Benjamin's Cup

[gregoryfl]

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.

I agree. He could easily though, have seen the word 'gabra', and taken it to mean 'aner', which ended up causing the problem in the first place, not only with regard to that, but also with the numbering of the generations.

[gilgal]

I think the reason Joseph blessed Benjamin 5 times as much as his other brothers in supply is to test his brothers jealousy since Jacob loved Joseph more than his brothers and they were moved with jealousy. But this time his brothers were thinking of their father's welfare and wanted to make sure he Benjamin would come home safely.

But the cup was Joseph's way of keeping him in Egypt maybe trying to upset them.

[duxrow]

I agree. He could easily though, have seen the word 'gabra', and taken it to mean 'aner', which ended up causing the problem in the first place, not only with regard to that, but also with the numbering of the generations.

Thanks Greg - I remember this, but thought gavra with a 'v' instead. Anyway, seems like they're confusing the issue since Matthew plainly is speaking of the generation of Jesus; whereas Luke writes of his "supposed father". It's an understandable
dilema IMO -- like a red herring to distract from the true generation count of 66 names, just like the number of books in THE WORD.

Chrisma said

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?

They're BOTH right. Even RAM apparently hasn't grasped the significance of Mary having no brothers. She MUST marry into the Tribe of her father, so Luke makes it clear that she obeyed the Law and did just that. ??

[duxrow]

I think the reason Joseph blessed Benjamin 5 times as much as his other brothers in supply is to test his brothers jealousy since Jacob loved Joseph more than his brothers and they were moved with jealousy. But this time his brothers were thinking of their father's welfare and wanted to make sure he Benjamin would come home safely. But the cup was Joseph's way of keeping him in Egypt maybe trying to upset them.

Sounds good to me, Gil. And maybe how "tasting the Word" compares with good things to eat. Prov 15:17 and stalled ox, comes to mind.

First Joseph, then Benjamin, were the 'beloved son' -- hardly a word about baby sister Dinah. Curious, to me.
He FRAMED his baby brother by planting His Personal Cup in the corn-money sack - it may be vague, but I'm thinking of how Jesus was numbered with the transgressors..even though he wasn't guilty.. ?

[Charisma]

Hey dux,

I didn't say. '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?'

Also, where do you get the knowledge that Mary had no brothers? (Chapter and verse or other reference?)

Lastly, it should be obvious that Joseph (heir to the throne of David) couldn't have a baby without a wife. That's where Mary comes in. Yes, she is also of Judah, (but don't forget she had a cousin who was a Levite - Elisabeth). Maybe her mother was a Levite?

[duxrow]

What can I say, Charisma? I copied that quote from your post.

I realize that many don't agree, but the Genealogy in Matthew is that of JESUS, all the way back to Genesis, except leaving out the nineteen generations prior to Abraham and five names in the 3x14 middle column. period.

The Genealogy in Luke is that of Mary's husband Joseph and 3 other Josephs -- it's there to show she was obedient to the Law of Numbers 36 in marrying someone of the same tribe as her husband. (..because her father had no sons) doesn't say that explicitly anywhere I know of, but the proof of pudding is in the eating-- and the result makes it all look so SIMPLE. "By the fruits, you know..."

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

The quote which I didn't recognise as my own, was from quote of a post by another - but you're right, I 'posted' it here.

I realize that many don't agree, but the Genealogy in Matthew is that of JESUS, all the way back to Genesis, except leaving out the nineteen generations prior to Abraham and five names in the 3x14 middle column. period.

The glaring difference between Matthew and Luke, though, is that Matthew specifically states that 'Jacob' 'begat\ Joseph the husband of Mary'. With regard to the claim that Jesus is the son of David, Joseph's natural descent is essential.

It is also essential that an heir to the throne takes a suitable wife. One has to observe there must have been more than one virgin in Judah who was a 'royal' virgin, who could have fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. Thus, when Gabriel states Mary is 'highly favoured' 'among women', it is not such a generalisation as it sounds to western ears.

The Genealogy in Luke is that of Mary's husband Joseph

How can it be? Joseph's actual father is declared in Matthew's list.

I say this with some caution, because I've just found this in 1 Chronicles 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin or Coniah} 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, {Salathiel: Heb. Shealtiel} 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah [were], Zerubbabel, and Shimei:

it's there to show she was obedient to the Law of Numbers 36 in marrying someone of the same tribe as her husband. (..because her father had no sons) doesn't say that explicitly anywhere I know of

This is, therefore, pure guesswork on your part, as the order in scripture about marriage is (overwhelmingly by a very long distance) that a man takes a wife - not the other way round. This shows up both in the Old and the New Testament, endorsed by Jesus more than once (Matt 19 esp).

I would also comment that there would have been other descendants of David who could claim right to the throne, but... only Joseph's wife was chosen to bring the Saviour, Emanuel - Jesus - into the world.

[duxrow]

Hi dux,
The quote which I didn't recognise as my own, was from quote of a post by another - but you're right, I 'posted' it here.

The glaring difference between Matthew and Luke, though, is that Matthew specifically states that 'Jacob' 'begat\ Joseph the husband of Mary'. With regard to the claim that Jesus is the son of David, Joseph's natural descent is essential.

Yes, I agree that Jacob begot Joseph (that's what father's do), but Joseph is the FATHER of Mary--not husband. Or so goes my thinking.
In regard to your second sentence, We are seed of Abraham, just as Jesus is Son of David.

It is also essential that an heir to the throne takes a suitable wife. One has to observe there must have been more than one virgin in Judah who was a 'royal' virgin, who could have fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. Thus, when Gabriel states Mary is 'highly favoured' 'among women', it is not such a generalisation as it sounds to western ears.

Dont care about heir to throne--talking father to son, or son to father.

How can it be? Joseph's actual father is declared in Matthew's list.

Absolutely! We differ on whether it's husband or father (aner).

I say this with some caution, because I've just found this in 1 Chronicles 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. {Jeconiah: also called, Jehoiachin or Coniah} 17 And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son, {Salathiel: Heb. Shealtiel} 18 Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. 19 And the sons of Pedaiah [were], Zerubbabel, and Shimei: Been there-done that.

Are you on board with the two (2) pair of Salathiel-Zorobabel? one in Matt, another in Luke.

This is, therefore, pure guesswork on your part, as the order in scripture about marriage is (overwhelmingly by a very long distance) that a man takes a wife - not the other way round. This shows up both in the Old and the New Testament, endorsed by Jesus more than once (Matt 19 esp).

I would also comment that there would have been other descendants of David who could claim right to the throne, but... only Joseph's wife was chosen to bring the Saviour, Emanuel - Jesus - into the world.

throne again? but we're ALL K/P now..

You don't think Zelophehad is of any consequence?

[Charisma]

Hi dux,

You don't think Zelophehad is of any consequence?

There are no grounds to bring Numbers 36 into Mary's situation. It may be that at the time she became espoused to Joseph, that she had no brothers, but she was still quite young, and, the scripture usually tells us when something unusual is going on.

In this case, the unusual thing is that after centuries of waiting for a certain son of David to be born, Joseph finds that his espoused wife is expecting Him, and he himself begins to receive instruction from God through dreams. That's the main narrative. It is always important for an heir to a throne to take a virgin to wife, so there can be no confusion or question of paternity (as God knows).

The Bible is full of marriages, some of the most important ones being between a man and one of his close relatives. I can't seen anything to get excited about Joseph of Judah marrying a girl from Judah. It happened all the time. What is significant is that Mary herself was descended from David. That made her royal too. That was an important qualifying factor of the virgin who would conceive.


I've just looked for the sons of Judah, since David was only one descendant of Judah, (and, David himself had many sons - fifteen from his wives apart from concubines). There seem to be five official ones, two of whom died at the hand of the Lord.

But then I found this:

Genesis 46:9 And the sons of Reuben; Hanoch, and Phallu, and Hezron, and Carmi.

1 Chronicles 4:1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. {Carmi: also called, Chelubai or Caleb} Have you any idea why Hezron and Carmi would be listed as sons of both Reuben and Judah?

We are seed of Abraham, just as Jesus is Son of David.

I don't 'see' the distinction you are making?

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ...... and if we are in Jesus... ?

[duxrow]

Hi dux,

There are no grounds to bring Numbers 36 into Mary's situation. It may be that at the time she became espoused to Joseph, that she had no brothers, but she was still quite young, and, the scripture usually tells us when something unusual is going on.

You think the scripture usually tells us when something unusual is going on?? NIMBY comes to mind. Pr25:2"glory of God to conceal a thing--honor of kings to search out..

In this case, the unusual thing is that after centuries of waiting for a certain son of David to be born, Joseph finds that his espoused wife is expecting Him, and he himself begins to receive instruction from God through dreams. That's the main narrative. It is always important for an heir to a throne to take a virgin to wife, so there can be no confusion or question of paternity (as God knows).

The Bible is full of marriages, some of the most important ones being between a man and one of his close relatives. I can't seen anything to get excited about Joseph of Judah marrying a girl from Judah. It happened all the time. What is significant is that Mary herself was descended from David. That made her royal too. That was an important qualifying factor of the virgin who would conceive.

Mary and her husband were both descended from David--nobody has disputed it, that I know of..??

I've just looked for the sons of Judah, since David was only one descendant of Judah, (and, David himself had many sons - fifteen from his wives apart from concubines). There seem to be five official ones, two of whom died at the hand of the Lord.

If you want info about Judah, don't forget to read the parenthetical chapter 38 of Genesis, about the twins he sired with Tamar.

But then I found this:

Genesis 46:9 And the sons of Reuben; Hanoch, and Phallu, and Hezron, and Carmi.

1 Chronicles 4:1 The sons of Judah; Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and Shobal. {Carmi: also called, Chelubai or Caleb} Have you any idea why Hezron and Carmi would be listed as sons of both Reuben and Judah?

Many names duplicated, and some names changed -- it's a confusing subject for sure, but checks out. IMO. Both sons had the same name.

I don't 'see' the distinction you are making?
Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ...... and if we are in Jesus... ?

We may have to agree to disagree, Charisma; seems we aren't on the same page. dux