Tutorial: Understanding the Hebrew Year Formula (High School Level)

Let’s break down the updated Hebrew calendar formula in a way that feels approachable, with analogies and anecdotes to make it stick.

1. The Anchor (A₁)

Think of Nisan 1 as the “New Game Start” button.

• Just like when you press Start on a video game, everything resets: score, level, timer.

• In the calendar, Nisan 1 resets the year. From here, we count weeks, months, and festivals.

2. Threshold to Rishon (T_R)

Imagine you’re waiting for the school week to start on Monday. If your birthday is on Wednesday, you count how many days until Monday.

• That’s what T_R does: it counts how many days from Nisan 1 until the first Sunday.

• Anecdote: It’s like waiting for the bus schedule to line up with your watch—you need the offset to know when the first bus (week) really begins.

3. Year Types (E_y)

The Hebrew calendar has six flavors of year, kind of like ice cream:

• Common Deficient (353 days) → “small scoop”

• Common Regular (354 days) → “medium scoop”

• Common Abundant (355 days) → “big scoop”

• Leap Deficient (383 days) → “small scoop + extra cone”

• Leap Regular (384 days) → “medium scoop + extra cone”

• Leap Abundant (385 days) → “big scoop + extra cone”

Analogy: The “extra cone” is the leap month (Adar II). The size of the scoop depends on whether Cheshvan and Kislev are short or long.

4. Metonic Cycle (Mc)

The 19‑year cycle is like a class schedule that repeats every 19 days.

• Some years are “special” (leap years) where you get an extra study hall (Adar II).

• Anecdote: Imagine a marching band routine—every 19 steps, the pattern repeats, but certain steps add a flourish. That’s the leap year.

5. Month Structure

Each month is like a chapter in a book:

• Some chapters are 29 pages, some are 30.

• The first page (wk(Mₓ^start)) tells you what day of the week it begins.

• The last page (wk(Mₓ^end)) tells you what day it ends.

• Anecdote: Think of it like a TV season—some episodes are short, some are long, but together they make the season flow.

6. Weeks in the Year (W)

Add up all the weeks from each month.

• Sometimes the “extra pages” (spillovers) push into a new week.

• Result: 50–54 weeks per year.

• Analogy: It’s like counting how many full pizza boxes you can make from slices. Sometimes you have leftovers that force you to open a new box.

7. Mishmarot Rotations (Ms)

There are 24 priestly courses that rotate weekly.

• Analogy: Think of a basketball team with 24 players. Each week, one player is “captain.” After 24 weeks, the rotation starts over.

• Anecdote: It’s like taking turns mowing the lawn in a big family, everyone gets their week, then the cycle repeats.

8. Festivals (Moed)

Festivals are the school dances or pep rallies of the year.

• They have a start day, an end day, and sometimes spill into the next month.

• Some are short (like a one‑day field trip), others are long (like a week‑long camp).

• Anecdote: Imagine planning prom, you know the date, how long it lasts, and whether it spills into the weekend.

9. Compact Year Output

Finally, all the pieces are gathered into one blueprint:

Y={A1, TR, Ey, Mc, MM, days(Mx), wk(Mxstart/end), Wmx, Dx, W, N1..24, Ms(w), Mo tuples}Y = \{A₁,\, T_R,\, E_y,\, Mc,\, MM,\, \text{days}(Mₓ),\, \text{wk}(Mₓ^{start/end}),\, Wmₓ,\, Dₓ,\, W,\, N_{1..24},\, Ms(w),\, Mo\text{ tuples}\}

Analogy: This is like the yearbook at the end of school.

• It has everyone’s picture (months), the schedule (weeks), the sports rotation (Mishmarot), and the big events (festivals).

• Once you have the yearbook, you don’t need to recalculate—you can just look up what happened when.

The Daughters, the Decree, and the Davidic Promise Blog 2

I. House of Yosef The Messiah ben Yosef

The House of Yosef has always carried a forward‑leaning ache in Israel’s story. Even the Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5:2, preserves the expectation of Messiah ben Yosef, the suffering one, the pierced one, the first‑struck shepherd whose path precedes the triumph of David’s Son. Yosef’s house is the house of firsts-firstborn patterns, first‑sufferers, first‑deliverers. And that brings me to something that happened to a particular woman, something that affects all of us. Two things happened to her, and both still echo.

Spiritual Birth Not Death

Here’s the question I keep pressing: How does spiritual birth, and not death, affect each of us? Think about it. Everything we possess in covenant is by birth, not by death. That’s the logic of the birthright itself- בְּכֹרָתְךָ (Gen. 25:31). Possession by origin, not by expiration. By identity, not by loss. By sonship, not by vacancy. This is why the Torah keeps circling back to households where the line seems threatened, where sons are absent, where daughters stand in the gap, where the question of who inherits becomes a window into how God gives.

Two Men of Israel With No Sons

There was a man of Israel who had no sons. Actually more than one. The first you already know: Tzelophchad. He had daughters, five of them, and through them the logic of possession was clarified for all Israel. But there was another man of Israel who had no sons: אֵלִי Heli in English. The distinction is simple: Tzelophchad had five daughters. Heli had one. And who was his daughter? מִרְיָם Miryam The pattern repeats: When the line seems fragile, God reveals that inheritance flows through birth, not through death; through identity, not through absence; through the living, not through the departed. The House of Yosef knows this better than anyone.

II. The Legal Line of Heli Why Luke Names Miryam’s Father

But now we come to the hinge Luke 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… ”Most English translations translate “as was supposed” into parentheses, as if Luke were whispering an aside. But the Greek does not whisper. It speaks in the full voice of νόμος law, custom, legal standing.

יוסף Yosef is called the son (which was Luke’s own phrasing) of אֵלִי Heli

And here is the question that refuses to go away: Why is Miryam’s father listed as the father of her husband? This is not a scribal curiosity. This is not a textual shrug. This is Torah doing exactly what Torah said it would do.

III. Eusebius Saw the Shape but Not the Weight

Even Eusebius Pamphilius, in Church History (NPNF2‑01), stumbled into the truth without realizing the ground he was standing on. He notes: Matthew says: “Jacob begat Joseph.” Luke says: “Joseph, the son (as was supposed) of Heli, the son of Melchi…” And Luke omits the verb “he begat” all the way back to Adam. Eusebius correctly observes that Luke is expressing “the generation according to law.” But he does not appreciate the force of what that means. This is not conjecture. This is not harmonization gymnastics. This is Torah jurisprudence.

IV. The Misreading of Valesius and Why It Fails

Valesius dismisses Africanus’ reading - that ὡς ἐνομίζετο (“as was nomized”) applies not only to Joseph but also to Heli - calling it “improper and foolish.” But that dismissal is itself foolish. Why? Because it ignores Numbers 36:2–13, where God Himself legislates the case of a daughter with no brothers, marrying within her tribe, so that: the inheritance, the name, the possession, does not pass out of the father’s house. Luke is not being vague. Luke is being obedient. The so‑called ‘genealogical contradiction’ persists primarily among individuals who have not read the primary sources, a demographic which remains surprisingly robust.

V. What ὡς ἐνομίζετο Actually Means

The phrase ὡς ἐνομίζετο is not a shrugging “supposed.” It is from G3551 - νόμος, law, custom, legal usage. The verb νομίζω means: to do by law, to hold by custom, to regard according to legal standing. And Luke uses it in the imperfect middle/passive, 3rd singular, meaning: “as he was legally regarded,” “as he was customarily held by law.” This is not speculation. This is legal status. Joseph is being named as the legal son of Heli because: Miryam had no brothers, she married within her tribe, and therefore her husband stands as the legal heir to her father’s name and estate. Exactly as Torah commanded.

VI. The Possession of the Name Proverbs 19:14

And so the name of Heli does not vanish. It is not lost. It is not absorbed into another tribe. “House and wealth are inherited from fathers…” (Prov. 19:14) Luke is not giving us a biological genealogy. He is giving us a Torah‑faithful legal genealogy, where the line of Heli is preserved through Miryam, and Joseph is named as his son by law, not by blood. This is why Luke can trace the line back to Adam, the son of God, without ever once using the verb “he begat.” Because this is not a chain of biology. It is a chain of legal standing, inheritance, birthright, and covenantal possession. Exactly the pattern we saw with: Yosef Manasseh Machir Gilead Hepher Tzelophchad the five daughters and now Miryam. The House of Yosef knows this pattern well.

VII. The Name of Heli A Possession Worth Keeping

אֵלִי Heli means “exalted.” Wouldn’t that be a fitting possession for the product of this marriage? If the Torah preserves the name of a father through a daughter with no brothers, then what better inheritance could be carried forward into the life of the One born of Miryam than the name “Exalted”? This is not incidental. This is not decorative. This is the Tavneet—the pattern—working itself out in the warp and weft of Israel’s households.

VIII. Miryam and the Daughters of Tzelophchad

Miryam found herself in the same legal situation as the daughters of צְלָפְחָד Tzelophchad, so it is no wonder she is not “passed over.” She is: a daughter with no brothers, marrying within her tribe, preserving the name and possession of her father, and she is of the House of David. But why does this matter so deeply? Because the legal mechanism that preserved the retention of Tzelophchad’s daughters is the same mechanism that preserves the Davidic line through Miryam. The Torah already anticipated this. Luke simply records it. The daughters of Tzelophchad solved Luke’s genealogy centuries in advance. Quite thoughtful of them, really.

IX. Why Two Genealogies?

Now we come to the question that has been mishandled for centuries: Why is the genealogy of Matthew different from that of Luke? The most common answer—repeated in pulpits, commentaries, and apologetics manuals—is that Luke provides a genealogy to bypass the curse on Jehoiakim (or Jeconiah). But is that really why? Is Luke’s genealogy a circumvention of Matthew’s? A workaround? A theological loophole? No. That entire framing is wrong. Luke is not circumventing Matthew. Luke is doing something Matthew is not even attempting: Matthew gives the royal line, the throne line, through Solomon. Luke gives the legal line, the inheritance line, through Nathan. One is dynastic. One is juridical. Both are Davidic. Both are legitimate. Both are necessary. Luke is not patching a problem. Luke is revealing the Torah‑faithful legal standing of Yeshua through Miryam, whose father had no sons.

X. The Anti‑Missionary Objection Machine

And this is precisely where the anti‑missionary organizations pounce. Groups such as: Jews for Judaism, Messiah Truth Outreach Judaism, Kiruv Organization, all of them offering “personal counseling,” seminars, websites, and educational programs designed to counter Christian and Messianic claims. Their strategy is simple: Exploit the fact that most Christians cannot read Hebrew. Exploit the fact that most Messianics cannot read the Talmud. Exploit the fact that most apologists do not understand Torah inheritance law. Then declare the genealogies contradictory and therefore invalid. Authors like Tovia Singer, Gerald Segal, and David Klinghoffer repeat these talking points endlessly, insisting that Yeshua cannot be Messiah because the genealogies “don’t match.” But the genealogies do match, once you read them through the lens of Torah, not through the lens of modern polemics. The problem is not with Matthew. The problem is not with Luke. The problem is with readers who have forgotten the legal architecture of Israel’s inheritance laws.

XI. The Singer Show and the Problem of Unchallenged Assertions

The Singer Show can be heard on Arutz Sheva and Israel National Radio. For years they have operated with near‑total freedom to manipulate texts and sources to their own ends without serious challenge. To their credit, they are confident. To their detriment, they are rarely confronted by anyone who actually knows the languages, the sources, or the legal architecture of Torah. Dr. Michael Brown has been one of the few willing to meet them head‑on. He has exposed, repeatedly, how their claims regarding the text and its sourcing are not merely incomplete, they are misleading. But the question I keep asking is this: Was Luke aware of the anti‑missionary arguments? Because the very objections raised today are the same objections that would have been raised then. And Luke answers them—not defensively, but preemptively—by grounding his genealogy in Torah law, not in later polemics.

XII. The So‑Called “Curse of Jehoiakim”

Let me address one of the most recycled arguments: the “Curse of Jehoiakim” drawn from Jeremiah 22:24-30 and 36:30. Tovia Singer makes the usual claim. He points to Jeremiah 22:24: “Though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence…” He insists this disqualifies Yeshua from the throne because: A curse was placed upon יְּהוֹיָקִים Jehoiakim, and The royal line cannot pass through a woman, therefore Luke’s genealogy is invalid. But notice something: It is necessary for the anti‑missionaries to rely on the English translation, because the English obscures the issue. The Hebrew text does not support the sweeping claim they make. And the argument that “the royal line cannot go through a woman” collapses under its own weight. Are you saying royal heirs cannot have a mother? If the throne can only pass through males, then every king in Israel’s history is disqualified, because every one of them had a mother. The objection is not only unbiblical, it is biologically incoherent.

XIII. The House of Joseph and the Misuse of Numbers 1:18

Now consider Singer’s other argument from Outreach Judaism’s website: “Tribal lineage is traced only through a person’s father, never the mother.” - citing Numbers 1:18 This is a misuse of the text. Numbers 1:18 is about military enrollment, not inheritance law. It has nothing to do with the transmission of tribal identity in cases where a father has no sons. The Torah already addressed that scenario, explicitly, in Numbers 27 and Numbers 36. The daughters of Tzelophchad are the precedent. Miryam stands in the same legal category. Singer then claims: Mary was cousin to Elizabeth, therefore she must be of Levi. Mary cannot be connected to David. Romans 1:3 requires biological descent from David, and Joseph is not biologically connected to David. But this collapses under scrutiny: Cousins can be from different tribes. Tribal identity follows the father, not the mother. Elizabeth’s father could be Levi; Miryam’s father could be Judah. There is no contradiction. Miryam is connected to Nathan, son of David, through her father Heli. This is Luke’s entire point. Romans 1:3 does not require Joseph to be the biological father. It requires Yeshua to be “of the seed of David according to the flesh”, which He is, through Miryam. The anti‑missionary argument only works if one ignores Torah, ignores legal precedent, ignores Hebrew, and ignores context.

XIV. The Scale of the Misinformation

And Tovia is not alone. A simple search reveals the scale of the confusion: Google search produced 2,940 results in 0.34 seconds on “the curse of Jehoiakim.” 117,000 results in 0.64 seconds on “the contradiction between Matthew and Luke.” This is not because the contradictions are real. It is because the misunderstandings are popular. People repeat what they have heard. They do not check the text. They do not check the Hebrew. They do not check the legal structure of Torah. Luke did. Matthew did. The anti‑missionaries did not.

XV. Before the Curse of Jehoiakim The House of Joseph Lines

Before we even touch the so‑called “Curse of Jehoiakim,” we need to look at the House of Joseph from three angles: Scripturally (morphology) Talmudic Apostolic Writings. Because if you do not understand the structure of the House of Joseph, you will misread both genealogies and every objection raised against them.

XVI. Scriptural Response Torah and Ketuvim on the Female Line

From the Torah and the Ketuvim we have this unavoidable reality: The line of promise given to Avraham is through Sarah, by name. Not Hagar. Not Keturah. Not anyone else. Likewise, the line of Messiah is through Bat‑Sheva, by name. No other wife of David is named as the vessel of the promise. Therefore, from the narrative itself, we have two women explicitly required for the lineage. Women are not incidental. Women are not optional. Women are imperatives in the covenantal chain. Discounting the function of women is not only bad theology— it is a direct contradiction of the promises made to these women.

XVII. Morphology The Text Itself Requires the Feminine

From the morphology of the Hebrew text, the lineage as a product of birth is shaped by the feminine forms:

דְּכֹרָה - d’chorah דְּכֹרָה - shoresh כ־ר־ה בְּכוֹרָה - bekhorah, the firstborn, a feminine noun These forms establish the feminine presence within the lineage. Both feminine endings:

־ָה - qamets‑heh ־וֹת - holam‑vav‑tav (feminine plural)

are tied to birth, womb, and offspring. Only women have wombs. Only women give birth. The phrase:

פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם - peter rechem “the opening of the womb” (Ex. 13:2) is the context for children, inheritance, and firstborn status. Men do not open the womb. Men do not give birth. Therefore, the morphology of the text itself demands a feminine component in the lineage.

XVIII. Talmudic / Halachic Issues The Maternal Line

Now we turn to the Talmudic and halachic layer. Judaism mandates that to be Jewish, one must have a Jewish mother. This is a position Tovia Singer himself holds to. He quotes: “According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew…” But here is the problem: Citing D’var Torah while simultaneously appealing to halachic rulings is arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Or, does Mesorah all for if Jewishness is determined by the mother, then the maternal line is decisive. If the maternal line is decisive, then the argument that “lineage cannot pass through a woman” collapses instantly. Chabad even states: “Jewishness is not in our DNA. It is in our soul. The reason it is passed down through the maternal line is not just because it is easier to identify who your mother is. It is because the soul identity is more directly shaped by the mother than the father.” This is not a fringe view. This is mainstream halachic Judaism. So the anti‑missionary claim that “lineage cannot pass through a woman” contradicts: Torah narrative Hebrew morphology Halachic precedent Their own stated beliefs. You cannot have it both ways. Ah yes, the old rhetorical‑slide Asmakhta, the hermeneutical equivalent of duct‑taping a verse to your argument and calling it “Torah‑certified.” Nothing says scholarly rigor like treating a decorative citation as if it were a notarized affidavit from Sinai. It’s a marvelous trick, really. You take a verse that says absolutely nothing about your position, give it a gentle nudge, and suddenly, behold, it “supports” your conclusion. That’s not exegesis; that’s theological ventriloquism. The text’s lips aren’t moving, but somehow it’s saying exactly what you wanted all along. I mean, why bother with contextual integrity when you can perform a hermeneutical slide‑step worthy of a Levitical ballroom? Just anchor your idea to a verse like a toddler taping a crayon drawing to the fridge and declare, “Look, it’s biblical now!” And the best part? When someone calls you on it, you simply smile and say, “Oh no, dear brother — it’s not proof, it’s just support.” Which is like saying, “I’m not forging the signature; I’m just tracing it for emphasis.” If Scripture won’t say what you want, just rhetorically anchor it until it does. It’s the Mesorah version of putting a fake mustache on a cat and insisting it’s a lion. If Jewishness comes through the mother, then the maternal line matters. If the maternal line matters, then Miryam’s lineage matters. If Miryam’s lineage matters, then Luke’s genealogy stands.

XIX. Morphology Continued The Feminine as Covenant Architecture

The feminine morphology in Scripture is not decorative. It is architectural. It is the grammatical scaffolding through which God encodes the covenantal logic of birth, inheritance, and lineage. The feminine is not an accessory to the covenant, it is the mechanism of the covenant. The Hebrew language itself insists on this. Two feminine endings dominate the lexicon of lineage:

־ָה - the qamets‑heh, the classic feminine marker ־וֹת the holam‑vav‑tav, the feminine plural

These are not random suffixes. They are the linguistic fingerprints of womb‑based transmission the covenantal reality that only women give birth, and therefore only women can open the legal and biological gateway through which the promised line passes. The Torah’s own phrase:

פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם peter rechem “the opening of the (her) womb"

is the legal definition of firstborn status. It is not the opening of his strength. It is not the opening of his loins. It is the opening of her womb. This is covenantal architecture. The entire legal category of the bekhor the firstborn depends on a feminine noun:

בְּכוֹרָה bekhorah the firstborn status, grammatically feminine.Why? Because the status is determined by birth, and birth is determined by the woman. The morphology itself preaches: The covenant passes through the womb. The womb belongs to the woman. Therefore the woman is structural, not supplemental, to the lineage. This is why the promises to Sarah and Bat‑Sheva are not incidental narrative details, they are covenantal necessities. The morphology of the text aligns with the morphology of the story. The feminine is not a footnote. The feminine is the foundation. This is also why the anti‑missionary claim that “lineage cannot pass through a woman” is not merely wrong, it is linguistically impossible. The Hebrew language itself refuses to cooperate with that argument. The covenant is born through women. The lineage is transmitted through women. The morphology encodes it. The narrative confirms it. The halachah reinforces it. The apostolic writings assume it. The feminine is the covenant’s architecture.

XX. The Feminine Within the Lineage Morphology, Halachah, and Talmud in Agreement

The feminine within the lineage is not optional. It is not decorative. It is not a narrative flourish. It is the structural mechanism by which the covenant moves forward. Both feminine endings:

־ָה the qamets‑heh ־וֹת the holam‑vav‑tav (feminine plural)

-are tied directly to birth, offspring, and the opening of the womb.

Only women have wombs. Only women open the womb. Only women give birth. The Torah’s own phrase: “the opening of the (her) womb” is the legal context for children, inheritance, and firstborn status. Men do not open the womb. Men do not give birth. Therefore, the morphology of the Hebrew text itself demands a feminine component in the transmission of lineage. This is covenant architecture.

XXI. Halachic Reality - Jewish Identity Through the Mother

Now we turn to the halachic layer. Judaism mandates that to be Jewish, one must have a Jewish mother. This is the position Tovia Singer himself affirms: “According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother… is considered a Jew.” But here is the contradiction: Citing D’var Torah while simultaneously appealing to halachic rulings is arguing out of both sides of your mouth. If Jewishness is determined by the mother, then the maternal line is decisive. If the maternal line is decisive, then the argument that “lineage cannot pass through a woman” collapses instantly.

Even Chabad states: “Jewishness is not in our DNA. It is in our soul… The soul identity is more directly shaped by the mother than the father.” So the anti‑missionary claim that “tribal lineage cannot pass through a woman” contradicts: Torah Morphology Halachah Their own stated beliefs You cannot affirm maternal descent for Jewish identity and then deny maternal descent for Davidic identity.

XXII. Talmudic Precedent Women as Line‑Bearers and Name‑Bearers

The Talmud reinforces this principle with remarkable clarity. R. Simon b. Pazzi opens his exposition of Chronicles with: “All Thy words are one, and we know how to find their inner meaning.” He cites the case of Bithya, daughter of Pharaoh: She is called a Jewess because she repudiated idolatry. The text says she “bore” Jered (Moses). Yet she did not give birth to him biologically. The Talmud explains: “If anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, Scripture accounts it as if he had begotten him.” This is not metaphor. This is legal recognition. Then R. Hanina reinforces the same principle from Ruth: “There is a son born to Naomi.” But Naomi did not give birth - Ruth did. Yet the child is called after Naomi’s name because she raised him. The Talmud concludes: Jochebed bore Moses. Bithya reared Moses. Therefore Moses is called after Bithya. This is astonishingly relevant. The Talmud affirms: A woman can transmit identity. A woman can transmit lineage. A woman can transmit naming rights. A woman who raises a child is legally recognized as a parent. This is the same legal logic behind: the daughters of Tzelophchad, Miryam as the daughter of Heli, Joseph being legally reckoned as Heli’s son, and Yeshua inheriting Davidic standing through Miryam. The Talmud does not undermine Luke. The Talmud confirms Luke.

XXIII. Adoption, Foster‑Parenting, and Legal Lineage

The Talmud in Megillah and Sanhedrin goes further: “One who raises a male or female orphan in his [or her] home is credited as if he [or she] gave birth to them.” Judaism recognizes adoption as foster‑parenting, and foster‑parenting as a praiseworthy act that carries legal and narrative weight. Naomi is called the mother of the son of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 4:16-17). Bithya is called the mother of Moses. These are not sentimental titles, they are legal recognitions. And there is no written exclusion to this rule for Yeshua. If the Talmud recognizes: maternal lineage, maternal naming rights, maternal identity transmission, and legal parenthood through raising a child, then the argument that Yeshua cannot inherit Davidic lineage through Miryam is not only weak, it is contradicted by the very sources the anti‑missionaries claim to uphold.

XXIV. The Clause in Luke 3:23 hos e‑no‑mi‑ze‑to as Legal Practice, Not Assumption

At last we arrive at the clause in Luke 3:23 - the one translators flattened, theologians mishandled, and anti‑missionaries weaponized: καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ἀρχόμενος, ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱὸς Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλί

The hinge is right there: ὡς ἐνομίζετο hos e‑no‑mi‑ze‑to

Break it down: ὡς as, how ἐνομίζετο imperfect, middle/passive, indicative, 3rd singular meaning: to be held by law, to be regarded by custom, to be legally recognized according to established practice. This is not “supposed.” This is not “assumed.” This is not Luke shrugging in the margins. This is legal customary practice. Luke is not whispering a parenthetical aside. Luke is documenting a Torah‑based legal mechanism that had been in place since the days of the daughters of Tzelophchad. He is invoking a category every first‑century Jew understood instinctively. What God legislated for the daughters of Tzelophchad is the very mechanism that preserves the line of Heli through Miryam.

XXV. What the Clause Actually Acknowledges

This clause acknowledges a localized, first‑century Israelite legal practice rooted in: Numbers 27 Numbers 36 the rulings of Moshe the precedent of the daughters of Zelophchad the preservation of a father’s name through a daughter with no brothers the legal standing of the husband as the heir to the father‑in‑law’s house In other words: Luke is describing a Torah‑mandated possession practice, not a rumor. He is not explaining away a problem. He is not patching a contradiction. He is recording the legal mechanism that preserves the name, the possession, and the lineage of Heli through Miryam. Luke uses a legal verb, not a speculative one

XXVI. What Connects the Two Lineages?

Now place the two genealogies Matthew and Luke side by side. What connects them? ὡς ἐνομίζετο hos e‑no‑mi‑ze‑to This clause is the hinge, the bridge, the legal joint between the two genealogical structures. Matthew gives the royal line through Solomon. Luke gives the legal line through Nathan. Both converge at: Miryam, daughter of Heli, and Yosef, legally reckoned as Heli’s son according to Torah practice. This is not theological gymnastics. This is possession law. This is the Torah doing exactly what the Torah said it would do.

XXVII. Why “As Was Supposed” Is a Mistranslation

The mistranslation “as was supposed” arises because: translators unfamiliar with Torah, translators disconnected from halachic custom, translators unaware of the Zelophchad precedent, translators reading through Western inheritance assumptions, …did not recognize the legal force of the phrase. For them, it was not a practice. For them, it was not a custom. For them, it produced an anachronism. But for Luke and for first‑century Israel, it was standard legal procedure. Luke is not being vague. Luke is being precise. Luke is being Jewish. Luke uses a legal term. Critics use a shrug emoji. Guess which one wins. Luke didn’t ‘suppose’ anything, he followed Torah. The only ones supposing are the folks duct‑taping English translations to their forehead and calling it exegesis.

XXVIII. The Clause Itself Is a Messianic Argument

This clause - ὡς ἐνομίζετο - is not a footnote. It is a Messianic argument. It connects the two genealogies per the mandates of Torah. Lay the two genealogies side by side, vertically, name by name, and you will see: When you reach Miryam and Yosef, the Torah commandment regarding daughters with no brothers locks into place and establishes the legal right of Yeshua within the family line and within the possession of the House of David. Luke is not circumventing Matthew. Luke is not correcting Matthew. Luke is not contradicting Matthew. Luke is applying Torah. Luke’s use of ὡς ἐνομίζετο is legal, not speculative.⁷ The speculation, as it happens, is supplied entirely by the commentators. Matthew is tracing royalty. Luke is tracing legality. Both converge in Miryam, daughter of Heli, and both establish the rightful Davidic standing of Yeshua. Luke is not circumventing Matthew, he is applying Numbers 27 and 36. If you think the genealogies contradict, don’t worry, the Torah has a customer‑service department. It’s called Numbers 27.

XXIX. Is Luke a Circumvention? Or Is the Accusation Itself the Problem?

Most, if not all, Christian scholars point to Luke as a circumvention of the problem. They assume Matthew’s genealogy is “tainted” by the so‑called curse, so Luke must be offering a workaround. But is this the case? Is the burden of proof on the apologists for Yeshua? Christian scholars think so. They write endlessly about “the problem,” as if the text itself were on trial. But is it a problem? Who should be called to prove this accusation? Not the apologists. Not the commentators. Not the theologians. The Scripture itself. And Scripture does not need to justify itself. The curse is not an invalidation. The accusation collapses under the weight of the text. Luke is not patching a problem; he is revealing the Tavneet, the pattern, already embedded in Torah. The ‘contradiction’ disappears once you realize Luke actually read the Torah instead of skimming it like a warranty card.

XXX. Back to the Curse Who Was Actually Cursed?

Jeremiah 22:24 says: “...though Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim…” This is the problem. Not Jehoiakim. Not the entire Davidic line. Not Solomon’s throne. The curse is placed on:

כָּנְיָהוּ Coniah (the son of Jehoiakim)

NOT on Jehoiakim. The prophet Jeremiah pronounced a curse (Jer. 22:30) upon Coniah, not upon his father. So the question becomes: Was Coniah written as childless? His name appears three times: Jeremiah 22:24 Jeremiah 22:28 Jeremiah 37:1 In each case, no children are named. So Jeremiah is correct: Coniah is written as childless. But is Coniah the son of Jehoiakim? Yes - Jeremiah 22:24 says so explicitly. Therefore: Coniah is written as childless. Jehoiakim is NOT written as childless. The curse is on Coniah, not on Jehoiakim. This distinction matters.

XXXI. Who Are the Sons of Jehoiakim?

1 Chronicles 3:16 answers plainly: “And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.” So Jehoiakim has two sons. He is not childless. There is no curse on him. The curse is on Coniah, and the curse is specific: “Write this man childless…” Not biologically childless, legally childless. Dynastically childless. Throne‑wise childless. But this does not erase his existence. It does not erase his father. It does not erase the Davidic line.

XXXII. Jeconiah’s Children Eight Sons, Not Zero

Jeconiah (Coniah) appears seven times in Scripture, four times explicitly as the son of Jehoiakim. And his children are listed, eight of them: Assir Shealtiel Malchiram Pedaiah Shenazzar Jecamiah Hoshama Nedabiah Eight sons. And from Shealtiel comes Zerubbabel, mentioned 22 times in Scripture, the governor of Judah, the rebuilder of the Temple, the one whose hands laid the foundation stone. Does this sound like a man “written as childless” in the sense of non‑existence. No. The curse is not biological. The curse is not genealogical. The curse is not a deletion of the Davidic line. The curse is dynastic, a legal declaration that Coniah would not prosper on the throne. But the line continues. The sons continue. The Davidic promise continues.

XXXIII. The Verdict

It does not sound like the LORD had Jehoiakim or Jeconiah “written as childless” in the way the anti‑missionaries claim. The text says: Coniah is written childless (Jer. 22:30) Jehoiakim is not written childless Coniah has eight sons The Davidic line continues through Shealtiel and Zerubbabel The curse does not invalidate the genealogy The curse does not invalidate the Messiah The curse does not require Luke to “circumvent” anything. The accusation collapses under the weight of Scripture.

XXXIV. The Shoreshim Two Names, Two Roots, Two Men

Now we come to the linguistic core of the matter, the shoreshim, the Hebrew roots that determine identity, meaning, and personhood. You will note: yod, kaf, nun, yod, hei kaf, nun, yod, hei, vav Two different roots. Two different meanings. One means “to exist, to be.” The other means “whom the LORD establishes.” These are not interchangeable. These are not variants. These are not scribal fluctuations. These are two different men. So the question must be asked plainly: Are shoresh oek יְכָנְיָה and shoresh ded כָּנְיָהוּ the same person? The answer is no.

XXXV. Why They Are Not the Same Person

The shoreshim are different. The morphology is different. The meaning is different. The textual usage is different. And beyond the linguistic evidence, we have two additional facts: No verse in Scripture states they are the same person. One has his children listed and one does not. This is decisive. The one written as childless (Jer. 22:30), the one with no children listed, the one whose name appears in Jeremiah with no offspring, is of Jehoiakim. That is the only connection. And that person— the one written as childless, the one under the curse, the one with no listed offspring— is not the one listed in the Gospel genealogies.

XXXVI. Matthew’s Genealogy Names the Other Man

Matthew 1:12 records:

יְכָנְיָה

This is the man whose children are listed in 1 Chronicles 3:17–18. This is the man whose line continues through Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This is the man whose name appears in the royal line. But the cursed man כָּנְיָהוּ does not appear in Matthew 1:12. Matthew is not confused. Matthew is not circumventing anything. Matthew is not patching a problem. Matthew is naming the correct man, the one with children, the one whose line continues, the one whose shoresh matches the royal record. The cursed man is not in the genealogy. The uncursed man is.

XXXVII. The Verdict on the Shoreshim

The accusation collapses under the weight of the Hebrew text. Two different shoreshim Two different meanings Two different men One cursed One not One childless (legally) One with eight sons One absent from the Gospels One present in the Gospels The genealogies do not contain the cursed man. The genealogies contain the man whom the LORD establishes. The text is precise. The lineage is intact. The Messiah stands.

XXXVIII. The Shoreshim Two Roots, Two Meanings, Two Men (Revisited)

yod, kaf, nun, yod, hei kaf, nun, yod, hei, vav

Two different roots. Two different meanings: “to exist, to be” “whom the LORD establishes” These are not poetic variations. These are not scribal quirks. These are identity markers. So the question stands: Are shoresh oek יְכָנְיָה and shoresh ded כָּנְיָהוּ the same person? The answer is no, and the text itself proves it.

XXXIX. Why They Cannot Be the Same Person

The shoreshim are different. The morphology is different. The meaning is different. The narrative function is different. And beyond the linguistic evidence, we have two additional facts: No verse in Scripture states they are the same person. One has his children listed and one does not. This is decisive. The one written as childless (Jer. 22:30), the one with no children listed, the one whose name appears in Jeremiah with no offspring, is of Jehoiakim. That is the only connection. And that person the one written as childless, the one under the curse, the one with no listed offspring— is not the one listed in the Gospel genealogies. Matthew 1:12 names:

יְכָנְיָה

Not:

כָּנְיָהוּ

Matthew is not confused. Matthew is not circumventing anything. Matthew is naming the correct man.

XL. The Real Problem Manipulation of Translations

Now we reach the real issue: The manipulation of the translations. Jeremiah 22:24, 22:28, and 37:1 use different forms of the name. Saying these names in Latin or English creates confusion. The problem is obvious: English collapses three different Hebrew identities into one name. This is not a textual problem. This is a translation problem.

XLI. The Scholarly Confusion A Chain of Assumptions

Look at how even respected scholars fall into the trap: Louis A. Barbieri, Jr. Rabbi Barney Kasdan Unger’s Bible Dictionary Josh McDowell Each one conflates identities the Hebrew text keeps separate. This is not a Scripture problem. This is a scholarship problem.

XLII. The Seal, the Signet, and the Real Target of the Curse

The curse in Jeremiah is about: seal signatory imprint signet stamp sigil subscriber signer It is about dynastic authority, not biological existence. Numbers 27:7–8 Luke 2:1 B’midbar 26:2 All reinforce the legal mechanism of possession. So who is the curse actually on? Not Jehoiakim. Not Jeconiah (דְּכַנְיָה). But Coniah (כָּנְיָהוּ). The one not in the Gospel genealogies.

XLIII. The Real Question Why the Defensiveness?

If Christian scholars grow defensive, it is not because the text is fragile, it is because their scaffolding is. When your entire interpretive framework is built on translations of translations, on inherited assumptions rather than inherited covenant, on doctrinal systems rather than the architecture of Torah, then of course any challenge feels like a threat. But the threat is not to Scripture. The threat is to the scaffolding. And this is where the Messianic community must take care. We are not called to mirror that defensiveness. We are not called to protect the text from scrutiny, as though the Word of God were a nervous witness on the stand. We are called to return to the Tavneet, the pattern and let the pattern speak for itself. The genealogical “contradictions” are not contradictions at all. They are the product of reading a Hebrew document through English instincts, of treating Torah as background noise rather than legal foundation, of collapsing shoreshim because the Latin column only had room for one name. When the linguistic categories are restored, when the legal mechanisms are honored, when the narrative is allowed to breathe in its own language, the so‑called contradictions evaporate. The problem is not in the text. The problem is in the lenses. And this should not trouble the Messianic community, it should steady us. Because every time the dust is blown off the Hebrew, every time the legal categories are restored, every time the Tavneet is allowed to stand in its own architecture, the Messiah emerges with greater clarity, not less. The genealogies stand because the Torah stands. The Messiah stands because the promise stands. The Tavneet holds because God Himself set it in place. Our task is not to defend the text. Our task is to read it as it was given, in its language, in its logic, in its covenantal frame, and to let its clarity edify those who have only ever seen it through the fog of translation.

The defensiveness belongs to those who fear the pattern. The confidence belongs to those who recognize it.

For centuries people have claimed Matthew and Luke contradict each other. But the moment you read the text through Torah, not translation, the entire accusation collapses, and the Tavneet of Messiah stands exactly where God placed it. The genealogies only ‘contradict’ if you read the Bible like a man assembling IKEA furniture without the instructions.

About the Author:

Dr. Pelatiah “Please Read the Text” Ben‑Mortimer, PhD, DPhil, MA, BA, GED (Honorary)

Dr. Pelatiah Ben‑Mortimer is the inaugural Chair of the Department of Genealogical Catastrophes at the University of Lower North‑South‑East Anglia, where he specializes in explaining extremely obvious biblical concepts to people who have made them unnecessarily complicated. His groundbreaking dissertation, “A Comparative Analysis of People Who Read Numbers 27 and People Who Pretend They Did,” was hailed by reviewers as “technically correct” and “deeply upsetting.” He has published extensively in prestigious journals such as The Quarterly Review of Misinterpreted Texts, The International Bulletin of Selective Exegesis, and The Journal of Things That Would Be Clear If You Read the Hebrew. His most cited article, “ὡς ἐνομίζετο: It Means What It Means,” remains a cornerstone of the field, despite widespread efforts to ignore it. Dr. Ben‑Mortimer’s current research explores the sociolinguistic phenomenon known as “English‑Only Confidence Syndrome,” in which individuals with no training in Greek, Hebrew, or context nevertheless feel uniquely qualified to adjudicate ancient genealogical disputes. His forthcoming monograph, “Miryam Had No Brothers: Why This Is Not Controversial,” is expected to be released pending peer review, which he anticipates will be “hostile but predictable.” When not lecturing internationally on the daughters of Tzelophchad or correcting people on the internet, Dr. Ben‑Mortimer enjoys alphabetizing lexicons, collecting obscure footnotes, and sighing audibly during Q&A session

The genealogies of Yeshua aren’t a problem, they only look like one when read through English instead of Torah. Restore the Hebrew, restore the law, and the so‑called contradictions disappear.