Faith Today Magazine
Two things of worth in the latest issue of Faith Today. First, in the "Ask a Theologian" section, some guy deftly moves around the issue of inerrancy with pastoral sensitivity, giving people reason to trust their Bibles but to keep up with theological discussions. Summarizing: You can trust your Bible because God tells the truth. A kudos goes out to some guy for it.
Second, Faith Today asked the Tories, Libs, NDP, and Bloc about the role of politics in faith. (The Bloc had a non-response response that was from a communications director.) First, I was not surprised and found rather humourous Martin's response. Summarizing: "Canada is the best nation. It is a diverse nation. Faiths have to respect diversity. I have met with many different religious groups and have been part of many important gatherings of religious groups and people." My take: Arrogant, uninsightful, name-droppy, and pathetic.
Second, I was not surprised and quite pleased with Harper's excellent response. Summarizing: "Gov't is to serve faith and is the practice of compromise among the people it inherits and represents." My take: Smart and faithful.
Third, I was surprised and impressed with Jack Layton's very Christian response. Summarizing: "Faiths have a responsibility to live out of their prophetic traditions--being people of the poor and marginalized and speaking prophetically to gov't." My take: The man may just be a liberal Christian. (And you can't stay a liberal Christian for long.) His language was very Christian throughout the response.
Thoughts on inerrancy or faith/politics?
Second, Faith Today asked the Tories, Libs, NDP, and Bloc about the role of politics in faith. (The Bloc had a non-response response that was from a communications director.) First, I was not surprised and found rather humourous Martin's response. Summarizing: "Canada is the best nation. It is a diverse nation. Faiths have to respect diversity. I have met with many different religious groups and have been part of many important gatherings of religious groups and people." My take: Arrogant, uninsightful, name-droppy, and pathetic.
Second, I was not surprised and quite pleased with Harper's excellent response. Summarizing: "Gov't is to serve faith and is the practice of compromise among the people it inherits and represents." My take: Smart and faithful.
Third, I was surprised and impressed with Jack Layton's very Christian response. Summarizing: "Faiths have a responsibility to live out of their prophetic traditions--being people of the poor and marginalized and speaking prophetically to gov't." My take: The man may just be a liberal Christian. (And you can't stay a liberal Christian for long.) His language was very Christian throughout the response.
Thoughts on inerrancy or faith/politics?
posted by Aaron Perry at
12:35 PM
36 Comments:
On Layton:
I expect the conversation went like this:
JL: What the h--- am I supposed to do with this s---?
Bill Blaikie: Leave it to me. I'll answer for you.
JL: When will these Christians just get out of government and thinking we care about them?
BB: Uh, Jack, I am a United Church of Canada Minister.
JL: That's a Christian thing? OK. Write whatever you want and I'll sign it.
I don't use the word 'inerrancy' either. My statement of faith reads:
"I believe the Old Testament writers spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I believe the New Testament writings are a reliable account of the life and teachings of Jesus since they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
matt...i have to ask, then: Did Jesus teach justification by faith?
On inerrancy - I can't say it better than you did, the story of my academic life.
On faith/politics - I don't like the combination much unless the politician happens to be a person of Christian faith. I, too, like what you recorded of Harper's response. For Martin's response, you forgot the word "ignorant." There aren't many faiths that exercise diversity - many claim to be the "right" faith. I can't help but interpret his comment as a wrap on the knuckles of the faith that claims rightly to uphold the truth.
I think Jesus picked Paul to be an Apostle and the Holy Spirit led him into the truth of justification by faith
Something i have been struggling with lately is the inerrancy of scripture. Their seem to be blatant errors within the gospels- one that comes to mind is the geneology of Christ.
I've studied this one for a long time and have not been convinced of any answer. Now this is a minor thing because they both point to David and Abraham fulfilling the prophecy. Nevertheles, it would still be classified as an error. So if infalliability means without error as far as spiritual things go... I have no concrete conclusion but as far as simple matters the Bible doesn't seem to be perfect.
There are many other examples but no time to go through them all tonight.
NSP's roots are with a Baptist pastor, I think the core values of the NDP's must track back to that foundation...
coady, don't you think the geneologies are different b/c 1 is mary's and 1 is joseph's? that has been my view.
john's 'geneology' is also different, since it is so short
both matthew and luke have agendas in describing the genealogies as they do. they weren't so much interested in rote fact as in telling the story of the Messiah and his connection with Israel.
matt: fair enough. Jesus did indeed pick paul as an apostle and the Spirit did inspire him to write--mostly out of his knowledge of the OT vocation of Israel and the implications of the Christ-event. i think i hear what you're saying.
lynn: you make a good point: a gov't that recognizes no religion is not a-theist, but itself becomes the religion. that is what makes Martin (and many Liberals) so dangerous; they have no concept of gov't serving, but setting the agenda and forming a people in their own image.
Matt- No, I don't. If that is true, which is Mary's and which is Joseph's? They both claim to be Joseph's. Geneologies were always from the father's side. Neither give hints that it may be Mary's.
AP- You're quite right, they both have different agendas. Unfortunately, it seems to show at least one of them has made an error out of trying to force Jesus' life into prophecy (unneccessarily, and most likely Matthew) or perhaps it's a lack of integrity. Although I can't dispute that he's from the line of David. The Jews never even questioned that.
hey coady,
i think the issue is "forcing his life into prophecy." forcing prophecies is what we have made the biblical writers do; not what they themselves have done. (this is what you get when people say "500 prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus' birth!" well, no. he's the Messiah and retelling the biblical story happens when such figures come along.) the biblical writers want to tell a story and put Jesus into it. i think Matthew knows his Israel story too well to slip up; he's more concerned with people connecting dots between 14 generations and those who form the pivot points (Abraham, David, and now Jesus).
For Luke, I think he's more concerned with status and theological point than making sure he got all the relations right. what's his point? that Jesus is God's Son--chosen one (hence, Luke 3:22 and 3:38). These are the agendas they have.
if we asked them why they "missed" people or why there are "errors" (read: don't line up directly with each other), i expect matthew and luke would be confused! why would you write a genealogy and list everyone? that would simply be boring; it would have no point. on the other hand, think about who matthew has included--Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Uriah's wife...all people most self-respecting people would like kept out of their genealogies!
so, the way we're speaking of 'error' is quite anachronistic to the biblical writers' use of genealogy.
Coady,
I think there IS a hint that Luke gives Jesus' geneology through Mary. I focus on the 3:23 phrase "so it was thought". As in Jesus was the son/descendant of Heli (Mary's dad) and the son of Joseph (but only 'so it was thought').
matthew is a very 'jewish' gospel and showed the paternal line so as to show Jesus as King. luke shows Jesus as fully man and therefore shows his true mother's line.
The fact that early copyists didn't adjust the discrepancy tells me they didn't see one.
For those insisting on harmonizing the impossible (namely, the Matthean and Lucan genealogies) you can't do better than J. Gresham Machen's The Virgin Birth. Brilliant. Wrong. Brilliantly Wrong.
On why it is impossible (and missing the points both Matthew and Luke want to make), see Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals, InterVarsity Press, 2006, chapters 4 & 5. Should be at a Christian bookstore near you in August.
Some Guy
btw, i am not trying to harmonizee the 2 as being 1. they are clearly different. some of the differences are b/c the 2 authors had different purposes. i agree with ap that they weren't attempting to give a complete line-by-line geneology.
i'm simply saying matthew is giving a geneology through joseph and luke through mary. Such is a well accepted theory in many circles.
Well accepted by whom?
Sorry, that's a confrontational question. But even Darrel Bock (and you don't get any more conservative than that) doesn't hold to that position (cf. pp. 918-922 of the first volume of his commentary). In the research for his book, Perry ran across no one who seriously espoused it.
Perry acknowledges that it is an old position, espoused by several fathers. But even they did not root their contention in the text of Luke (despite the "as it was thought" that your case rests on). They grounded it on a rather shaky assumption: that Luke recorded Mary's memoirs.
I'm sure AP doesn't want us taking up more of his blog space than necessary. If you want to continue our converstaion directly, you can get my e-mail address from AP.
Some Guy
i learn best by overhearing conversations. feel free to keep taking up more blog space.
i have a question for some guy: did *ahem* perry run across any work that pointed out the parallels between the Spirit's act in Mary and the Church (cf. Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will *come upon you,* and the *power* of the Most High will overshadow you..." with Acts 1:8: "You will receive *power* when the Holy Spirit *comes on you*")?
Well, for one I know that Norman Geisler expresses that view in his book 'when critics ask' and Steve Gregg who I listen to often expresses the same view. Dr. Henry Morris also backs the view. I've heard it from at least 10 different sources, but those 3 are just off the top of my head.
I don't think it's a conservative/liberal issue. Some might say it's 'liberal' to believe it's Mary's geneology when it doesn't directly say so.
To me, it is just a common sense view that makes sense.
i think that's the first time i've heard norman geisler's name touched on with liberal thought.
beyond though, perry is usually interested in historical sources and not as much in apologetics--which geisler and morris are (but not biblical scholars). don't know about gregg... what's he?
A couple of points
(1) Do you not find it odd that none of the names you mentioned is an NT scholar? Apologists and philosophers. But not trained in NT criticism.
(None of that means their wrong, btw. But it is odd. Like expecting a chef, as a chef, knows better than a mechanic how to fix a car).
(2) The grammar of Luke's text simply gives no reason for the case you want to make.
(3) The key assumption--that LUke records Mary's memoirs--is without foundation.
I recommend you consider Bock, I H Marshall, J. Green, and L T Johnson, all of whom are trained in NT criticism before you make up your mind. I think you will find the cases they present to be overwhelming.
Peace out,
Some Guy
I already find the view that Luke records Jesus' geneology through Mary overwhelming and have spent enough time on the issue for the time being. Should the issue be on my mind again in the future, I will consider your recommendations.
As for NT 'scholars'...I guess it's a matter of who we trust. For instance I trust Steve Gregg more than any person as a 'scholar' b/c he's been teaching through the entire Bible over and over since he was 16. To me, degrees and book written doesn't equal expertise...bible reading and medidation on the Word do.
Obviously I'm not saying the names you dropped haven't read. I'm just saying I KNOW Gregg has b/c the Spirit has worked through His teaching in my life. He gave a very thorough reasoning for his position on his website.
I admit, I am somewhat critical of the field of study you speak of. They come across to me as more critical than critiqueing. They look for problems instead of solutions. Perhaps that makes me sound unscholarly, uneducated, and naive. I'm OK with that.
I have read through and thought through a handful of ideas regarding the geneologies and I find that theory far superior to the alternatives. I may be wrong, but i'm unconvinced that is the case.
Either way you over-stated the level of support for it since I find at least a mention (w/o dismissal) of it in most commentaries i've viewed.
Then again, I prolly overstated the level as well when I said it was well accepted in many circles. I am not thoroughly aware of opinions in 'many' circles.
God bless,
matthew
Just looked up a few more commentaries. Wesley, Henry and Jam/Fau/Brw all seem to be taking the Mary's geneology view.
Thanks Matt for clarifying where you are coming from.
Not much point in talking further since you have the Holy Spirit and all I have are a couple of degrees and a little teaching experience.
Some Guy in MB
I don't find that response necessary or appropriate. I made no claim to having a monopoly on truth on the matter, only that I believe my current opinion to be true and know teachers I respect that believe the same. I said very bluntly that I could be wrong. I respect anyone with advanced degrees, but that does not mean I should blindly take their word.
I wish you well,
matthew
My previous post was neither inappropriate nor unnecessary. It was, if anything, a little short. So I will elaborate.
You hold a position on the Lucan genealogy which is incorrect. I assumed (I now know that assumption was mistaken) that you were interested in evaluating the contrary evidence.
I supplied two pieces of evidence and listed four contemporary NT critics who would help.
Instead of responding to any of my claims, you asserted that your mind was made up. That no evidence put before you would change it and that no reading recommendations would be pursued.
You added that those with whom you agree were Spirit led teachers and as such had had a great influence on your life. You also implied that I or the people I recommended or both were not led by that same SPirit.
And I reply that I cannot trump your experience. Nobody can. Ever. Appealing to it therefore frees you from risking that at some point you may have to change your mind. But it does so at the cost of cutting off the conversation.
There is nothing left to do but lob rhetorical handgrenades. Which is what the Holy Spirit v education thing was. You tossed it. I was not and am not going to let that go unchallenged. Hence I tossed it back. And I stand by what I said.
All this to say that this debate (over a really minor textual point) has no hope of resolution, progress, or compromise because you have declared that you don't wish to puruse the evidence I have presented or read the authors I have recommended. So, there is no point in pressing it further.
While I'm confident (Spirit-led?) that this will not be the last word on the subject, it is mine.
Some Guy
Some Guy- Degrees and teaching experience mean nothing.
Matt- someone saying they have the Holy Spirit means nothing.
The ability to read what is there is everything. Just because someone says Luke is actually saying it's Mary's geneology doesn't mean it is. From all the translations of the Bible I've read it reads something like- "... the son of Joseph, the son of Heli" - Luke and Matthew's reads "... and Jacob the Father of Joseph."
Now Luke's gospel is not saying "so it was thought" about Joseph and Heli- it's saying "so it was thought" about Jesus and Joseph... So to say otherwise just seems like saying Mary was actually the immaculate conception (although the consequences are not as grave).
So, the best harmonization we can give is that maybe Joseph had 2 Dads- but that would be stretching it since the Bible doesn't care to mention that.
Somehow I feel like we're off AP's original topic...
Sorry I took so long to reply, I never checked yesterday...
i'll toss in my two cents on the whole education thing. coady mentioned that reading the text does matter while degrees don't. here's the thing: biblical studies degrees make one a better reader of the text. i can read Lord of the Rings 20 times and miss much of what Tolkien has said if i'm not familiar with his history, philology, etc...the very kinds of things someone trained (i.e., has a degree) in 20th Century literature will have. that person will almost assuredly read the text better than me.
green, marshall, and johnson (not sure about bock) are lucan scholars--who have been trained to read the text. and they are all believers.
usually the issue tied to apologetics is not defending the text, but a certain reading of the text deemed orthodox. the biblical text (against redaction-, historical-, source-, etc.-, criticism) has shown to be worthy in itself and for this reason i prefer not to defend it, but to read it--hence my preference for biblical scholars who are able to show and teach me how to read the text.
now, obviously the Spirit is at work in reading the text. the false antithesis is assuming that the Spirit does not use degrees to inform. does the Spirit need education? no. does he use it? yes. to quote ben witherington: "you can understand the Bible without any education. but what a shame you didn't give the Spirit more to work with."
peace out.
ap
some guy,
1. You feel my position is incorrect. The difference b/w you and me is I allow the possibility that I am wrong whereas you feel comfortable speaking in absolutes and implying that multiple commentators, teachers, and degree-ridden men believe the unbelievable.
2. You over-read my comments to create a giant chasm b/w us. I didn't ever say my mind was made up. I said I was overwhelmed with the evidence for my current view. The fact that I don't plan on dropping my current obligations to purchase the resources you mentioned speaks to my having a job, not lack of interest. I stated clearly that if I get back into that topic I'll consider the sources you mentioned.
3. Third, I certainly did NOT imply you and the scholars you mentioned weren't led by the Spirit. I implied I do not KNOW one way or the other. If i had to assume something (I don't) it'd be that you ARE since you all claim to be Christians.
4. Experience was not listed as my #1 reason for believing as I do. I believe reading it as Mary's theology is the best and most obvious reading of scripture. The historical church and my experience lend me support in this view.
5. You spent a couple more paragraphs attempting to show that I was creating a Spirit vs. Education 'war'. I was not. But it does make your complaints sound more impressive so I understand.
6. Knowing what we know about Jesus Christ, we should assume that a geneology given of Him will be Mary's.
Matthew, concerned with His legal status, words his geneology in such a way to clearly show Joseph's line. Jesus was, after all, the legal son of Joseph and therefore (since Joseph was a direct descendant of Jehoiachin - the last king) Jesus was the legal king of the Jews.
Unfortunately for his blood descendants, Jehoiachin's line was cursed in Jeremiah 22. It was said of his descendants, "none will sit on the throne of David". His blood line was disqualified from kingship.
Jesus, being a legal heir, but not a blood heir, to Jehoiachin allowed Him to be King w/o that curse.
Mary was not a blood descendant of Jehoiachin since she was from a different son of David.
Since Luke was writing to a gentile, he had no interest in Jesus legal status as king of the Jews. He (being close with Paul) did have interest in establishing Jesus as the 2nd Adam and so his geneology traces Jesus blood all the way back, showing His full-humanity.
If he doesn't record Mary's geneology, his geneology is rather unhelpful for his purposes. Additionally, if he doesn't show Mary's geneology, then we have no good evidence that Jesus really is from David.
As you know, the greek doesn't determine punctuation for us. Luke could be read as follows: "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, (so it was thought, of Joseph), the son of Heli. Heli being Mary's father who was the closest male blood to Jesus. The explanatory power of this reasonable claim helps build its own case.
Again, I am NOT saying (since I apparently didn't make myself clear before) that I am absolutely sure. I am just saying I'm convinced and don't have immediate plans to delve into the issue at the time being. I am NOT saying you are stuck in bad mud as you are claiming I am, but simply that I think you are incorrect Biblically. I am NOT saying that the 2 lists can be harmonized b/c they are clearly different. I am NOT saying education isn't worth itself, I believe just the opposite. I am NOT saying you aren't led by the Spirit, I'll assume you are, as I will about the authors you mentioned.
I just disagree with you. So do many faithful readers of Scripture. You disagree with me, so do many faithful readers of Scripture. It's OK to disagree. We don't have to treat eachother poorly b/c of it.
I value education and I wish I could afford to get more of it. The problem with any argument from uneducated "authorities" (which I don't think you are making Matt) is that it doesn’t have access to the same level of reference and critical thought. The problem with the argument from advanced education is that you can always find someone with the same number of degrees and teaching experience who completely disagrees. There is almost always more than one view that is held by a significant number of Biblical scholars. I think on all of this stuff you need to expose yourself to some from both sides and then you have to pick. Very few of us have the luxury of being able to read any given subject exhaustively. Theologians and professors get to which makes their take very valuable except they don't all agree with each other. Anyway Some Guy, I think you were a little curt with Matt and would point out that coming across as conceited or a know it all (I'm not saying you are but in this particular discourse you have come across that way, is if it is offensive that some mere Bible College grad would not bow to you theological supremacy. Now it's your turn to tell me I misunderstood you and we can all have a good laugh at why conversations like this on blogs always come across wrong) will generally turn people away from your point of view. it's the whole more flies with honey thing.
I value education and I wish I could afford to get more of it. The problem with any argument from uneducated "authorities" (which I don't think you are making Matt) is that it doesn’t have access to the same level of reference and critical thought. The problem with the argument from advanced education is that you can always find someone with the same number of degrees and teaching experience who completely disagrees. There is almost always more than one view that is held by a significant number of Biblical scholars. I think on all of this stuff you need to expose yourself to some from both sides and then you have to pick. Very few of us have the luxury of being able to read any given subject exhaustively. Theologians and professors get to which makes their take very valuable except they don't all agree with each other. Anyway Some Guy, I think you were a little curt with Matt and would point out that coming across as conceited or a know it all (I'm not saying you are but in this particular discourse you have come across that way, is if it is offensive that some mere Bible College grad would not bow to you theological supremacy. Now it's your turn to tell me I misunderstood you and we can all have a good laugh at why conversations like this on blogs always come across wrong) will generally turn people away from your point of view. it's the whole more flies with honey thing.
well, this convo has had some turns. anyway, matt, i think the problem with the mary's genealogy is that the whole thing rests on two presumptions: 1) that mary is luke's source; 2) "or so it was thought" and some well placed brackets. the other things are not textual in themselves (being in David's line; Jehoiachin's curse) but only serve to shore up why luke would have written as he did (which is an assumption). the textual evidence is simply not there.
interestingly, ben witherington claims that there is evidence that mary was john's source for the gospel of john. that's a lot of memoir writing.
regarding the disagreement: there was plenty of curtness and smugness to go around. no one need bother taking the high road (myself included).
Hey :)
I don't think Mary was Luke's source, I think the temple records prior to AD70 were.
Additionally, when you read through the conception/birth narratives, Matthew (in general) takes Joseph's perspective. The angel appears to Joseph (right after the genealogy) and the Lord tells Joseph to flee to Egypt. But Luke is much more focused on Mary's perspective. The angel appears to her, she sings praises, and she treasures up the events in her heart (2:19+51).
I haven't found a good translation of the Jerusalem Talmud, but I remember hearing that Mary is slandered in it and said to be Heli's son. So it seems even the Jews recognized this was the case. If someone can find that text I'd be gratful.
And we shouldn't ignore the opinions of commentators. I've accumlated some quotes about Luke's genealogy from them:
John Gill
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
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
"the son of Hell," to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary ...Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported.
Matthew Henry
Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary...Heli, the father of Mary, to be as it is set down here in Luke. And this is the meaning of hos enomizeto (v. 23), not, as it was supposed
The People's New Testament
the most probable explanation is that Matthew gives the line of Joseph, the legal line, and that Luke gives the line of Mary, the mother of our Lord...Luke, himself a Gentile and writing for Gentiles, was more particular to give the line that shows that Jesus is really the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Heli, especially if an heiress, Joseph, by marriage, would become the "son of Heli." That there is no contradiction between the two tables is shown by the fact that the Jews who best understood their genealogies never charged it
Robertson's Word Pictures
Luke has the article tou repeating uiou (Son) except before Joseph...Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough...Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" ...It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary
John Wesley
The son of Heli - That is, the son - in - law: for Heli was the father of Mary
Adam Clarke
As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband.... This remark alone is sufficient to remove every difficulty. Thus it appears that Joseph, son of Jacob, according to St. Matthew, was son-in-law of Heli, according to St. Luke....Mary therefore appears to have been the daughter of Heli; so called by abbreviation for Heliachim, which is the same in Hebrew with Joachim
It seems odd to me for someone to dismiss this view (which accounts for the discrepancy quite simply) out of hand, just b/c Mary isn't mentioned by name when it would have gone against 1st century custom to do so.
And so all the reasons I've listed, textual, contextual, historical, sensical, experiential, etc...they make me fall on this side of the argument. We could be wrong, but this theory seems best to me.
I do apologize if I came across as arrogant or anti-educational in this discussion. It was only my intention to describe the reasoning behind the view that I hold and to let anyone reading decide for themselves based on the evidence instead of a loyalty to a particular way of thinking.
In Christ,
matthew
i don't dismiss it out of hand...i just see no textual evidence for it. none of the commenters you quoted do, either. they all use constructs to address difficulties, explanations, etc. contra clarke, matthew does use women in his geneology.
the phrase "as was thought" is of course meant to arouse thought. but why would the reader jump to thinking about mary's line, when the 'inside' message of luke's gospel has been that Jesus was conceived by an act of God through his Spirit? the wink-wink, nudge-nudge of the "as was thought" best makes sense in light of the virgin conception.
Robertson says it best: "If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough..." Even simpler and doing less violence to the text, if we remember that geneologies were as much for apologetic and theological value as with historical accuracy, and that Jesus was conceived by God do we read what Luke is doing.
But if the only textual evidence you would accept was not a custumary way of speaking, then I'm not sure how Luke could have convinced you he was using mary's genealogy (if that's what he's doing).
Also, if you get time, what is the apologetic and/or theological value of 2 different Joseph genealogies?
Also, I agree the "as was thought" points one to the virgin birth. The virgin, of course, being Mary.
i'm not sure how luke would have written a genealogy from mary's side. the gospel writers' disregard for the taboo of trusting women and Jesus' penchant for being in less than above-reproach-situations with women strikes me that had luke wanted to give mary's geneology, he likely just would have given it explicitly.
i think matthew is dedicated to putting Jesus as a descendant of abrahamic and davidic lines to continue the story and give basis for his messiahship. the issue isn't specifically blood relation, it is narrative relation. fourteen generations three times also has numeric symbolism. matthew use of rahab, tamar, ruth, and bathsheba also serves to give apologetics for the scandal of Jesus' birth.
luke draws the line back to God for the originality of this birth. i don't think he's as concerned with the Jewish story as matthew is (though he is concerned of course) rather, he's more concerned with the uniqueness of Jesus' birth.
different purposes...different geneologies.
But your last 2 paragraphs is the same thing I said. It fits both theories and therefore doesn't really serve either. I have yet to see a case be made for why 2 genealogies for Joseph would follow different sons of David.
The idea that the purposes are different may have caused Matthew & Luke to select different names from the same list, but not different names from different lists...at least not if the biblical writers are behaving like themselves.
And I haven't found an adequate response to the historical evidence that the Jews mentioned Mary as being a daughter of Heli.
So without better refutation of the historical view and without more thorough explanation of this proposed view (actually I'm not even sure an actual view has been proposed here), I cannot justify changing views.
All that is needed to make the Mary genealogy theory settle the issue is an allowance for Luke to hold to the custom of genealogical writing. Neither writer mentions a woman as part of the direct line (only as a sidenote, any mother mentioned didn't replace the father being mentioned). It would have been 'out of line' for Luke to say...Jesus, the son of Mary, the daughter of Heli.
If I were Luke and it wasn't proper custom to write a genealogy that way, I think I would have written it just the way he did.
But that's just me. I enjoyed the discussion :)
God bless
you are correct to say i haven't put forth a view. there is no need of one. there is only the text to read. that we interpret it the same does not mean we have read it the same.
we seem to have fundamental disagreements about the nature of genealogy. so, while throwing a bibliography at a problem doesn't solve it, it sure does save time. so, if you're interested, shoot me an email for the sources of how i have formed my thoughts on genealogy, and subsequent reading of Luke 4.
to broaden my answer to before (and why different names from different lists would be used): Covenant is thicker than blood in the purposes of God. luke shows Jesus' continuation of the covenant more than his physical genealogy. hence, Adam, Noah, Ab/Is/Jac, David, etc.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home