Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Judah | 193 | ||
Since Joseph was not Jesus' natural father--Jesus' humanity came through his mother, Mary,--how do the geneologies in Matthew and Luke support that Jesus was a descendant of David? | ||||||
2 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | bbeck | 238 | ||
I'm not an expert on this, but I did some research and looked at the verses. If you look at the two geneologies listed in Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38, you will see that the two geneologies diverge after David. It is not assured but it is assumed by scholars (namely, Norman Geisler) that the Luke geneology traces Jesus' lineage through Mary to David. | ||||||
3 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 268 | ||
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. | ||||||
4 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Ray | 1952 | ||
Dear Brent Douglas, I read with interest your comment that Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli". I never thought of that possible interpretation. My favorite version the NASB, says "being, as was supposed, the son (I would say Son) of Joseph" and I would put your "but actually" the Son of God."as the last words of the lineage. I don't believe that Adam was the son of God. Adam had a son, Seth. God had a Son, Jesus. I think it was Timothy in the forum who mentioned Romans 5:12 "through one man sin entered into the world"...v.14 "offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who is to come"...the one Man, Jesus Christ." I was most interested in your "but actually". Later, Ray |
||||||
5 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1991 | ||
Jesus Himself was... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of.... (Luke 3:23f, NASB) Thank you for your gracious response, Ray. I'd like to add some additional explanation as to why I'm convinced that Luke gave the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's father rather than through Joseph. After this posting, I'll be taking at least a week off from the list. I hope to get back on and read any responses at that time. Luke deliberately added the phrase, "... being as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to the beginning of this lineage. It would seem pointless, immediately after pointing out that Joseph was not actually Jesus father, for Luke to proceed with Joseph's lineage. Therefore, it's most reasonable to presume that he will proceed with a different lineage. Perhaps Matthew's account, giving Jesus' royal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph, was already printed. Even if not printed yet, the lineage was almost definitely available in circulation for a historian such as Luke to use, yet he gave a different version. I believe Luke did this in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Messiah was not only the adopted heir to the throne of David but also the natural blood descendant of David according to prophecy. It's my understanding that New Testament Greek had no punctuation, and that translators seek to use punctuation that expresses the ideas while avoiding interpretation as much as possible. However, since I do not claim the authority of a translator, I will have the audacity to simply add punctuation to the NIV translation. Version 1 is the Luke 3:23b from the NIV with punctuation removed, and version 2 has what I feel is the appropriate punctuation added. Version 3 is as it appears in the actual NIV. 1) He was the son so it was thought of Joseph the son of Heli,... 2) He was (the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son of Heli,... 3) He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,... Thanks for your patience. |
||||||
6 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | looking2go | 37110 | ||
Brent, I believe that you are RIGHT ON!! The geneology of Luke differs from Matthew in one vital respect: Matthew concentrates on Jesus' right to be the rightful KING of Isreal. Therefore one notices the lineage traced through David (for God promised that of the fruit of his loins ( David's ) would come the redeemer, the Christ.) Luke, on the other hand traces his lineage ALL the way to Adam. (The "head" of the human race.]) Yet a great distinction appears when you get to Luke 3:23. The word translated "Father" is the greek word, "aner". Which is literally translated, "great man, or mighty man", i.e. it means the husband or father of Mary. Context determines whether the mighty man of Mary is referring to the husband or father, of Mary. It is obvious by counting the fourteen generations, that Mary's Father was ALSO named Joseph. Why is the geneology through Mary? Because she is the mother of the "promised seed" of Gen. 3:15. The father of our Lord and Savior is GOD. For He placed His seed within Mary, after she consented, and nine months later the promised seed of Gen. 3:15 was born. Praise God!!! |
||||||