Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

Me three Helen!

HankD

 

But that's not what it says. It says that Heli was Joseph's father. Not father-in-law. If it was Mary's geneology, it would have said so. I am aware of the claim, but it is not scriptural. It's merely a story people made up to explain the error. "as it was supposed", does not translate to "so this is really about Mary, not Joseph, as it says".

Further, it says that Mary's cousin Elizabeth was of Aaron, which would make them Levites. And Joseph's genology (in Matthew and Luke) has him of the House of David, which is of the tribe of Benjamin.

No, when you find discrepancies like this, it's better to understand that they are simply inconsequential errors. One should not make up stories to cover them over.

No, that's not what it says. It says that Jesus was thought to be Joseph's son, and that Joseph was Heli's son. We need to work with Scripture as it is, not as we wish it was.

Not an issue, according to the Bible. Remember, it was thought that Joseph was Jesus' father. If you accept what it says.

But, if Luke and Matthew are correct, that's not what happened.

Wrong again. As noted in Matthew, Joseph never revealed that Mary was pregnant. He even thought to find a way to avoid a public humiliation for her. And when he learned what had happened, he took her as his wife without any announcement whatever. So there's no basis for the supposition that everyone knew.

Fact is, both purport to be geneologies for Joseph. Since we know Mary is descended from Aaron, a Levite, and since we know Joseph is descended from David, a Benjaminite, then there is no possibility that either geneology is Mary's.

But it is not, of course, evidence that one of the two geneologies of Joseph is actually of Mary. As you see, that would contradict other scripture.

Scripture hasn't changed. So the facts aren't going to change either. You've been repeating the same arguments yourself. The difference is, your's aren't scriptual.

I studied and learned before I had an opinion. And it's very true. Luke and Matthew are both geneologies of Joseph, as they say they are. Not only do they clearly say that they are Joseph's, Mary's ancestry is of a different tribe than Benjamin. So, to accept your argument, we would not only have to contradict what the Bible says about this, we have to reject what it says about Mary's lineage elsewhere.

[ August 03, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

Hi Galatian -

Biblical scholars throughout history seem to agree with Helen's explanation.

Matthew Henry:

Four Fold Gospel:

John Gill:

Jamieson/Fausset/Brown

 

Clint, I'm aware that some theologians have tried to tidy it up by supposing various explanations, some of them very complicated and ingenious.

They all fall short in one sense; they don't agree with what the Bible says about it. For me, the clincher was Mary's family being Levites.

David was a Benjaminite, and therefore could not have been Mary's ancestor. Assuming the Bible is right about her family being of the house of Aaron.

 

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

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,

In the Luke 3:23 passage "the son" is in italics, it is not in the original text and should read
"The son of Joseph which was of Heli"

Whereas the Matthew lineage says "Jacob begat Joseph".

There is only one explanation (imo) Heli is the father of Mary. Luke is the geneology of the seed of the woman. Joseph is "of Heli" because he is his son-in-law.

Thanks again Helen.

HankD

[ August 03, 2002, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hi again, Galatian -

We know that Elizabeth was a relative of Mary's (many assume cousin)but we do not know in what way they are related. The relationship could have been from any marriage throughout their family lines as well as blood. I assume you are building your supposition upon this verse:

 

The Scripture is silent concerning Mary's mother, she could have been a Levite.

Take it from there, the permutations to Elisabeth are many.

For instance Elisabeth and Mary's mothers could have been sisters.

HankD

[ August 03, 2002, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Today we think of a cousin of somebody who is exclusively a son or daughter of the brother or sister of a person's parents. However, that not how it has always been, cousin has often simply meant a relative, not nessarily a first cousin. Elizebeth may have been Mary's first cousin or the relationship could have been less close (perhaps even refering simply to both being descendant from Israel but that does seem a little far fetch though still possible). If the relationship was fairly close (say second or third cousin, not first cousin) then it probably would been the result of the daughter of a common ancestor from Judah, marrying a Levite (marrying outside of one's tribe was not common but did occur at least a few times, for example the men of the tribe of Benjamin had to get their wives from other tribes at one time). If it was the case in this case then it probably would have been a daughter marrying a Levite and not a son because the reason for the tribe restriction on marriage was to prevent inheritance from passing from one tribe to another and since in most cases inheritance passed to the sons it is likelier that no fuss would be made of a daughter marrying out of the tribe (at least if she had an older brother to claim the inheritance from her father) especially since her offspring would be considered Levites because of her husband even though she was from Judah. Also since the Levites had no physical inheritance of land, the restriction on intertribal marriage would have less significance simply because there would be no exchange of land (so long as it is a woman from Judah and not the first born son).

The common explanation for the reason why the different geneologies is not a problem (expanding on what was already said) is because Matthew having been a tax collector, probably would have focused on legal things, Jesus was not the son of Joseph except in the legal sense (as adoptive father), hence Matthew gives Joseph's geneology. Luke is said to have been a doctor and thus would probably consider the biological over the legal, hence he gives Mary's geneology. Gengologies in the Bible are list by the men (though they sometimes include wives and daughter, the line of ancestor to descendant is a list of sons) and so Mary is not mentioned.

As HankD mentioned, "the son" is not in the original text. It is grammatically correct to say that son of Heli is refering to Jesus' immediate male ancestor on his mother's side of the family.

Compare this sentence as HankD has mentioned would be better translated,

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

with this sentence:

The young boy, whose sister drinking a coke, which was playing in the sand was content.

it could be either the sister or the young boy who was playing in the sand, the sister could be playing in the sand while drinking a coke, but it could also mean that the boy has a sister who is drinking a coke but it is the boy who is playing in the sand, not his sister. Luke 3:23 can be read in the same way, with Heli being the first male ancestor in Jesus' geneology from his mother's ancestry. Basically the referant of the phrase "which was of Heli," is Jesus, not Joseph even though the phrase comes after the phrase about Joseph. Such a reading of the verse is both gramatically correct and explains the difference of geneologies.

Hopefully I haven't rambled on too much.

 

Clint, "Galatian" is referring to the King James translation of Luke 1:36, which reads, "And behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

The word for 'cousin' in the Greek here is "suggenes" or "syngenis", which means "a relative by blood; by extension a fellow countryman; kinfolk". It is used only this once in the entire Bible. However, if you look at the parts of the word even in the Greek, you can see the meaning: "syn" is 'same' as in 'synonym'; "genis" is 'beginning' as in Genesis. A person's 'syngenis' is then someone with the same beginning as that person, usually by blood, but how closely is NOT indicated by the word. Therefore the word 'cousin' in the KJV is being used VERY loosely there, and "Galatian" knows that because it has been brought to his attention before in years past.

In addition, it is not mentioned through which line this relation occurs, or whether, even if it is cousin, whether it is first, second, third, once-removed, twice-removed, or whatever, cousin.

But, if experience is any indication of the future, this will not bother Galatian and he will continue using the same argument on other forums, confusing other Christians. I pray God stops him. He has sown much confusion in the past and seems to delight in continuing it here.

 

If Mary's mother and Elisabeth's mother were sisters then Mary and Elisabeth were cousins of the first degree.

[ August 03, 2002, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Think about it.

If Mary's mother was a levite then Jesus Christ is both King and Priest through Mary's bloodline.

The seed of the woman.

 

Of course. There's no doubt of that. It fulfills Scripture in an imporant way. The point is that we should limit our claims about these things to what actually is in Scripture, and not invent things that aren't actually in there.

Wouldn't it be easier to just let it speak for itself? This certainly isn't a salvation issue for anyone; whether or not the assumption that the Bible means "Mary" when it says "Joseph" is correct, it's not going to matter in the long run.

But it seems a bad thing to me. I hope Helen realizes that if she's wrong, then she's made a rather harsh judgement on herself.

In my opinion, she's leading no one astray by making her assumption; it's just supportable by what's actually written there.

Hank, it is true, as you allude to, that people thought that Jesus was Joseph's son. Which is one of the reasons Helen's argument doesn't work.

But note that it says that it was supposed that he was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. Clearly, this says what people thought. They certainly would not have supposed that he was of Heli, if he was of Jacob, would they?

It's time to put this one to bed. Either you accept what it says or you don't. And I doubt if anyone's reasoning is going to make a difference.

[ August 03, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

Indeed!

HankD

 

I guess there's one last thing to be said about it. The doctrine that the Luke geneology is of Mary appears to be first found in the writings of Annius of Viterbo, a Catholic scholar from the 15th century. He was, however, a skilled forger, claimed (falsely) to be able to read Etruscan, and produced faked artifacts. While his doctrine was not generally held by the Catholic Church, it did have it's adherents in the next century.

Irony indeed. Baptists arguing for an unorthodox idea held by some Catholics, and a Catholic appealing to the text as the only guide.

And with that rather odd thought, I'll end.

[ August 03, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

Appealing to the text, Galatian? You appealed to the English translation of a word that is used once and does not mean 'cousin.' If you appealed to the text, you would have checked the text a little better, I think.

 

What the word means, includes "cousin", and has been so used in other contemporary writings. Vagueness is not affirmation.

However, since, as Hank mentioned, Mary's being a Levite would fulfil Scripture, I think it's reasonable to consider the common usage.

 

Dear Galatian,

I thought you would be happy, honest.

Mary's father is Heli of the tribe of Judah.
Mary's mother is (unknown name) of the tribe of Levi.
The kingly and priestly bloodlines meld in Mary.

If Mary's mother and Elisabeth's mother are sisters then Mary and Elisabeth are full cousins.

Problem solved, no dear brother?

HankD

 

I'm happy HankD I'm having a wonderful time reading behind you lately I really love the King and Priest being connected to Mary's line, I never knew this as you have shared it. I mean, "I knew it" but I never made the connection as you have shared it, thanks for posting this

In Him Kim

 

I'm glad someone is happy

So many disconnects, so little time