"The fear of יהוה is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Set-apart One is understanding"

The Virgin Birth and the Davidic Ancestry of Yeshua

Moderator: Watchman555

ErichMatthewJanzen
Posts: 51
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 12:16
Location: Conyers, GA
Contact:

The Virgin Birth and the Davidic Ancestry of Yeshua

Postby ErichMatthewJanzen » 22 Mar 2008, 12:40

One of the most common objections to the virgin birth of Messiah is that the genealogies listed in the books of Matthew and Luke are in complete contradiction towards one another. Certain groups even go so far as to teach that if the New Testament writings cannot even get the genealogy of Messiah correct, then why should we trust anything else the New Testament has to teach? The truth is this: this objection stems from a cursory review of the genealogies with presupposed biases against the doctrine of the virgin birth. We should rather seek to harmonize the two to the best of our limited ability before claiming one or the other (or both) to be nothing short of spurious. There have been many men throw away the Bible because they feel that it contradicts itself in various areas. Believe me, if you are looking for “contradictionsâ€

chuckbaldwin
Posts: 334
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 13:44
Location: East Ridge, TN

Postby chuckbaldwin » 23 Mar 2008, 06:43

Hi Matthew,

That was an interesting post. Unless i read it wrong, you're saying that the genealogies in Matt & Luke are both Joseph's, but i kinda got lost in the discussion of all the sons who were allegedly "adopted" by one father, but "begotten" by another father with a different name (except for Salathiel & Zerubabbel).

Concerning those last 2 names, it looks to me like there are way too many generations between Nathan & Salathiel (in Luke) for them to be the same 2 people appearing in Matt. You will notice that there was an "Enoch" and a "Lamech" in both Seth's & Cain's genealogies; i think it was a similar thing in Matt & Luke - a couple sons along the line just happened to have the same names as the other line.

I firmly believe that 1 genealogy is Joseph's, and the other is Mary's; i lean strongly toward Luke's being Mary's, because of the "childless curses" on both Jehoiakim & Jechoniah. But aside from that, there are arguments for reckoning it both ways, which i'll give briefly:

1. Matt = Joseph & Luke = Mary:

For this argument, we take Matt.1:16 as written, with Joseph adopting Yahshua, making Him a legal heir in the eyes of the Jews. In Luke.3:23, if we take the statement "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli..." and read it as "... Joseph, which was the son-in-law of Heli..." or "... Joseph, which was the [adopted] son of Heli...", the alternate readings allow that Heli was actually Mary's father, but he "adopted" Joseph in the sense of being Joseph's father-in-law.

2. Matt = Mary & Luke = Joseph:

For this argument, we take Luke.3:23 to mean that Heli was actually Joseph's father. Then in Matt.1:16, we take the statement "... Joseph the husband of Mary ...", and read it as "... Joseph the father of Mary ...". Support for this view comes from the Aramaic word translated "husband", which some say can mean "male guardian", which could be either a "father" or "husband" or even an elder brother.

On a side issue (but mentioned in your conclusion), you wrote:
We are the children of Yahweh, not because Yahweh is our literal father, but because we have been adopted by Yahweh and bought with the price of the precious blood of His Son, Yeshua the Messiah.
I sincerely believe that "adopted" is a poor rendering of a word that literally means "son placing", and not "adoption" as we normally think of it. If it did mean "adoption", then there is a contradiction to resolve, because it says in numerous places that we are "begotten". I strongly believe that Scripture shows that Yahweh is procreating His OWN KIND. We have gone through the Spirit-conception (at conversion - Justification); we are currently going through the Spirit-gestation period (growth in the womb - Sanctification); and we will eventually come to the Spirit-birth (resurrection - Glorification), when we will be truly & completely "Born Again" or "Born from Above" as literal Sons of the YHWH-Kind.
Chuck Baldwin
By this shall all men know you are my disciples: if you have love one for another.

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

Postby eriqbenel » 26 Mar 2008, 02:59

One of the most common objections to the virgin birth of Messiah is that the genealogies listed in the books of Matthew and Luke are in complete contradiction towards one another. Certain groups even go so far as to teach that if the New Testament writings cannot even get the genealogy of Messiah correct, then why should we trust anything else the New Testament has to teach?


One of the greatest errors of human history is that people are willing to readily accept whatever they are told without any support of verification. The is the fuel that has ignited the fire storm of deception all over the world.

New Testament or Old, everyone should be looking toward a means to substantiate and defend why they believe in the Scriptures. Even YHWH understands this concept as He was willing to perform signs and wonders across the earth to provide the evidence that He is the one true Elohim.

Is the story of Yisrael a myth or is it a real historical account? Only a fool would invest their life in something without evidence. I am convinced that the Tanak is true because YWHH has left these future generations the evidence to prove it. Otherwise YHWH would still need to perform supernatural signs and wonders frequently.

I don't believe the Tanak is divinely inspired just because I choose to, I believe it because there is ample evidence of "substance" to support the claims of Scripture. There is scientific evidence, geological evidence, including the fossil record. I can see the manifestation of Bible prophecy in history and even now.

These are real reasons to conclude a truth. We should never blindly believe or reject something without diligent and verifiable research and evidence.

The point is, the objection presented above is a real and valid objection that deserves an answer if we are to stake our lives on a belief. Dismissing it as trivial bias does not create a basis for the integrity of Scriptural research. Rather, such dismissal appears like the bias the objectors are charged with.

The truth is this: this objection stems from a cursory review of the genealogies with presupposed biases against the doctrine of the virgin birth.


This is a biased statement against opponents of the virgin birth doctrine. You don't know from where ones objections stems. I have believed in the virgin birth all of my life. Any doubts I may currently have certainly do not stem from a "presupposed bias" against the teaching. I believe the objection presented here is simply an extremely valid objection that a thinking person would need answered if he or she were inclined to propagate the virgin birth doctrine. Don't criticize the objector's motive, just be ready to supply real, substantial answers to valid questions, if you can.

We should rather seek to harmonize the two to the best of our limited ability before claiming one or the other (or both) to be nothing short of spurious.


The first order of business when there are seemingly conflicting accounts, is to verify the FACTS. You seem to want to ignore the fact finding step and protect the information as given no matter what. I do not believe that is mature Scriptural study.

[quote]There have been many men throw away the Bible because they feel that it contradicts itself in various areas. Believe me, if you are looking for “contradictionsâ€
Shalom in the name of YHWH,

Eriq

ErichMatthewJanzen
Posts: 51
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 12:16
Location: Conyers, GA
Contact:

Postby ErichMatthewJanzen » 27 Mar 2008, 11:38

Shalom, Eric,

I appreciate your detailed response to what I posted. Here are a few comments in regards to your responses.

1) Your explanation of the "Michal - Merab" issue was very good. I can see how the one I gave is not conclusive and most likely is incorrect. I will continue to study this further.

2) You made this statement: "There is NOTHING in the word "gennao" that suggest the possibility of an adoption." If this is the case what do you do with the Scriptures which refer to Yeshua as the only begotten Son of Yahweh? (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; 5:1) The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 3:16 is monogenes coming from two Greek words (1) mono, and (2) ginomai. This word is used in other passages like Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38 in reference to an only child of a parent. 1 John 5:1 uses the word gennao in reference to Yeshua being begotten of Yahweh.

3) Neither genealogy (Matthew or Luke) say that Joseph begat Yeshua. What do you make of this?

4) 1 Samuel 8:7 and 12:12 show that Yahweh was the King of Israel prior to Saul. 1 Chronicles 29:22-23 state that the "throne of David" was originally the "throne of Yahweh". It was Yahweh's throne because He was King prior to Saul. Thus Saul, David, Solomon, and every other king in Israel sat upon the "throne of Yahweh" when ruling, seeing Yahweh was the 1st King. All these kings were adopted by Yahweh yet permitted to rule on his throne. Yeshua is the begotten Son of Yahweh and would have the right to rule on the "throne of David" which is originally the "throne of Yahweh".

Your friend,
Matthew Janzen

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

Postby eriqbenel » 27 Mar 2008, 18:49

ErichMatthewJanzen wrote:Shalom, Eric,

I appreciate your detailed response to what I posted. Here are a few comments in regards to your responses.

1) Your explanation of the "Michal - Merab" issue was very good. I can see how the one I gave is not conclusive and most likely is incorrect. I will continue to study this further.

2) You made this statement: "There is NOTHING in the word "gennao" that suggest the possibility of an adoption." If this is the case what do you do with the Scriptures which refer to Yeshua as the only begotten Son of Yahweh? (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; 5:1) The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 3:16 is monogenes coming from two Greek words (1) mono, and (2) ginomai. This word is used in other passages like Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38 in reference to an only child of a parent. 1 John 5:1 uses the word gennao in reference to Yeshua being begotten of Yahweh.

3) Neither genealogy (Matthew or Luke) say that Joseph begat Yeshua. What do you make of this?

4) 1 Samuel 8:7 and 12:12 show that Yahweh was the King of Israel prior to Saul. 1 Chronicles 29:22-23 state that the "throne of David" was originally the "throne of Yahweh". It was Yahweh's throne because He was King prior to Saul. Thus Saul, David, Solomon, and every other king in Israel sat upon the "throne of Yahweh" when ruling, seeing Yahweh was the 1st King. All these kings were adopted by Yahweh yet permitted to rule on his throne. Yeshua is the begotten Son of Yahweh and would have the right to rule on the "throne of David" which is originally the "throne of Yahweh".

Your friend,
Matthew Janzen


Shalom Bro. Matthew,

I am actually supposed to be working now, but I just wanted to give a very brief response to your question above:

YHWH has given us laws and rules in order for us to function in decency and righteousness from our finite, human perspective. He realizes we do not have the vast understanding of the universe, time, space, and eternity as He does. Remember the questions He asked Job? "How are the foundations of the earth laid...?", etc...?

Well, we don't know, so He has given us just enough of the laws and understanding we need to please Him in righteousness and holiness until He is ready to elevate this era into the Kingdom of Heaven. Would you agree with that so far?

Now, from OUR perspective (human beings, finite and limited) we see people, time, space, relationships, life and death all as separate entities of existence. I don't believe YHWH sees the universe this way.

To Him, all things are connected in a way we don't understand; "A thousand years is one day and one day is a thousand years..." YHWH sees all with what I like to call "Eternal vision". And even though there is "disconnect" in time, space and life from our perspective, there is no separation or disconnect to YHWH.

Here is my point. In an very limited way, we humans might be able to grasp just a taste of YHWH's perspective from the Scriptures. If you trace your family tree back far enough, your separation from others gets smaller. In fact, if we go back far enough, we are ALL related! In Adam. In Noah.

The semitic people of the Middle East are ALL related to father Abraham. The "disconnect" gets smaller the farther back you go.

The "father" of something is often referred to in the Hebrew as the "progenitor", or "from where something originates".

Abraham is the "progenitor" of semitic people. If you go back farther, SHEM is the progenitor of semitic people. If you go back farther, ADAM is the progenitor of semitic people, and of us all.

But going back even further... YHWH Almighty is the Father (progenitor) of the whole earth and everything in it! And while us humans might see and feel the separation of time and space and life, YHWH, who has "Eternal vision" does not. Do you really think YHWH sees of any of creation as "disconnected" from Him or not His own? I don't believe so.

Therefore, we are ALL His sons, He is the King of us ALL and always will be. Whether or not a human chooses to acknowledge the Father or His Sovereignty is irrelevant. He IS.

The rules of "adoption" in human terms has no correlation to what YHWH did with Yisrael in 1st Schmuel. YHWH can't "adopt" His OWN creation. His own children. What YHWH did was "set apart" Yisrael for His holy purpose, and because they whined about it, He "allowed" them to "adopt" a King. And one HE approved I might add.

Believe it or not, that is my "short" answer... :D I'll answer the rest when I can.

Love ya man,

Eriq
Shalom in the name of YHWH,



Eriq

ErichMatthewJanzen
Posts: 51
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 12:16
Location: Conyers, GA
Contact:

Postby ErichMatthewJanzen » 28 Mar 2008, 00:32

Hi, Eric,

I disagree for the most part. Luke 3 records Adam as the being "of God" while Seth is said to be "of Adam". Every other son is said to be of his father (minus Yeshua in Luke 3:23). For Adam to be termed "of God" makes Adam a unique Son of God, different than Seth, Isaac, Jacob, etc.

Also, because the throne was originally called the "throne of Yahweh" and because Saul, David, or Solomon were not created Sons of Yahweh (like Adam) they must have been "adopted" (or whatever term you'd like to use) by Yahweh.

Don't forget: Yeshua is called the monogenes of Yahweh. "Mono" meaning "sole, unique, one of a kind" and "Genes" having to do with family offspring coming into existence or causing something to be. Thayer's states that it is used of only children in relation to their parents. Liddel and Scott's 7th edition Greek lexicon states basically the same definition and also adds "of one and the same blood". Yeshua was the only child of Yahweh to come into existence the way he did... through the virgin birth (Luke 1:34-35).

Also don't forget that neither Matthew or Luke say that Joseph begat Yeshua.

Shalom,
Matthew

LittleKangaDrinkingWine
Posts: 31
Joined: 01 Feb 2008, 03:02
Location: Flintstone GA, Israel

Postby LittleKangaDrinkingWine » 29 Mar 2008, 15:14

Matthew,

In your original posting, you make the case that the difference in the name of the two geneologies is the adoption aspect of Hebrew law. While this is an interesting prospect, how does it explain the true blood line of David.

Blood is blood. Taking ones family name does not change ones DNA and blood. I take it from your post that you believe that various blood lines (that of any tribe, even gentile?) can make up that blood line.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

LKDW

wstruse
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 04:01

Postby wstruse » 30 Mar 2008, 02:27

Hello Chuck,

I firmly believe that 1 genealogy is Joseph's, and the other is Mary's; i lean strongly toward Luke's being Mary's, because of the "childless curses" on both Jehoiakim & Jechoniah. But aside from that, there are arguments for reckoning it both ways, which i'll give briefly:


I too believe that Luke's genealogy shows Yashua's lineage through Mary the wife of Joseph- the legal (adopted) father of Yashua. There is historical evidence supporting this. In the Jerusalem Talmud (Chag. 77,4) it calls Mary the "daughter of Heli". I will not post the quote as it is quite disturbing and graphic.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

ErichMatthewJanzen
Posts: 51
Joined: 11 Nov 2007, 12:16
Location: Conyers, GA
Contact:

Response to Joey

Postby ErichMatthewJanzen » 30 Mar 2008, 07:57

Hi, Joey,

You wrote:

Matthew,

In your original posting, you make the case that the difference in the name of the two geneologies is the adoption aspect of Hebrew law. While this is an interesting prospect, how does it explain the true blood line of David.

Blood is blood. Taking ones family name does not change ones DNA and blood. I take it from your post that you believe that various blood lines (that of any tribe, even gentile?) can make up that blood line.

I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

LKDW


No, I do believe that the Messiah had to have "Judahite" blood and be in the Davidic lineage. I also believe he was the blood of Yahweh Elohim [Acts 20:28]. How this all works out, I'm not sure right now. I thought I had a good handle on it, but Eric (my good friend and student of the Scriptures) shot me down! Really, I believe he disproved my thoughts on adoption to some extent. I'm continuing to study this and trying to harmonize all the Scriptures on either side of the issue. I love Yahweh with all my heart, I believe in due time He'll show me the answer - by His grace and mercy.

Your friend,
Matthew


Return to “Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron