by Greg Deuble
One of the obstacles blocking Jews coming
to faith in Yeshua (i.e. Jesus) is “the
inaccurate genealogy” of Yeshua listed in
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. If
Yeshua was born of the virgin Mary, without
a natural father, then he is disqualified from
being their Messiah. According to the
Hebrew Scriptures, Messiah must be a
physical descendant of King David. Clearly,
these are critical matters for any Jew
considering the authenticity of Yeshua as
Messiah.
There is no denying it: There are massive
challenges facing any serious reader of
Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies, whether
we be Jew or Gentile. This is not to
mention how tedious, even boring; all the
“begats” are! Various attempts have been
made to harmonize the obvious differences,
to circumnavigate seeming contradictions,
and to eliminate the supernatural elements
of the “virgin birth”. So, I readily admit to
my Jewish friends, and to all of us “others”,
this has been a vexed issue. Debate has
been furious.
So, how shall we tiptoe through this
minefield where opinions are buried so
deep? Well, the first thing I would suggest
is that each of us needs a good dose of
grace. I realize that I do not hold every
piece in the puzzle. You may also not be
seeing certain critical elements. Each of us
may be smuggling in un-tested
presuppositions. And let’s be honest: None
of us has knowledge that is full and perfect.
We need robust discussion seasoned with
grace.
Why Messiah’s Genealogy Matters
From the very beginning; when God
promised Eve one of her “seed” (i.e. a direct
descendant or offspring) would rescue fallen
humanity --- Biblical genealogy was critical
(Genesis 3:15).
You will recall this promise was spoken
directly by God Himself to our Enemy, the
Serpent, who is later revealed as the Devil
(Revelation 20:2). As the Seed of the woman,
Messiah had to come out of humanity, and
you can “bet your bottom dollar” that from
that moment on, Satan made up his mind
to thwart the Plan. He would do his
nefarious best to muddy the pure genealogical waters from Eve to stop the
coming “Seed” from crushing him. How so?
Noah
Enter the half-bred hybrid Nephilim of
Genesis chapter six. Whatever Gentile
commentary may say about the union of
“the sons of God” with “the daughters of
men” there is ancient and consistent
testimony from Jewish sources that “the
sons of God” were wicked angels. Old
Rabbinic exegesis says this is an account
of the unholy union by fallen angels with
antediluvian mankind. The resultant
“offspring” were the Nephilim that God
destroyed by the Flood (Genesis 6:4). Why
such a drastic response by the Almighty?
It appears there was more to it than the
violence of that generation (Genesis 6: 5).
Here is, I suggest, early proof that Satan
took the promise of “the Seed of the
woman” seriously. He will stop at nothing
to thwart the prophecy of his fate. The
inter-marriage of Satan’s seed with Adam’s
race was his audacious attempt to
circumvent the divine judgment decreed in
Genesis 3:15. Is it too great an
4
assumption that in all probability there was
only one pure human-bred family left on
the earth?
Note:
“But Noah found favor in the eyes of
the LORD. These are the generations
of Noah. Noah was a righteous man,
blameless in his time; Noah walked
with God. And Noah became the father
of three sons: Shem, Ham, and
Japheth” (Genesis 6:8-10).
Noah must have been a good guy,
because our modern versions tell us three
times over that Noah was “ a righteous
man”, “blameless in his time”, and he
“walked with God” (v.9). For once
however, the old King James Version is
probably more accurate:
“These are the generations of Noah:
Noah was a just man and perfect in his
generations, and Noah walked with
God.”
This puts the emphasis not only on Noah’s
character (important as that is), but also
on his genealogy. The NKJV and NASB do better by starting verse 9 as, “This is the
genealogy of Noah,
” or “These are the
records of the generations of Noah.” For
what reason did Noah “find favour” in the
eyes of the LORD”? Rather than repeating
three times that Noah’s good character
was the only reason, we are to know the
text is equally concerned with Noah’s
family tree, that is, his genealogy.
Notice also, the plural “generations”. If you
go back to Genesis 5 you discover this
statement refers to the pedigree of Noah
and his sons stretching back to Adam.
Noah is a true human descendant of Adam
(and Eve). This is why we read in Genesis
6:9 that Noah was “perfect in his
generations” (KJV). Noah was of pure
Adamic stock, that is, “perfect in the record
of his genealogy”! (We know Noah was not
perfect in his character as his subsequent
failures demonstrate.) But he did have
complete integrity “in his generations”, that
is, in his genealogy.
Noah found favour with God for two
reasons: He was a righteous man of faith
through whom God’s purpose of rescue
6
will be fulfilled through his pure pedigree.
Putting it negatively, there were no halfbred
humans or alien Nephilim in Noah’s
ancestry.
So, to preserve the integrity of the divine
promise to Eve, God had to rescue Noah
and his family from the contagion of the
evil genes that were so successfully
contaminating the human race. (Sci-fi
movies eat your hearts out!) How near
Satan came to succeeding is astonishing.
The Flood was critical to fulfilling God’s
promise to save mankind by a future
[human] child of Adam & Eve’s. (1)
The rest of the Biblical record is a
summary of how God further refined the
identity of the coming redeemer. Not only
would Messiah be “the seed of the
woman”, that is a member of the human
family, but he would also be of the Seed
of Abraham, a Hebrew.
The promise was subsequently further
refined. Messiah must come from a
particular family, or tribe, of the Hebrews.
He must spring from Jacob, then from the Seed of Judah. And it gets even more
streamlined for he must come from one
family line within the tribe of Judah. He
must be of the Seed, or family, of David.
What an amazing record the Hebrew
Scriptures have left us. Some
commentators say every name before
David (Adam to David) and every name
after David (David to Zerubbabel) is
revealed in the OT genealogies pointing to
Messiah. If so this is astounding! We owe
so much to the faithfulness of the Jews who
preserved and meticulously transferred the
sacred Scriptures for us.
Jeconiah’s Curse
There came a time in Israel’s history when
the challenge for genealogical purity
became even more acute. One of
Solomon’s sons, Jeconiah by name, was
cursed by God and told:
“Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man
down childless, a man who will not
prosper in his days; For no man of his
descendants will prosper sitting on the
throne of David or ruling again in
8
Judah’” (Jeremiah 22:30).
Jeconiah’s curse is repeated later:
“Therefore thus says the LORD
concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah,
‘He shall have no one to sit on the
throne of David, and his dead body
shall be cast out to the heat of the day
and the frost of the night’” (Jeremiah 36:30).
Even though he was a direct descendant
of David and Solomon, no descendant of
Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, would
have the right to the throne of David. Until
Jeremiah, the first requirement for
messianic lineage was to be of the house
of David. After Jeremiah, it was narrowed
still further. Now one had to be not only of
the house of David, but apart from
Jeconiah’s family tree!
As an aside, but still relevant, many have
failed to understand why God gave Israel
such strict guidelines on marriage. What’s
so bad about a Jewish boy marrying a nice
Gentile girl? What’s so bad about mixing ethnicity in the OT? Well, understanding the
need for purity of the generations to
Messiah is the key. God’s promises to Eve,
Abraham, and David (apart from Jeconiah)
must not fail.
Matthew’s Genealogy
It’s right here that we have to let the
Genie out of the jar of Jesus’ genealogy!
Are we game to pop the cork? There are
so many divergent ideas about Matthew’s
list that it would take a book to do them
all justice. Here are a few of what I
consider to be the salient points.
According to the majority of Christian
commentary Matthew lists Joseph’s
ancestry: Huge problem on a number of
counts! Messiah could not arise from
Mary’s husband Joseph because his bloodline
runs through Jeconiah from Solomon
(Matthew 1:11). We have already noted the
curse God Himself put on Jeconiah … no
Messianic king would ever come from him!
Neither could Yeshua claim the right to
David's throne by virtue of his adoption by
Joseph his legal father, as some commentators have suggested. Although
Yeshua was born in wedlock and ‘adopted’
by Joseph the husband of Mary, the fact is
that genealogical blood-lines cannot be
passed on through adoption.
This is very much a reason many Jews
cannot accept Yeshua as their Messiah.
Not having a natural father from David,
through Solomon, apart from Jeconiah,
would automatically dismiss his claims to
being their messiah and king. Remember, it
was the father’s genealogy that determined
both national and tribal identity … not the
mother’s.
There are at least two probable solutions to
this conundrum. The Messianic Jew, Dr
Arnold Fruchtenbaum (2) states the
purpose of Matthew's genealogy is to show
why Yeshua could not be the Messiah if he
were really Joseph's natural son. For this
reason, he says, Matthew presents the
Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with
the account of the virgin birth which, from
Matthew's viewpoint, is the solution to the
Jeconiah curse. Joseph is not Yeshua’s
natural father … problem solved! Really?
“And to Jacob was born Joseph the
husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was
born, he who is called Christ (i.e. the
Messiah” (Matthew1:16).
The long awaited Messiah arrives, but
instead of following the usual pattern of a
genealogy through a father’s line, Jesus’
birth is spoken of in relation to his mother.
Mary is not described as being the wife of
Joseph. No! Joseph is described as being
“the husband of Mary”! The [legal] father is
promptly put into the background. The
reason is there is something staggeringly
unusual about Mary’s son … all conventional
practice of ancestry lineage is side-stepped
at the climax of Matthew’s genealogy for he
is miraculously conceived by the power of
the Spirit of God!
It’s fair to say this “Christian” explanation
does not at all satisfy Jewish concerns.
Even if they were to grant the virgin birth
(which they do not), they object that
Messiah must come through the male line
from the non-Jeconiah tree within the tribe
of Judah, and Matthew says Jeconiah is
Joseph’s ancestor!
Joseph Who?
Uriel ben Mordechai, (3) a Hebrew-speaking
Jewish believer in Yeshua as Messiah,
presents a great argument to help us here.
He says that the Joseph whom Matthew lists
here is not Mary’s husband but her father!
How so?
Firstly, the Greek of Matthew 1:16 may
legitimately read either that Joseph was
“the husband of Mary” or that Joseph was
“the man of Mary.” The word aneer means
a male person of full age and stature, a
man who may be a husband or a father.
Thus, states Uriel, the man or head of Mary
could refer to her father. Given that
Joseph was a very common Jewish name,
is Matthew telling us that Mary’s father was
also called Joseph?
Tribal affiliation in Jewish law can only be
passed through the father and never the
mother. However, family affiliation can be
and is traced through the mother provided
that her father is from the same family line
as her husband. Thus it is not strictly true
to say that a woman cannot pass on tribal
identification. Where Messiah’s ancestry is
concerned, a woman can possess the tribal identification, provided she is the first
generation daughter only of a man from
the tribe of Judah.
In this way a grandfather may pass his
tribal identification directly to his grandson
when he produces a daughter who gives
him a grandson. A second generation
daughter loses this tribal ability.
So, if Matthew is saying, “Joseph was the
father of Mary” then Yeshua’s tribal
identification is legitimate because it comes
directly through his grandfather Joseph’s
first generation daughter Mary! (Early
Hebrew and Aramaic translations of
Matthew’s Gospel confirm that the Joseph
referred to here is Mary’s father.) (4)
All of this is to say that Matthew’s
genealogy is not that of Mary’s husband
Joseph, but is actually the genealogy of
Mary through her father!
But this still does not solve the problem of
grandfather Joseph’s blood-line coming
through the cursed Jeconiah. Whether the
Joseph connected to Mary is her husband or
her father, Messiah cannot come through
the accursed Jeconiah. Is there a way out
of this?
Once again Uriel helps: King Josiah had a
son named Jehoiakim, who in turn had a
son named Jeconiah, who was the 'cursed'
King. But this is not the Jeconiah in
Matthew's list. Uriel argues from the
Hebrew Scriptures, that King Josiah's firstborn
son should have been King. He was
originally named Yochanan, but Yochanan
was given a new name Jeconiah, and then
deported to Babylon (along with the
famous Daniel) and served in the palace
of Nebuchadnezzar. This Yochanan aka
Jeconiah then has a son, named
She'alti'el, who in turn fathers Zerubbabel,
who is the one who leads the Jewish
people back to the land of Israel, to
rebuild the Temple, and become the first
governor of the people of Judah, back in
the Land of Israel.
Bottom line: The Jeconiah of Matthew
1:11 is not the cursed king. Indeed,
Messiah’s line does not need to go
through Solomon at all! Whether the
Joseph of Matthew 1:16 is Mary’s father or
her husband, the point is his blood-line
does not pass through the cursed
Jeconiah. (5) & (6)
Luke’s Contribution
Luke's Gospel, on the other hand, details
the lineage of Mary's husband Joseph
through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31).
Nathan is not from Solomon, thus
avoiding Jeconiah’s curse altogether. It is
clear that the Joseph who is the son of
Jacob mentioned in Matthew 1:16 and the
Joseph who is the son of Eli (also spelled
Heli) cited in Luke 3:23 are two different
men with two distinct genealogical lines
back to David. The fact that Mary marries
a man named Joseph, which also happens
to be the name of her father, was not
uncommon in ancient Israel. Luke’s
genealogy would seem to confirm Uriel’s
contention that the Messianic line need
not pass through Solomon at all, but
through Nathan from David. (7)
Did Joseph Sleep With Mary Before
They were Married?
Although I agree with Uriel ben Mordechai
so far, in my humble opinion he then goes
way too far in trying to come to grips with
the NT witness of the supernatural
conception of Yeshua by the Spirit of God.
16
Uriel speculates that the text of Matthew,
properly understood, without the standard
Hellenistic church pre-supposition of the
Virgin Birth, does not imply with any
certainty that Joseph and Mary never had
sexual relations before her pregnancy with
Yeshua.
Uriel argues (he is by no means the first
to do so) that after the angel’s visit Mary
could have very easily gone to Joseph and
slept with him. This suggestion is highly
problematic for a number of reasons, not
to mention the trouble for example, that
Abraham got into by trying to ‘help’ God
bring about Isaac’s miraculous birth by
sleeping with his wife’s handmaid, Hagar!
Firstly, this is pure supposition without any
textual support. To say Mary could have
gone to sleep with Joseph is surely an
assault upon the record Matthew and Luke
give? In fact, I will show below it is contrary
to the text.
Secondly, as Uriel notes, Joseph was a just
man and a follower of Torah. My question
then is: Is secretly sleeping with one's betrothed, before the wedding, the actions
of a follower of Torah?
Thirdly, even if this did happen, how does
Uriel explain Joseph's incredulity when he
learns Mary is pregnant? If he had slept
with her, her pregnancy would be no
surprise to Joseph, surely?
Fourthly, Uriel's suggestion that Joseph and
Mary, "at that point practised abstention,
and didn't have sexual contact again until
the birth of their first-born child", is pure
speculation and in fact, contrary to what
the text says; "he knew her not until
…" (Matthew 1:25). The straight reading of the
text is Joseph did not know Mary sexually
until after Yeshua's birth. Period. It does
not say, "he knew her not again until she
gave birth to a son"! I think the English
translations here do a reasonable job of
rendering the intent as, Joseph "kept her a
virgin until she gave birth to a son…" (Matthew 1:25).
Finally, the text plainly says the one
begotten in Mary was the result of "a [the]
holy Spirit". Is an "illegitimate" Messiah the
result of a holy union? (This is not meant to
cast an aspersion on those born out of
18
wedlock, but in this case we are talking
about two persons said to be highly
favoured and blessed by God, because they
are righteous, Torah-observant people.)
I would add another interesting aside.
Matthew tells us that Joseph, after
discovering Mary's pregnancy "considered
this…" (Matt. 1:20). Whilst this word
'considered' is a legitimate translation of
enthumeomai there is another intriguing
possibility.
Just a little over in Matthew 2:16 king Herod
upon learning of the trickery of the Magi
"became very enraged". This time the
word is not translated as "considered".
Context would rule out any rational levelheaded
consideration by Herod here.
Again, over in Matthew 9:4 Jesus knowing
the thoughts of his enemies, said to those
contemplating his murder, "Why are you
thinking evil in your hearts?" Given the
context here, it might justifiably be better
to understand these people were not just
coolly contemplating murder! They were
filled with anger for murderous intent.
Then, in Luke 4:28 where the citizens of
Jesus' hometown rose up in the
synagogue to cast him out, we are told
they "were filled with rage as they heard
these things." They intended to hurl Jesus
over a cliff to his death. Evidently they did
not sit there, arms folded, dispassionately
contemplating their next move.
So, what was Joseph's state of mind when
he learns of his beautiful Mary now being
pregnant? Coolly considering, or inwardly
fuming with justifiable anger? If we put
the clues of the text all together, it seems
Joseph is fuming because he feels
betrayed. His betrothed virgin and pure
girl has been playing around! He is
incredulous.
So, because of his righteous anger,
Joseph the good man gets a visit from the
angel of the LORD to explain this state of
affairs. Without God's intervention and
explanation Joseph would not have known
the child was begotten through the action
of the holy Spirit, that is, by the Ruach
Adonai.
The rest of the story hints Mary believes she
will immediately fall pregnant … remember
Gabriel visited her “in the sixth month” of
her cousin Elizabeth’s pregnancy (Luke
1:26, 36). Then Mary, “at this time arose
and went with haste … and entered the
house of Zacharias, and greeted Elizabeth”
(vs. 39-40).
The very moment Mary crosses their
threshold Elizabeth pronounces a blessing
on “the mother of my lord (Messiah)”
(v.43). The conception has already taken
place in Mary’s womb! Mary remains there
for the next 3 months (v.56), and this is
likely the months when Joseph marries her.
But “he kept her a virgin until she gave
birth to a son …” (Matthew 1:25)!
The straight-forward reading of these facts,
along with clear statements such as in
Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35, makes it clear
that Mary had her firstborn son by
supernatural means. (TBC)
FOOTNOTES
1. I deal more fully with some of the
difficulties and objections to this view in
They Never Told Me This in Church! 332pp.
2. http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publicatio
ns/issues/v05-n06/genealogy
3. I am indebted to Paul Herring for this
information. See his website articles: http://circumcisedheart.info/The%20Messiah%20
from%20an%20Hebraic%20perspective.pdf
4. Ibid, p.16. The interested reader can view
actual manuscript evidence in Paul Herring’s
website article.
5. Ibid, see Paul Herring’s article at
footnote 3. I have transliterated the
personal names to make them more
readable for those who are not familiar with
their Hebrew equivalents.
6. Ibid, In Herring’s footnotes number 30
on p.17 we read: “In the Babylonian
Talmud, Kritot 5b we can read of a
discussion about the sons of Yoshiyahu and
how their names were changed. Here's part
of it: “And Jehoahaz by reason of the claim
to the throne by his brother Jehoiakim who
was two years his senior’. ‘Was he indeed
older, is it not written: And the sons of
Josiah: the first-born Yochanan, the second
22
Johoiakim, the third Zedekiah and the
fourth Shallum; upon which R. Johanan
remarked that Johanan was identical with
Jehoahaz and Zedekiah with Shallum! —
Jehoiakim was indeed older, and [the other]
was called first-born, because he was first
in succession. But is it permitted to install
the younger son in preference to the older?
Is it not written: And the kingdom he gave
to Jehorom for he was the first-born? —
That one followed in his forefather's
footsteps. The Master said: ‘Shallum is
identical with Zedekiah’. But are not the
sons enumerated in numerical order? He
[Zedekiah] is called ‘the third’ because he
was the third among the sons, and he is
called ‘the fourth’, because he was the
fourth to reign, for Jeconiah reigned before
him: Jehoahaz was the first successor, then
followed Jehoiakim, then Jeconiah and then
Zedekiah. Our Rabbis taught: Shallum is
identical with Zedekiah; and why was he
called Shallum? Because he was perfect
[‘shalem’] in his deeds; or according to
another explanation, because the kingdom
of the House of David ended [shalem] in his
days.”
7. It is quite permissible in Greek
grammar to use a definite article before a
proper name ("the" Matthew, "the" Luke,
"the" Mary). However, in the Greek text of
Luke's genealogy, every single name
mentioned has the Greek definite article
with one exception: The name of Joseph
(Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original
would understand by the missing definite
article from Joseph's name that this was not
really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife
Mary's. Furthermore, although many
translations of Luke 3:23 read: "…being
supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of
Eli…”, because of the missing Greek definite
article before the name of Joseph, that
same verse could be translated as follows:
"Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph
the son of Heli…". In other words, the final
parenthesis could be expanded so that the
verse reads that although Yeshua was
"supposed" or assumed to be the
descendant of Joseph, he was really the
descendant of Heli the father of Mary. The
absence of Mary's name is quite in keeping
with the Jewish practices on genealogies.
The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this
genealogy to be that of Mary and not Joseph and refers to Mary as the daughter
of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).
