Seun van Dawid: Is daar ‘n sinvolle verduideliking? – AntWoord
November 11, 2010 Udo Die Bybel 0
Ek is so opgewonde – toevallig op AntWoord afgekom – nee dit is nie toevallig nie – dit was so bedoel. Te oorhaastig en opgewonde om mooi te lees ook – maar ek het tog ‘n groot onduidelikheid. Sê maar as ek nou op die verkeerde plek die verkeerde vraag vra.
FEIT: Jesus was nie die bloedseun van Josef nie – dus is hy nie uit die geslag van Dawid gebore nie. En tog word daar menigmaal in die Bybel verwys dat Jesus uit die geslag van Dawid gebore sal word/is en dit is soos wat ons geleer word.
Dit verwar my!
Ek vra en gesels met my predikante oor die duidelike weerspreking van feite – dan is daar verskeie antwoorde – van hoe dit moet gelees word – en wat eintlik bedoel word. Dit stel my nie tevrede nie. Of dalk luister ek nie mooi nie en verstaan ek nie mooi nie.
Hoe kan daar reg deur die Bybel so duidelik voorspel/gesê word dat Jesus uit die geslag van Dawid gebore sal word en dit nie eintlik so bedoel nie en dat dit anders gelees en verstaan moet word!
Niks word van Maria se geslagregister gelees nie – haar geslagregister moet mos dan eintlik gegee geword het- en sy moes uit die geslag van Dawid gekom het. En as dit so is – hoekom se die Bybel nie so nie. Is die antwoord ook dat die vrou in die Bybelse tyd nie eintlik geag is nie?
Jesus se geboorte en Sy kruisiging is vir my die fondament van my Christelike geloof en redding – dit voel vir my asof ek iewers iets mis – ek kan nie net blindelings aangaan omdat die Bybel so sê nie – ek is te analities daarvoor.
Ek is baie seker julle het al hierdie vraag beantwoord – gee net vir my ‘n vewysing. Of is daar so ‘n kits-antwoord wat hierdie saak vir my sal oopbreek.
Dit is altyd vir my baie lekker om so elke dan en wan met iemand kontak te maak by wie ek kan sien dat sy in haar verhouding met die Here ook wil erns maak met die verstand wat die Here haar gegee het. En dit sien ek beslis by jou! Ons intellek is tog ‘n baie belangrike deel van wie ons as mense is – en as rasionaliteit ‘n inherente vermoë van die mens is, dan kan dit tog nie in stryd wees met enige ander deel van wat dit beteken om ‘n mens te wees nie! Dit is daarom deel van ons strewe as deel van ‘n bediening soos AntWoord om te wys dat veral die Christelike geloof en verstand mekaar nie per definisie uitsluit soos wat baie (meeste) mense (Christene en nie-Christene) dink nie.
Dus, ek is saam met jou bly dat jy by ons uitgekom het. Nie omdat ek dink dat ons noodwendig so slim en oulik is om jou al die antwoorde te gee nie, maar omdat gesprek en saam dink oor dinge, ‘n mens dikwels ten minste in die regte rigting stuur vir ‘n uiteindelik antwoord. Ek is in elk geval daarvan oortuig dat die Here die eerlike soeker sal beloon.
In ‘n sekere sin wil ek met jou saamstem dat ‘n mens nie sommer iets blindelings moet glo net omdat die Bybel so sê nie. Maar ek wil terselfdertyd ook sê dat ek wel glo wat die Bybel sê – nie maar net omdat dit die Bybel is wat dit sê nie, maar omdat ek glo dat wat die Bybel sê waar is! En hoe weet ek dat wat in die Bybel geskryf staan waar is, sou jy dalk wil weet… wel, dit is presies wat ons as Christene aan ander behoort te kan verduidelik: nie net wat ons glo nie, maar ook hoekom ons dit glo (dat dit waar is).
Skuus, ek is besig om te babbel, maar net nog dit: Ek dink nie ‘n mens kan te analities wees nie – ek dink ‘n mens moet altyd probeer verstaan hoe dinge is en hoekom dit so is. Dit gaan vir my oor ‘n soeke na wat waar is en daarvoor is analitiese denke onontbeerlik. Waarteen ons wel moet waak is om te dink dat ons, met ons beperkte insig, die vermoê het om ‘n onbeperkte wese soos God in ons menslike kategorië in te dwing en Hom dan daarvolgens te analiseer. Ek dink God het ‘n klomp dinge oor homself geopenbaar waarvoor ons goeie gronde het om te glo dat dit is wie God werklik is, maar ons moet nooit dink dat ons God met selfs die beste van ons analitiese denke “uitgefigure” het nie. In elk geval dink ek nie ‘n mens leer God ooit werklik ken bloot in koue, abstrakte terme nie, maar deur in ‘n verhouding met Hom te staan – en dit, weet ek en jy, is wat Jesus kom moontlik maak het deur vir ons sonde aan die kruis te sterf.
Okay, genoeg vir eers. Ek dink daar is ‘n baie redelike antwoord op jou vraag oor Jesus uit die nageslag van Dawid.
Ek het vir jou ‘n versameling uittreksels van kommentare bymekaar gesit (sien onder) wat die verwarring wat daar tussen die twee geslagsregisters in Matteus 1 en Lukas 3 hopelik sal opklaar. In kort kom dit darem neer dat dit juis spesifiek Maria se geslagsregister is wat in Lukas 3 geïmpliseer word (en die redes daarvoor sal weldra verduidelik word) en dat sy dus wel ook uit die geslag van Dawid kom. Maar wat interessant is, is dat Josef, al was hy nie Jesus se biologiese vader nie, ook uit die geslag van Dawid kom (Matteus 1 se geslagsregister). Maar bestudeer dit gerus vir jouself verder.
Ek dink daar is verskillende redes waarom ons as 21-eeuse mense dikwels dink dat ons met teenstrydighede in die Bybel te doen het. Die feit dat dinge in die Bybel ‘n verklaring nodig het wat nie met die eerste oog opslag duidelik is nie, behoort ‘n mens nie regtig te verbaas as jy besef dat die Bybel God se openbaring van Homself aan mense en deur mense is nie. Dit beteken nie noodwendig dat daar foute in die Bybel is nie, maar dan ten minste ook nie dat alles ewe maklik verklaar kan word nie. Die vermaning is maar net om versigtig te wees om vanuit ons beperkte verstaan sommer maklik tot sekere gevolgtrekkings te kom.
Natuurlik mag en moet ons beslis ook na antwoorde soek sodat dinge vir ons kan sin maak. Om geloof te hê beteken nie dat ons nou maar toestemming het om irrasionele en teenstrydige dinge te kan glo nie. Nee, ons is rasionele wesens wat in ‘n rasionele wêreld leef en juis ook geroep is om ‘n rasionele God met ons verstand lief te hê.
Wel, ek hoop darem dat hierdie jou van hulp sal wees. Laat weet gerus as daar nog iets is waarmee ons kan help.
When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe:
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer:
From which of David’s sons was Jesus de­scended? In Matthew 1:6 Jesus’ ancestry is traced through Solomon, while in Luke 3:31 it is traced through Nathan.
Matthew 1: 1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was him­self a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of v.16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s an­cestors: “Abraham begat [egennesen] Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have begotten Jesus; rather he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born.”
Luke 3:23-38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was com­monly assumed by the public. It fur­ther calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a Iine of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, ­Jacob (Matt. I: 16). Mary’s line of de­scent came through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba (or “Bathshua,” according to 1 Chron. 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon.
Luk 3:23 Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph
“…in the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. This import, bishop Pearce has fully shown, νομιζεσθαι bears, in a variety of places – Jesus was considered according to law, or allowed custom, to be the son of Joseph, as he was of Heli. The two sons-in-law who are to be noticed in this genealogy are Joseph the son-in-law of Heli, whose own father was Jacob, Mat 1:16; and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri, whose own father was Jechonias: 1Ch 3:17, and Mat 1:12.
Luk 3:23 “…St. Matthew writes the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David by Solomon; St. Luke that of Mary, descended from David by Nathan. In the genealogy of Joseph (recited by St. Matthew) that of Mary is implied, the Jews being accustomed to marry into their own families.”
Luk 3:23 being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph
“…Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews (Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1.) that he ‘that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father,’ or parent; of which they give various instances (T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1.) in Joseph, in Michal, and in Pharaoh’s daughter.”
“…by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (Juchasin, fol. 55. 2.), that ‘the family of the mother is not called a family.’”
Luke 3:23 being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph
“…we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph – here His real, there His reputed line…that he was “the son of Heli,” 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.”
Luke 3:23: “Matthew employs the word “begot” each time, while Luke has the article tou repeating huiou (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that “Jacob begat Joseph” while Luke calls “Joseph the son of Heli.” There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase “as was supposed” (hōs enomizeto). His own narrative in Luk 1:26-38 has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, huios must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses “begat” for descent, so does Luke employ “son” in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in Mat 1:16, Mat 1:18-25 that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds “the Son of God” after Adam (Luk 3:38). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.”
Luk 3:23 – son of Heli
“In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told (Mat 1:16); that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke “the son of Heli”? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called “son of Heli” (“son” is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage. [Compare (1Sa 24:16)] The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary’s genealogy; and Joseph was “son of Heli” because espoused to Heli’s daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, whose father, Heli, was descended from David.”
Luk 3:23: “The real father of Joseph was Jacob (Mat 1:16); but having married the daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his son, and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being mentioned, because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the Jews, to David, and from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob the father of Joseph, the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, through the line of Nathan, to David, and from David to Abraham, and from Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate ‘son of God’ by creation, and to whom the promise of the Saviour was given in behalf of himself and all his posterity. The two branches of descent from David, by Solomon and Nathan, being thus united in the persons of Mary and Joseph, Jesus the son of Mary re-united in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called ‘the Son of David.’”