A rejoinder to a possible interpretation of

Flaws in genealogies of Mathew and

Luke (By Rana Wadood Ahmed)
Possible interpretation:
At a glance, these two chapters appear to contradict each other.
However, they actually complement each other.

Matthew 1 clearly explains that Joseph is Marys husband. Matthew recorded this for legal purposes, to
show the Jews that Christ was the Messiah. It was the custom of the Jews to trace and record the
fathers descent. The Jews simply saw Christ as legally Josephs Son (Jn. 6:42).
Josephs lineage was also given to show that Jesus was, in fact, born of a virgin. If Joseph had been
Christs natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse
God placed on one of Josephs ancestors.
This ancestor, Jechonias, is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12. He is also referred to as Coniah
inJeremiah 22:24-30. Verse 30 states, Thus says the LORD, Write you this man childless, a man that
shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David,
and ruling any more in Judah. This man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants.
Jeconiah (as his name is spelled in the Old Testament) did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But,
this curse was fulfilled because none of his children went on to rule from the throne of David.
So how could Christ, a descendant of David, qualify to rule from the throne?

This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Marys genealogy. According to
Jewish tradition, in marriage, Marys genealogy was placed in her husbands name. The Greek simply
records that Joseph was of Heli (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Josephs father (Matt. 1:16),
Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.
Marys lineage did not have this curse as Josephs did. And Mary descended from Nathanone of
Davids sons! (see Luke 3:31). God honored Nathan, and made him the ancestor to the promised
KingJesus Christwho would sit on Davids throne forever (Luke 1:31-33). This fulfills Gods promise
of establishing Davids throne for eternity!
According to Israels law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his
possessions, inheritance and rightsbut only if she married within her tribe (Num. 27:1-8;36:6-8).
Since Mary had no brothers who could be heirs to her father, she was able to transmit Davids royal
inheritanceand the right to the throneto her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to
Heli, giving him the right to Davids throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ.
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke were both recorded to show Christs right to the throne.
Matthews account showed that through Josephs genealogy, Christ was a legal descendant of Jeconiah
(Coniah), but could not sit on and rule from the throne because of the curse. This account also proved
how Christ was born of a virgin woman, because the curse would have passed onto Christ if Joseph
were, in fact, His natural father. Of course, Christ was really the Son of Godbegotten by the Holy
Spirit!

Lukes account showed that through Marys genealogy, Jesus was a descendant of NathanDavids
son. This allowed the inheritance to pass to Joseph, who in turn passed it onto Christ.

The Fact of the matter;
About Mathew:
1.Jeconiah's Curse:
1he problem LhaL crlLlcs love Lo pounce on has Lo do wlLh one of !esus` ancesLors, Lhe lasL klng of !udah:
"'As surely as I live', declares the LORD, 'even if you Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a
signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. I will hand you over to those who seek your life,
those you fear, to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. I will hurl you and the mother
who gave birth to you into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die.
You will never come back to the land you long to return to. ' Is this man Jeconiah a despised, broken pot,
and object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do no know? O
land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: 'Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring shall prosper, none will sit on the
throne of David, or ever rule anymore in Judah." (!eremlah 22:24-30)
So, ln Lheory aL leasL, anyone who ls descended from !econlah cannoL slL on uavld's Lhrone, whlch of
course ls a problem when we geL Lo here:
"You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name of Y'shua. He will be
great and will be called Son of the Most High. The LORD YAH 34(Yahuva) will give him the throne of his
father David." (Luke 1:31-32)
Many Creek LexLual defenders have Lrled Lo suggesL LhaL MaLLhew's llneage ls of Messlah's faLher
!oseph,and Lherefore does noL carry Lhe curse. Powever, whlle Lhe 1almud says LhaL !ews are counLed
as such eLhnlcally lf Lhelr moLhers are !ewlsh, royal lnherlLances were always passed down from faLher
Lo son, and Lhls ls deflnlLely a royal genealogy LhaL MaLLhew ls Lrylng Lo relaLe here. 1herefore, Messlah
musL be descended from uavld on boLh sldes of hls famlly Lree, and Lhls curse would hold elLher way lf lL
were noL for one facL:
lL was llfLed!
lf Lhe rabbls of Lhe 1almud have any welghL ln Lhe maLLer, Lhey ruled unanlmously LhaL !econlah
wasforglven for hls many Lransgresslons by Lhe end of hls llfe. 1he reason for Lhls bellef arose from
ScrlpLure lLself, as each componenL of Lhls curse was Lurned back. LeL's look aL Lhese facLs whlch prove
Lhe case.
- 1he curse says, "record Lhls man as lf chlldless", and yeL ln Lhe same secLlon admlLs LhaL !econlah has
chlldren, and ln facL conLlnues Lo do so durlng hls punlshmenL.
- 1he curse says LhaL !econlah would never prosper, buL even !eremlah, who wroLe Lhe words of LhaL
orlglnal admonlLlon, reporLs Lhe followlng:"In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jeconiah, king of
Judah, in the year Evil-Merodach became king of Babylon, he released Jeconiah from king of Judah and
freed him from prison on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month. He spoke kindly to him and gave him a
great seat of honor higher than those of other kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jeconiah put aside
his prison clothes and for the rest of his life ate regularly at the king's table. Day by day the king gave
Jeconiah a regular allowance as long as he lived, till the day of his death."(!eremlah 32:31-34)
- 1he curse even goes so far as Lo proclalm LhaL "for none of hls offsprlng shall prosper, none wlll slL on
Lhe Lhrone of uavld, or ever rule anymore ln !udah." CranLed Lhe days of Lhe klngs of !udah were gone
for Lwo generaLlons. Powever, noLlce Lhe verse even covers any klnd of ruler ln !udah? lf Lhe curse were
sLlll enforced, how does anyone explaln Lhls passage?
"The word of the LORD came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month. Tell
Zerubabel the governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. I will overturn royal thrones
and shatter the power of foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their
riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother. On that day,' declared the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you,
my servant, Zerubabel son of Shealtiel', declares the LORD, and I will make you like my signet ring, for I
have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty."(Paggal 2:20-23)
Zerubabel, as lL Lurns ouL, ls Lhe grandson of !econlah (1 Chronlcles 3:17-19, MaLLhew 1:12), so noL bad
for a guy who was nelLher supposed Lo prosper nor rule. Also Lhe lmagery Paggal uses could noL be
sLronger, for [usL as !eremlah sald LhaL !econlah was Lhe slgneL rlng Lhe LC8u would remove, so now Lhls
same man's grandson ls Lhe slgneL rlng Cod wlshes Lo puL on! ln Lhe Mlddle LasL, a klng's slgneL rlng
bore Lhe royal seal. 1he klng, when he wlshed Lo auLhenLlcaLe a command, would Lake hls rlng and
lmpress Lhe lnslgnla lnLo clay, whlch would laLer harden and be aLLached Lo Lhe royal documenL.
1herefore, ln boLh cases, Lhe slgneL rlng ls a very vlslble slgn of regal power, very much akln Lo a scepLer
or crown. When Lhe rlng ls removed, Lhe power goes, and vlce versa when ln lL ls puL back on.
2.MaLhew hlmself clalmed LhaL Lhls Lhe geneology of !esus, Lhe son of uavld, Lhe son of Abraham
(MaLhew 1:1).now 2000 years laLer you are Lelllng me LhaL lnfacL MaLhew made a mlsLake.WhaL do you
Lhlnk?Pe wroLe Lhls geneology [usL Lo cheaL?8ecause you asserL LhaL !esus was born Lo a vlrgln.lf lL ls so,
Lhen how can he be son of !oseph? WhaL beneflL would he geL lf !oseph ls proved Lo be Lhe Lhe son of
uavld?
About Luke:
1.lL ls asserLed LhaL Lhls ls ln facL Lhe genealogy of Mary whlch Lraces her back Lo uavld.lf LhaL ls Lrue,
Lhen a problem arlses from Lhe facL LhaL MaLLhew Lraces Lhe ancesLral llne Lhrough Solomon, whereas
Luke llsLs anoLher son of uavld, naLhan (2 Samuel 3:14). Pere ls why:
"The king took an oath: 'As surely as the LORD lives, who has delivered me out of every trouble,I will
surely carry out today what I swore to you by the LORD, the God of Israel: Solomon your son shall be
king after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place.'"(1 klngs 1:29-30)
uL slmply, lf Lhe Lhrone musL go Lhrough Solomon's llne, how can someone descended from anoLher
son of uavld lay clalm Lo lL? 1he answer ls, accordlng Lo all Lhe rules of !ewlsh klngshlp, LhaL Lhey
cannoL.
1herefore, lf Luke ls reflecLlng Mary's ancesLors, Lhen we have a blg problem. Slnce a vlrgln blrLh
scenarlo effecLlvely seLs !oseph's llneage aslde ln maLLers of royal power, Mary musL Lherefore be a
dlrecL descendanL of Solomon ln order for her son Lo rule.
2.?ou are [usL lnLerpreLlng 'of Pell' (Luke 3:23) Lo be" son ln law" whlch ls wlLhouL any proof.lf lL ls Lhe
case Lhen Lhe whole llneage goes on repeaLlng of !oseph,of uavld" eLc. 8uL lL doesn`L mean LhaL Lhey
are son ln laws!
AL lasL buL noL Lhe leasL Lhe mosL convlnclng evldence would be Lhe !esus` verdlcL on Lhe lssue.
Matthew 22:41-46
King James Version (KJV):

41
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42
Saying, What think ye of Christ?
whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
43
He saith unto them, How then doth David in
spirit call him Lord, saying,
44
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
enemies thy footstool?
45
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
46
And no man was able to answer
him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
1he same ls repeaLed ln Luke 20:41-44
Why dldn`L !esus` hlmself know hls genealogy? Why dldn`L he seLLle Lhe maLLer wlLh !ews once and for
all by saylng LhaL Well l am Lhe son of uavld, so l fulflll your expecLaLlons, accepL me!".Cn Lhe conLrary
he lnLerpreLed. Why? Can any ChrlsLlan answer?
WalL l can....
Because he didn`t have the genealogies prepared by Mathew
and Luke!!!!