Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Textual support? Am I to believe that the Centurions voted to see who would get Jesus' cloak? Or is that when it means gambling?
SD
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3)
How was Jesus "made of the seed of David" if the Holy Spirit, rather than Joseph, was his father?
How was Jesus "made of the seed of David" if the Holy Spirit, rather than Joseph, was his father?
Two possible answers:
Through Mary
It's a mystery.
SD
Mary, ... likely also a descendent of David, ... was His mother.
I believe both lineages in the NT (Matthew,Luke) come from David. One from Stepfather Joseph and the other from Mary. Remember, your rules, Jewishness comes from the woman.
Bill Bennett Wife Says No More Casinos For Husband: 'He's never going again'...
The wife is cracking down. :-)
Heheheh... That's right. Skip the formalities, and get right to the meat.
Through Mary
Even aside from the issue of whether or not kingship could be passed on matrilineally (it couldn't), it appears that Mary was a Levite, not from the tribe of Judah.
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari'ah, of the division of Abi'jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. (Luke 1:5)
Since Mary and Elizabeth were cousins (or "sisters" ;o), presumably Mary would also be from the line of Aaron.
It's a mystery.
(Cueing "Twilight Zone" music... ;o)
Also, which genealogy do you suppose is Mary's? They both appear to be of Joseph.
and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16)
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli (Luke 3:23)
Is this one of your Marian traditions, Steven? ;o)
Irrelevant. Jesus is a priest, but not from Aaron. His Kingship, likewise, is not biological.
Since Mary and Elizabeth were cousins (or "sisters" ;o), presumably Mary would also be from the line of Aaron.
Was there no intermarriage?
SD
Tribal affiliation was patrilineal.
I think this has been addressed once previously in here. Even tho its Mary's line they just mention the head of the house. I'm off to look for it.
Remember your discussion about Jesus needing to be truly human in order for his sacrifice to benefit humanity? Likewise, he needed to be of the line of David in order to fulfil the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures. From the gospel:
Doth not the scripture say: That Christ cometh of the seed of David and from Bethlehem the town where David was? (John 7:42)
Was there no intermarriage?
Tribal affiliation was patrilineal.
Before I attempt an answer, is that the same thing as paternal?
From the same root word. "Patrilineal" means it is passed down from the father's side. "Matrilineal" means passed down from the mother's side. In Judaism, kingship, tribal affiliation, and the priesthood are patrilineal; "jewishness" is matrilineal.
Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.
How was Jesus "made of the seed of David" if the Holy Spirit, rather than Joseph, was his father?
I believe your original question was answered. "Made of the seed of David" to me, means that Jesus is a descendent of David. Even if this is through His mother, so that He is not technically "affiliated" with David's trbe, He was nonetheless made from the "Seed" of David. A true descendent of David's
And then, on top of that, He was adopted by Joseph so that He became a member of the Tribe of David.
SD
"... it was clearly known ...".
Dave, Protestant's gots Marian traditions! ;o)
Adoption doesn't pass on kingship, tribal affiliation or priesthood. Someone adopted into a Levite family did not gain the ability to function in the priesthood.
Ok if its "patrilineal" what's the beef? Zecharias and Elizabeth have an intertribal marriage. Elizabeth and Mary can still be cousins. John the Baptist a levite, Jesus a Judaite.
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.