Response to a Christian on the Genealogies of
Jesus
In the article “TheGenealogy of Jesus in the Bible”, we discussed the contradictory genealogies
of the Messiah presented in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, respectively. In this follow-up article, we will respond to
the arguments raised by a Christian apologist on the
IslamiCity discussion forum.
In response to our point that Matthew’s genealogy is shorter than Luke’s, the Christian stated
(emphasis in the original):
“Are you then saying if someone was to lists
the genealogy of their parents, and their parents parent and so on as was the
custom for the Jews, somehow the names and length of each parent would
match up the same, regardless of how many brothers and sisters one have? If so,
you’re not being rational nor logical. Also, since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of
Jesus would date back longer and prove that he was, by human birth, a son of
David through his natural mother Mary.”
This response is typical of
Christian apologists. The Christian has
simply repeated one of the various theories concocted by his predecessors to
explain the contradictory genealogies between Matthew and Luke. The reader will notice that the Christian has
presented no evidence that Luke’s genealogy was drawn through Jesus’
mother. The reason is because there is
no such evidence. It is a theory which
is refuted by one simple fact: Mary is not even mentioned in the genealogy! It would be a strange genealogy indeed when
the parent through whom the genealogy was drawn is not even mentioned.
Next, the Christian stated:
“Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by
Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in
detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke
is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of
Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the
document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the
genealogy of Jesus through Mary.”
Again, we see nothing more
than conjecture. Since apologists cannot
and will not admit the simple fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other,
they have to come up with alternative explanations, no matter how nonsensical
or unprovable. It is like putting a
puzzle together, but when the pieces don’t fit, the apologists force them to fit. The result is a discombobulated puzzle which
makes no sense. We can see this more
clearly in the Christian’s next statement (emphasis in the original):
“As the Bible shows, Matthew traces the
descendants of Solomon down to Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, thus
demonstrating that Jesus had the legal right to the throne of
David through the kingly line, since it begins with Abraham Matthew’s list would
be shorter. (Mt 1:7, 16) Luke traces Jesus’ lineage to Heli (apparently
the father of Mary) through Nathan, who was another son of David and Bath-sheba
and therefore Solomon’s full brother. (Lu 3:23, 31). Nonetheless, both lines of descent merge in Zerubbabel
and Shealtiel and again branch out into two lines of descent. (Mt 1:13; Lu
3:27) Mary the mother of Jesus was a descendant through Nathan, and Joseph his
adoptive father descended through Solomon, so that Jesus was both the natural
and legal descendant of David, with full right to the throne.”
First, it needs to be pointed out that the
Christian has conveniently ignored the fact that the Bible does not simply
predict that the Messiah would be a “legal” heir of David, but a physical
descendant of David, as we stated in the original article.
Second,
the Christian conveniently assumes that Heli (from Luke’s genealogy) was Mary’s
father, but no such evidence exists! In
any case, drawing the genealogy from David’s son Nathan, as Luke does, renders
the genealogy irrelevant and actually disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah since
the Messiah must be a physical descendant of David through his son Solomon, not
Nathan. We will come back to this
shortly.
Next, the Christian stated:
“Luke follows the ancestry of Mary, thus
showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal
right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who
was legally Jesus’ father. You may not agree because of your denials but
that in no way changes the FACTS.
Another way you may look at this, one shows the maternal link of Jesus whereas
the other one shows the paternal link of Jesus.”
It seems the Christian is
trying more to persuade himself of these unproven assumptions than anyone
else. His insistence on the so-called
“facts” only displays a blind acceptance of standard apologetics. The “fact” is that there is no proof that
Luke was drawing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary.
That is why Mary is not even mentioned.
Next, the apologist stated:
“Of course, the promise was sworn to David
and many of the prophets of old agree. (Psalm 132:11, 12; Isaiah 11:1, 10)
Your so called scholarly sources truly can’t compete with their lack of
knowledge and understanding of the scriptures.
Jehovah has sworn to David; He will surely not go back on his word: “One of
your offspring, I will place on your throne. If your sons keep my
covenant And my reminders that I teach them, Their sons too Will sit on your
throne forever.”
A twig will grow out of the stump of Jes′se, And a sprout from his roots will
bear fruit. In that day the root of Jes′se will stand up as a signal for the
peoples. To him the nations will turn
for guidance, And his resting-place will become glorious.
Second, both Solomon and Nathan are descendants of David. Matthew and Luke
agrees by using both Jesse and David in their list. So you and your source
inadvertently agrees with myself that Matthew shows Jesus legal right
and that Luke is showing Jesus natural descent from David as I’ve been
saying all along.”
What the Christian does not
seem to understand is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of David
through his son Solomon. Hence,
Matthew’s genealogy makes no sense since it does not prove a “natural” line of
descent and Luke’s genealogy makes no sense since it actually disqualifies
Jesus as the Messiah by tracing his genealogy through Nathan.
Next, the Christian stated (emphasis in the original):
“Therefore, Matthew is showing Jesus Legal
right to the throne of David, Luke shows Jesus natural descent so of course
they wouldn’t have the same names as you and your source admitted, Matthew is
not showing Jesus’ natural descent, only Luke but thanks anyway! Sorry to BUST
your bubble, again!”
The apologist sounds like a
broken record, endlessly repeating the same non-sequitur without providing even
a shred of evidence.
He then stated (emphasis in the original):
“You are only proving my case and agreeing
with the scriptures in Psalms and Isaiah and many, many more that Jesus has the
LEGAL right to the throne as the promise seed which Matthew shows.
Again Nathan would be a NATURAL
ancestor of Jesus/Messiah and Solomon a LEGAL
ancestor of Jesus/Messiah. Has it sank in yet? Nathan, natural, Solomon legal!
Nathan, natural, Solomon legal! Nathan, natural, Solomon legal! The natural
lineage of Messiah is traced, from David through Nathan and his descendants
down to Jesus, evidently through Jesus’ mother Mary. (Lu 3:23, 31)”
The apologist keeps
insisting on the “LEGAL” descent when no such stipulation is present in the
Bible. Hence, Matthew is wrong since the
Bible says nothing about the Messiah having a “LEGAL right to the throne.” This is just an invention of Christian
apologists. Moreover, Luke is wrong
since the Bible stipulates that the NATURAL ancestor of the
Messiah must be David through his son Solomon.
We hope that these simple facts will “sink in” for the brainwashed
apologist.
He then stated (emphasis in the original):
“Look at what another prophet of old tells
us. Concerning the time when ‘they will look on the One whom they pierced,’ the
prophecy of Zechariah says there will be a bitter lamentation and wailing
throughout the whole land, family by family, and especially for the families of
David, Levi, the Shimeites, and “the family of the house of Nathan.” (Zec
12:10-14) If the family of Nathan’s house here referred to sprang from David’s
son, this would make it one of the families of David. Therefore the lamentation
would affect families within families.”
This is an example of the
selective quoting of the Tanakh that is the hallmark of Christian
polemics. When we read the passage from
Zechariah 12 in context, we find that it has nothing to do with the Messiah
being “pierced”. Of special interest are
verses 7-9, which utterly refute any attempts to link Zechariah 12 with Jesus:
“The Lord will save the dwellings of Judah
first, so that the honor of the house of David and of Jerusalem’s inhabitants
may not be greater than that of Judah. On
that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest
among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like
the angel of the Lord going before them.
On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack
Jerusalem.”
Clearly, this passage is
not even remotely linked to Jesus. When
did God “shield those who live in Jerusalem” in Jesus’ time? The reality is that within 40 years of Jesus’
ministry, Jerusalem was actually destroyed by the Roman army and the Jews were
defeated and scattered. If Zechariah 12
was referring to the time of Jesus, then it was a false prophecy since Rome not
only attacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, it actually succeeded in destroying it and
was not the one to be destroyed as the prophecy states. Given this fact, it is quite comical for the
apologist to state the following (emphasis in the original):
“NOW, you see also how the so called ‘old
testament’ and it’s prophets prophesied about Jesus as the Messiah, way back
then? Another FACT that Islam disagrees with. I know you don’t want to believe
this but just because you don’t want to believe doesn’t make it not true. This
could be the beginning of a new dawn for you if you let it work its way.”
We have just refuted the
Christian’s laughable appeal to the Tanakh.
He may also be interested to read one of our other articles in which we
dealt with some other so-called “prophecies” about Jesus:
Next, the Christian repeated the same absurd argument
about legal and natural descent as well unprovable assumptions about Mary:
“Oh yea I forgot, because Luke’s list is longer,
right? Luke start from Adam remember, Matthew starts from Abraham which they
both agree on. Thank goodness Matthew shows more of the legal affiliation where
Luke shows more of the natural affiliation. Good job Matthew and Luke. Superb!
Say this out loud okay, Joseph’s father was a
man named Jacob. Mary’s father was a man name Heli, which means Heli was
Joseph’s father-in-law not father, Jeseph is Heli’s son-in-law! Repeat this
five times. I know it may be complicated to you but really it’s not when you
have an open mind and no agenda.
Obviously, but you and your “scholarly
sources” said Joseph’s father was Heli instead of putting two and two together
that Heli was Mary’s father, making him Joseph’s father-in-law. But, again you
are only supporting my argument to the fact that it was common knowledge, that
people knew who Jesus parents were. Not as to what you and Lachi was
speculating about. Your comments . . .”
It will be a futile attempt
to show the apologist the blind allegiance he shows to the polemical lies he
has been told to believe, but we may as well try, or in the words of the
apologist: “Repeat this five times”.
There is no evidence that Mary’s father was a man named
Heli. This is an invention of the
Christians to save themselves from the facts.
Those with an actual “open mind” will readily accept that the
genealogies are contradictory and cannot both be true. Making up assumptions about Mary’s father or
the legal and natural descent of the Messiah does nothing to refute the
facts. We urge the apologist to repeat
this five times…
In response to our critique of the blind speculation the
apologist has exhibited over and over, he stated:
“Speculation? Although you yourself have
shown us the scriptures in the Bible that it was common knowledge, please,
snap-out-of-it!
Matthew 13:55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called
Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Luke 4:22 And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to
be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth, and they were saying:
“This is a son of Joseph, is it not?”
John 6:42 And they began saying: “Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from
heaven’?”
Do that in the Koran for Muhammad and see how
far you will get. Where are his eyewitnesses and his genealogy in the Koran?
You really don’t want to go there!”
So again we see the
Christian simply going in circles. He
fails to provide any evidence for his claims except for some verses from the
Gospels. So we ask again: Where is the evidence that Mary’s father
was Heli and that Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law? And
if the genealogy presented by Luke was that of Mary, then why is she not
mentioned in her own genealogy?
Next, he stated (emphasis in the original):
“Well, let get it straight first, Jacob is
Joseph biological father and Heli is Joseph’s father-in-law. However, Mary
is Jesus biological mother. Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove
that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.
That is why Luke’s list is longer. Which means Jesus linage was covered from a
legal and natural standpoint. Islam again, inadvertently agrees . . .”
The Christian still does
not get it. He is “inadvertently”
shooting himself in the foot. He has yet
to prove that Luke was presenting Mary’s genealogy. He has also failed to realize that the
Messiah must be a physical descendant through Solomon, not Nathan! So even if Luke was presenting Mary’s
genealogy, it would disqualify Jesus as the Messiah since it would make him a
physical descendant (through his mother) of Nathan! This is not rocket science…
The Christian then stated:
“Jesus’ lineage is the first evidence the
Christian Greek Scriptures give in support of his Messiahship. The Bible
foretold that the Messiah would come from the family line of King David. I
shared with you Psalm 132:11, 12; Isaiah 11:1, 10 Matthew’s Gospel begins:
“The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.”
Matthew backs up this bold claim by tracing Jesus’ descent through the line of
his adoptive father, Joseph. (Matthew 1:1-16) Luke’s Gospel traces Jesus’
lineage through his natural mother, Mary, back through David and Abraham to
Adam. (Luke 3:23-38) Thus the Gospel writers thoroughly document their claim
that Jesus was an heir of David, both in a legal and in a natural sense.”
So again, the Christian
gives us nothing but blind speculation and no direct evidence and also has yet
to realize that the Messiah was supposed to be a physical descendant of David
through Solomon. For this simple reason,
both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are invalidated because:
1.
As the Christian himself admits, Matthew
traced the genealogy through Joseph, who was not Jesus’ real father. Hence, even though the line goes through
Solomon, since Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph, he could thus not be
a physical descendant of Solomon.
2.
Even if Luke
was tracing Mary’s genealogy (which is just the Christian’s own unproven
claim), he draws it from Nathan. Hence,
even if the genealogy was that of Mary, it would mean that Jesus was a physical
descendant of Nathan. Hence, he could
not be the Messiah, as the Bible clearly states that the Messiah must be a
descendant of Solomon.
We certainly hope the
Christian gets it now, but we won’t hold our breath!
The apologist then stated (emphasis in the original):
“Even the most skeptical opponent of Jesus’
Messiahship cannot deny Jesus’ claim to be a son of David. Why? There are two
reasons.
One, that claim was widely repeated in Jerusalem
for decades before the city was destroyed in 70 C.E.
Compare Matthew 21:9 Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those
following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the
one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!
Acts 4:27 For truly both Herod and Pontius Pilate with men of the nations and
with peoples of Israel were gathered together in this city against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed
5:27, 28 So they brought them and stood them before the San′he·drin. Then the
high priest questioned them and said: “We strictly ordered you not
to keep teaching on the basis of this name, and yet look! you have filled
Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring the blood of this
man upon us.
As you can readily see, if the claim was false, any of Jesus’ opponents—and he
had many—could have proved Jesus a fraud simply by checking his lineage in the
genealogies in the public archives. But history has no record of anyone
challenging Jesus’ descent from King David. Evidently, the claim was
unassailable. No doubt Matthew and Luke copied the salient names for their
accounts directly from the public records. Which means Islam’s speculation
theory is UP IN SMOKE!! PUFF!!”
So again, the Christian
simply pulls unproven claims out of the air and presents them as “proof”. What “public archives” is he talking
about? We would love to see the evidence
for these “archives” where Jewish genealogies were apparently kept for public
access. The Christian is literally
inventing evidence as goes along. It is
truly an amazing sight.
Next, he stated (emphasis in the original):
“Second, sources outside the
Bible confirm the general acceptance of Jesus’ lineage. For instance, the
Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making a scurrilous attack on Mary,
the mother of Jesus, for ‘playing the harlot with carpenters’; but the same
passage concedes that “she was the descendant of princes and rulers.” An
earlier example is the second-century historian Hegesippus. He related that
when the Roman Caesar Domitian wanted to exterminate any descendants of David,
some enemies of the early Christians denounced the grandsons of Jude, Jesus’
half brother, “as being of the family of David.” If Jude was a known descendant
of David, was not Jesus as well? Undeniably!—Galatians 1:19; Jude 1.”
The Christian’s cut and
paste antics only further prove how brainwashed he is. The passage from the Babylonian Talmud is
from Sanhedrin 106a, which states:
“Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer,
[did the children of Israel slay with the sword]. A soothsayer? But he
was a prophet! — R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a
soothsayer. R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant
of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.'”
It has been alleged that
this passage is a reference to Jesus, but as Jewish sources point out, there is
no mention of Jesus or Mary in the passage.
The theory that Balaam was a code-word for Jesus is also just
speculation. As one Jewish source puts
it:
“…the passage above is referring solely to
Balaam and not to Jesus. Besides this fact, read the passage closely and
you will see that Rav Papa is offering a parable that explains R. Yochanan’s
statement. It is impossible to read R. Yochanan’s statement as referring
to Jesus and Rav Papa’s as referring to Jesus’ mother.
R. Yochanan is saying that Balaam had
tremendous potential and started
out as a true prophet of G-d. However, he turned to evil and in the
end of his life became a sorcerer (i.e. user of black magic). This
tradition regarding Balaam’s descent was also recorded in the Tanchuma
[Balak, 5] and in Yalkut Shimoni [Numbers, 771].”[1]
Hence, the Christian’s
blind copying of apologetic hogwash is deceiving him.
He then stated:
“Another line of evidence that Jesus was the
Messiah is fulfilled prophecy. Prophecies that apply to the Messiah are
abundant in the Hebrew Scriptures. Among
them: the town of his birth (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4-11); the tragedy of mass
infanticide that took place after his birth (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18);
he would be called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15); rulers of the
nations would unite to destroy him (Psalm 2:1, 2; Acts 4:25-28); his betrayal
for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15); even the manner of
his death.—Psalm 22:16,”
We have already dealt with
this issue in a previous article. It is
recommended that the apologist read the article we referred to above.
Then he stated (emphasis in the original):
“The third type of evidence of
Jesus’ Messiahship is the testimony of God himself. According to Luke 3:21, 22,
after Jesus was baptized, he was anointed with the most sacred and powerful
force in the universe, Jehovah God’s own holy spirit. And with his own voice,
Jehovah acknowledged that he had approved his Son, Jesus. On two other
occasions, Jehovah spoke directly to Jesus from heaven, thereby indicating His
approval: once, before three of Jesus’ apostles, and another time, before a
crowd of onlookers. (Matthew 17:1-5; John 12:28, 29) Furthermore, angels
were sent from above to confirm Jesus’ status as Christ, or Messiah.—Luke
2:10, 11.”
This is yet another
circular argument which fails to prove that Jesus’ genealogies in Matthew and
Luke are both correct. The evidence we
have seen shows that they both cannot be correct and in fact, taken
individually, both invalidate Jesus as the Messiah! This is one of the great ironies of the
Bible.
Finally, he stated:
“These genealogies were carefully preserved
down to the start of the Common Era. This is proved by the fact that each
family of Israel was able to go back to the city of its father’s house to be
registered in response to Caesar Augustus’ decree shortly before Jesus’ birth.
(Lu 2:1-5) Also, John the Baptizer’s father Zechariah is noted as of the
priestly division of Abijah and John’s mother Elizabeth as from the daughters
of Aaron. (Lu 1:5) Anna the prophetess is spoken of as “of Asher’s tribe.” (Lu
2:36) And, of course, the extensive listings of Jesus’ forefathers at Matthew,
chapter 1, and Luke, chapter 3, make it clear that such records were
kept in the public archives, available for examination.
The historian Josephus gives testimony to the existence of Jewish official
genealogical registers when he says: “My family is no ignoble one, tracing its
descent far back to priestly ancestors. . . . Not only, however,
were my ancestors priests, but they belonged to the first of the twenty-four
courses—a peculiar distinction—and to the most eminent of its constituent
clans.” Then, after pointing out that his mother was descended from Asamonaeus,
he concludes: “With such a pedigree, which I cite as I find it recorded in the
public registers, I can take leave of the would-be detractors of my family.”—The
Life, 1, 2, 6 (1).
Though Jesus had many bitter enemies, none of
them challenged his well-publicized line of descent. (Matthew 21:9, 15).”
The Christian assumes that
since Josephus mentioned the “public records” where his genealogy was
available, it means that every single Jewish person’s genealogy was also
available! This is of course yet another
blind assumption for which no evidence exists.
It is certainly a wild claim that even poor Jewish families such as that
of Joseph and Mary would have their genealogies on public record! Moreover, had the Christian done some actual
research, he would have found Josephus’ testimony about the actual genealogies
that were on public record. In “Against
Apion”, he stated:
“I am now going to say, that we have the
names of our high priests, from father to son, set down in our records, for the
interval of two thousand years.”[2]
Therefore, according to
Josephus, the “public records” contained the genealogies of the high priests,
not all Jews. In other words, only the religious
leaders and other important people of the Jewish nation (which evidently
included Josephus himself) had their genealogies available in the public
record. As is his custom, the Christian
blindly assumes that Jesus’ genealogy and that of his mother were also
available for public access, even though there is not a shred of historical
evidence that these genealogies ever existed.
So in closing, the Christian has only shown the extent of
his brainwashing, blind copying from apologetic sources and lack of actual
research. He has utterly failed to
explain the contradictory genealogies and in fact has unwittingly proven that
the genealogies actually invalidate Jesus as the Messiah! Moreover, he didn’t even bother to respond to
the fact that since Matthew included Jeconiah in his genealogy, it is yet
another reason that Jesus would be disqualified as the Messiah, as Jeconiah’s
bloodline was banished from the throne of Israel.
[2] “Against Apion”, 1:7.