@LeeWoofenden from http://www.icr.org/books/defenders/6063
" 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 …
" 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 …
@Pam "Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob." Not necessarily. Why is it any more clear that Joseph is the son of Jacob (Matthew's version) than that Joseph is the son of Heli (Luke's version)? From Wikipedia's Maternal ancestry in Matthew section of its Genealogy of Jesus article:
> A minority view holds that while Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary. A few ancient authorities seem to offer this interpretation.
Neither Matthew nor Luke's account would be read as giving Mary's genealogy if the two genealogies didn't conflict with one another.
In the Luke version, "son of" appears only once, in verse 23: "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph [son] of Heli." From the relationship between Joseph and Heli onward, the Greek links the successive names only with the Greek definite article.
So although it would be possible to interpret the relationship between Joseph and Heli as something other than a biological father/son relationship, doing so would open up the possibility that every relationship in the entire genealogy is something other than a biological father/son relationship, since none of them (after the first one) has the word "son" in the Greek.
Why should we interpret the second relationship in the genealogical list as something other than a biological father/son relationship when we don't interpret any of the rest of them that way? So although it's technically true that Luke could have meant that Mary, not Joseph, was the son of Heli, there's no good reason in the text itself to think that's what he meant.
The most normal, natural reading of the Greek text is that Luke was describing a biological chain of ancestry from Joseph all the way back to Adam, and from there to God.
In short: I simply don't find the Maternal ancestry in Luke theory to be plausible or likely based on the Greek text of Luke.
@Pam As to why Matthew and Luke would so blatantly disagree with one another, my understanding is that current scholarly opinion is that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels separately, without reference to one another, based on earlier sources—either Mark (which has no birth and genealogy story) or the famous (or infamous) "Q," which is believed to be an earlier document from which all three of the synoptic Gospels drew.
So the most likely explanation is that neither Matthew nor Luke knew that the other was writing a different genealogy until the books were already composed, and it was too late to reconcile the difference.
The very idea that either Joseph or Mary would have a clear, recorded genealogy back to David is suspect. Both were peasants, and unlikely to be considered worthy to have a genealogy kept of their roots. In fact, they were likely illiterate, and couldn't even have recorded such a genealogy.
Most likely any such genealogy would have had to be passed down orally. And oral history can and does morph over time for many reasons, not least of which is that "history" in those days was not a scientific pursuit, but a cultural one.
The whole idea that a couple of Jewish peasants of that era would have a recorded lineage going back to David is fantastically unlikely. And even if it did exist, present-day historians would most likely consider it to be cultural history, which probably reflects cultural myths and traditions more than any actual recorded, historically accurate genealogy.
The telltale sign that Matthew and Luke were writing their genealogies for rhetorical effect and to establish Jesus' bonafides as the Messiah is that both trace the lineage to Joseph, and both deny that Joseph was Jesus' biological father. And nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus was biologically descended from David. In fact, if anything, as I pointed out in my answer, the Gospels generally deny this.
9:24 PM
-2
This answer is based on the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), and represents the views of the "Swedenborgian" or "New Church" denominations that accept his theology.
Note that this theology is outside the mainstream of traditional Christian theology in that Swedenborg rejected the doct...
@Pam Matthew's language is more explicit, and thus harder to reinterpret than Luke's. That's why the Luke maternal genealogy theory has more support. Nevertheless both theories rely on strained and unlikely readings of the text. The plainest reading of both genealogies is that they are genealogies of Joseph, not of Mary.
Why is that so? I believe it's so because these genealogies, along with much of the Bible, were never meant to be taken as literal history in the way many Christians read the Bible today. That way of reading the Bible is anachronistic because the people in Biblical times simply didn't have the scientific orientation, and the standards of historical accuracy, that we do today.
They were not interested in recording scientific and historical fact as much as they were of conveying a moral and spiritual lesson.
So in my view, the entire literalistic reading of the Bible that is popular among Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals is fundamentally flawed. It is founded upon a very basic misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Bible.
The Bible was not written to tell us about science, history, and biology. It was written to tell us about the higher realities of God and spirit. But since it is addressed to a human audience, it must use human concepts and human experience to convey those higher realities.
Focusing on the literal meaning, and thinking it's important that the Bible is literally true in all of its scientific and historical details, is focusing on the "letter that kills" rather than the "spirit that gives life" (see 2 Corinthians 3:5-6).
9:45 PM
10:10 PM
@Pam In the original text of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), those prophecies were to predict a future human king in the line of David, who would re-establish the kingdom of Israel in this world. That is what most Jews expected, based on their Scriptures, at the time of Jesus, and it is still what most religious Jews expect today, if they still subscribe to the prophecies of the Messiah.
The New Testament reinterpreted those prophecies of an earthly kingdom of Israel to refer instead to a spiritual kingdom of Christ. Jesus said plainly to Pilate:
> “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36)
In so saying, he stated quite clearly that he was not the sort of earthly Messiah that the Jews expected based on their scriptures—a Messiah who would re-establish the kingdom of Israel as a sovereign nation in this world. This would, of course, have required Jesus to throw off Roman rule, which he made no effort whatsoever to do.
So from a Christian perspective, the point of the prophesies of a Messiah who would be "in the line of David" was that he would be a king "after the Lord's own heart," as David was said to be. But not an earthly king. Such a king can never fully be "after the Lord's own heart." Rather, he was a spiritual king, and his kingdom was and is a spiritual kingdom. Jesus was expressing this when he followed up on Pilate's questions by saying:
> “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37)
I could go on, but I've already covered much of this in my answer to the question as linked above. There I argue, and I believe demonstrate based on the Bible, that Jesus quite specifically denied that he was hereditarily descended from David, and also that the Gospels as a whole also do not support such a view.
@Pam Mary was his biological mother, so yes, he was a Jew as to his physical and cultural self while he was living on this earth. But he completely reinterpreted Judaism, so much so that it was no longer Judaism but an entirely new religion. And though some Jews did become his followers, the body of Judaism decisively rejected him.
@Pam To add some more specificity in answer to your question about the point of the prophecies of the Messiah as a descendant of David, and its application to Jesus Christ, here is a brief quote from Swedenborg in which he interprets these words: "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord will give Him the throne of David His father" (Luke 1:32):
> These words were spoken by the angel to Mary. It is clear to anyone that here 'the throne of David' is not the kingdom which David possessed; for it is not a kingdom on earth but one in heaven. Nor therefore is David meant by 'David' but the Lord's Divine kingship, while 'the throne' means Divine Truth that goes forth and constitutes His kingdom. (Arcana Coelestia #5313:4)
In other words, "David" is used in the New Testament as a representative figure symbolizing the Lord's divine kingship, which, as he said to Pilate, is not a kingdom of this world, but a kingdom of truth—which is also symbolized by "the throne of David."
In Jewish lore, David is the ultimate king, and as such is the representative figure of a king. It is not David himself, but his position as the greatest king of Israel that gives him this meaning.
So someone "in the line of David" or "of the seed of David" does not necessarily mean someone who is hereditarily or biologically descended from David, but rather someone who rules as a powerful and just king in the spirit of David. This, and not some earthly hereditary and kingdom, is what the New Testament is talking about when it refers to Jesus as a king in the lineage of David.
It's quite possible that neither Matthew nor Luke really thought it was important whether or not Jesus was hereditarily and biologically descended from David. Rather, they were more likely making a spiritual point that Jesus was in the lineage of David in a spiritual sense. But as is common in the Bible, they did so by using the physical, human imagery of a genealogy.
For a fuller explanation of this Biblical practice, and why the Bible is written as it is, in human cultural form and language, please see my blog post: How God Speaks in the Bible to Us Boneheads.
« first day (337 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (41 days later) »
