Posted on 03/03/2011 12:02:37 PM PST by dangus
For a long time I've known of one explanation for the divergence of Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of Jesus: that Luke traces Christ Jesus' genealogy through the Blessed Virgin Mary Mary, while Matthew traces it through St. Joseph. Instead of reading as:
being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of 'Eli,Luke's gospel, it is proposed, should read as:
being, even as of Joseph, of 'Eli.This makes more sense than it would seem, since "the son of" is an interpolation which exists only in English, and the Greek word, "'ws," is actually more readily translated as "even as" than as "as was supposed." Thus, we could interpret Luke as saying:
Even though he was the son of Joseph (by law), Jesus was descended by 'Eli (by blood).
My problem with this intellectually was that it seemed to contradict the tradition that the Blessed Virgin Mary's father was Joachim, which seems even to predate any record of Christians being puzzled over the apparently conflicting gospels. The Catholic Church, to my knowledge never regarded this tradition as Revelation, but wouldn't it's spread have been hampered if at any time the Church had recognized that Eli, not Joachim, was Jesus' maternal grandfather? Even as the Protoevangelicum of James was denied, the underlying tradition, including the identification of Jesus' maternal grandfather as Joachim, persisted. Further, this argument appears to have occurred to no-one.
But then I discovered something others had discovered long earlier:
The same person named "Jeconiah" in Matthew is called "Eliakim" in Luke. What's more, whereas "Jehoiakim" was commonly shortened to "Joachim," among Greeks, "'Eliakim" is commonly shortened to "'Eli" among Jews. Hence, had someone been deliberately named after an ancestor named "Jehoiakim," he would have been known as "'Eli" to Jews, and "Joachim" to Greeks. This is, in fact, how the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia reconciles the two gospels.
Sure enough, it's Luke's gospel where Jesus' grandfather is identified as "'Eli," the same genealogy where Jehoaikim is called "'Eliakim."
Now, there's further amazing wordplay going on here, which gets lost in English bibles, where "'Eli" is usually written as "Heli." (This is unfortunate, since most English bibles do not do this in Old Testament names, coming to us as they do from Hebrew; hence, it's hard to relate "'Eli" to "'Eliakim.") Since the initial "H" is unspoken, it is contracted, even in written Greek, so that "Heli" becomes "'Eli." "Eli," is a biblical name for God.
The enigma of Joachim is thus resolved: Earlier Christians weren't bothered by the assertion that Jesus' grandfather was Joachim, because they were quite aware of the association of Joachim to 'Eli and Jehoakim.
If it seems odd to suppose that Joachim and 'Eliakim are the same name, dissimilar as they are, keep in mind that Joachim is really Jehoiakim. "Jeho" and "'Eli" both mean "God" when used as prefixes in names. Which brings us to a final astounding bit of wordplay: When Luke says Jesus is the son of Eli, he is saying that Jesus is the son of God.
I hate writing in HTML code. It makes me focus on cleaning up my HTML, rather than on cleaning up my sentence flow and English.
This account is one of the miracles of God found in the Bible. Because of the promise to King David the line through Solomon had to bring the Messiah. But when God declared the Jeconiah (or Coniah) curse, the Messiah could not come through Solomon. Thus Nathan, another son of David, brought about the promised One.
The prophecies of the OT were fulfilled with Mary’s line from Nathan bringing the Messiah. But with Joseph’s line, given in Matthew, the Annointed One came through adoption and Solomon’s line.
Some of these are confusing also because people were defined by Genealogy and the names had less importance.
You were defined by your Mother and Father and not your name.
So when you look at it, if you see Joseph listed multiple times and people appear to be related, you have to realize that there is actually many Josephs with different Mother and Fathers.
Most of the time when someone comes up with something weird in the Genealogy in the Bible, it is related to the interpretation and giving too much weight to the names.
Sure, I’ve heard this expounded well before. The line through Joseph is the legal line.
He is the rightful King through Joseph, and the rightful Priest through Mary, and it just so happens there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the deportation to Babylon, and 14 generations from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ.
I’m sure it was all just coincidence!
“I discovered something others had discovered long earlier.”
Generally tends to be the case. There’s a reason why tradition is the way it is. :)
As another poster stated, the line through Joseph is the legal line. The line through Mary was the blood line, due to the traditions of the Jews reckoning the blood line through the mother. You might not be 100% sure of the father, but you ALWAYS knew who the mother was.
No offense, Dangus, and I certainly don’t wish to come across as confrontational, but is not this entire matter irrelevant? Jesus’ ‘grandparents’ were not that in the traditional or even genealogical sense since He was divinely conceived. Jesus’ ‘genealogy’ was God. He possessed no traits, or DNA of any human being. Our Blessed Maria was chosen as the woman who would carry Jesus in her womb and give birth to Him, and not to slight the significance of this but her connection to Jesus was entirely emotional, or spiritual, and in no way biological.
... her connection to Jesus was entirely emotional, or spiritual, and in no way biological.
So, Mary wasn't His Mother... according to you. Also, by your thesis, Jesus wasn't fully God and fully man, He was only God. He was not "a man like us in all ways but sin."
Dude, your theology and history is completely screwed up and anti-Biblical. To what church do you belong?
Sorry, but jla does not respond to blatant; abject idiocy.
Get a clue and try submitting a sensible post.
Thank you
Actually, no, it is VERY relevant. Jesus was the fulfillment of all of the OT promises. If the genealogy had been broken along the way, God would not have fulfilled His promises through the Covenants made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David. If there is one thing the Bible tells us in its historical narrative, it's that God fulfills His promises... and that is very relevant to every believer.
>> No offense, Dangus, and I certainly don’t wish to come across as confrontational, but is not this entire matter irrelevant? <<
It’s apologetics, not spirituality. Various sources have long used the divergent genealogies as a basis for denying the historical truthfulness of the bibles. Some of these sources even come from within Christian churches. I’d heard the argument that Luke traced the geneaology through Mary, but have always been reluctant to argue based on it, since it didn’t make complete sense to me intellectually. Contrary to accusations of numerous Freepers, I don’t promote arguments I don’t firmly believe in. (I may speculate about alternative explanations when someone argues that there aren’t alternatives to his assertions.)
There is a point, as the church fathers say, what is not assumed is not saved.
The big principle in the incarnation is that we are connected to God precisely because he connected himself to man by taking on human flesh. By taking up the physical flesh, Jesus as fully man and God is able to redeem that flesh. Jesus in taking on humanity, becomes a new man, where he can thus stand in the place as a new Adam and submit himself in obedience, so that all of us may be redeemed when we are born again in Christ through baptism.
It is extremely important, because it totally completes the transformation and recapitulation of all of man into Christ. Just as all men have a family, Christ has a family that we can become part of.
***Jesus’ ‘grandparents’ were not that in the traditional or even genealogical sense since He was divinely conceived. Jesus’ ‘genealogy’ was God. He possessed no traits, or DNA of any human being.***
Actually, it does matter. Jesus was fully God, fully man. Had to be to fulfill His divine mission.
No, sorry, that doesn’t compute. Jesus is “true God and true man.” To argue otherwise is some sort of false Manichaeanism. He called himself both Son of God and Son of Man.
There’s a brief discussion here, which I think most Catholics and Protestants can agree with:
http://olrl.org/Lessons/Lesson15.shtml
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.