Bidam:

Yeah..the devil is trying so hard to capitalize on the ignorance of folks since he knew God does not go back on his Word.

OLAADEGBU: The Coniah Problem

"Thus saith the Lord, Write ye 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" (Jeremiah 22:30).

The divine judgment of the above Scripture was pronounced against Israel's King Coniah, grandson of good King Josiah and son of the wicked king Jehoiakim. With the exception of Josiah, all of Israel's kings for over 76 years had done "evil in the sight of the Lord" (II Kings 21:2,20; 23:32,37). Then, when Coniah (same as Jehoiachin) continued in the same evil course for the first three months of his reign, God's patience was exhausted, and He finally allowed Nebuchadnezzar to carry Coniah away captive to Babylon, where God then also said that none of Coniah's descendants would ever again occupy Israel's throne.

The problem is that God had promised David that "I will set up thy seed after thee, . . . and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever" (II Samuel 7:12-13). This promise was even repeated later: "For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 33:17). Furthermore, Coniah did become the ancestor of the legal father of Jesus (Matthew 1:11-16), who is Himself destined to occupy "the throne of His father David" and then "reign over the house of Jacob for ever" (Luke 1:32-33).

But Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. He was simply "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus," and he "knew her not till she had brought forth" her Son, Jesus, while she was still a virgin (Matthew 1:25). Both prophecies were thereby fulfilled, for Mary was also a descendant of David (Luke 1:23-31). God's Word was found true and consistent after all by the amazing miracle of Christ's miraculous conception and virgin birth! HMM

For more . . . .

Sarassin: Excuse me, erm have I missed something ?

How exactly was this so-called "Coniah" problem "resolved" ?
And where exactly in the Bible is it postulated that Mary is a descendant of King David ?
Jewish custom operates a Patrilineal inheritance...not matrilineal as you are trying to imply, are we re-writing the Bible here ?

Joshthefirst: no sir, I don't think he is. There are many factors to be considered when examining the geneology of Christ. Many jewish factors. There's the fact that a man who doesn't have male sons and dies can have his brother mary his wife and bear male sons to carry on his name. I'll leave our oga @ d top () ola to explain further to both of us

Sarassin:

Right, I get it ! Hopefully the OP will clarify further.

okeyxyz:

@OP is making a grave mistake in his interpretations, which can be considered a disgrace and sacrilege according to the Law and traditions of those days. It is indeed a pervasion of the Law to trace genealogy through the woman. @olaadegbu commits a grave error in judgment in trying to use modern day mindset to prove/disprove the spiritual principles of the law/customs. Women do not bear or carry a name from one generation to another, inheritances are never passed through the woman. @loaadegbu would have caused serious shock and offense if he had suggested this interpretation to people of those days. How would Jesus, who was the personification of the law, coming to fulfill the law, starts first by braking one of the most sacred principles in the same law by dismantling the right of the son to carry-on the family name? It is a perversion and cannot be true. Jesus was not the seed of David through Mary, He was through Joseph.

The law supersedes blood and a child bears the name and lineage of the household under which he/she was born, and according to the records, it was in the household of Joseph. Joseph did not take on Mary's name , rather Mary took on Joseph's name. Nobody then ask's a woman "who are you?", rather they'd ask "who's wife are you?" or "who's daughter are you?". @Joshthefirst makes a strong point with his example that a man who fails to produce a son before he dies, then the man's brother is mandate to produce a son in the name of the deceased brother, through the brother's widow. You don't do this practice in the case of a female child. This illustrates the the very high importance placed on sonship. @Olaa seems not to take jewish tradition into context here, thus making an very wrong discernment.

OLAADEGBU:

There are different emphases in the genealogies, but there are also explanations for the dissimilarities between these two genealogies. So you have Matthew tracing his genealogy through David's son Solomon and Luke tracing his genealogy through David's son Nathan. And it may be that Matthew's purpose is to provide the legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph while Luke's idea is to provide the natural lineage from Nathan through Mary. It could also be that Matthew and Luke are both tracing Joseph's genealogy, Matthew through the legal line and Luke the natural line. So the legal line diverges from the natural in that the Levirate law stipulated if a man died without an heir his genealogy could legally continue through his brother. But here's the point: There are a number of ways to resolve dissimilarities and that rules out the notion of course that there is some contradiction here. ~ Hank Hanegraaff | http://www.equip.org/audio/why-are-the-genealogies-in-matthew-and-luke-different/

okeyxyz:

This is the problem when people insist on taking everything in the bible to be absolutely literally unquestionable, thus they end up with using all manner of perversions to try to justify this literal interpretation.

okeyxyz:

I stress again: It is not possible that Jesus was the seed of David through Mary.

okeyxyz:

Under the law, women have no name rights and no inheritance rights.

okeyxyz:

How come the genealogies were traced all through men as written "..and Mr A begat Mr B, and Mr B begat Mr C, and Mr C begat Mr D...", not a single female mentioned in all these, both of the "begetter" and the "begotten".

okeyxyz:

Yet all of a sudden it comes to Jesus and you guys are trying to commit abomination by inserting Mary as the Head of Joseph instead of Joseph as the head of Mary which is in accordance with the law and in accordance with nature. Women just don't carry-on family names. It is a male role.

OLAADEGBU:

How do you spiritualise genealogies if not literal?

OLAADEGBU:
You are barking up the wrong tree here. What we are saying is that Matthew was tracing Jesus' genealogy through David's son Solomon while Luke traced His genealogy through David's son Nathan and that Matthew's purpose is to provide Jesus' legal lineage from Solomon through Joseph while Luke's idea is to provide His natural lineage from Nathan through Mary.

OLAADEGBU:
Foul! Women had inheritance rights under certain conditions. Read Numbers 27:1-11; 36:2.

OLAADEGBU:
Over the bar! Four women were mentioned in Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:3, 5-6 (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth and the wife of Uriah).

OLAADEGBU:
Read your Bible:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of He-li" (Luke 3:23).

This is a bible commentary on the son of He-li:

son of Heli. Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16), so this verse should be understood to mean "son-in-law of Heli." Thus the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually the word "son" is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either "son" or "son-in-law" in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin (see Jeremiah 22:24-30 and 33:15-17).

okeyxyz:

Again you confuse the issues. The records says "Mr A begats Mr B through Mrs A, and Mr X begats Mr Y through Mrs X...", it is still reading geneaology of the men, not of the women. Of course there has to a woman to give birth to children, but lineage is not of the woman but of the man. Women do not have names of their own, they take on the names of their fathers or of their husbands. How can you turn around to say that lineage is traced from the woman?? This is just traditionally/lawfully illogical and impossible.

Again, I suspect your yoruba values at play here, because yoruba women tend to have inheritnace rights and hold authoritative roles in yoruba traditional society.

OLAADEGBU:

In that case I'll refer you to back to the first gospel preached:

"And I would put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15).

There you see the Seed of the woman turned out to be no other one than the One and only Saviour from sin, our Lord Jesus Christ who was born of the virgin Mary.