From: ingrcfb@bnr.ca (Charles Board)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:01:26 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <1992Oct13.155642.6199@engage.pko.dec.com>, pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct12.220053.29484@athena.cs.uga.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
|> >
|> >According to this account, which can be found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
|> >History ...
|> 
|> As a matter of methodology, I don't think it is proper for us
|> evangelicals to try to resolve the alleged Biblical inconsistencies
|> based on the sources outside the Bible itself.  For this particular
|> example - the alleged inconsistency between Jesus' geneology in Matthew
|> and that in Luke, if we really dig into the Scripture, we would find
|> that not only there is no inconsistency here, but also that this
|> difference between the record in Matthew and that in Luke unfolds to
|> us the brilliant beauty of the Scripture as it testifies concerning
|> our Lord.
|> 
|> First, let us ask this question: what was the purpose of Matthew in
|> recording the geneology of Jesus?  And what was Luke's purpose in
|> doing this?  It is important that we understand the theme of a book
|> when we try to resolve some fine points within the text, for the theme
|> serves as the global semantics context as we come down to different
|> levels of details, look for their meanings, and find all things in
|> the places where they belong.
|> 
|> With this in mind, let us ask: what is the theme of Matthew?  What
|> is the central point that Matthew tried to convey to us?  There is
|> no question that the central theme of Mathew is Jesus the King -
|> from the Eastern Magi coming to Jerusalem looking for 'King of the
|> Jews', to His crucifixion with that same inscription; nay, to His
|> Resurrection and coming back to His disciples with this: "All
|> authorities, in Heavens and on the earth, have been given to me,
|> now go forth ..."  It is with this context we can come to understand,
|> even to appreciate, the geneology given by Matthew.  The purpose of
|> Matthew in presenting Jesus' geneology is to show that Jesus had
|> the legitimate claim to the throne of David, the rightful 'King of
|> the Jews'.  In fact, He was the only person who had that claim -
|> for He was the legal heir of Joseph, who was on the royal line of
|> succession; yet at the same time, not being the blood descendent of
|> Joseph, who was descended from Jechoniah, He was not under that
|> dreadful curse pronounced by Jeremiah, that no descendent of Jechoniah
|> would sit on the throne of David.  
|> 
|> Now, let us turn to Luke.  What is the theme of Luke?  Luke was a letter
|> from a Gentile to a Gentile.  The purpose is to show that Jesus, being
|> fully God, was also truly human; and, as a true human being, was thus
|> connected to the entire human kind, even to the Gentiles.  To establish
|> such a connection, Luke traced Jesus' geneology back to Adam, the very
|> beginning of the human kind.  It would not make sense for Luke to
|> follow the line of Joseph, for Joseph's line had nothing to do with
|> the connection Luke was trying to establish.  Note that Luke said
|> "Joseph was the son of Heli", instead of "Heli begat Jesoph" or
|> "Joseph was born of Heli".  It was not uncommon in those days for
|> a son-in-law to be reckoned as a son, especially if they were from the
|> same tribe, as in this case.  This expression 'the son of' was much
|> loosed used in those days than it is today, even in the Getile
|> world, as we remember that Augustus, being the nephew of Caesar, was
|> also reckoned his son.  But you might ask: why didn't Luke mention
|> Mary instead of Joseph in the geneology?  Well, Luke already used
|> many words in describing Incarnation and Mary's role in it, and
|> besides, a 'geneology', as defined by the custom of those days,
|> consisted of the names of the males.  

   HALT! You sounded half convincing up to this point. You yourself claim
   that there WERE geneologies in those days in which women were mentioned
   (see Matthew:)). If there were ANY case in which it would be not only
   appropriate but required it is the case when there were NO males to 
   mention (ie Mary).

|> There was nothing sexist about
|> Luke's choice of using male's names in the geneology, for he was

   Not sexist, simply INCORRECT. and of what use is an incorrect
   geneology?

|> simply following the custom of those days in his literary style -
|> remember that this was a letter from one person to another.  If the
|> term 'son', as used in those days, could sometimes refer to
|> 'son-in-law', (or, if we use the object-oriented terminology,
|> 'son-in-law' is a derived class of the base class 'son',) then there
|> is nothing contrived about Luke's account of the geneology of Jesus.
|> 
|> Regards,
|> -- 
|> -- Publius
|> Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc