Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: inconsistencies in the Bible (digest of postings) Message-ID: Date: 23 Dec 89 04:57:26 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 105 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Before getting too deeply into the resolution of the apparent descrepancies between the genaeologies in Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke 3:23-38, I would like to dispose of one rather trivial issue. Someone indicated that it was felt that there was some confusion because both genaeologies include a man named Joseph. I would like to point out that far more than just one person has had the name of Joseph throughout history. It was quite common back then, as it still is today, to name a child after a near relative, perhaps even his own immediate father. When John the baptist was born to Zacharias and Elisabeth, for example, their acquaintances were unaware that his name was to be John. They tried to insist, after the customs of that day, that he be given the same name as his father. Luke 1:59 says "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.". It is real easy to believe that there were many people named Joseph in Israel as there was a very famous Joseph in their ancestry who was the patriarch of two of their tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), a highly respected prime minister of Egypt, and a very great man of God whose life is described throughout approximately a quarter of the book of Genesis. The genaeology in Matthew 1:2-16 is that of Joseph of Nazareth. We can know this with certainty because it ends with Matthew 1:16 which says "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.". Note that this verse very carefully avoids saying that Joseph begat Jesus. Among other things this verse is telling us that none of the kings of Judah from Solomon onward were ancestors of Jesus because Joseph, although he was the husband of Mary, was not the biological father of Jesus. A careful inspection of the rest of Matthew 1 will show that Joseph himself knew that he was not the biological father of Jesus. When he found out that Mary was pregnant he sought a way to divorce her because he jumped to the conclusion that she had committed adultery. When God told him what was going on he immediately married her yet refrained from sexual relations with her until Jesus was born so that there could be no possible doubt that he was not the biological father. The genaeology in Luke 3:23-38 is that of Mary. We can know this with certainty because it begins with wording that relates to direct human ancestry and because we know that Mary was the only immediate human ancestor of Jesus. The first verse finishes by declaring Heli as a direct ancestor of Jesus. Luke 3:23 says "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,". Note that it very definitely says "which was the son of Heli" and that the word "which" refers to Jesus. This leaves us with what would appear to be a major contradiction. We know that Jesus had just one immediate human ancestor, His mother Mary, but Luke is telling us that He was the son of Heli. These two statements do not really contradict one another at all. Please permit me to explain. Genaeologies were always traced through male ancestry. Not one female name, for example, is listed in this particular one. The closest human male ancestor of Jesus would have been Mary's father. It is, therefore, reasonable to suspect that Heli was Mary's father. Jesus, then, would be Heli's grand-son. The fact that Jesus was Heli's grand-son, and not his immediate son, would not make this verse untruthful. The term "son" as used within the Scriptures refers to a direct, but not necessarily to an immediate, male descendent. Matthew 1:1, for example, says "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.". Compare this with Matthew 1:17 which says "So all the generations from Abraham to David {are} fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon {are} fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ {are} fourteen generations.". Even though David is declared to be the son of Abraham, we are told that there were fourteen generations from one to the other. Even though Jesus is declared to be the son of David, we are told that there were twenty-eight generations from one to the other. The reference to Jesus being the son of David here is by no means unique either. The Scriptures are very clear that the Jews of that day referred to Him by this title quite often. As Jesus entered Jerusalem on the Sunday before His crucifiction, for example, Matthew 21:9 tells us "And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed {is} he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.". Before leaving Luke 3:23 I would like to make one more observation. It makes a point of mentioning that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph. This is to remind us, yet again, of one very important fact, i.e. that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. His conception was the result of some sort of interaction between Mary and God. Luke 1:35 says "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.". Even though most of the people back then made the assumption that Jesus was the son of Joseph just because he was the husband of His mother, God is telling us yet one more time that this just is not so. It may be worth observing that, even today, many people hold to this very same, absolutely incorrect position, i.e. that Jesus was not born of a virgin. In so doing they are denying the power of the very God whom they claim to be worshipping and whom they declare to be the omnipotent Creator of this entire universe and everything that is in it. 2 Timothy 3:5 warns not only of this kind of belief but also of those who hold it "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3