Meriweather
Not all who wander are lost
- Oct 21, 2014
- 17,953
- 3,728
- 165
Already explained. "Son of" can cover more than one generation of descendants. For example, each person has four great-grandfathers. There were no words for grandfathers or great-grandfathers in Hebrew. The word for any descendant was Son of. Therefore, Joseph would have been the son of his father (A), the son of his grandfathers (B, C) the son of his great-grandfathers (D, E, F, G), even the son of his great-great grandfathers (H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P). Generations of those less noteworthy were also skipped. Within two generations, the son was called the son of three men. Within five, he would have been the son of sixteen men). In place of 'son' the word 'descendant' would be the more accurate designation. Now do you understand why genealogies differed? It appears Matthew and Luke followed separate family trees--and if we ever find works of fourteen other authors, we could easily have fourteen additional family trees. That is the way it works in our own families today.There's no reason for Jesus to have TWO DIFFERENT PATERNAL GRANDFATHERS