(2024-01-11 Update: “Jews for Judaism” copycats the title of the companion video below.)
The following is adapted from a larger discussion in a previous post: Antichrist Renews the Sinai Covenant and Mosaic Law. The companion video to this report is below: Tovia is Wrong, Episode 1 : Messiah’s Genealogy)
Contrary to most teachings, Luke’s genealogy links Jesus Christ to Joseph not Mary. This is made plain in the scriptures when reading Luke’s opening statement before listing the Messiah’s genealogy legally through Joseph who was, as it was supposed, his father:
“When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, AS WAS SUPPOSED, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli..” (Luke 3.23)
There is a legal precedent in the Torah transferring inheritance to an adopted son (Deu 25.5-10) which would have been made official when Yeshua Jesus was registered in the temple with his legal father Joseph (Lk 2.21-23, 39; 3.23). However, the lineage of the Messiah must be through Solomon according to scripture (1Chr 22.9-10), therefore the genealogy of Joseph in Luke’s gospel cannot fulfill messianic prophecy even by legal adoption because it is through the line of Nathan. However, Matthew’s genealogy through Solomon has the potential to fulfill the promise upon closer scrutiny of the wider corpus of New Testament manuscripts, particularly those from the East.
There is interesting evidence Matthew’s genealogy is from Mary not Joseph when studying the Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta NT from the Khabouris Codex named after the Assyrian city Chabor/Habor where northern Israeli tribes were exiled to in 2Kings 17.6 (the Greek NT text contains translation notes not found in the Peshitta NT text as a telltale sign suggesting that the Greek text is the translation, not the other way around as most claim, although it may have been updated at a later time to a more common dialect similar to how the Old Testament was updated when it was canonized in the time of Ezra and the elders; at the very least it is an important witness to consult) – but I digress.
Part of the confusion stems from Mary’s FATHER (*or rather some other next-of-kin caretaker) also apparently named Joseph. When we examine the underlying text of Matthew chapter 1, we find the Peshitta uses different Syriac-Aramaic terms to distinguish father* Joseph in verse 16, “gebrah” (גברה), from husband Joseph in verse 19, “buelah“ (בעלה). Even English translations of the Peshitta NT overlook this important detail.
Moreover, the use of the noun “gebrah” is also distinguished from the verb used consistently to indicate who “fathered” (אולד) who all through the genealogy in Matthew chapter 1 from verses 2 through 16, but breaks the flow when it comes to Joseph’s relation to Mary which suggests the ‘Joseph’ of verse 16 is neither her father nor her husband but rather an older male relative from the generation before Mary. It also indicates, when reading the text plainly, that Matthew counted the 14 generations listed from the Babylonian exile to Messiah correctly after all. Otherwise we only get 13 generations if we translate “gebrah” as her husband.
The Greek text however is somewhat ambiguous and uses the generic term for man, “aner” (ἀνὴρ), in both verses which can be translated as “man,” “husband,” or “brethren,” etc., depending on the context. However the context of verse 16 would demand that it is translated as something of an older male relative with guardianship to be counted as the 12th generation which would make Mary the 13th generation and Jesus the 14th generation exactly as verse 17 says: “from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.”
The decision to translate ἀνὴρ as “husband” in verse 16 creates an error where none exists and is in defiance of the plain meaning of verse 17 which should be used to guide the translation and preserve the logical flow and explicit numbering.
Verse 18 then transitions from Christ’s genealogy record to the narrative of His birth and puts the ‘Joseph’ of verse 19 (also a descendant of David but through Nathan, not Solomon, per Luke 3.23,31) in a different context to help guide the translation which is that of a husband since verse 18 says Mary was betrothed to him and he is to take her as his wife as mentioned in verse 20.
The answer as to why “gebrah” was used in the Peshitta which breaks the flow of the genealogy is somewhat of a mystery but it suggests he was her caretaker and protector while also a family member of the generation previous to Mary. The simplest and most logical explanation is Mary’s father was dead and had no sons just like the legal scenario in Numbers 27.1-11, otherwise the inheritance would not have transferred to Mary in the event that he may still have a son before death, and the ‘Joseph’ of verse 16 is her uncle through whom Mary received the inheritance of her paternal lineage going back to Solomon in accordance with the statute outlined in the above verses of Numbers 27.
In this case, Mary would then pass the paternal inheritance, and messianic candidacy, to her son Jesus according to the flesh, in accordance with Torah law, while also satisfying other unique messianic prophesies including the indication of being sinless as a guilt-offering (“asham”) per Isa 53.10, and worthy of the extraordinary and highly exalted even divine titles (cf Jer 23.5-6; Isa 11.2-3) given to the promised son in Isaiah’s prophesies accompanied by signs from heaven (as mentioned below). One could even say God’s comment in 1Chronicles 17.13 in the Davidic covenant, also used elsewhere, becomes literally fulfilled in this case: “I will be his father and he shall be My son.” Similarly, the original messianic prophesy of the Seed of the woman in Genesis 3.15 takes on a new literal significance in retrospect. One might even say it’s as if the word of God was made flesh.
The only other two Josephs identified in the gospels, other than Mary’s husband, living during the time of Jesus and Mary include one of Mary’s other sons named Joseph, and the other is Joseph of Arimathea.
In some deep and very interesting traditions (on which the later elaborations of the holy grail legends are based) Joseph of Arimathea is said to be Mary’s uncle (watch this space for more info). The scriptures describe him as a good and righteous man (Lk 23.50), a secret disciple of Christ (Jn 19.38) as well as a rich and powerful member of the Sanhedrin (Mt 27.57-58, Mk 15.43) who held enough sway to meet with Pilate on short notice and request the body of Christ — which makes sense of why Joseph was allowed to place Him in his own tomb (Mat 27.59-60, cf. Isa 53.9) which, if not mistaken, could only be done for family members as they were typically family tombs. The Jewish Encyclopedia entry on tombs confirms this idea and uses Joseph of Arimathea as an example:
In any case, the above explanation is the simplest one that preserves the logical flow of the plain meaning of the text and the contextual framework as well as the explicit numbering of 14 generations given by Matthew, and is in accordance with Torah law, the Davidic covenant, and other prophetic considerations including from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel.
Of the two genealogies given, Luke’s would be recorded in the temple according to the father’s lineage. Matthew’s is through the mother and may not be required for official records and has theological and prophetic implications – material for further exploring; this may be why the genealogy uses three divisions of 14 generations with some names left out similar to how God removes names from the book of life (heavenly records) as mentioned in various places in scriptures. We even see the tribe of Dan left out of the genealogies listed in 1Chronicles 4-9, and the census in Revelation 7.2-8, but there will be a remnant restored in the future kingdom as shown in Ezekiel 48.1-2, 32.
Another important point in all of this is to remember there was also a curse placed on the line of David through Solomon’s line down to Jeconiah/Coniah, the father of Shealtiel, who’s sons from the royal paternal side were legally invalidated from being able to fulfill Messianic genealogy per Jeremiah 22.30: “write this man stripped/childless”.. “no man from his seed..” would take the throne of David — Note: “seed” is masculine singular, i.e., no man from a SON of his — Mary was not a son. Christ is the literal seed of the woman hearkening back to Gen 3.15. It’s as if the only way the promise of the Davidic Messiah could be fulfilled is through the mother’s line in combination with the rare circumstance described in the legal precedent of Numbers 27.1-11, a feat satisfied in Yeshua’s unique virgin birth.
This best explains why Jeconiah/Coniah is not in Luke’s legal genealogy (likely from the temple records) but still in Matthew’s according to the flesh on Mary’s side fulfilling the Davidic Covenant through Solomon’s lineage despite the curse, which basically required something of a miracle in view of other considerations below.
Pertaining to the controversy of Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth:
Yeshua Jesus could not be the Messiah if He had a human father because of the prophecy of the promised son from Isaiah 7.14 which picks up again in Isaiah 9.6-7 with exalted titles including “Mighty God (El)” titles associated with YHWH in Isa 10.20-21, Jer 32.17-19, Neh 9.32, Deu 10.17; the 2nd century Aramaic Targum used by rabis also inserts “Messiah” into the passage of Isaiah 9.6. Isaiah 53.10 also says of the unnamed suffering servant that His soul is an “asham” (guilt offering) which in Lev 7.1 is called most holy — this rules out everyone born in sin since the time of Cain and Abel and proves the unnamed Servant in Isaiah 53 is not an ordinary man or people but born sinless somehow (ie, a virgin birth; Ps 51.5 associates being born in sin with יחם, literally “heat” or lust of coitus, absent in Lk 1.34-35; compare the spiritual birth of redeemed believers by God in Deu 32.18, 30.6; Jn 1.12-13, 3.3-8; 1Pe 1.23; Rom 2.28-29 – by which the faithful will be born out of the land in the resurrection, Isa 66.8, 26.19, Dan 12.2, etc).
This sinless birth, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, comports with the exalted titles and endowments given by the prophets in the Hebrew bible in Isaiah 9.6-7, 11.2-3 and Jeremiah 23.5-6, etc.
The Hebrew text of Isaiah 7.14 uses the term “almah,” – young maiden, typically unmarried – rather than the typical term for virgin, “bethulah,” which is also the Hebrew name for the star sign Virgo (cf. Gen 1.14) referenced in the star-map described in Rev 12.1-2 when Christ was born on the civil new year Rosh Hashanah (3 BC), as hinted at in connection with the promised-son prophecy when a sign from the heights above is mentioned by the Lord in Isaiah 7.11. [See discussion on The Woman of Revelation 12 for more background on this subject, also: Universal Knowledge of God’s Salvation Formatted in the Stars in the Beginning (Gen 1.14).]
These star signs of the zodiac/mazzaroth were misused in idolatry by the nations and apostate Israel – a practice strongly warned against throughout scriptures as seen with the misguided adoration of Virgo/Bethulah the “Queen of heaven” in the time of Jeremiah (Jer 7.18, 44.17-25), thus corrupting the original intention and purposes of them for bearing signs and for keeping times (Gen 1.14) and also pointing to the wisdom and majesty of their Creator (Psalm 19). Many nations fell into error over the ages regarding the heavenly signs with fear similar to superstitious views attached to modern horoscopes: “Do not learn the way of the nations, and do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens although the nations are terrified by them” (Jer 10.2).
A similar phenomenon occurred when the bronze serpent God told Moses to make in Numbers 21.8 – one of a few special exceptions by God overriding the commandment to not make graven images – was misused generations later as an object of idolatry (2Ki 18.4) rather than as a sign of faith and healing foreshadowing something greater (Jn 3.14-15), hence the law is for the lawless (1Tim 1.9).
In any case, the use of the more generic term, almah, may have been necessary for the prophecy to fit a two-fold application: one for the time of king Ahaz fulfilling some elements of the prophesy not limited to a virgin birth, and the second for a larger messianic application fulfilling other miraculous or even divine elements that were not fulfilled in the time of Ahaz, especially when considering the additional details where the promised-son theme picks up again in chapter 9 of Isaiah.
The famous rabbinic commentator from the 12th century, Rashi, also admits “almah” can refer to a virgin depending on context as discussed in Song of Songs 1.3. That being said, according to cognate studies and early usage of “bethulah,” it too has various shades of meaning depending on context and was not exclusively meant as a virgin in the fixed sense of later times but generally meant a young woman of marriageable age and Joel 1.8 speaks of a “bethulah” lamenting the husband (“baal”) of her youth. See בְּתוּלָה entry 295a in the TWOT Hebrew lexicon for extended discussion. Additionally, the Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta OT also uses the equivalent of bethulah in Isa 7.14 which is the same term in the Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta of Matthew 1.23; likewise the Greek OT (LXX) and Greek NT also agree on the same term typically used for virgin, “parthenos” which is also the Greek name for the constellation Virgo.
Now in the Talmud and other rabbinic literature, it was common to alter names or titles to create a new name with a suggestive meaning or play on words, sometimes as a mockery. Regarding Mary, a narrative is deployed to accuse her of infidelity with a Roman soldier who they named “Panthera,” which is a play on the old Greek word “parthena” (virgin) when the ‘n’ and ‘r’ swap places, thus continuing the aspersions cast about as even documented in the gospel of John 8.41, 48 when an early version of the accusation involved a Samaritan.
It should be remembered that Mary’s relative Elizabeth (likely an aunt, or possibly a cousin advanced in age) also had a pregnancy 6 months before Mary’s pregnancy which was also accompanied by an angelic visitation and signs publicized in the temple among priests and the multitude of worshipers. This event involved her husband Zechariah who served in the Temple’s holy place as a priest at the time of the announcement of their son John (the Baptist) who was forerunner to and bore witness of the heavenly Light of the Holy Spirit that remained with Christ after His baptism in the Jordan river (Jn 1.6-14, 29-34; Mt 3.16-17; Isa 11.2) and identified Christ as Lord when he said he was fulfilling the role of making ready the way of YHWH in the wilderness per Isaiah 40.3 (Mat 3.3).
It is also important to be mindful of a long-established and accepted Jewish tradition to expand or clarify the biblical text in light of new information or fulfillment which is another practice to consider in view of Matthew 1.23 citing Isaiah 7.14. Examples of this practice goes back to at least Nehemiah 8.8 and includes how the Hebrew text of Genesis retroactively includes the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) which was only revealed in the time of Moses, and how some Aramaic Targums insert “Messiah” into Isa 9.6-7 and 52.13, and also say God created heaven and earth in/with Wisdom (Holy Spirit) in Genesis 1.1 in light of Proverbs 8.22ff. Similarly, John 1.1 expands the fullest understanding of the Word/Memra/Logos following the Targumic tradition and Word theology in light of the incarnation of the Word in the flesh as the fullest revelation of God to man yet.
Copy, print, share.
Companion video to this report:
2024-01-11 Update:
Looks like the video from Jews for Judaism posted today (2024-01-11) copied this video’s title, “Tovia is Wrong” in their title, “Christian Missionaries Are Wrong..” The last video they posted was a month before “Tovia is Wrong.”
I’ve noticed other channels like ‘One for Israel’ (extensively) and even Tovia himself doing similar things — apparently using ai to scrape ideas and language from content creators in their related niches and (mis)apply them to fit their agendas or profit goals (?) — a practice so prevalent now that many authors and writers are suing over this while many others are losing their jobs to ai. I’ve documented this happening for years on this blog, long before it became a thing in the media.
I haven’t watched the video, but according to their video description it rehashes the tired old canard already reconciled in the video (Tovia is Wrong ep1), ignoring the important statute in Num 27.1-11 which allows the paternal inheritance to pass through the maternal line, surprise surprise, not to mention the curse placed upon the royal male line in Jeremiah 22.30 apparently requires the only way possible to fulfill the Messianic promise through David’s line is through the mother — these two aspects (the statute in Num 27 and the curse upon the royal male lineage) work together in Yeshua’s unique birth to fulfill the Messianic promise through David’s line.
In order to grumble about Yeshua not fulfilling every Messianic prophesy at once (thereby forgoing the other prophesies about including Gentiles in the kingdom to come pursuant to the promise to Abraham in whose seed all the nations would be blessed [Gen 12.3, 22.18] – how thoughtful of them, no?) they also conveniently ignore the fact that the prophets describe two comings of the Messiah – one lowly on a donkey by Zechariah, and one in glory as the Son of Man by Daniel: one and one equals TWO. (Basic math seems to be an insurmountable hurdle for these anti-Christs apparently, who also just can’t compute the 14 generations confirmed in Mat 1.17).
These two events of Messiah’s coming are tacitly acknowledged by the fact that some of their teachers split these aspects between two messiahs (the two beasts of Revelation 13 will fill these roles as ‘messiah king’ and ‘messiah prophet/priest’ like Elijah vs the two witnesses), one who is victorious and one who suffers , the latter of which would fit with the teaching of a leprous messiah. This is another tacit admission that Isa 53 is messianic since this leprous idea appears to be based on an interpretation of the Hebrew of verse 4 where the term נָג֛וּעַ used there is associated with leprosy elsewhere — and yet in 52.15 he is performing a priestly role of cleansing the nations (goyim)!
In addition to this, the 2nd century official targum their teachers used spells out “Messiah” in 52.13 leading into his acts in chapter 53 — but with great chutzpah and poetic license it blatantly rewrites the role and mission of the Messiah therein as an apparent polemic against the obvious parallels to Yeshua — another tacit admission and transparent example of the irreverent disregard for Holy Writ among those of the spirit of antichrist which is anti-bible, anti-torah.
Today however, they prefer to take a different blatantly dishonest position and just gaslight everybody claiming it’s really all about themselves! including those who reject the real suffering servant of Isa 53!
This reading is astonishingly absurd when you study the whole chapter preferably in Hebrew — such as verse 10 where it refers to His “nephesh” being an “asham” – a most holy offering per Lev 7.1, which would require being sinless! and also study the surrounding chapters, which does include another servant song naming Israel (even so, there are two ‘Israels’ discussed, one righteous, one not — those not are described as S0dom and G0morrah in Isa 1.10) — who is distinguished from the unnamed Servant in chapter 53 who represents righteous Israel such as the prophets themselves who are described as servants and also suffered at the hands of wicked Israel – including Messianic figures like Moses, Joseph and David), and indeed study the entire book of Isaiah and the rest of the Tanakh – for instance Jeremiah 31 who announced the New Covenant and said it would NOT be like the one at Sinai which they broke, hence they were divorced (Jer 3.8, Hos 2.2), cut off the land and considered as Gentiles (Jer 16.19 read in context of entire chapter) and are called S0dom and G0morrah in Jer 23.14 (and again Isa 1.10).
Only through the promised New Covenant marriage (Jer 31.31-33) can they, or anyone, come into a covenant relationship with God now. By refusing the New Covenant they are still considered as uncircumcised Gentiles, nor did they fulfill Isa 66.8 ‘a nation born in a day’ in 1948 which according to the context (verses 15-16) shows this occurs on the Lord’s Day of fiery vengeance which coincides with the righteous being resurrected or “born” in the land as described earlier in Isa 26.19 with more detail about the physical “birth” (resurrection) out of the land. This didn’t happen in 1948.
Jews for Judaism like all anti-Christ, anti-New Covenant, anti-Light of the world, anti-Gentile blessing groups depend on superficial talking points and rely on their followers having a vast ignorance of the full body of Hebrew scriptures and as a result are blocking their own people from receiving blessings in the world to come.
Related Posts:
Pretribulation Rapture Counter-Indicated
“This Generation”: Matthew 24.34 Interpreted from the Psalms
The Woman of Revelation 12 and the War in Heaven (Iron Beam update)
Top 10 List of Revelation Prophecies for Today
The Antichrist Kingdom for Dummies Vol 1
Bestowing the Mark of the Name in the Aaronic Benediction
666 – The Revelation from Moses and Ezra (UPDATE 2020-05-16)
o p e n. t h e. m a t r i x 
One thought on “New Light on Messiah’s Genealogy (Syriac-Aramaic New Testament Examined)”