From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Subject: Re: Historical/traditional answer to geneology of Christ
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:56:42 GMT

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