Mary, Jesus and the Holy Spirit

[HankD]

Me three Helen!

HankD

 

[The Galatian]

You are wrong, Galatian. The minute Luke states "as it was supposed" regarding Joseph being the father, he is showing that he is reverting to Mary's bloodline.

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.

Heli was Joseph's father-in-law.

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.

Because Joseph was not Jesus' father, Joseph's family would have refused to include Mary in their family unit. Period. No questions. No discussion. She was out.

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

Inserting himself with her as her husband anyway, Joseph then would have become part of HER family by default.

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

The first time -- several years ago -- when you and I argued about these genealogies on another forum, I didn't know this. However a little study was all that was needed to know that Joseph would have been disinherited by his own family for marrying Mary in her condition. So there is no doubt that Luke is tracing Mary's bloodline when he uses to the phrase "as it was supposed" referring to Joseph being the father.

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.

Matthew traces Joseph's lineage as a legal issue. However both of the men who trace the two lineages make it a point to show that Jesus was born of a virgin and that Joseph did not have part in the conception.

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.

Matthew also makes it a point to show that Joseph was a righteous man, and this gives credence to his lineage of Joseph regarding it being valid for purposes of the legitimacy of Christ on the Throne of David.

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.

You've been repeating the same arguments for years now.

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, read, and learned some more. I knew before you were wrong. Now I know WHY you are wrong. Luke is, indeed, Mary's lineage.

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 ]

 

[AITB]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Luke and Matthew are both geneologies of Joseph, as they say they are.

Is one of them wrong, then? Which is correct - is Joseph the son of Heli or of Jacob?

AITB

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Hi Galatian -

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

Matthew Henry:

His pedigree, v. 23, etc. Matthew had given us somewhat of this. He goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam. Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent’s head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary.

Four Fold Gospel:

Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli. This may mean that Jesus was grandson of Heli, or that Joseph was counted as a son of Heli because he was his son-in-law.

John Gill:

Which was the son of Eli;
meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to (Matthew 1:16) , but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi… till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell F2 us of one,

Jamieson/Fausset/Brown

being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, &c.--Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew's, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary?--a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord's real descent. But it is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes Jacob, while Luke makes "Heli," to be Joseph's father; and though the same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luke 1:2-32, and incredible--that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph--here His real, there His reputed line--explain the statement about Joseph, that he was "the son of Hell," to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ruth 1:11,12), and believe that Joseph's name is only introduced instead of Mary's, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord's real descent from David. On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Saviour was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised "Seed of the woman." "The possibility of constructing such a table, comprising a period of thousands of years, in an uninterrupted line from father to son, of a family that dwelt for a long time in the utmost retirement, would be inexplicable, had not the members of this line been endowed with a thread by which they could extricate themselves from the many families into which every tribe and branch was again subdivided, and thus hold fast and know the member that was destined to continue the lineage. This thread was the hope that Messiah would be born of the race of Abraham and David. The ardent desire to behold Him and be partakers of His mercy and glory suffered not the attention to be exhausted through a period embracing thousands of years. Thus the member destined to continue the lineage, whenever doubtful, became easily distinguishable, awakening the hope of a final fulfilment, and keeping it alive until it was consummated" [OLSHAUSEN].

 

[The Galatian]

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.

 

[HankD]

Joseph was Heli's son. We need to work with Scripture as it is, not as we wish it was.

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 ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Luke 1:36
"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.

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:

Luke 1:5
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the [1 Chr 24:10] division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

 

[HankD]

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 ]

 

[Dualhunter]

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.

 

[Helen]

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.

 

[HankD]

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 ]

 

[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.

 

[The Galatian]

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 ]

 

[HankD]

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.

Indeed!

HankD

 

[The Galatian]

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 ]

 

[Helen]

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.

 

[The Galatian]

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.

 

[HankD]

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

 

[Star]

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

 

[HankD]

I'm glad someone is happy

So many disconnects, so little time