Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243013 | ||
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate the input, and I am honestly not trying to be argumentative. I am not a Greek scholar, but more literal English versions and a parallel text confirm to me that Bathsheba's name was not really mentioned directly in any of the Greek texts. I was not looking at the on-line version of the NASB but rather an off-line version. I guess I was looking at the 1977 NASB version (in my e-sword software) before the interpretive phrase "Bathsheba who had been the" was added into v.6 of the NASB translation. The older version has simply "her who had been the wife of Uriah" (with "who had been the wife" in italics to show it was added to flow more smoothly) per a more literal translation of the Greek ("her of Uriah"). I do not at all question the truth of your statement that God was supremely gracious to David in including him in Jesus' line despite his adultery. However, I don't at all see this particular passage as speaking to that. It seems to me that the inclusion of Uriah as a foreigner by obliquely referencing his wife in the lineage instead fits much more accurately into the pattern of all other insertions of women into this passage of a purely patrilineal legal inheritance through Jesus' adopted father Joseph, not His mother - so not through blood.) Once again I am back to observations of the original wording of Matthew 1:1-16, a completely patrilineal genealogy that deliberately references only 4 women other than Jesus' mother Mary. (I don't count Mary in the observation because she really needs to be mentioned from a genealogy standpoint as the only human parent of Jesus). Three of these women mentioned are foreigners (if one can allow that Tamar was almost definitely a foreigner) and the other is only mentioned as the unnamed wife of a named foreigner. The addition of these 4 women seems to have a fairly clear and consistent purpose of identifying foreigners with the genealogy of Jesus. That seems the only obvious explanation for their inclusion. I tend to doubt your view that this oblique mention of a woman's previous husband (who then just randomly happens to be a foreigner like every other woman added) breaks with the purpose of the other three women in order to insert a non-stated and completely separate interpretation that the Writer wanted to quietly introduce an idea of grace granted to David as a man who was previously an adulterer into the midst of the genealogy. (Solomon was not conceived under adultery after all, but only after God had forgiven David.) Therefore, I believe Uriah is mentioned in the list specifically because he is a foreigner (or perhaps the three foreign women are even mentioned partly to draw attention to Uriah as a foreigner, but that's a stretch). If so, what then is Uriah the Hittite's significance as a foreigner being included in the genealogy of Jesus? (The answer seems to be that Uriah may indeed be a legal ancestor in God's eyes, and I want to know if this is completely unrealistic or a viable understanding of the passage. I need a more careful investigation of the implications and validity, not a polite and cordial dismissal.) |
||||||
2 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243014 | ||
Ed, after posting my reply, I now see I was short-sighted in not noting the aspect of adultery that also applies to all 4 women: Tamar who resorted to deceit and posing as a prostitute to be included in Judah's family; Rahab the former harlot; Ruth whose in-laws had intermarried with an idolatrous people although Ruth herself was apparently already a believer when she met Boaz; and a woman who had been brought into David's house through adultery, deceit, and murder. This could be singly associated with the aspect of grace offered to adulterers, but it also seems odd that the names given all appear to be those of foreigners, so it doesn't remove the possibility of both. It does put your interpretation in a very different perspective though, so I understand better where it came from. |
||||||