Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jesus lineage through Mary!!! | Luke 3:23 | King T | 240490 | ||
Many thanks Jalek! The scripture you just mentioned conflicts Matt 1:16. Matthew writes that Joseph was the son of Jacob - who can be clearly traced back to King Solomon, who God chose over his elder brother Nathan. Luke now talks about Joseph being the son of Eli - who can be traced back to Nathan the legal heir to the Davidic throne I'd say. Both Matthew and Luke talk about the same lineage of Jesus, tracing it back to two different lines of ancestors. How is that possible? Jesus!!! My head is throbbing here... You could have answered my last question in a way by alleging that Luke was referring to Mary though mentioning the head of houses. Suppose I want to believe you, but where in the bible is your assertion documented? I could be missing something here or reading a very misleading bible translation and I desperately need your assistance. Much blessings? |
||||||
2 | Jesus lineage through Mary!!! | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240491 | ||
Greetings, The explanation of Luke using the heads of houses was the one given to me by my New Testament professor when I asked a similar question when in College. However, for some references, here's an excerpt from the Biblical Illustrator which might explain it better than I am able to. The double genealogies of Christ as the Son of David The general facts are these— 1. The genealogy in St. Matthew descends from Abraham to Jesus, in accordance with his object in writing mainly for the Jews; whereas St. Luke’s ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, in accordance with his object in writing for the world in general. 2. The generations are introduced in St. Matthew by the word “begat”; in St. Luke by the genitive with the ellipse of “son.” 3. Between David and Zerubbabel St. Matthew gives only fifteen names, but St. Luke twenty-one; and they are all different except that of Shealtiel (Salathiel). 4. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph St. Matthew gives only nine generations, but St. Luke seventeen; and all the names are different. The difficulty as to the number of the generations is not serious. It is a matter of daily experience that the number of generations in one line often increases far more rapidly than that in another. Moreover the discrepancies in these two lists may all be accounted for by noticing that Matthew adopts the common Jewish plan of an arbitrary numerical division into tesseradecads. When this system was adopted, whole’ generations were freely omitted, for the sake of preserving the symmetry, provided that the fact of the succession remained undoubted (cf. Ezr_7:1-5 with 1Ch_6:3-15). The difficulty as to the dissimilarity of names will of course only affect the two steps of the genealogies at which they begin to diverge, before they again coalesce in the names of Shealtiel and of Joseph. A single adoption, and a single levirate marriage, account for the apparent discrepancies. St. Matthew gives the legal descent through a line of kings descended from Solomon—the jus successionis; St. Luke the natural descent—the jus sanguinis. St. Matthew’s is a royal, St. Luke’s a natural pedigree. Here's another excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary: Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew’s, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary? - a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord’s real descent. But it is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes Jacob, while Luke makes “Heli,” to be Joseph’s father; and though the same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luk_1:2-32, and see on Luk_2:5), still it does seem unlikely - we say not incredible - that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph - here His real, there His reputed line - explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Hell,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Rth_1:11, Rth_1:12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord’s real descent from David. On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Savior was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised “Seed of the woman.” Jalek |
||||||
3 | Is Mary anyhow related to King David???? | Luke 3:23 | King T | 240492 | ||
My friend, I am very sorry, but if your intention was to confuse me, you thoroughly succeeded. Just starting from your point/bullet 4, I don't know what you are talking about. May be the English is just too deep for me. I will have to re-read your answer all over again and again. Let me be quick though to point out that the way I see it; our learned Bible Scholars Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown were only expressing their opinion just like your College Professor, and just like you and I. Without starting a debate though, I am more interested in express statement from the Bible that supports or traces the lineage of Mary back to King David without ambiguity. Personally I believe esoteric communication is subject to individual interpretation. I could be wrong or just missing some fundamental concept somewhere, but I believe the scripture as contained in the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I don't think it was meant for man's extrapolation [Prov 30:5, 6]. Much Blessings. |
||||||
4 | Is Mary anyhow related to King David???? | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240493 | ||
Greetings, As I stated in my previous post, both of those were excerpts from two different sources that comments on the genealogies. As far as a Bible passage that states the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, there isn't one. However, I'm confused as to why you seem hesitant to extrapolate from Scripture, yet at the same time admit that the Bible is subject to individual interpretation. After all, Extrapolation and Interpretation go hand in hand with one another, especially when done through proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Now, as far as your primary question, "Is Mary anyhow related to King David?", the answer is obvious, and I'm surprised that it even needs to be asked. "Yes, she is." Why do we know this? The answer is equally simple, and the Bible does tell us. In Revelations 2:16, Jesus says it plainly, "I am the Root and Offspring of David." Now, since he's not born to Joseph, but born only to Mary, then we can EXTRAPOLATE that Mary was also an "Offspring" or a descendant of King David. Jalek |
||||||
5 | Is Mary anyhow related to King David???? | Luke 3:23 | King T | 240495 | ||
Thank you for your answer Sir. It shook me for a while. It is amazing how I have shot my eyes quickly above the answer that I had so much sought after for so long, without seeing it. The main reason that would have been my follow up Question had for some time become a thorn on my flesh. As for extrapolation, may be I did not accurately express myself, but I prefer to take the Scriptures to mean literally what is contained therein. May be I haven't come across that which is outside my literal adoption yet. Once again thank you so much for the revelation contained in Revelations 22:16. It gives so much peace and comfort - more than you'd ever know I believe. I am thoroughly glad I asked when I did. Much Blessings |
||||||
Up | Down | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Luke 3:23 | Author | ||
|
King T | ||
|
Jalek | ||
|
King T | ||
|
Jalek | ||
|
King T | ||
|
Jalek | ||
|
King T |