster-parenting. Taking someone else’s child into you own home and treating them as your own child is considered a most praiseworthy act. And in a strictly metaphorical (non-legal) sense the Gemara [Sanhedrin 19b] states that anyone who brings up an orphan in his household is considered as if he were the father of the child (just as the biblical Naomi is considered as the “mother” of the son of Ruth and Boaz [see Ruth 4:16-17]). http://www.bmv.org.il/Shiurim/sanhedrin/san116.html
The anti-missionaries argue out of both sides of their mouths. They argue that the Curse invalidates Yeshua’s claim while they look for a Messiah from the line of David. To be blunt either the curse broke the line or it did not. They can’t have it both ways.
Most if not all Christian scholars point to Luke as a circumvention of the problem. Is this the case? Is the burden of proof on the apologists for Yeshua? Christian scholars think so, they write often about the problem. But is it a problem?
‘One apparent discrepancy in the accounts involves the family lineage of Yeshua. There are two genealogies of Christ given in the Bible. Upon examination they appear to contradict.’ This apparent contradition that is pointed out by Josh McDowell in the following statement: “However, the one listed in Matthew is that of Joseph and the one in Luke is that of Mary. 30/37 Since Joseph was descended from Jechonias, Jesus could not rightly claim the throne (see Jeremiah 22:30; Coniah, Jechonias, II Kings 24, and Jechonias in Matthew 1:11 are the same person). However, the lineage of Mary does not include Jechonias, and since Joseph did not father Jesus.”
Who should be called to prove this accusation?
What does the scripture say?
II Kings 24:6 – ‘and his son reigned in his sted.’ What son? What about the curse?
Matthew 1:11 reads ‘Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers..’ Which son are we talking about?
This is the problem:
Jeremiah 22:24 Shoresh הוה
Mazoretic LXX (N)KJV Vulgata Targum Matt. 1:11
כָּניָהוּ IeconiaV Coniah Iechonias כָניָה Ieconian
I Chronicles 3:16 Shoresh כון
יְכָנְיָה IeconiaV Jeconiah Iechonias יְכָנְיָה Ieconian
II Kings 24:6
יהוֹיָכִין Iwakim Jehoiachin Ioiachin יְהוֹיָכִין Note:
Note: Ruled after his father II Chronicles 36:8 from the age of 8 יהוֹיָכִין
People stopped paying attention to the Hebrew texts and focused on the translations is the first problem. The second is that the LXX and the Vulgate are so messed up. There are 3 named sons of יְהוֹיָקִים Jehoiakim. The LXX could not tell them apart The Matthew translations are the same.
Jeremiah 22:24 says ‘…though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim..’ is the problem. The curse is placed on כָּניָהוּ Coniah (the son of Jehoiakim) not Jehoiakim! Its כָּניָהוּ (Coniah) not Jehoiakim that is the issue. The prophet Jeremiah pronounced a curse (Jeremiah 22:30) upon כָּניָהוּ Coniah. Is this the case? was/is Coniah written as childless? His name appears 3 times in Scripture [ Jeremiah 22:24, 28, and 37:1] in each case no children are named. So Jeremiah is correct.
Now is Coniah the son of Jehoiakim? – Yes Jeremiah 22:24.
Thus Jehoiakim is not to be written as childless.
Who are the sons of Jehoiakim? I want to propose that the ‘ וּבְנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים ‘ sons of Jehoiakim are the sons of Jehoiakim in I Chronicles 3:16
1Ch 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: יְכָנְיָה Jeconiah his son, צִדְקִיָהוּ Zedekiah his son.
Why is this important – ‘written as childless’? Jehoiakim is childless? – where is this curse in I Chronicles 3
Jeconiah (son of Jehoiakim) is listed 7 times in scripture, 4 times as the son of Jehoiakim
Jeconiah’s children are listed sons of Jeconiah, all 8 of them I Chronicles 3:17-18 by name and the number of times mentioned below the name.
Assir, Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, Nedabiah
1 9 1 3 1 1 1 1
The son of Shealtiel is Zerubbabel -mentioned 22 times in Scripture.
It doesn’t sound like the LORD had Jehoiakim or Jeconiah as ‘written as childless’.
The question there is are יְכָנְיָה and כָּניָהוּ the same person?
The Shoreshim of these 2 names are different.
Two obvious points:
a. No verse in Scripture states that they are the same person.
b. One has his children listed and one does not.
The one that has no children listed (written as childless, per the curse) is OF Jehoiakim – that is the only connection. And that person is NOT the one listed in either the gospels genealogies. יְכָנְיָה is in Matthew’s record v1:12 כָּניָהוּ is not in v.12
You would think that the curse in place on the one that has children names withheld from being written and that is neither Jehoiakim or Jeconiah יְכָנְיָה . The only one left is Coniah כָּניָהוּ who is not in the list of genealogies. So why do Christian scholars get so defensive? Why should this bother the Messianic community? Why are there 9,500 hits on Google regarding the contradictions between Matthew and Luke’s genealogies?
Why has no one challenged this consensus?
Because they can’t read? Look – Can’t distinguish יְכָנְיָה from כָּניָהוּ
The LORD could distinguish because HE pronounced HIS judgement that Coniah would be replaced in the royal line. Jeremiah 37:1 says: – English
And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah. -KJV
The text is clear:
וַיִּמְלָךְ־מֶלֶךְ צִדְקִיָּהוּ בֶּן־יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ תַּחַת כָּנְיָהוּ בֶּן־יְהוֹיָקִים אֲשֶׁר הִמְלִיךְ נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶל בְּאֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה
Even if they are the same person Hagai 2:23 indicates that by Zerubbabel the signet ring is restored to a descendant of David who is mentioned in the lineage of Yeshua by Matthew 1:13.
Hagai 2:23 agrees with Matthew 1:13
בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם־יהוה צְבָאוֹת אֶ֠קָּחךָ זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן־שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל עַבְדִּי נְאֻם־יהוה וְשַׂמְתִּיךָ כַּחוֹתָם כִּי־בְךָ בָחַרְתִּי נְאֻם יהוה צְבָאוֹת
In that day — an affirmation of יהוה of Hosts, I take thee, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant — an affirmation of יהוה, And have set thee as a signet, for on thee I have fixed, An affirmation of יהוה of Hosts!
So why get so worked up defending the LORD when the events were governed by the Torah and fulfilled as they should. The Word of the LORD stands. Messiah has the name that HE should have. He is in possession of the NAME. The net effect is to preserve the possession within the tribe as demanded by Decree of the Torah and the Messianic prophecy of the lineage of David, of Judah. Because of the Law of Moshe – Miryam’s genealogy in Luke functions as a claim that the Messianic possession of the tribe of Judah is being preserved or enforced.
The other condemnation of Jehoiakim in Jeremiah 36:30 reads -English
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. (the bold letters are the stated penalty)
Again II Chronicles 36:8-9 says his son יְהוֹיָכִין reigned.
לָכֵן כֹּה־אָמַר יהוה עַל־יְהוֹיָקִים מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה לֹא־יִהְיֶה־לּ֥וֹ יוֹשֵׁב עַל־כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְנִבְלָתוֹ תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁלֶכֶת לַחֹ֥רֶב בַּיּוֹם וְלַקֶּרַח בַּלָּיְלָה
The לֹא־יִהְיֶה־לּוֹ above is shone to be:
– לּוֹ he / to he/him 3rd person singular masc. / not לָהֶם to them 3rd person plural masc.
Neither this nor the יוֹשֵׁ֖ב (to sit) is in the plural, — it is not יוֹשְׁבִים
This is specific to Y’hoyakim (Jehoiakim) there is no mention of his descendants.
Since we must deal with a genealogy this verse does not apply. The ‘written as childless’ is not what the judgement here is but his dead body being cast out. The most you can say is that Jehoiakim is being removed from his seat.
Why is this so important/relevant?
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִי־עַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם
This is a prophecy that is not suspended by a curse. Any one that is the object of a curse is not covered by this prophecy. You cannot have it both ways. God did not give a prophecy about a coming child that was under a curse that prevented that child from coming. The anti-missionary argument is based on ignorance. It depends on not knowing the Hebrew text. The tragedy is that the apologists buy into the argument. You are not helping if you cannot read Hebrew. Both Matthew and Luke give valid genealogies. It is when the two are combined they are greater than the sum. That is if you take the Tenach serious, and stop looking to the translations.