Let me put my cards on the table: I believe Jesus to be the Son of God and that his human father was Joseph, the husband of Mary. Why do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God when only Matthew and Luke record the virgin birth and Paul never mentions it? Although the details of the birth are only found in Matthew and Luke, they are assumed when we see the pre-existence of Christ as described in John, Philippians and Colossians. If Christ was present at creation, it is difficult to see how he could simply be the product of the sexual union of a man and a woman.
The deity of Christ is a matter of faith but the human parentage of Joseph is well accepted. However, I recently encountered a person on this blog who strongly disagreed. The fellow agreed that Matthew 1 teaches that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus and that the Holy Spirit was involved in some way. Where we disagreed was that I saw the Holy Spirit as creating the embryo that would become Jesus of Nazareth within Mary without the assistance of a human father. He disagreed, to which I responded that the only other option is that God led Mary to an alternate lover to impregnate her. To my amazement, that is exactly what he was claiming, that God led Mary to have sex with a man named Heli before she was married to Joseph!
The basis of this theory is in the differences between the genealogies found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. In Matthew 1:11-12, Jeconiah is mentioned. However, in Jeremiah 22:30 it says that the descendants of Jeconiah are cut off from the throne of David. Since Joseph is a descendent of Jeconiah, he could not be the father of Jesus. Luke 3 contains an alternative geneology that lacks Jeconiah and casts doubt on Joseph as the actual father while mentioning a man named Heli. The theory is that having Heli as the father of Jesus allows lineage from David while avoiding the cursed Jeconiah.
There are several problems with this. The first criticism to this theory should be that this seems completely against God’s character. Certainly people in the Bible cheated (such as David) but it is never described as something led by God. It is difficult to imagine how God could want Mary to have such a pre-marital affair with another man. But there are other problems than just moral revulsion. The passage of Jeremiah 22 when seen in context does not seem to be a prophecy that no one from the line of Jeconiah will ever sit on the throne of David. The passage describes how far Jeconiah had fallen. In ancient Israel and Judah, the ultimate punishment for a king was not death but rather the prevention of their son from sitting on the throne (see 1 & 2 Kings). Jeconiah had fallen so badly that he and his family were exiled from the land and that none of his sons would reign. That this was not an everlasting punishment applied to all of his descendents but rather something dealing with his immediate family is shown by the fact that Jeremiah 22:28 also speaks of Jeconiah’s descendents no longer being in the land. Obviously Joseph, as a descendent of Jeconiah, was living in the promised land and so this passage no longer applied. Regarding the differences between Matthew 1 and Luke 3, I do not pretend to understand the situation completely. But I will point out this: Matthew 1:12-13 mention a descendent of Jeconiah named Zerubbabel son Sheatiel. That same Zerubbabel reappears in Luke’s geneology in Luke 3:27. So we have someone connected with Jeconiah even in Luke’s geneology. Finally, when you look at the geneology of Luke 3, there is a repetitive pattern of the son of x, the son of y, the son of z. Following that pattern, it seems clear that the reference to Heli seems to be from the generation previous to Joseph and not Mary’s alternate lover.
This theory of Heli as the father of Jesus is so obscure that it never even appeared when I googled it. However, on this blog every question is worthy of addressing and in this post I have attempted to look at the theory in a logical and hopefully helpful way.
41 responses so far ↓
T Crosthwaite // September 24, 2009 at 12:31 am |
No doubt there are readers of your ‘Laozi, Jesus and the Virgin Birth’ and ‘Why Do I Believe in the Virgin Birth?’ pages who would want to read your latest comment.
After all it is a response to post/s on those other pages.
Do you think it is worth putting a note at the bottom of those other pages advising readers that you are continuing the debate on this new page?
T Crosthwaite // September 26, 2009 at 2:58 am |
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke follow different lines from King David onwards. Matthew’s line is through David’s son Solomon, while Luke’s line is through David’ son Nathan.
You presume Zerubbabel in Mt 1:12-13 is the same Zerubbabel in Lk 3:27.
Here is the lineage surrounding Zerubbabel in descending order, according to Matthew: …Hezekiah – Manasseh – Amon – Josiah – Jeconiah – Shealtiel – Zerubbabel – Abiud – Eliakim…
Here is the lineage surrounding Zerubbabel in descending order, according to Luke: …Elmodam – Cosam – Addi – Melchi – Neri – Shealtiel – Zerubbabel – Rhesa – Joannas…
Both genealogies record Zerubbabel as the son of Shealtiel, but otherwise the male lineage before and after is completely different in each genealogy. Matthew’s ‘Shealtiel’ and Luke’s ‘Shealtiel’ had different fathers. And those fathers had different fathers. And so on.
Apart from the coincidence of the name combination Shealtiel—Zerubbabel in both genealogies, why do you presume these two are same persons in both genealogies?
Les Kelly // September 28, 2009 at 4:33 am |
As you have mused on another thread TC the closer one looks into the doctrine of virgin birth the more turns it takes.
It is far from a clear cut straight forward doctrine.
In deconstructing this doctrine one finds that presuppositions and connotations are the order of the day.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
= = = = = = = = = =
Stephen Bedard // September 28, 2009 at 8:53 am |
The reason that I believe that Zerubbabel bar Shealtiel is the same in both Luke and Matthew is that unlike the rest of the nobodies in the post-exilic geneologies, this Zerubbabel is an important and well known figure. See for example (and this is not comprehensive): Ezra 3:2, 8, 5:2, Nehemiah 12:1, Haggai 1:1, 12, 14, 2:2, 23 and Zechariah 2-4. There are not too many OT figures that appear in four different books. Zerubbabel bar Shealtiel was famous and if Matthew or Luke meant a different person, they would have made note of it (as is done when a different Judas is mentioned). The fact that Shealtiel and Joseph are given different fathers in the two geneologies, tells us that there were different ways to record lineage (perhaps legal and biological?).
T Crosthwaite // September 28, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
But Luke and Matthew do note who are Shealtiel-Zerubbabel in their genealogies by telling us the name of Sheatiel’s father, paternal grandfather, and so on. What more do you want?
The lineage leading to Sheatiel is different in each genealogy. Although not as decisive, it can be seen the list of descendants of each Zerubbabel is different as well.
The virgin birth doctrine is built on a foundation of imagining things not in the Bible in order to explain away what is written in the Bible. The proposition that is usually advanced to explain away the different names immediately prededing Shealtiel and Joseph in the 2 NT genealogies falls into that category.
Stephen Bedard // September 29, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
I will admit that I do not fully understand the differences between Matthew and Luke. But I do know that I find your explanation very unconvincing. I also know that the Zerubbabel bar Shealtiel in both genealogies is the same person. Zerubbabel was a famous and important figure in Jewish history. In both genealogies, he appears ten generations before Joseph. The only way for your theory to work is to say the same thing happened with Shealtiel as what happened with what you say happened with Jesus. Do you believe that Shealtiel’s mother was married to someone from the wrong family and that God also led her to have an extramarital affair to get pregnant by someone else? Things are getting pretty far fetched!
Also, the Jeremiah passage says that Jeconiah’s seed would both be exiled from the land and not sit on the throne. If this was an everlasting curse, how do you explain how Joseph got back into the land in the first place? The plain explanation is that the curse was for Jeconiah’s immediate family only and that things were left open for what God wanted to do in the future.
Les Kelly // September 30, 2009 at 7:33 am |
StephenB you are truly incorrigible with the length of bow you draw.
How can you reasonably suggest:
The plain explanation is that the curse was for Jeconiah’s immediate family only and that things were left open for what God wanted to do in the future.
My NIV Bible says:
Jer 22:24. “As surely as I live,” declares the LORD, “even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. 22:25 I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear — to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. 22:26 I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. 22:27 You will never come back to the land you long to return to.” 22:28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? 22:29 O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! 22:30 This is what the LORD says: “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.”
Stephen, Jeremiah clearly said – None will rule anymore in Judah.
Truly – the theologians of Christendom seem to remember all that the disciples forgot to teach us and forget much of what the disciples did teach us.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // September 30, 2009 at 8:48 am |
Two things that I want to say. First it also says that his children will be hurled from the land. The word for child in v. 28 and offspring in v. 30 is the same in Hebrew (zerah). If this is an everlasting curse, why are his descendants allowed back in the land? Secondly, if the first zerah (children) refers to his actual children (sons and daughters alive at the time) who are exiled with him, it seems reasonable that the second zerah (offspring), simply means that none of his children would reign after him, that is there would be no Davidic king immediately following his death. That makes more sense than your interpretation.
T Crosthwaite // September 30, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
One is struck by the number of “difficulties” (as the theologians like to call them) in reconciling the virgin birth story with the biblical account.
The difficulties arise from fitting bible texts into a virgin birth frame.
Theologians propose solutions that usually depend on a lot of imagination. On closer reading you will see they are not necessarily committed to the solutions they throw up, and often do not address the consequences of their hypotheses further down the track.
For example if the claim that both NT genealogies are that of Joseph, it would mean the NT has 2 genealogies of Joseph, and none of Jesus!
As the NT writers were well aware, it was of some importance to their claims that Jesus was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” One ponders then why the NT would give 2 genealogies of Jesus’ step-father — who is irrelevant in this matter — and not give Jesus’ actual lineage.
To keep things simple, I will proceed with a few remarks on the ‘Zerubbabel’ matter here, and deal with your ‘curse of Jeconiah’ comments separately in a few days’ time.
Many bible commentators, and you Stephen, suggest or assert that ‘Shealtiel-Zerubbabel’ in Matthew and Luke’s genealogies are the same persons, even though they have different antecedents and descendants in each genealogy.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article ‘Genelogy of Christ’
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm
is a typical example.
The solution it offers to explain the different antecedents and descendants involes a convoluted web of relationships, namely a widow remarrying and then 2 levirate marriages.
However, it then concedes:
“A more simple solution of the difficulty is obtained, if we do not admit that the Salathiel and Zorobabel occurring in St. Matthew’s genealogy are identical with those in St. Luke’s. The above proofs for their identity are not cogent. If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solomon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan’s descendants should be called after them.”
I might add that most of the arguments for virgin birth are anything but “simple” or “cogent.”
Postscript: You are incorrect when you state in your 29 September post: “In both genealogies, he (Zerubbabel) appears ten generations before Joseph.”
In fact, Matthew lists 10 generations, whereas Luke lists 19 generations.
Les Kelly // October 4, 2009 at 1:12 am |
Stephen, I’m sorry but your post of Sept 29th seems rather incoherent to me.
You appear to be either insinuating or attributing things to people which were not said.
Let me be very specific:
Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies were NEVER meant to be reconciled in any shape or form from Solomon and Nathan onwards. They are two genealogical lines of totally DIFFERENT families.
The Zerubbabel and Shealtiel in each genealogy refer to totally different people with totally different antecedents and descendants – as both Matthew and Luke clearly record. It is theologians trying to fit their misguided perceptions into biblical narratives who are the cause of – “Things are getting pretty far fetched!”
Your rather snide inference of some extramarital relationship is totally irrelevant to any point of view that I hold about the Zerubbabel and Shealtiel of either line. I say that they were different people of different families.
But in passing – Have you ever seriously wondered about the four women (excluding Mary) that Matthew included in his genealogy???
Regarding your point:
“The reason that I believe that Zerubbabel bar Shealtiel is the same in both Luke and Matthew is that unlike the rest of the nobodies in the post-exilic geaneologies, this Zerubbabel is an important and well known figure.”
To which I reply:
PRECISELY Stephen, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel being Governor of Jerusalem would be quite well known. Wouldn’t it be most reasonable that people returning from the exile would name their children after them as a compliment???
Finally you say on your counting of descendants:
“In both genealogies, he (Zerubbabel) appears ten generations before Joseph.”
I reply:
No Stephen, have a recount, mate.
Matthew’s Zerubbabel is 10 generations removed from Joseph and 15 from Solomon.
Luke’s Zerubbabel is 18 generations from Heli and 20 from Nathan.
I stand by my point that Matthew’s line is cursed by God through Jeremaih to lose its inheritance to the throne in the same way that it was taken from Saul of the tribe of Benjamin and given to David.
Les Kelly. Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // October 5, 2009 at 10:13 am |
I apologize about that mix up on the 10 verses. My mistake. I am still convinced that both Zerubbabels are the same person. We can not count years by generations. There are about forty generations between Joseph and David in Luke and Matthew has a clear division of fourteen and fourteen. We have to remember that biblical genealogies are not precise. 1 Chronicles actually lists Zerubbabel as the grandson of Shealtiel. I am not interested in trying to reconcile Matthew and Luke’s genealogies. The point of this discussion is whether or not Joseph was disqualified from being the human father of Jesus because of his lineage. The fact is the supposed curse was limited to Jeconiah’s immediate sons as seen by the fact that the later descendants returned to the land which was another part of the curse.
T Crosthwaite // October 7, 2009 at 8:57 pm |
In your opening comment for this page, you asserted Zerubbabel son (of) Sheatiel that appears in Matthew’s genealogy is the same Zerubbabel in Luke’s geneology.
In your October 5 post you said you are still convinced it is the same Zerubbabel mentioned in both NT genealogies, but “not interested” in reconciling the 2 genealogies.
I think you would be interested in comparing the names in the genealogies if this supported your assertion, but of course it doesn’t.
It can be comforting to hold to one’s beliefs while shielding then from evidence that may prove difficult, but I doubt this is what should be.
Your “mix-up” on the generations is of no great consequence, just one of those minor errors we are all prone to make. That aside, it is worth examining where Shealtiel-Zerubbabel sit in the time frame of Luke’s genealogy.
Luke’s genealogy appears comprehensive, where (as you have noted) Matthew’s genealogy is not.
I have constructed a table based on the following assumptions: Nathan born 1004 BC, Jesus born 4BC, 41 generations preceding Jesus (from Nathan to Joseph, both inclusive), each generation of equal length 24.39 years.
According to this table, Shealtiel born 516BC and Zerubbabel born 491BC.
If the assumptions were changed to a later birth date for Nathan, and the number of generations to 40 (Nathan to Heli, treating Joseph as parenthetical to, and not part of, the genealogy), Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are placed in an even later time zone.
Whatever assumptions are used, the table places Luke’s Shealtiel-Zerubbabel in a subsequent generation to the Shealtiel of 1 Chr 3:17 and the Zerubbabel of Ezra 3:2 etc.
In light of this, it might be worth looking again at Les Kelly’s question:
“Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel being Governor of Jerusalem would be quite well known. Wouldn’t it be most reasonable that people returning from the exile would name their children after them as a compliment???”
and the Catholic Encyclopedia comment:
“If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solomon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan’s descendants should be called after them.”
Postscript: I think it is best to deal with one point of contention per post, so that readers can easily follow any response or see if there is no response.
Therefore I will offer my comments about the ‘curse of Jeconiah’ issue in a another post.
Stephen Bedard // October 8, 2009 at 5:23 am |
I think your logic is faulty. We cannot assign years to generations. We have no idea of a man was 20 or 60 when he fathered his son. The best we can do is determine if it was pre-exilic or post-exilic and even that can be sketchy. Both Zerubbabels seem to be post-exilic and I continue to believe they are the same.
An important question to ask is: How would the original readers of Matthew and Luke have interpreted the reference to Zerubbabel, especially since both genealogies are meant to prove Davidic lineage.
Here is something else to consider. Why in Matthew is Joseph address as “son of David”? Yes, he was of the line of David, but why did the angel address in that way. If the purpose of the visit was to explain why another man had to father the child, why not call him “son of Jeconiah” to remind him of his ineligibility? But perhaps he is addressed as son of David was because his God-given role was to provide a legal link to the house of David for Jesus!
T Crosthwaite // October 10, 2009 at 9:16 am |
You use the term “logic” rather loosely.
What you are referring to is not logic per se, but the limitations of drawing conclusions from the available statistics.
Several times you have made clear your belief that the Zerubbabel mentioned in the 2 genealogies and in the books of Ezra etc are all the same person. No ifs, no maybes.
I have pointed out that Matthew and Luke each record different antecedents and descendants for the Zerubbabel bar Shealtiel mentioned in their respective genealogies.
In addition to this biblical fact, I advised that I had drawn up a table of Luke’s genealogy based on data derived from the Bible which pointed to the Zerubbabel in Luke’s genaealogy being of a later generation to that of the Zerubbabel mentioned in Ezra 3:2.
The statisitcs which I considered relevant to Luke’s genealogy point to ‘his’ Zerubbabel being born circa 491BC (or circa 472BC if Joseph is not considered part of the genealogy).
However, the Zerubbabel whose activities are recorded in the books of Ezra etc comes from an earlier period. He returned to Jerusalem as a leader of the Jews in 538BC. At this time presumably Zerubbabel must have been a mature person to have been given this responsibility, and a birth date no later than 572BC cannot be far off the mark.
That would make this Zerubbabel about 80 years older than his namesake in Luke’s genealogy (or about 100 years older if Joseph is not considered part of the genealogy), according to the projections I made.
True, these projections are not conclusive because they are based on assumptions. A margin of error has to be allowed for according to the nature of the assumptions. Nevertheless 80 (or 100) years allows for a fairly hefty margin of error.
It would be an interesting exerscise for a group to explore this matter for themselves.
Perhaps I might close by pointing out that not once have you directly addressed the main ‘difficulty’ for your belief, this being the fact that where the 2 genealogies mention Shealtiel each shows him to have a different father, paternal grandfather, etc to the other.
Postscript: From me, one issue at a time. Here Zerubbabel, then the “curse of Jeconiah,” then Matthew’s account.
Stephen Bedard // October 10, 2009 at 9:25 am |
I still think your methodology of counting years by generations is faulty. But perhaps we must agree to disagree on this one. I do not know why Shealtiel has two different fathers in Matthew and Luke. Nor do I know why Zerubbabel is the grandson of Shealtiel in 2 Chronicles. Can you answer that one. I think we have come to the end of this discussion.
What I would like to hear from you is why descendants of Jeconiah were allowed to return to the land but not allowed to rule even though both issues are mentioned by Jeremiah.
Les Kelly // October 12, 2009 at 1:11 am |
Stephen,
My reading of Jeremiah 22:24/30 clearly indicates several elements to Jeremiah’s curse against Jeconiah and his kin AND also to Judah generally.
Really, read the verses closely and try to put aside any preconceptions and connotations.
There are several elements involved – not just one.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // October 12, 2009 at 6:09 am |
Yes, that is something that we both have to do. But I want you to notice that the expulsion from the land is not just for Judah in general but Jeconiah’s seed in particular (the same word used for the cutting off of leadership).
T Crosthwaite // October 13, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
Your post of October 10 attempting to close the Shealtiel-Zerubbabel issue reads in part:
“I still think your methodology of counting years by generations is faulty. But perhaps we must agree to disagree on this one. I do not know why Shealtiel has two different fathers in Matthew and Luke. Nor do I know why Zerubbabel is the grandson of Shealtiel in 2 Chronicles. Can you answer that one. I think we have come to the end of this discussion.”
You suggest we have come to the end of the discussion (on Shealtiel bar Zerubbabel) but nevertheless ask a question which would prolong discussion.
I will answer that question if you wish, but it will take us into what might be a side issue. Enough for me to say here that Matthew sees Zerubbabel as a direct descendant of Jeconiah.
If we have come to the end of the discussion on Shealtiel bar Zerubbabel, then may I suggest to your readers they base their assessments of our contending points of view not on declarations of beliefs but on the merits of the reasoning put forward to support those beliefs.
T Crosthwaite // October 13, 2009 at 11:12 pm |
Re: Jeconiah. Here is what you said in your September 29 post.
“Also, the Jeremiah passage says that Jeconiah’s seed would both be exiled from the land and not sit on the throne. If this was an everlasting curse, how do you explain how Joseph got back into the land in the first place? The plain explanation is that the curse was for Jeconiah’s immediate family only and that things were left open for what God wanted to do in the future.”
Your proposition about Jeconiah refers to Jeremiah 22, particularly verses 28 and 30.
I understand your proposition to imply that both verses are part of God’s curse, and by demonstrating an event related to the descendants in verse 28 is of a limited duration it follows that part of the curse relating to the descendants in verse 30 is also of a limited duration.
Have a look at the construction of Jeremiah 22:24-30.
Verses 24-27 are words of God, “says the Lord” we are told at the start of this passage.
Verse 28 is of a different nature. It is not a declaration, but a series of rhetorical questions. It is Jeconiah asking the questions, not Jeconiah quoting God asking questions.
Verses 29-30 reverts back to words attributed to God, “Hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord.”
God’s curse in verse 30, “for none of (Jeconiah’s) descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah,” mean that none of Jeconiah’s descendants shall sit on the throne of David anymore.
Stephen Bedard // October 14, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
Here is the passage in question:
“But to the land to which they will long to return, there they shall not return.”
Is this man Coniah a despised, broken pot, a vessel no one cares for? Why are he and his children hurled and cast into a land that they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the LORD: “Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.””
(Jeremiah 22:27–30 ESV)
When OT is prophesy is studied it is demonstrated that it comes in a number of forms and styles. There is no reason to think that the rhetorical questions were less binding than the later section. Both speak of what would happen to Jeconiah’s children. The greatest fear a king was not that he would die but that his son would not succeed him. That fear was realized for Jeconiah.
T Crosthwaite // October 16, 2009 at 8:01 am |
In my post of October 13, writing about Jeremiah 22:28, I inadvertently used the name Jeconiah whereas I meant Jeremiah.
The paragraph should read:
“Verse 28 is of a different nature. It is not a declaration, but a series of rhetorical questions. It is Jeremiah asking the questions, not Jeremiah quoting God asking questions.”
My response to SB post of October 14 still to come.
Stephen Bedard // October 16, 2009 at 8:35 am |
Even though the phrase is in the form of a rhetorical question, there is no indication that it is any less prophecy than the rest of the passage.
les Kelly // October 18, 2009 at 1:12 am |
On October 8th StephenB asked:
“Here is something else to consider. Why in Matthew is Joseph address as “son of David”? Yes, he was of the line of David, but why did the angel address in that way. If the purpose of the visit was to explain why another man had to father the child, why not call him “son of Jeconiah” to remind him of his ineligibility? But perhaps he is addressed as son of David was because his God-given role was to provide a legal link to the house of David for Jesus!”
LesK replies:
Okay Stephen, I’ll answer yours though I suspect that you will refuse to see my point, then you please answer mine.
Because the line from which Joseph was descended was disinherited from David’s throne (Jer 22:30), did not mean that those descendants also forfeited the right to be called sons of David too.
Joseph simply NEVER inherited the right to reign from David’s throne, and Jesus received that right through Luke’s line.
Do you seriously suggest that the promises made to Abraham, Jacob and David to be fulfilled in Jesus could only be delivered through Solomon as per Matthew’s genealogical line???
Do you deny the right of fulfillment through Nathan via Luke’s genealogical line???
Stephen from where do you get the quaint idea about Gabriel’s visit to Joseph being:
“…. the purpose of the visit was to explain why another man had to father the child,….”???
Sorry mate, I consider that a nonsense.
Gabriel’s words to Joseph were short and to the point (Matt 1:20/21).
Gabriel left Joseph with a very profound reminder that ALL – repeat ALL – children are conceived in the womb by the awesome power of Almighty Jehovah.
In neither cast neither to Mary nor to Joseph did Gabriel show any sense of obligation to explain or ask permission of them – Gabriel delivered instructions from Jehovah.
I suggest that Gabriel visited Joseph to give him an instruction, as similarly some months previously Gabriel visited Mary to give her an instruction also (Luke 1:26/38).
Note Mary’s response “Behold the handmaid of the Lord (LK1:38).
The right to cast aspersions upon the manner of conception of other people is reserved solely for those who had control over the manner of their own conception.
I think I have previously made mention of that valiant Judge of Israel – Jeptha.
Come to think of it, so too did Paul number Jeptha among those who ruled Israel righteously in the eyes of God.
For the second time in passing I will again ask you Stephen:
Have you ever seriously considered Matthew’s reason for including in his genealogy reference to four women (five if you include Mary) who were tainted by sexual scandal under the strict moral code of the Jewish law???
Have you ever considered for a moment that Matthew was breaking the ground for what Luke was to later record about Mary in detail???
Are you one of those who subscribe to an invented levirate marriage in order to reconcile two totally different family lines from King David as given in Matthew and Luke???
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
Stephen Bedard // October 19, 2009 at 5:45 am |
Yes I do disagree with you about why Joseph is called son of David. Rarely are descendants of David called son of David. It is a title that usually has messianic overtones. Joseph is called son of David because the whole reason he is involved in this is that he is a son of David and that it is through him that Jesus will be called a son of David.
I strongly disagree with you that Gabriel’s message is simply that all children are born of the Spirit. In both Matthew and Luke, there is concern about how this pregnancy is possible. Gabriel’s answer is that this is a miracle of the Spirit.
I have not been purposely the four women in Matthew’s geneology. That is actually one of my favourite parts of Matthew and I have shared this point with my congregation numerous time. All four women have gentile origins and there is some suggestion of sexual scandal. I do think that they are mentioned because of the controversy about Mary. Assume for a moment that I am correct about the virginal conception. Even if God was responsible for the conception of Jesus without any human father, there would still be questions by family and community. There would be nothing obvious from Jesus’ appearance that he was the Son of God and so this was sure to cause scandal, hints of which are found in the Gospels. The mention of those four women does nothing to take away from my belief in the virginal conception.
Regarding the differences between Matthew and Luke, I do not subscribe to any particular theory. I know there are variations among geneologies even in the Old Testament. To be honest, it is not a major concern for me.
T Crosthwaite // October 19, 2009 at 7:57 am |
You say “the whole reason Joseph is involved in this is that he is a son of David and that it is through him that Jesus will be called a son of David.”
The NT says Jesus was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom 1:3)
This cannot involve Joseph, because he is not linked to Jesus “according to the flesh.”
So what is the link between David and Jesus “according to the flesh”?
The answer to this question will inform us how Jesus was a “son of David,” thus fulfilling one of the messianic criteria.
Stephen Bedard // October 20, 2009 at 9:26 am |
According to the flesh does not have to mean biological or genetic. The difference many see between biological children and adopted children did not exist in that culture. You have to look at that whole verse. Paul is comparing Jesus as the Son of David and Son of God. Paul is saying that Jesus in his human incarnation was a son of David but in his pre-existence was the Son of God.
T Crosthwaite // October 20, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
You have a habit of using language to convey ideas in an imprecise way.
Here you use the words “does not have to mean,” and then apparently proceed on the basis that it “does not mean.”
Is it your argument that the words “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” do not have the meaning that Jesus was a biological descendant of David?
If so, can you quote anyone that supports this argument?
Stephen Bedard // October 21, 2009 at 9:13 am |
I do not have a scholar on hand to quote but let me clarify. That verse has a couplet that must be looked at. Paul speaks of Jesus as Son of David and Son of God as his two natures. In the ancient world, biological connection was not required to be considered the seed. For example, Augustus was considered divine because his adopted father Julius Caesar was thought to be descended from the gods. In that case, even through adoption, Augustus was considered the seed of the gods.
T Crosthwaite // October 21, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
You did not answer the question put to you:
Is it your argument that the words “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” do not have the meaning that Jesus was a biological descendant of David?
A simple declaration such as “Yes, that is my argument” would clarify your position.
Stephen Bedard // October 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
I would say yes, Paul’s word that Jesus was the seed of David according to the flesh does not mean that he was a biological descendent but was rather a legal descendant being the legal son of Joseph, a descendant of David. Hope that is clear enough.
T Crosthwaite // October 23, 2009 at 12:44 am |
Before responding to your recent posts, would you mind advising:
Do you know any text/s in the OT that specify a direct physical, that is biological, link between David and the messiah (anointed)?
Do you know any text/s in the NT that specify a direct physical, that is biological, link between David and Jesus?
If so, what texts are they?
Stephen Bedard // October 23, 2009 at 8:51 am |
The mistake that you are making is assuming a descendent or seed of someone must require biological connection in the ancient world. An adopted child is a legal heir and is considered as much a seed as a biological child.
Les Kelly // October 25, 2009 at 11:07 pm |
StephenB wrote on October 20th:
According to the flesh does not have to mean biological or genetic. The difference many see between biological children and adopted children did not exist in that culture. You have to look at that whole verse. Paul is comparing Jesus as the Son of David and Son of God. Paul is saying that Jesus in his human incarnation was a son of David but in his pre-existence was the Son of God.
LesK responds:
There you go again Stephen, using patently un-biblical terms – “human incarnation” and “his pre-existence” to get your point across.
None of the disciples used such terms.
These are terms invented in the Church Councils.
I see Romans 1:1/4 as meaning Jesus was physically born a descendant of David, and became spiritually born of God upon his resurrection from death:
Follow the words closely if you will:
Romans 1:1: Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God —
Paul was called and set apart by God to preach his gospel….
1:2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures
God’s gospel was promised through the prophets….
1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
God’s son Jesus of Nazareth was of his human (flesh and blood???) nature descended from David….
1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit was declared to be God’s Son (born of God) upon his resurrection from death…See also Acts 13:33.
Stephen, You put all your expectations upon Jesus inheriting David’s throne from Joseph.
What significance do you attach to the man HELI in Luke 3:23???
Matthew and Luke gave us two totally different genealogical lines for a reason.
What is that reason???
Joseph ceases to have any significant input to Jesus’ inheritance of David’s throne by NOT being Jesus’ physical father. Joseph discharged his full responsibilities to Jesus in assuming the role of adoptive parent.
SepepheB posted on October 21st:
“….For example, Augustus was considered divine because his adopted father Julius Caesar was thought to be descended from the gods. In that case, even through adoption, Augustus was considered the seed of the gods.”
LesK replies:
Here you clearly illustrate how Hebrew biblical concepts were displaced by Pagan Greek / Roman concepts after the destruction of Jerusalem in 79AD.
Stephen, what place does pagan Greek or Roman thinking have in either explaining or taking the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth to the world???
Christendom bears the image not of the Hebrew values for which Jesus of Nazareth lived and died, but the image of Greek paganism as projected upon the world from deliberations of the various Church Councils from 325 onwards.
Acts 26:22, 23. “ To this day I stand witnessing to both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say would come – That the Christ would suffer, that he would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.“
1Co 1:22/23. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.
I repeat that the substitution of Pagan values for Hebrew values by the Christian churches is a confidence trick of staggering proportions.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
T Crosthwaite // October 26, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
Your position is that the Bible does not draw a biological link between David and Jesus, and Jesus only belongs to David’s line through adoption.
Specifically you deny “born of the seed of David according to the flesh” links David and Jesus biologically. Your position must compel you to also deny the same for the following NT text. Note “the fruit of his loins.”
· Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David… knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne (Act 2:29-30)
These are Peter’s words. Do you think his “fruit of (David’s) loins” reference draws from the following OT texts? If not these, which OT texts?
· When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. (2Sam 7:14)
· The Lord has sworn in truth to David… I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body. (Psalm 132:11)
Do you think “fruit of his loins”, “thy seed that shall proceed out of thy bowels”, and “fruit of your body” denotes a biological link, or not?
Stephen Bedard // October 27, 2009 at 6:52 am |
What is the significance of Heli? He is Jesus’ grandfather in some way. I am not going to pretend that I have studied the two genealogies to any great extent. I am aware of theories about levirate marriages, and legal vs biological lines as well as one being Joseph’s line and one being Mary’s line. I am not prepared to take a position on these without further study.
Regarding non-Jewish ideas, these are found throughout the Old and New Testaments. The writers are constantly interacting with the thought of the outside world. John 1 very clearly is responding to Greek philosophical ideas.
I will not pretend to have all the answers but I will stand on these facts:
1) Matthew and Luke present Jesus’ birth as a miraculous event.
2) The image is not that of the same miracle of every birth but the Holy Spirit doing something very special to create the child within Mary.
3) Joseph was aware that the child was not his but he was chosen to be a part of the story because he was of the line of David.
4) It is against God’s character to send Mary out for an adulterous affair to get pregnant by another man, nor does the Bible say that he did. Please show me one verse where it says that Mary had sexual relations with a man named Heli.
These are the facts that I stand on. The two of you are free to believe what you want and I hope that readers will examine all of our comments and judge based on the full information.
T Crosthwaite // October 27, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
Why do I get the feeling you have resorted to a declaration of beliefs in order to avoid answering the quite specific questions put in my last post.
This is not the first time you have done this.
Readers can hardly make a “judgment based on the full information” when you avoid answering questions put to test your position that David and Jesus are not linked biologically.
Frankly, I was a bit surprised when you took that line.
Church luminaries such as Augustine and Aquinas acknowledge the Bible does say Jesus is David’s physical descenant, despite the difficulties this incurs for them. (Their statements are analysed on my website: article The Two Genealogies in the NT.)
Previously, I have mentioned how one is struck by the number of “difficulties” (as the theologians like to call them) in reconciling the virgin birth story with the biblical account. The theologians interpret scripture in a way that supports virgin birth, and the results are usually ludicrous.
The claim that 2 completely different genealogies in the NT are both that of Joseph, even though he is irrelevant to proving Jesus’ physical descent, is one example.
Have you ever thought this claim through? If it were true, it would mean the NT gives 2 completely different genealogies of Jesus’ foster-father, but none of Jesus!
Stephen Bedard // October 27, 2009 at 8:44 pm |
I went back to my core beliefs because this discussion can go in a hundred different directions. I am also being honest that I have not spent a lot of time researching the two different genealogies. To debate them as an expert would be dishonest. I have told you why I believe in the virgin birth. My understanding of the biblical texts is that Joseph’s davidic lineage was enough to provide the required legal link for Jesus.
Carol Duggins // November 22, 2009 at 12:20 am |
Luke 3 is actually Mary’s geneology. Since Mary had no brothers she was the sole heiress of her father’s estate and hence by Jewish law, Joseph as Mary’s husband was reckoned among her father’s family as his son and heir. Joseph was Jacob’s son but the legal son of Heli (Mary’s father). This employing Joseph’s name instead of Mary’s also complies with the Jewish law that geneologies must be reckoned by fathers not mothers. That Heli was Mary’s father is supported by early Christians such as Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius and Justin Martyr. It is also supported indirectly by Jewish tradition from Talmudic writters.
stock // November 27, 2009 at 1:14 am |
SB. Your pathetic pontification in retreating inside your own beliefs once again makes me ask the question – “Does changing your beliefs in any way alter the facts????
Stephen Bedard // November 27, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
Changing beliefs does not alter facts. However, sometimes a change in belief coincides with a better understanding of the truth. When people began to believe that the earth was round and not flat, the shape of the world did not change. The change in belief went along with a better understanding of the facts.
Les Kelly // December 11, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
Re Carol Duggins’ comment of 22Nov:
“Luke 3 is actually Mary’s genealogy. Since Mary had no brothers she was the sole heiress of her father’s estate and hence by Jewish law, Joseph as Mary’s husband was reckoned among her father’s family as his son and heir.”
LesK says:
Sorry Carol you have got it wrong.
Your comment is totally supposition which has absolutely no biblical basis.
One may quote a string of lofty sounding church “fathers” but even they were as inclined to error as are the clerics of today.
The facts are:
Mary’s name does not once appear in Luke’s third chapter.
In fact the only reference of Mary’s origins ever given by Luke is found in 1:36:
“And behold your “suggenes” – (meaning blood or tribal relation) Elizabeth she has also conceived …. ”
I suggest that you consult Encyclopaedia Biblica article “Mary” column 2957 which reads:
“We are not in a position to say to what tribe it was that Mary really belonged, but that the author of Luke 1 held her to be a Levite is certain…..”
Luke tells us that Mary was a “suggenes” or blood / tribal relative of Elizabeth and nothing more.
Theologians have fiddled and dandled with the two NT genealogies ad infinatum for centuries but nothing can hide the simple basic fact that Matthew and Luke have presented us with two totally different ancestries of totally different families that were never meant to be reconciled.
Matthew gave us Joseph’s ancestry – the supposed father of Jesus of Nazareth.
Luke gave us the ancestry of Heli – the real physical father of Jesus.
Luke commenced his genealogy with the parenthetical reference to Joseph being the “supposed” father of Jesus.
Jewish Messianic expectancy of 4BC was totally devoid of any concept of “virgin birth” – and it remains so even today.
Mary’s question to Gabriel in Lk 1:34:
“How shall this be seeing I do not know a man?”
Is totally relevant to what Gabriel had just told her concerning the criteria that her child – yet to be conceived – would fulfill in Lk 1:32/22.