Anyone who claims to be the messiah must have the human pedigree to support their right to the title. There has been many who have claimed to be the messiah and have failed to provide their lineage as proof of their claim.
Mt 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
The New Testament begins with the lineage of the Messiah. Yet many would dispute this today because they turn a blind eye and refuse to accept it because they choose to follow other traditions or voices.
Lukes gospel differs from Mathews , in that the lineage is longer and extends all the way to Adam in the reverse order to Mathews.
Lu 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
There are some differences between the two lineages and I have selected these two commentaries below to aid your understanding.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary
Verse 23. Thirty years of age This was the age required by the law, to which the priests must arrive before they could be installed in their office: See note on “Nu 4:3″.
Nu 4: 3 From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.
Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph This same phrase is used by Herodotus to signify one who was only reputed to be the son of a particular person: touton paiv nomizetai he was SUPPOSED to be this man’s son.
Much learned labour has been used to reconcile this genealogy with that in St. Matthew, {#Mt 1:1-17}, and there are several ways of doing it; the following, which appears to me to be the best, is also the most simple and easy. For a more elaborate discussion of the subject, the reader is referred to the additional observations at the end of the chapter.
MATTHEW, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed virgin, speaks of SONS properly such, by way of natural generation: Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, Luke, in ascending from the Saviour of the world to GOD himself, speaks of sons either properly or improperly such: on this account he uses an indeterminate mode of expression, which may be applied to sons either putatively or really such. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was SUPPOSED the son of Joseph—of Heli—of Matthat, considerable support from Raphelius’s method of reading the original wn wv enomizeto uiov iwshf tou hli, being (when reputed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli, not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons.
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, nomizesyai bears, in a variety of places—Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli.
The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, {#Mt 1:16}; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: {#1Ch 3:17}, and {#Mt 1:12}. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke. And Salathiel, son of Jechonias, according to the former, was son-in-law of Neri, according to the latter.
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
1Ch 3:17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son,
Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim.
Joseph, son of Jacob, and Mary; daughter of Heli, were of the same family: both came from Zerubbabel; Joseph from Abiud, his eldest son, {#Mt 1:13}, and Mary by Rhesa, the youngest. {See #Lu 3:27}.
Salathiel and Zorobabel, from whom St. Matthew and St. Luke cause Christ to proceed, were themselves descended from Solomon in a direct line: and though St. Luke says that Salathiel was son of Neri, who was descended from Nathan, Solomon’s eldest brother, {#1Ch 3:5}, this is only to be understood of his having espoused Nathan’s daughter, and that Neri dying, probably, without male issues the two branches of the family of David, that of Nathan and that of Solomon, were both united in the person of Zerubbabel, by the marriage of Salathiel, chief of the regal family of Solomon, with the daughter of Neri, chief and heretrix of the family of Nathan. Thus it appears that Jesus, son of Mary, reunited in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called, The son of David.
1 ch 3:5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon,
It is worthy of being remarked that St. Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, extends his genealogy to Abraham through whom the promise of the Messiah was given to the Jews; but St. Luke, who wrote his history for the instruction of the Gentiles, extends his genealogy to Adam, to whom the promise of the Redeemer was given in behalf of himself and of all his posterity.
Mathew Pooles Commentary
Ver. 24-38 There have been great disputes about the genealogy of our Saviour, as recorded both by Matthew and Luke. The adversaries of Christian religion have taken no small advantage from the seeming difference between them, which even many sober writers have thought it no easy matter to reconcile. The apostle hath cautioned us against giving too much heed to endless genealogies, which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith, #1Ti 1:4; yet certainly it is our duty, as well for the stopping the mouths of such as would clamour against the truth of the whole Scripture, (if not of the whole Christian religion), as, so far as we can, to vindicate holy writ from their little cavils, and thereby also to confirm those who are weak in faith. To make these things as clear as we can: It is plain that both the evangelists agree in their design, by setting down the genealogy of our Saviour, to prove him lineally descended both from Abraham and David, the two persons to whom was made the promise of the Messiah, and the stability of his kingdom, and also in the names of the first fourteen generations, mentioned by Matthew, and here by Luke, #Lu 3:32,33, and to Abraham, #Lu 3:34.
Their disagreement lieth in four things.
1. In the form of the pedigree; Matthew beginning with those who were first, Luke with those who were last in order of time. But this is no valuable exception, one evangelist counts forward, another backward.
2. Matthew counts by three periods, each consisting of fourteen generations; Luke doth not: but neither is this of any moment.
3. Matthew sits down our Saviour’s genealogy before he tells us any thing of his conception or birth; Luke, after his relation of his conception, birth, and baptism.
4. Matthew derives our Saviour’s genealogy but from Abraham; Luke, from Adam.
All these differences lay no foundation for any exception. Several accounts are given why Luke carrieth up the genealogy to Adam; the best seemeth to be this: that Matthew intending his history primarily for the Jews, judged it enough to prove Christ the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David; but Luke designing the information of the whole world, derives him from the common father of mankind. By which means he also showeth the antiquity of the gospel, and lets us know that Christ was he who was promised to Adam, before Abraham’s time, and that the grace of the gospel is not limited to the seed of Abraham. Thus also Luke supplieth what was wanting in Matthew, and truly derives both the first and second act from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of us all. But besides these differences (hardly worth the taking notice of under that notion) there are some seeming contradictions in the genealogies, yet not such but I think a fair account may be given of to any who will but first consider:
1. That they all lie in what Luke hath, from #Lu 3:23-31, and from the latter end of #Lu 3:34 to the end. So that in #Lu 3:32,33, and part of #Lu 3:34, we have nothing to reconcile.
2. That these words the son is in the Greek only #Lu 3:23, where Christ is said to be “the son of Joseph,” but ever after it is supplied by the translators. So as the Greek runs thus: The Son of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, &c. Which consideration cuts off the first cavil, how Joseph could be the son of Jacob, as Matthew saith, and the son of Heli, as Luke saith; for indeed Luke saith no more than, And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, #Lu 3:23; that is, Christ was of Heli, the supposed son of Joseph, but truly of Heli, the father of Mary his mother. I know that some think Jacob was also called Heli (as it was ordinary with the Jews to have two names); others think that Joseph is called the son, because he was the son-in-law of Heli, by the marriage of the virgin Mary his daughter. (Naomi calleth those her daughters who were but her legal daughters, #Ru 1:11) In this the most agree. But I must confess I think it is Christ, who is here said to be of Heli (though he was reputed, and generally taken, to be the son of Joseph).
3. That Luke is here deriving our Saviour, not from his supposed father Joseph, but from Mary his true mother. It is not to be conceived that Luke, after such a narration of the predictions of his conception as he had given us in the first chapter, should go to derive Christ from Joseph; and this gives us a fair account why the names are so different from David’s time to the birth of Christ.
Joseph (whose pedigree Matthew relates) deriving from Solomon, who was the son of David, succeeding him in the kingdom. Mary (whose pedigree Luke relates) descending from Nathan, #Lu 3:31 1Ch 3:5 tells us he was another son of David. So as after David’s time the persons named which before were the same in our Saviour’s pedigree became diverse, some the progenitors of Joseph, whom Matthew reckons, others the progenitors of Mary, whom Luke nameth. This answereth the objection from the differing number of the persons from Joseph to Zorobabel (excluding them both). Matthew reckoneth but nine, Luke here reckoneth eighteen, in #Lu 3:23-28. From Zorobabel to David Luke reckons twenty-two progenitors, Matthew but fourteen, (leaving out three kings of the half blood of Ahab, of which we gave an account in our notes: See Poole on “Mt 1:1″), so as the Scripture nameth seventeen, though Matthew leaves out three. In two different lines, it is not impossible that one person in so many years might have so many more progenitors than another, supposing Matthew designed to reckon all, which it is plain from his leaving out three kings named in Scripture that he did not.
4. That ordinarily the Jews had two names, sometimes three. All Josiah’s sons had each of them two at least. Matthew had also the name of Levi, &c. This solves the difference from #Lu 3:27, where Rhesa is said to be the son of Zorobabel, whenas Matthew saith, #Mt 1:13, Zorobabel begat Abiud. That Abraham was the son of Terah or Thara, and Terah the son of Nachor, appeareth from #Ge 11:24,26. That Saruch or Serug was the son of Reu or Ragau, appeareth from #Ge 11:20 1Ch 1:25. That Reu was the son of Peleg, (here called Phalec), and Peleg the son of Eber, and Eber the son of Sala, appears from #Ge 11:18 1Ch 1:25. But in #Ge 11:12 we read, that Sala was the son of Arphaxad, whereas he is here said to be the son of Cainan, and Cainan is made the son of Arphaxad. So as Luke maketh Sala grandchild to Arphaxad; Moses makes no mention of Cainan at all, but mentions Salah as begotten by Arphaxad. Those who are curious to know what is said for the resolution of this difficulty, may read it largely both in Spanheim’s Dubia Evangelica, and Mr. Pool’s Synopsis Criticorum. It is a difficulty which hath exercised many very learned men, and I doubt whether ever any yet satisfied himself in the resolution of it. It is not probable that Luke should correct what Moses said; the best account I can give of it is, the Septuagint in #Ge 11:12 have it just as Luke here hath it; and it is certain that Luke, in his quotations out of the Old Testament, doth generally follow the Septuagint, being the translation most in use among them. Beza tells us of an ancient copy of the Gospel he had, which mentions no Cainan. The best of it is, that it is a matter of no great moment, for the question is not, whether Sala was the son of Arphaxad, (for so he was, though Arphaxad was his grandfather, in the same sense that Christ is called the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David, and Elisabeth the daughter of Aaron, #Lu 1:50) but whether he was the immediate son of Arphaxad or Cainan; whether Moses omitted Cainan, or some transcriber of Luke added Cainan out of the Septuagint (being then the current translation among them): the last is most probable. For the other part of the genealogy, #Lu 3:36-38, it plainly agreeth with #Ge 5:6 6:10. So that I must profess I see no great difficulty to reconcile the genealogies, admitting the one to give the genealogy of Joseph, and the other to give the genealogy of Mary. That indeed Mary was the daughter of Heli is not to be proved by Scripture, nor yet contradicted, but it is very probably judged so. And though we cannot prove that Cainan, mentioned #Lu 3:36, was added out of some later copies of the Septuagint, yet it is more than probable it was so. Which two things if we admit, I see no great difficulty remaining, but a fair agreement between both the evangelists. For I presume none will stumble at the alteration of some letter, or omission of some letter in a name, or addition to it in the end; there is nothing more ordinary than that, when names are mentioned in several languages.
My Comments:
In the Koran there is no lineage for Mohammed except for the claim that Ishmael was the first born son of Abraham.
Modern day Jews and Israeli’s would have a very tough time trying to prove their lineage , because of the diaspora after the destruction of Jerusalem (ad 66-70) as this was the task of the Levites who never intermarried.
If you have some understanding of the Old Testament you would know that God always worked through his true prophets, and that the Levites were commanded not to intermarry with others.
Ezra 10:18 And among the sons of the priests there were found that had taken strange wives: namely, of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah.19 And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass.
So who today could claim the right to the High Priesthhod after the order of Aaron , or the right to offer sacrifices for modern Israeli’s.
They would need a prophet from the tribe of Levi to appoint a High Priest and make the atoning sacrifice. No arbitarily selected sacrifice of a red heifer can solve this problem.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The letter to the Hebrews is explicit that at the time of writing, the remnants of the levitical priesthood and its sacricfices would soon be know more. And as history records all was gone when the Temple was burnt in ad 67 to the 8th of ab Ad 70 all on the temple mount perished.
So those who are promulgating a rebuilt temple and a reinstituted High Priest Hood and animal sacrifices , must prove by lineage who will be the High Priest and also who will hold the office of a levite priest.
I seriously doubt that any such records exist today, as the Divine canon is now closed.
The Last person who had a true claim was John the Baptist as the Herod’s took upon themselves to sell the High Priesthood to those of their choice.
Also many of the true levites like Mathew followed Christ.
Ac 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
One must beware the self confessed Elijah’s who think they are the modern forerunners to Christ’s reappearance.
Mat 11:13 /14 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias(heb Elijah), which was for to come.
John the Baptist descent was from Aaron , so no gentile can claim this title today.
Mal 2:7 For the priest’s (levites) lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger(John), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant(Christ), whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Mt 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias( Heb Elijah) is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Lu 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Lu 1:12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
Lu 1:13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
William Branham and John Alexander Dowie led many astray in the past , for they indirectly claimed to be Elijah.
In 1901 Dowie proclaimed himself “Elijah the Restorer” and began to wear High-Priestly robes. This caused many disciples to fall away; the subsequent decrease in income combined with the expenses of building Zion marked the beginning of Dowie’s slide into bankruptcy. It was at this time that rumors of his polygamous teaching and activities, use of alcohol, and extravagant lifestyle began to gain currency, not only in the world, but also within the Church. http://www.james-joyce-music.com/extras/dowie_bio.html
- Branham started off as a Baptist and then changed over to a Oneness Pentecostal. He vehemently denied the Trinity of God and took a strong “Jesus Only” stance in regards to the godhead. This alone places him in the ranks of earlier heretics. The early church fathers fought long and hard battles against those who denied the reality of One God in three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, his Jesus was not the true Jesus of the Bible.
- Branham also believed he was Elijah the prophet, see the picture above. This picture is available on the William Branham Homepage and many many other sites on the web. What was more, other people believed him to be the prophet Elijah who was to come before the return of Christ Jesus. Branham was not Elijah, thus we can easily see the depth of the deception working in him and his followers.
- Branham taught a works salvation, not uncommon for most Pentecostals, although his form was rather extreme in regards to dress, make-up, etc. Thus, his doctrine of salvation was not sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura as the reformers correctly taught.
- Branham held to the belief in UFO’s and somehow they figure into the end times (which is interesting when one considered the X-Files and Heavens’ Gate).
- He also taught about the great pyramid and its Biblical meaning and significance to his ministry.
Branham died in 1963 after his car was struck by a drunk driver. For many days after his death several well known Latter Rain ministers prayed over his body in an attempt to raise Branham from the dead. . .obviously they failed. Source http://forgottenword.org/branham.html
So the moral of all this is beware the false prophet’s coming in sheeps clothing , who make claims to those whose ignorance of the scripture is obvious. When I was a babe in Christ I got caught up in the hype of these so called great men of God, due to my lack of knowledge. There is no support in the scripture for another coming of Elijah or a Physical return of Christ.
Tags: Christology
