Benjamin's Cup

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

I had said:

Being married to the official heir to the throne of David would have made her queen only if he had become king.

to which you replied:

The "Queen" biz doesn't compute for me: maybe missed something. Mary's the Mother of the King of Kings!

Can you figure out what you missed?

In your next post you say:

Mostly 'caus.e I object to having 'husband Joseph' in the pedigree of Jesus, is why I see that Joseph as Mary's FATHER

Okay, first thing: please clarify which Joseph (chapter and verse) you are seeing as 'Mary's FATHER'?

My suspicion is that if you can figure out the first, you'll also understand what is wrong with your 'objection' to 'husband Joseph' in Jesus' geneology.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[duxrow]

Hi dux, I had said: to which you replied: Can you figure out what you missed?

In your next post you say:
Okay, first thing: please clarify which Joseph (chapter and verse) you are seeing as 'Mary's FATHER'?

My suspicion is that if you can figure out the first, you'll also understand what is wrong with your 'objection' to 'husband Joseph' in Jesus' geneology.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Not yet, Charisma. The Queen biz not jelling. The ONLY Joseph, in Matt 1:16, is who I figure for Mary's father. 4 Joseph's are in the Lk3 account, so seems to be a family name.

You are focused on the Kingly Reign, but myself on the father to son or daughter genealogy (Toledoth) -- True, Jesus now king of kings, and WE are kings/priests, but the final King of Judah was Zedekiah who wasn't in the genealogy leading to Salathiel/Zorobabel.

Been thinking that a Queen only becomes one after she MARRIES a King... Mary seems to have been a follower of Jesus just like others..

Dont think I'm being any help. Maybe get a clearer head some other day..

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

Not yet, Charisma. The Queen biz not jelling. The ONLY Joseph, in Matt 1:16, is who I figure for Mary's father. 4 Joseph's are in the Lk3 account, so seems to be a family name.

You are focused on the Kingly Reign, but myself on the father to son or daughter genealogy (Toledoth) -- True, Jesus now king of kings, and WE are kings/priests, but the final King of Judah was Zedekiah who wasn't in the genealogy leading to Salathiel/Zorobabel.

Been thinking that a Queen only becomes one after she MARRIES a King... Mary seems to have been a follower of Jesus just like others..

Dont think I'm being any help. Maybe get a clearer head some other day..

It may seem like I'm focused on the 'Kingly Reign', but really that's not on my mind consciously.

Regarding Matt 1:16, I have no idea why it should not mean what it says... And, I'm surprised that you would want to tinker with scripture to fit your own thinking, instead of wrestling for a better understanding of the importance of Joseph being Mary's husband. (I hope that doesn't sound harsh, because CLEARLY you've put a great deal of time and thought into the genealogy already!) ' And the point I'm about to make is old hat... but I believe it's relevant for two reasons. The first is that it would be unthinkable for a young woman to have a baby out of wedlock, even though she wasn't 'in' wedlock with Joseph in the fullest sense, their marriage being as yet unconsummated.

Joseph's proper behaviour towards Mary, (in obedience to God's word to him personally), to continue to make her his wife legally, while not consummating their marriage until after Jesus had been born, completely covered her as a woman, and ensured that Jesus was born into his (Joseph's) family, thus making His claim to the throne of David impossible to dispute. Humanly speaking, God saw to it that Mary and His son were being provided for in as normal and natural a way as possible despite the stresses of the era in which they all lived.

It is important to note that Jesus' eligibility to the throne of David came through His adoption by Joseph, and not through Mary. In other words, although she was descended from Judah (through David and Nathan), it was her MARRIAGE to Joseph, being the mother of Jesus, which drew her into the family of the heir (being one flesh with him) to the throne, NOT her natural descent from David. Can you see that?

What I meant by, 'Being married to the official heir to the throne of David would have made her queen only if he had become king', is that Mary, despite being descended from David, was not the heir to the throne: Joseph was. She could never have become the monarch while there was a male heir alive, but, married to the heir she could have been queen, legitimately. (That was all I had in mind about that.)

And yes, Mary being the mother of the King of kings, is AWESOME!



In the next two posts I'll quote from a thread on another forum, with thoughts others have had about the Heli or Jacob connundrum.

[Charisma]

'Heli: Mary's blood father.

Jacob: Joseph's blood father.

Luke 3:23 " (a)And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, (b)being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, (c)which was the son of Heli,"

Take the middle section out(b), between the comma's, to find out the subject of the last section(c).

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli,"

Section (b) is just showing the assumption of the layman. This geneology in Luke is then Mary's.' (posted by letsgetbusy)


'This is pure speculation and assumption - no actual proof is supplied to this answer.' (posted by wildbranch)


' 'This is pure speculation and assumption - no actual proof is supplied to this answer.'

No not at all. With an understanding of First Century civilization this explanation is very plausible and very acceptable.

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Here is what Norman Geislar says about the subject:

Problem Jesus has a different grandfather here in Luke 3:23(Heli) than He does in Matthew 1:16(Jacob). Which one is the right one?

Solution This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors(italics mine), one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, since he addresses Jesus' genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah's credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf. Matt. 1:1). Luke, with a broader Greek audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the Perfect Man (which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:38).

That Matthew gives Jesus' paternal genealogy and Luke His maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son (italics mine) of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his legal father) to David's son, Solomon the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf. 2Sam. 7:12ff). Luke's purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he traces Christ to David's son Nathan, through his actual mother, Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human, the redeemer of humanity.

Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus' genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was "as was supposed" (bold mine) (Luke 3:23) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary's genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his empasis on women in his Gospel which has been called "the Gospel for Women."

I would add to Geislar's review that the first three chapters of Luke appear to be information gathered from Mary herself which lends further credance to Lukes genealogy of Jesus being from that of Mary's lineage. That Joseph is called the son of Heli is also perfectly acceptable because in the first century it was common for a son-in-law to be called a son.

Here is Adam Clarke's commentary on this passage:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That St. Luke does not always speak of sons properly such, is evident from the first and last person which he names: Jesus Christ was only the supposed son of Joseph, because Joseph was the husband of his mother Mary: and Adam, who is said to be the son of God, was such only by creation. After this observation it is next necessary to consider, that, 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. This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (posted by jeremyhulsey)


These above and the following taken from: http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/n...310&forum=36&9

[Charisma]

'I don't want to muddy the waters of Hulsey's explanation but I did some thinking about this a few years ago. Here are my notes. (tell me what you think Jeremy?)

When we 'follow the seed' through the genealogy in Matthew we immediately hit the question as to whose genealogy we are reading. Matthew says quite clearly that this is the genealogy of Joseph. It breaks the pattern of 38 'begettings' to say that Jesus was not begotten of Joseph by declaring not that Joseph 'begat' Jesus but was 'born' of Mary the espoused wife of Joseph. 'And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.' (Matt. 1:14-16,) If you read it slowly you will see the sudden change in the pattern.

But if this Joseph's genealogy, why give it at all? Matthew's genealogy is the official royal descent of the heirs to the throne. Not all of the descendants of David in this list became kings, but all had throne rights. The throne line ended, technically with Jechonias (Jehoiachin), but Salathiel and his son Zerubbabel would have been the next kings if the monarch had continued.

A closer look at Jehoiachin may prove interesting. Jehoiachin was king in Judah for only 3 months and 10 days before being taken captive to Babylon. He lived as a prisoner in Babylon for the next 36 years and was released on the death of Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiachin remained in Bablylon until his death. During his absence his uncle Zedekiah as a puppet king for Babylon for 10 years. Zedekiah is not mentioned in Matthew's genealogy.

Matthew then says that Jehoiachin (Jechonias) 'begat' Salathiel and Salathiel is the person in whom the genealogies of both Luke and Matthew briefly synchronise.Matt. 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
Luke 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, The astute will notice that Matthew says that Salathiel was the son of Jechonias (Jehoiachin) whereas Luke says that Salathiel was the son of Neri. How come?

There is a key prophecy in Jeremiah that needs to be brought in as evidence. Jer. 22:24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;
Jer. 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (Coniah is a shortened form of Jehoiachin.) As a result of his sin God pronounced, through Jeremiah, childlessness upon Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin would never 'beget' anyone.

It is most likely that as a consequence Jehoaichin adopted a descendant of David to be his successor; Neri, the twentieth generation from David but of the line of Nathan, not Solomon. There may be an indication of this other 'royal family' in Zech. 12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; By this 'adoption' Salathiel would become legal heir to the throne. (Adoption into the family line was an accepted phenomena in ancient eastern cultures and in the scriptures. cf Ruth 4:13-17 where Ruth's son by Boaz is recognised as Noami's child) Salathiel thus became the legal son and heir of Jehoiachin. The word 'begat' in Greek comes from a root which actually means 'to become'.

Luke's geneaology says that Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, The word translated 'supposed' here in 'nomizo' which comes from the Greek word 'nomos' meaning law. Used in this sense it can bear the sense of 'legally'; technically 'to do by law'. It came to be used of 'judgements' or 'conclusions' (Matt. 5:17; 10:34; 20:10; Luke 2:44; 3:23; Acts 7:25; 8:20; 14:19; 16:13,27; 17:29; 21:29; 1Cor. 7:26,36; 1Tim. 6:5) In other words Jesus was 'legally regarded' as the son of Joseph. Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus' father in Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. Joseph was 'legally' though not physically the father of Jesus and as such it was Joseph who gave Jesus his name. (Matt 1:21,25)

So the Bible states quite plainly that Joseph is not the physical father of Jesus, but it also states that Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah. (Heb 7:14) This must mean that Mary descended from Judah, and there seems to be an indication of close connection between Mary and these genealogies.

There have been different suggestions aimed at squaring the two genealogies. Here is my favourite. Let's suppose that Luke's genealogy is the physical genealogy of Joseph and Matthew's is the legal, throne-line, genealogy. The two genealogies run in parallel until the time of David, although Matthew has some gaps. The line then divides. The legal descant continues through Solomon but the physical descent continues through Nathan; a different son of David. Solomon's physical line died out with Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin, as we have suggested, adopts a descendant of David (Salathiel) as his legal heir. From Salathiel the genealogies run in parallel again until we arrive at the descendant of Matthan or Matthat when they separate out again and go their separate ways.

If Matthan, no 38 in Matthew's genealogy, and Matthat, no 71 in Luke's genealogy, are the same person (and it seems most likely that they were) we discover that Jacob (Matt 1:15) and Heli (Luke 3:23) were brothers. But it seems to say that Joseph was the son of Heli in Luke 1:23 and that Joseph was the son of Jacob in Matt 1:16. Is there any scenario which could fit this data? (I am following a different route to Hulsey here) Yes there is, and although it may seem a little strained to our western ways, it is probably a scenario that was often worked out in bible culture.

Suppose or surmise that Joseph is the physical son of Heli and that Mary is the physical daughter of Jacob. (I know, I know, wait a while...) Let us surmise that Jacob had no son of his own and so adopted his nephew Joseph as his heir (or that Jacob died without male issue in which case his nephew would become his heir). This would make Joseph the legal son of Jacob and the physical son of Heli. Joseph now become betrothed to Jacob's daughter, his cousin, Mary. Luke's genealogy does not use the formula 'begat' but simply uses a definite article in the genitive case which simply means 'of'. (You can see this in a KJV which provides italics for added words.)This would certainly accommodate Joseph as his legal heir...' (posted by philologos)

[duxrow]

Lk1:60 "And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name".

Why would the name Joseph have been used for the father of Mary? Because this principle from Luke suggests they paid attention to family names.

Bothered me 'til recently when I saw how Jacob-II may have reached back to that very first Jacob who ALSO had a son named Joseph (the 11th).

There are only two Jacobs in the Bible (both in Matt 1), and all the other 64 names are unique -- (Enoch-1 and Lamech-1 don't count 'cause they were in the line of Cain)

2Ch:36:9: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
2Ch:36:10: And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

Sorry, Charisma, but I continue to see if differently than you or Jeremy. I don't like the word "aner" translated as 'husband', and don't believe Solomon's line ended with Coniah (Jehoiachin) - but realize the NIV doesn't count Assir. (#52 in the pedigree of Jesus). Not really important who's right or wrong, IMO, except that Truth should play a role in netting more believers..??

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

I might be missing something in your posts, but you seem to be saying that the Joseph who is listed in Matt 1:16 as Mary's espoused husband, is, in your opinion, actually Mary's father?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Is the Joseph in v 18, in your opinion, also Mary's father? (If so, how can this be, seeing it's against the Law?)

Sorry, Charisma, but I continue to see if differently than you or Jeremy. I don't like the word "aner" translated as 'husband',

Is there any evidence that Mary had no brothers?

I can't see why you're so insistent upon changing her 'husband' to her father, as her married status had already taken over her identity by the time Gabriel spoke to her, even if she had been an only daughter. Two things do matter, though. The first is that she qualified as a royal virgin (necessary to fulfil Isaiah's prophecy), and, that she was espoused to the legal heir to the throne of David.

and don't believe Solomon's line ended with Coniah (Jehoiachin)

I agree. But, with respect to sitting on the throne, his direct descendants would not.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi dux,

I might be missing something in your posts, but you seem to be saying that the Joseph who is listed in Matt 1:16 as Mary's espoused husband, is, in your opinion, actually Mary's father?

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Is the Joseph in v 18, in your opinion, also Mary's father? (If so, how can this be, seeing it's against the Law?)

The idea is that Mary married a man who happened to have the same name as her father. They were both called "Joseph." The problem with this idea is that a father in the Bible is never called the daughter's "man" (aner), and worse, that exact word is used to refer to her husband Joseph in the immediate context:

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (aner) of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband (aner), being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Obviously, there is only one "Joseph" in those two passages. The theory fails. This is unfortunate since it makes it impossible to trust even the most simple statements of the Bible, such as the assertion that the genealogy divides into three groups of fourteen generations. Of course, that assertion fails for another reason, namely, generations were left out of the count! So it's obviously false for at least two reasons.

Why would anyone think the Bible is trustworthy?

[gregoryfl]

The Aramaic Peshitta offers a solution that the Greek does not, that speaks of the first Joseph in verse 16 as being her 'gabra', which contextually carries 3 meanings. The Joseph mentioned in verse 19 is called her 'ba'lah', meaning 'owner' which speaks of his being her husband, in today's terms.

Ronen

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Aramaic Peshitta offers a solution that the Greek does not, that speaks of the first Joseph in verse 16 as being her 'gabra', which contextually carries 3 meanings. The Joseph mentioned in verse 19 is called her 'ba'lah', meaning 'owner' which speaks of his being her husband, in today's terms.

Ronen

It sounds like the author of the Peshita felt free to fix the problem. It seems very unlikely that the Greek writer would have mistakenly used the word aner for both her father and her husband.