Was the Baby in the Manger….GOD? (Part 1)
December 4th, 2009 by Angela
“The Christmas message rests on the staggering fact the child in the manger was—God.”—J. I. Packer, Knowing God (InterVarsity Press, 1993).
If you could be a little fly on the wall, in most churches spread across this great nation of ours, during the Advent Season, you might hear the Pastor speak words such as these: “Welcome to our church this morning! We are celebrating that Jesus humbled himself to be born a baby. Although Jesus was God, he took on the form of man, so that he could die for our sins, so that we might be saved.” If you heard this, you might not think anything about it, and just continue on your “merry” Christmas way, celebrating the season and the birth of the Christ-Child. But, I’d like you to take a moment to ponder what we are really celebrating at this time of year.
First, we go to the Gospels. There are four gospels in our Bibles, and only two, Matthew and Luke, provide us any detail of the infamous ‘Nativity scene’ that is always portrayed in children’s Christmas programs. Listen to the actual verses and what they are telling us: “But when he (Joseph) had considered this, behold, an angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived (gennao) in her is of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20.
The Holy Spirit, which is the same thing as “The Spirit of God” in the Old Testament, is the mind and energy behind the works and word of God. Simply speaking, the Spirit is God’s power. This power caused Mary to miraculously conceive in her womb, a baby. Conceive, or in Greek, gennao, means to be begotten – come into existence. Jesus was brought into existence by God through God’s Spirit. If Jesus was brought into existence at the moment of conception, he was clearly not existing prior to being ‘begotten.’ The Scriptures are very clear on this that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and clearly presents the facts of exactly when he was begotten and how he was begotten and by whom he was begotten. There is no mystery in this. God lays it all out for us, clearly, simply, concisely in both Matthew and Luke.
Luke 1:35 gives us further detail on this matter: “And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason, the holy thing begotten shall be called the Son of God.” For that reason, or because of Jesus’ supernatural birth, requiring not a father and mother, but the divine intervention of the Almighty God, created Jesus in the womb of Mary, and because of this, his title would be “Son of God.”
Just as God created man (Adam, the first man) in Genesis 1-2, God created Jesus in the womb of a virgin, Mary, and Jesus would later also be called the ‘last Adam.’ (I Corinthians 15:45). Look at I Corinthians 15:20-23 and Romans 5:10-15 to explain further the importance of ‘the one man Jesus Christ’ who was a type of Adam (uniquely created by God). Adam brought sin and death into the world, but Jesus, through his obedience to God to the point of death, brought grace and eternal life.
When we celebrate the birth of Jesus, we are not celebrating the falsehood that is so prevalent today: that God came down to earth in the form of a baby! This is not found in Scripture. Jesus humbled himself, yes! But, if you read the context of this ‘humbling’, found in Philippians 2 (which is where most people substantiate this claim), it is all about the fact that Jesus was obedient to God to the point of his dying on the cross, and because of this reason, God highly exalted Jesus and gave him every authority, power, dominion, and name possible to bestow upon him! Although Jesus was born to be the King of all nations, he didn’t behave pompously and arrogantly, demanding to be served. Instead, he behaved humbly and obeyed God in every possible way, costing him his life. Jesus was then rewarded with a resurrection from the dead and eternal life, just as we too, will be rewarded with a resurrection from the dead, and the gift of eternal life.
Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not a man;” Hosea 11:9 says, “I am God and not man,” and Job 33:12 says “God is greater than man.” Jesus didn’t pre-exist as God, to humble himself to be born as a baby in the manger. To teach and believe this, is to believe in something that is contrary to the Scriptures. We are celebrating the fact that our Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One, the King of a coming Kingdom was born, and that he is coming back! This is not just a “Christmas” season celebration, but our everyday lives should be all about this, living an alert, watchful eye for his return, so we will be ready!
Let us rephrase the quote from above to read as the following: The Christmas message rests on the staggering fact the child in the manger was the Lord Messiah, who would die for our sins, be raised from the dead by the power of God, and who was exalted by God to be above every other dominion, authority and power. It rests on the good news or the gospel, that this same Jesus will return and set up an earthly Kingdom that will be everlasting, and we will reign and rule with him forever and ever. Amen.
If we presume that Jesus did not exist with God in heaven prior to his being conceived in the womb of Mary, we presume too much.
We must learn to live on all the word of God and not just some of it
lest we be led astray.
Jesus was laid in a manger, which is a place for food. Bethlehem is also a way of God speaking to us that this which happened there at that time is a place for food, because of the meaning of the name Bethlehem. Since God brings this to our attention twice, I believe it is important.
There’s a lot we must learn to digest about Jesus. We ought not to think we have the whole truth simply because we have received a little milk while there is meat we have never seen, been introduced to, or been willing to work on.
Some say that if Jesus existed from eternity then he is God. I say Jesus existed with God from eternity being his Son. I also at times see Jesus as God.
What about those of us who will be raised from the dead to live in either heaven or a new earth? Will we at that time understand that we at one time long ago had a previous existance on an earth that either once was, or is at that time very far away?
Tell me, if you were writing a book about someone who existed in another place and came to existance in the like manner of all men
(by the seed of one father or another) in this world, what word would you use for his beginning in the womb, if not the word “conceived”?
When someone asks you how your book is coming along, would you say to them, “I have a writer’s problem. I don’t have a word for what I wish to express. I’m therefore stuck. If I say ‘conceive’
I would be saying that this being did not exist in another form prior to this time. You see, this being was in the form of God.”?
I find it amazing when I look at all the ways the word conceive is used, thinking they all applied to Mary’s condition. The word is meat indeed.
Thanks Angela,
God’s message is so clear, and He uses words with precision, NOT as gateways to vague, metaphysical thinking. No one who is “begotten”, “engendered” or “fathered” pre-exists his “being brought into existence” - a definition of what these words mean. There is nothing unclear about God’s use of terms regarding His causing His wonderful son to exist.
The Biblical parallel with Adam is so significant to consider.
So, the real question would be, “did God get Himself born?”
One of the clinchers for me is what Matthew records as the “origin” of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians who were uncomfortable with “genesis” (beginning, origin, birth) changed it to “gennesis” (“birth”).
Ken, when God beget he wasn’t limited to bringing forth something
into existence which had never been before, for God gave birth to his Word through Mary, and his Word was with him from eternity.
Though Jesus had existed with him in heaven in the very form of God before his conception in the womb of Mary, here on this earth
he took on a form in a way he never had before. It was a new beginning for him, something that had not existed in the past except in the mind of God and in the mind of those he revealed it to by his spirit for our salvation. Therefore Jesus was begotten of God and Mary into this world in which we now live.
If anything in this post is wrong in grammar or by definition, please correct me.
Concerning this post I am not concerned in your theology, but only in your ability to correct grammar or the twisting of the meanings of words which would seek to corrupt the truth.
To say that Jesus could not have existed with God in heaven prior to his birth in the flesh on this earth, because of the word “begotten”, isn’t being fair to the words we use, nor is it being fair to the word of God.
Did God get himself born?
God gave birth to his Son Jesus who is the express image of his person. To behold Jesus this very day, is to see the very nature of God himself.
Ray
you have a weak understanding of who Jesus was and is now.
Jesus was born of 100% human DNA as his geneology states and did not exist prior any any other form than the elements of the earth which existed from the beginning of creation just as the elements of our DNA existed at creation.
Jesus’ ability to not sin is the same ability that we all posess as free will, its just God foreseen his existance as perfect from the beginning and spoke through many prophets about Jesus and chose to use Jesus for the redemption of Sin.
At the time when Jesus fulfilled his perfection as a human prior to his baptism Jesus was without any God giving power and came by His perfection by faith in the written Word.
because of this perfection God gave him the holy spirit at his baptism which is when the word became flesh for the first time since creation. along with this gift came powers to be used in his ministry. even after receiving both he still had freewill but had such a better understanding of the Word of God through the holy spirit his faith was so great that not even satan himself to lure Him away from the truth and not even the cretainty of a cruel death could change the path he had taken because the truth was now a reality because it was written in his heart and mind personally by the power of God’s holy spirit.
If Jesus exist like God now it is because he fertilized his being with the Word of God so He could be the first beggotten son of God at his ressurection which as first born now gave him greater authority than any of his brethren past, present or future. God’s use of Jesus in his whole plan for creation does not allow for Jesus to prexist , it just allows for the plan which included many through history to exist from the beginning.
yes it offends the scriptual truth ever time you claim unscriptual falseness and offends me as well.
Robert, you really know how to make me laugh.
The hands of Jesus are the hands of God who put the stars in space. The feet of Jesus are the feet of him who walked forever with God.
Jesus praises the Holy One, the God of Israel. Jesus is the Holy One, the I AM who came from God.
Ray,
Robert,
Well reasoned, logically and grammatically sound evaluation of the matter. No imaginitive riffraff there, well done.
Xavier,
Appropriate use of Scripture. Sometimes silence is also an answer…
Maintain your peace, and keep your pearls!!!
Jaco
At the cross they said to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God come down from that cross.” . In some ways people seem worse than they were back then.
Today it seems like we have people that would say, “If he was God he would come down from that cross.”
Jesus never did claim to be God.
There’s something different about the blood of Jesus. It was different than any other man’s. I don’t know much about DNA except that each man has different DNA, and that I’ve never heard of two people having a perfect DNA match.
Jesus was the lamb without spot or blemish. If his blood were found and his DNA were tested, I wonder what they would find.
I heard a story once about the ark of the covenant being hidden in an underground space which happed to be right underneath where Jesus was crucified. It was said that his blood ran down the cross, into the cross hole in the ground and onto the mercy seat.
I know that Jesus came from heaven into this world, and new kind of man was born, one without the corruption of sin. Though he had the ability to disobey God through the physical equipment he was given, he chose not to do so. He resisted all temptations of the devil, having been tempted in all points as we have been, but he did not sin.
He was born a perfect lamb and kept himself clean from sin. He kept himself from sin for our salvation. He resisted against sin unto death, even the death of the cross.
Have we who have believed, received his spiritual DNA?
What role does DNA play? What does it determine?
Ray
speaking for myself i am not interested in anything that you present that is not scriptual.
as for Jesus’ blood being different DNA to be our spotless lamb you fail to understand the difference between the old covenant and the new where the old was more about outward and where the new is more about inward. the sacrafical lambs of the old where chosen for there spotless appearance not the difference in DNA just a Jesus was chosen for his spotless works of God’s ways not his inability to not sin because he was a different being than us because this would take away the personal sacrafices he made to be our spotless lamb. ones which no other man has been willing to do.
so you see your unscriptual falseness is no laughing matter to me and maybe many more
Robert, as far as I know everyone’s DNA is unique. You might want to check that with someone else who knows more about it than I do if you don’t believe me.
With all this talk about 100% human DNA, I am wondering if you believe Jesus was simply a result of Joseph and Mary rather than what the scripture says about his father being God.
Jesus certainly had the potential to sin as I have said but he choose to always do the will of God even unto the death of the cross, contrary to the possibility of being unable to sin as you have suggested in post 13.
Ray
i understand DNA perfectly and of course wasnt speaking of individual DNA of humans i was speaking of the unique DNA’s of GODS creations. Jesus was human making him of the same unique DNA as all humans.
no where does it state that God was the biological father of Jesus but gives a detailed geneology of his biological father.
as i said you have a weak understanding of who Jesus was at different phases of his life and who he now is. I have no idea just how his DNA changed at his ressurection if it changed at all because we have no scriptures that details this but do know that at our own ressurection ours will be the same as his now.
Robert, who do you say is the biological father of Jesus?
Ray
i dont say, the WORD OF GOD DOES
John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Robert,
I understand that, if both Joseph and Mary were Jesus’ biological parents, then Jesus would have inherited Adamic sin (Ro. 5:12) and his sacrifice insufficient.
I understand Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 to mean that God was Jesus’ Father in the same way as He was Adam’s Father. Biological? I think we’re dealing with different categories here. I’d say Joseph was Jesus’ adoptive father. Scripturally Jesus was conceived by holy spirit, not Joseph’s seed.
Jaco
“I understand that, if both Joseph and Mary were Jesus’ biological parents, then Jesus would have inherited Adamic sin (Ro. 5:12) and his sacrifice insufficient.”
Jaco
Jesus was a sufficient sacrafice because he overcome Adamic sin no because he didnt inherit it. It was obidience.
if you read a little futher you find this statement
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
“Scripturally Jesus was conceived by holy spirit, not Joseph’s seed.”
I do not find this anywhere in the scriptures but do find that God caused the conception by his holy spirit. The word of God then gives many references to who’s DNA He used to cause the conception in Marys womb. while there was no intercourse leaving Mary a virgin it nowhere states God fathered Jesus at his birth. Jesus was not begotten by God till his Ressurection.
when the gospel’s were wrote all the phases of Jesus’ life had been fulfilled leaving the writer the ability to reference Jesus at his highest exalted phase in the beginning of their writtings confusing many who dont take the time to seperate the phases of Jesus’ life
Robert, are you saying that God caused a supernatural transfer of
Joseph’s genetic DNA (which is inherent in the sperm) into Mary’s
body, which produced the child named Jesus?
no Ray
The word of God says that by showing the origin of Jesus’ Genetic DNA through Joseph.
Robert, are you saying that you are not the one saying that God caused a supernatural transfer of Joseph’s genetic DNA, which is inherent in the sperm, into Mary’s body which produced the child Jesus, but that the word of God says that?
Are you saying that both you and the word of God agree on this doctrine?
Ray
You know very well what i am saying.
But my saying is only in reference to GOD SAYING IT FIRST.
so in fact i am only repeating it and is not my original thought but through faith in the truth of GOD i do accept it.
i will be very limited to respond till Friday when i return
Robert, do you believe God took some sperm from Joseph and put it in Mary to bring about the birth of Jesus?
yes ray i believe what the word of God truly says, not tradition where things that logical are dismissed by imagination.
It really doesnt take that much to figure out that this is the only way Jesus can be the seed of David through the FLESH.
Mary is not ever refered to as the daughter of David and we know that Elizibeth was a daughter of Aaron through the flesh so God would of gave the reference that Mary was a daughter of David if it existed.
“Robert, do you believe God took some sperm from Joseph and put it in Mary to bring about the birth of Jesus?”
Just how supernatural is this considering it is done everyday in todays world and some women even still qualify as virgins who have babies from this.
so just how hard would it be for God to cause this, yes it was supernatural but well within the power of GOD.
If your belief was true then the Holy spirit would have to be a person and would be the father of Jesus instead of GOD. this is a great difficulty for the doctrine of the trinity too in which God is called the FATHER
Robert, do you believe Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary before Jesus was born, and that such was the cause that brought about the Messiah?
Ray i made it perfectly clear so why do you continue asking.
read and you will see and if you dont then ask someone smarter than you to explain plain english.
in post 25 its a 3 letter word in an answer to another question that should of stoped this question from even being asked.
Will another who reads this blog help me in understanding what Robert has been saying he believes concerning the conception of Jesus Christ?
It seems to me that he is saying that Jesus is the result of the sperm of Joseph entering into Mary the usual way that a man
impregnates a women.
Am I clear on this, or am I not hearing what he’s been saying?
Ray,
He doesn’t exactly say that - although he allows it in post 26. He’s more focused on DNA:
But none of the above is true; the Bible talks of no DNA, not only in relation to Jesus, but in relation to nobody. This is just Robert understanding it so.
Robert,
I think that it doesn’t really matter what we “figure out”, but what the writer actually thought and believed. Matthew and Luke knew nothing about DNA, in vitro fertilization, etc. For us to claim that we have a deeper insight than them because we now know what DNA is, is to re-interpret Matthew’s and Luke’s writings in a way they never intended, and which is foreign to their thoughts and intentions.
So what are they thinking? What is Paul thinking? Paul - whose writings precede the Gospels - shows no sign of being aware of the idea that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth, or that Jesus was born by the action of the Holy Spirit. He certainly says that Jesus is the son of David “according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3)
I don’t think it’s an accident that this phrase is never used by Matt and Luke. To them, Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, just his legal one. This is a little known Semitic concept. A child doesn’t have to be literally fathered by the one who now is his father, in order to be considered his child. Raymond Brown writes in “The Birth of the Messiah” (p. 139):
In the mind of the evangelist, it is crystal clear that Joseph didn’t have sexual relations with Mary, but her pregnancy was caused by the Holy Spirit. Joseph is advised by God to accept Jesus as his son, therefore becoming Jesus’ legal father. For Semites, the real father of the child was its legal father, regardless of whether that father begot him or not. So in the mind of the evangelist - which is what counts - Jesus is a real son of David because Joseph acknowledged him, and so became his real, legal father. The idea that Joseph’s “DNA” or sperm might have contributed to Jesus’ birth is utterly foreign to them.
It is also obvious that when John has Philip telling Nathanel that Jesus is the son of Joseph (which he certainly was, see above), Philip knows nothing about the virginal conception. One could ask, why would he know?, he just became a disciple of Jesus. That is not the issue though. John mentions absolutely nothing about a virginal conception. The reason is clear if we pay attention to how the doctrine over Jesus’ identity has evolved. The more primitive Christianity of Paul believed Jesus became the son of God at resurrection. Later, the synoptic Gospels present Jesus as being God’s son even before that: at his birth. John comes later and pushes his identity as God’s son even further back, before his earthly birth: Jesus existed as God’s son before becoming flesh - pre-existence. Therefore the virginal conception is of no use to John, he has something that exceeds that by far. By the time Philip speaks, the reader has already been informed about Jesus’ pre-existence, and so John is perfectly comfortable with Joseph being called Jesus’ father. Even Luke (2:33, 48) is comfortable with that designation since he also, has revealed already to the reader that Joseph did not biologically beget Jesus.
JohnE
I couldn’t have said it any better
Your brother
JohnE
My experience has been that most folks who believe that the Scriptures teach the pre-human existence of Jesus, cite Colossians 1:15ff as proof. I take it that you would not agree with that position, since you claim that Paul, when he wrote this epistle still had an incomplete knowledge of how Jesus came into being.
It’s true that Paul “shows no sign of being aware of the idea that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth.” But he doesn’t say much about Mary or about Jesus’ birth anyway. Still, the Bible doesn’t say she was a virgin when Jesus was born, just when he was conceived.
I agree that Jesus was considered Joseph’s legal son although he wasn’t biologically. However, God promised David that “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.” The two genealogies (in Matthew and Luke) have been debated for hundreds of years but I don’t think we can so easily dismiss the possibility that Mary and Joseph were both descendants of David.
I also agree that Philip knew nothing of the virginal conception of Jesus, as is reflected in the record in John’s gospel. I don’t agree, however, that the understanding of Jesus’ identity “evolved.” There is no evidence that “the more primitive Christianity of Paul believed Jesus became the son of God at resurrection.” The synoptic Gospels present Jesus as being God’s son from his birth. John doesn’t mention his birth specifically, but describes the fact that he is the Word of God made flesh, i.e., God’s plan of redemption brought into concretion. Nothing is said in John or anywhere else in Scripture of Jesus pre-existing his birth.
But rather than wrangle on about these issues which have been argued about and endlessly debated before on this blog, I’d prefer to focus on the major issue of this post - that the baby Jesus in the manger was not God come to earth in human form. I think most of us agree on that.
Hi Jaco,
I’m sure you could have said it even better
Brian,
I did not claim that Paul had an incomplete knowledge of how Jesus came into being. Maybe what he knew was in reality complete.
Since you mentioned Col 1:15, I have some doubts on the Pauline authorship of this epistle, sown by NT scholarship on the subject, so I’d prefer not to delve now into what it says about Jesus’ origin. But since you mention Paul, he certainly can be interpreted as believing Jesus pre-existed in Phil. 2, and that’s how the majority of scholars read that chapter. Sure, ingenious apologetics can always explain away that chapter against pre-existence, even if it goes against the natural reading of that passage.
Mark,
I think Matt does in fact say that she was a virgin when Jesus was born, not just when Jesus was conceived. Matthew makes sure the reader is informed that Mary remained a virgin up until the event of Jesus’ birth because of Isa 7:9 (a virgin will give birth); so he says Joseph “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”.
Joseph is specifically said to be a son of David, and Matt and the genealogies focus on Joseph, not Mary, to prove Jesus was a son of David. That is very normal since Jewish genealogies and descent are always considered on the paternal side. There’s absolutely no hint in the NT that Mary is of Davidic descent. Later gentiles, unsatisfied or unaware of the semitic concept of legal paternity, have later invented a Davidic descent of Mary. But that’s post-biblical already.
When I said “identity” I was narrowly referring to his identity as the son of God. And there actually is evidence that
the more primitive Christianity of Paul believed Jesus became the son of God at resurrection. Rom 1:3 is recognized by different scholars as being an already existing Christian hymn, preceding Paul, a passage which most naturaly read says Jesus become God’s son at resurrection. Luke has Paul saying essentially the same thing in Acts 13:33, and various scholars say the discourses in Acts do represent primitive early discourses that preceded Luke. Again, these passages can always be explained away against their most natural reading by clever apologetics, as any other passage. But the fact is there’s a scholarly consus on what I said. I did not invent these things, and i find them natural, reasonable positions. If you want to understand what a writer thought and believed, you have to take him in isolation and go with the flow, not trying to constantly read his writings through the lens of what others have written. If you read Paul in this way, Jesus becomes God’s son at resurrection.
I was as inaccurate as you here in my earlier post. Mark does not present Jesus as being God’s son at his birth (how could he, no virginal birth is mentioned), but associates his divine sonship with his baptism.
So taking into account the main view that Paul’s writings are the earliest, followed by Mark, followed by Matt and Luke who are editing Mark, with John being the latest, here’s the evolution:
1) divine sonship at resurrection - Paul
2) divine sonship at baptism - Mark (he and Paul, the earliest ones, know nothing of the virginal conception)
3) divine sonship at birth - Mark and Luke
4) divine sonship before birth - John
So intense Christian reflection on Jesus’ divine sonship has elevated Jesus constantly with the passing of time. A normal trend i suppose.
The majority of scholars certainly disagree. If you leave out apologetics and harmonization, pre-existence is pretty clear.
I certainly agree with that. Matt and Luke’s view cannot be reconciled with the opposite.
I just thought I should add that John didn’t stop here (Jesus existed and was God’s son before his becoming flesh). When you thought Jesus cannot be exalted more than that, you find out it is actually possible. Not only did Jesus exist and was God’s son before his becoming flesh, he is also a theos (god), albeit, a theos who has God above him and Whom he worships (1:1; 14:28; 20:17; 4:22).
Can anyone go even further? We all know it happened. At Nicea and later, Jesus ceased to be a god subservient to the only true God, and became the only true God with his Father, equal to him. I’d say this could be the end of the evolution that started 2000 years ago - unless somebody will think of something that tops that. This may be impossible or maybe I just lack the imagination required to do so.
(BTW, an interesting possible background to Thomas’ “my God and my Lord” (I personally doubt Thomas ever said that, a designation nobody else in the entire primitive written tradition knows about) is this:
Suetonius (in Domitianus 13.2) says about Domitian - the Caesar who lived in the last decades of the 1st century, therefore probably a contemporary of John - that “when he would dictate a formal letter, it would begin thus:
our Lord and God ordered this to be made” (cum… formalem dictaret epistulam, sic coepit: dominus et deus noster hoc fieri) Cf. W. Foerster, “kurios” in Kittel, TDNT 3.1054-1058).
Gregory Riley comments on this saying “John here applies it to the one whom he believes deserves the title, as a challenge to the “illegitimate” divinization in ruler cult.)
JohnE,
I don’t want to rehash this argument again. The only thing I will say at this point is that there is not a consensus among the majority of scholars either on the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, or on whether or not Jesus pre-existed his birth.
I wonder if the idea of the Trinity was a way for men to “fix” a problem that came about when Christians began to debate as to whether Jesus existed with God in the same form as God or whether he began at his conception in Mary.
If men could convince everyone to see Jesus as God, from everlasting this could fix the problem, but maybe they thought, “better yet” lets convince everyone that Jesus simply IS God with this Trinity idea and if we promote it enough the problem will be fixed.
Maybe it’s just a “wire it up” kind of deal, rather than the real fix.
There’s a lot of liberty in the spirit of God for us. Let’s always remember that. We can’t require others to believe as we do and be right with God, but we can help them along the way, and learn this way of living in God as we go, by Jesus Christ.
Ray,
Alex Hall addresses these issues in his discussion on “Truth Matters”.
http://truthmattersradio.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/the-great-shift-with-alex-hall/
JohnE, Jaco,
What is your understanding/opinion of Matt 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Where it is possible to translate ‘the husband’ as ‘the man’ or by implication ‘the father of Mary’? That puts Mary in the bloodline of David. Thoughts?
From Strong’s:
435 aner an’-ayr a primary word (compare 444); a man (properly as an individual male):–fellow, husband, man, sir. see GREEK for 444
Today I read something where a man referred to Jesus as “..the God of the universe”.. who came to be born into this world…etc. , as he shared the meaning of Christmas, the good news of Christ
being born.
How do I know who he was referring to? Was he saying that God
became born on this earth? I suppose in a sense God became revealed more cleary than he ever had in sending his own Son Jesus into this world by becoming flesh this way, and that Jesus is in that sense, by being the very nature of God, the one all creation will bow to, the one through whom God created all, because of these things, did he refer to Jesus as “the God of the universe”?
It seems to me to be so.
Or I could get out a billy club and begin to pound him to death for
saying that God became man.
We all have to decide for ourselves which way is best.
We might at times meet some people who do deserve a good beating, and will likey receive one some day if they don’t get right, or at least be willing to make some corrections when they are wrong, but I will still have to decide if it’s up to me to start swinging away or not.
Really our weapon should be more like a two edged sword.
Hi Frank,
“the man of Mary” is a perfectly legitimate translation. But it never means “the father of Mary” in the Bible (or anywhere else for that matter). All instances where there’s talk about a woman’s man, the man is her husband. Just as an example, John 4, where Jesus tells the Samaritan woman:
John 4:16-18 Go, call your husband (man, aner) and come here.” 17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband (man, aner).” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband (man, aner)’; 18 for you have had five husbands (men, andras), and the one whom you now have is not your husband (man, aner); this you have said truly.”
This usage of a “woman’s man” has survived in our modern language as well.
If one would like though to understand Mary’s man as her father, what does one do with verses where Joseph is spoken as Jesus’ father/parent, and being engaged to Mary? Incest? This would be clearly against how the synoptics present the situation.
It is always important to keep in the mind that both writers (Matt and Luke) use Joseph as a proof that Jesus is a descendant of David. They make sure the reader understands that he is by explicitly stating that Joseph is a “son of David” (Mt 1:20; Lk 2:4). It’s never about Mary, it’s always about Joseph. BTW, Joseph is the only person in all NT, besides Jesus, who is ever called “son of David”. It was that important.
(and as I mentioned earlier, Elizabeth, Mary’s “relative”, is “a daughter of Aaron”; so if one would look for even the slightest indication/hint on what Mary is, she could be a Levite; there’s no hint though, even as week or weaker than that, that she is from the tribe of Judah)
Raymond Brown has an interesting commentary on Matthew’s description of the magi paying homage to the King of Jews:
- The Birth of The Messiah p. 174 (square brackets and bold emphasis mine)
Frank D,
I think the matter of Jesus’ genealogy cannot be minimized. Much has been written and hypothesised about the obvious differences in the records of Matthew and Lukes Gospels.
I won’t ever claim to be an expert in this, but a few things have to be considered.
Firstly, the genealogies appear to be of the same person, Joseph. Matthew lists the genealogy of Joseph, the “husband of Mary,” and Luke apparently also, but uses a different genealogy. Matthew takes the line through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. Clearly this cannot be the same genealogy reaching the same person.
Secondly, the pattern of 14+14+14 is not followed in the genealogy of Matthew. You will note that, if Mary is the husband of this particular Joseph, the last list of decendents only add up to 13.
As JohnE showed, the Greek uses aner, meaning husband, and perfectly so. The crux in my opinion comes from the Aramaic word used, gowra, which means man, husband, but also guardian or father. Aramaicist Raphael Lataster calls it a semi-split word which could be translated both ways. Paul Younan, another Aramaicist, shows the same. See also Peshitta translation on http://aramaicnt.com/Matthew/Matthew1.pdf. Mary’s father or uncle could have been called Joseph, since that was a very common name those days. The 14+14+14 structure is restored and the differences of genealogies resolved. This makes Jesus the descendent of David through both Mary and Joseph.
What about Mary being the relative of the Levitical descendent Elizabeth? Well, their mothers could have had the same father, while their fathers could have descended from different patriarchs. That would make Mary and Elizabeth cousins while Mary’s father descends from Juda and Elizabeth’s from Levi. I’m merely sketching an outline that still fits what is proposed by Aramaicists.
What say you?
Jaco
There are a number of views about the genealogies of Jesus.
V.P. Wierwille taught what Jaco describes, that the word “husband” in Matthew 1:16 is the Greek word aner which means a male of full age, and should have been translated as “father” rather than husband. However, in the NT it is translated husband as well as man, sir, and fellow, but nowhere translated “father.” In Aramaic it is the word gavra which literally means “mighty man” and according to Wierwille could mean “husband” or “father” depending on the context. It was his contention that Matthew 1:16 was saying that Jacob was the father of a different Joseph, who was the father of Mary, not her husband. This would make 14 generations from Babylon to Christ, which would otherwise not add up, according to Wierwille. While this theory is not impossible, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of corroboration to it. I haven’t seen anyone other than followers or ex-followers of The Way Int’l propose this theory, though I could be wrong about that.
E. W. Bullinger, on the other hand, had a different take. It’s all laid out in appendix 99 of the Companion Bible. Matthew’s claim that Jacob is the father of Mary’s husband Joseph is upheld, while in Luke, Joseph is said to be “of” Heli (”the son” is in italics) because he was Heli’s son-in-law (Heli being Mary’s father).
The generations in Matthew are counted differently by Bullinger too. The first 14 are from Abraham to David; the second 14 begin with David again and go to Josias; then the third 14 go from Jechonias through Joseph to Jesus. I used to wonder why David was counted twice, but it fits the summary in v.17, which says, “from Abraham to David are 14…” and then “from David to the carrying away to Babylon are 14…” and “from the carrying away to Babylon to Christ are 14…”
Most theologians agree that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are different because Jesus was a descendant of David both physically through his mother, and legally through his foster father. But which genealogy is Mary’s and which is Joseph’s seems to be the subject of some debate. If you Google “Jesus genealogies” you will find many explanations for apparent discrepancies in the genealogies.
But the majority of the views I’ve found seem to favor the theory that Joseph was considered a “son” to Heli, his father-in-law, and so the Luke record presents the genealogy through Mary, while Matthew presents it through Joseph. For example, the following is from the People’s New Testament Notes:
Another source I found discusses the genealogies and the idea that one is through Joseph and the other through Mary. They refer to evidence that Heli (Eli) was Mary’s father.
The most interesting thing about it to me is that rather than this apparent discrepancy being proof of error in the Bible, as many skeptics claim, there are actually several possible explanations. Which one is right is not as big a deal as the fact that most of them are plausible.
Hi Jaco,
That they’re not the same genealogies I agree completely, but they both reach Joseph.
Interesting stuff Jaco. Never heard of this theory before. This involves a theory of Aramaic (Syriac more precisely) primacy, that is, that the original writings of the NT were Aramaic, not Greek. If any scholar would hold to this, they would be in minority (I know of no scholar who would hold to this theory). The majority view is that the gospels were originally written in Greek. Aland for example says that:
- K. and B. Aland, the Text of the New Testament, p. 52
Aland also says that the first text in Syriac was the Diatessaron, the famous harmonization of the four Gospels, starting in the late 2nd century. The oldest manuscripts that have the Gospels into Greek date from the 5th century (or late 4th?). If this is so, than it really doesn’t matter what the Peshitta (formed in the 5th century?) says in Matt 1:16, as it is only a translation of the original Greek (which Greek excludes “father”). But for the sake of the argument, let’s ignore these big difficulties.
I know no Aramaic at all, but the Peshitta is in Syriac, which is middle Aramaic, something that is not identical to the Palestinian Aramaic Jesus may have spoken. Because I know no Aramaic, I have no idea whether “gowra” can be translated as father or guardian. But I have 4 translations from Syriac (the Peshitta) to English, and none of them use “father”:
ETH Matthew 1:16 Jakub begat Jauseph, *husband* of Mariam, of whom was born JESHU who is called the Meshicha. - Etheridge Translation of the NT Peshitta (1849)
LEW Matthew 1:16 Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was *espoused* Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ. - Lewis Translation of the NT Peshitta (1896)
MGI Matthew 1:16 Jacob fathered Joseph, the *husband* of Mary, from whom Jesus, who was called the Messiah, was born. - NT Peshitta Translation (2006) by Janet Magiera
MRD Matthew 1:16 Jacob begat Joseph, the *husband* of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called the Messiah. - Murdock Translation of the NT Peshitta (1851)
I find it interesting that none of these translators considered to render “father” here. Is there any lexicon (and I mean a scholarly one) that lists “guardian” and “father” as possible meanings for this word? I was curious to see who these “aramaicist” you list are, and what kind of credentials they have. Raphael Lataster is a “financial adviser, investor, registered pharmacist, authour, philanthropist and justice of the peace” (see his webpage, raphaellataster dot com). Paul Younan seems to be a native Assyrian, deacon in “The Church of The East” in Chicago, and translator of the Peshitta Interlinear (see aramaicnt dot com). Do these people have the right qualifications?
Nevertheless, if one would accept “father” as a meaning, why not be consistent and render “father” as well in vs 19:
And Joseph her ***father***, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
And then this Joseph, the *father* of Mary, in vs. 24 takes her as his wife? Not good, right? But then this idea emerges, that the Joseph of vs. 16 is in fact not the same Joseph of vs. 19 and 24. We have two Josephs, the 1st is Mary’s father, the 2nd is Mary’s husband? Honestly, this idea does not emerge from what Matthew actually writes. He never introduces this second Joseph. There’s no clue, from what we actually read, that this Joseph is not the same Joseph. The flow of the text, its natural reading, goes certainly against this theory. I would rather classify this theory as pious imagination.
Another thing to consider is that the primary Syriac church, to my knowledge, never understood their own text of vs. 16 as making Joseph to be Mary’s father. Or did they? If they didn’t, do we today, in the 21st century have a greater insight into their ancient form of language? This would have certainly been in their theological interest and advantage. For Matthew as well, so one wonders why doesn’t Matthew make sure this subtlety is not lost, by explaining it, or emphasizing it. This would have greatly helped against the Jewish and Pagan accusations of illegitimacy, right?
I will treat this in my next post.
I think that one must stick to what the text actually says, as detrimental as that can prove to be. I do not claim Mary was a Levite. She could be, based on her relation to Elizabeth. Her relation to Elizabeth allows her to be a Levite. A very weak probability indeed. But at least going by what the text reveals, this is a greater possibility than she belonging to Judah’s tribe, something for which we don’t even have the slightest hint, as in the case of her possibly being a Levite.
Good stuff. These are the conversations I enjoy reading. Good biblical scholarship!. Thanks John & Jaco.
Since I first asked the question, I understand the difficulty of introducing a second ‘Joseph’ and not differentiating with Mary’s husband. That is the difficulty I had with Matt 1:16 being Mary’s father. Just a curiosity of mine and I am glad I asked it.
Now, back to our regulally scheduled discussion…..
Though I’m not able to add up the generations in Matthew’s geneology of Christ, it still looks to me that this geneology is as it says, the generation of the messiah.
Mary helped generate Jesus as she was the one who received the seed. Farmers are known as growers because they plant and tend
to the field which produces the crops. God is the prime grower of them all.
Mary kept the child warm, fed, safe, and was the transportation as he was being formed in her womb by God. Her blood fed the nutrients into the placenta.
I learned by watching Dr. Oz on TV, that the blood of the mother never touches the blood of the infant, though the blood vessels that feed the baby and the blood vessels from the mother are very close in the placenta.
If I read Matthew’s geneology to be that of Mary and read “Joseph” (1:16) as the father of Mary, and count all the names
according to their generations given in Matthew alone, it does in that manner all add up. Therefore I had at one time thought it to all add up.
Later, with some help, I was shown that there is a missing generation about the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
(see I Chron 3:15,16 and compare with Matthew 1:11. Also notice
II Chron 36:8,9 “Jehoiachin” and Jer 22:28 “Coniah”, as other names for “Jeconias.”) Therefore I could no longer count all the generations in a way that it all adds up. I had now one too many,
as if 14,15, and 14.
It was like driving a car thinking all is fine and then someone shows you a scuff on the fender, one you didn’t know was there,
so you can either leave the car and walk on your own the rest of the way, or simply accept what you see and drive it anyway knowing it’s not as perfect as you once had thought.
It’s something I don’t know how to fix. A wiper blade I can replace,
or even a wheel bearing, but some things I don’t know how to do.
If I was to walk away from this vehicle, how would I reach my destination?
If I was to walk away from the scriptures because of this that I’ve
found, one day the whole house might fall on me, the examination
of me legally made, the judgment read, and I might be found to be not just really dead, but really Truly really dead, and I don’t want that to happen.
No book in the world can replace the scriptures. In it I find the way to salvation. I find Jesus by it. One look at the prints in his hands
can take me to where I need to be. In his hands there was no taking of bribes, perverting of justice, no thievery, nor shedding of innocent blood, except his own, for he willingly laid his hands on the wood that I might live unto God.
Frank D
Check out the following manuscript variations/and-or/corruptions regarding “Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus”:
Luke 2:33:
“And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.” [KJV]
“The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.” [NIV]
Copyists changed “Father” to “Joseph” in many manuscripts. They thought this would “clear up” any possible confusion about the father of Jesus.
Luke 2:41: “Parents” was changed by scribes to read “Joseph and Mary,” lest someone become confused about Jesus’ “real” parents.
Luke 2:43: “Parents” was changed to “Joseph and his mother,” or other similar readings. Also, “the boy Jesus” was changed to “the boy, the Lord Jesus,” because if Jesus were God, then he had to be Lord from his birth.
Luke 2:48: “Father and I” was altered to either “we,” or “Joseph and I,” or “your relatives,” etc., lest anyone be confused about the real father of Jesus.
Luke 4:22: “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” was omitted entirely, or was changed to “Isn’t this a son of Israel.”
Tanks, Xavier. I will get out Erman’s book again and read.
Frank, glad to be of help.
When I wrote “The oldest manuscripts that have the Gospels into Greek date from the 5th century” I meant:
“The oldest *Syriac* manuscripts that have the Gospels *translated* into Greek date from the 5th century”
Mark,
Joseph is said to be of Heli because he was Heli’s son-in-law? This seems to be very strange. What is the basis of this judgement (other than the desire to eliminate apparent discrepancies)? Is there any textual basis for this? Does Luke say Joseph is of Heli because he is Mary’s husband? As I honestly see it, there’s absolutely no objective basis for reaching this conclusion. It is simply foreign to what the text says, and seems to emerge from pious imagination. Am I going overboard if I call this an invention (even if it’s the invention of the “church fathers”)?
That sounds correct. If Matthew wanted to maintain the 14 generations symmetry, he has to count David’s generation twice, and that’s what he does. Indeed, according to the people he lists, from Abraham to David there are 14 generations, from David to the carrying away to Babylon there are 14 generations, and from the carrying away to Babylon to Christ there are 14 generations. But as I will show later, Matthew’s model of 14 generations present serious problems.
Then Luke should not have mentioned Joseph at all, if he wasn’t constrained by the tradition of listing a male descent line. Fact is, both genealogies are of Joseph’s line, not Mary’s, and this is made explicitly clear in the two texts. Have you ever considered that Matthew knew a different genealogy of Joseph than Luke did (and vice-versa)? This is not just a mere possibility to be discarded with an airy wave of the hand, for it is what the texts actually reflect: different genealogies for Joseph.
It is interesting that Luke says in his opening that he has “investigated carefully” everything, *many* others having undertaken to compile an account of what happened around Jesus. Because both Matt and Luke having a different genealogy for the same Joseph, there are at least two possibilities as I see it:
1) Luke didn’t know about Matthew’s genealogy, or vice-versa, so they wrote free of being aware of any issue.
2) If Luke knew about Matt’s, he may have considered it inaccurate (having “investigated carefully” everything), and laid out in writing the genealogy he received from his own tradition.
Number 1 seems more likely to me, but for no conscious reason.
I’m not sure what tables are referred to in the above text. Do you also mean “chaNged” instead of “chaRged”?
No, there’s no way that sentence could be read that way. One cannot just insert at one’s will the “but He was physically from Eli’s lineage through his mother” idea. All the text says is that “as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, etc”… This theory is read INTO the text, rather than out of it.
The idea of Eli being the father of Mary is found in documents by various early church fathers who held the view, as well as a passage in the Jewish Talmud that states, “Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures…”
So, though the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that Eli was Mary’s father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.
It was in these “church fathers” interest to hold that view of course, otherwise they’d have had a big contradiction in their holy writings, attacking one of the most basic tenets of their faith and theological system. As I asked above, is there any basis for their view (other than apologetic of course)? There’s none we can ascertain. The Jewish Talmud (IF it refers to our Mary, which is highly disputed by many scholars) simply reflects the “church fathers’” point of view and attacks it; nobody seriously thinks the Talmud knows independently at least 200 years later who was Mary’s father. Here’s what John P. Meier has to say on the historicity of these Jewish traditions:
- John P. Meier: A Marginal Jew, vol I, p. 94-98
Hence my argument; IF this Mary is Jesus’ mother (and this is again, a big if; that this Mary’s father is Heli in the Talmud is disputed: http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/mary_genealogy_talmud.html), and IF the Talmud says Heli is her father, then it is very probable that this text reflects and attacks what the church itself was saying in those later centuries, so the Talmud cannot be considered an independent historical source of Heli being Mary’s father. The contention that Mary was a descendant of David was something affirmed by post-bibilical developments, foreign to Luke and Matthew, whose support for Jesus’ descent from David are Joseph, not Mary. They never bothered to argue that Mary had a Davidic descent, a descent which then is a later invention of the “church fathers”.
In conclusion, as far as it is possible to know from the earliest Christian documents that speak on the matter:
1) Both genealogies, as different and discrepant as they are, are Joseph’s genealogies, and Joseph’s alone.
2) That Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli is an invention.
3) That Mary is the daughter of Heli and a descendant of David are inventions as well.
4) In the view of Matthew and Luke, Jesus is a descendant of David solely because his legal father, Joseph, was one. Mary has absolutely no contribution.
Does anyone here with knowledge on the subject disagree with the NT assertion of the virgin birth?
Joseph, I can’t say I disagree. But regarding this issue, I’m an agnostic. I don’t know what to believe. The earliest writers, who should have known better than the later ones (later being Matt and Luke if the scholars are right about dating), don’t seem to be aware of the virginal conception.
I guess everybody knows about the Ebionites (about whom some think they were remnants of James’ party). Some among them (not all if I recall this correctly) did believe that Joseph was literally, biologically Jesus’ son. As Ehrman asks in one of his books, how is this possible, haven’t they read the New Testament? Well in those times there was no finalized NT yet. If among the earliest Christians the virginal conception was common knowledge, how come these Ebionites disagreed? On what basis? Could it be that an incipient idea later emerged, and progressively became the virginal conception by the time Luke and Matthew write? I don’t know. Is it impossible? No it’s not.
These paragraphs in my earlier post are actually Mark’s, I should have quoted them:
Mark,
Interesting. That is a method of reading Matthew and Luke which I do not intend to follow. I begin with an open mind, allowing the possibility that either Luke or Matthew were mistaken in certain details, or that both were, or that they are very consistent among themselves. You seem to never consider that there might be several possible explanations to the contrary, namely that the writers may have erred. Your approach seems to work toward the goal of showing that the discrepancies are not really discrepancies, to preserve this later and post-biblical idea of NT inerrancy.
But let me continue my previous post. I said that “as I will show later, Matthew’s model of 14 generations present serious problems”. What problems? Brown lists several of them, and I will quote loosely from The Birth Of Messiah, p. 74 - 89:
(1) The spans of time covered by the three sections of genealogy are too great to have contained only 14 generations each, since some 750 years separated Abraham from David, some 400 years separated David from the Babylonian Exile, and some 600 years separated the Babylonian Exile from Jesus’ birth.
(The calculations are based on dating Abraham ca. 1750 B.C., the accession of David ca. 1000, the beginning of the Babylonian Exile at 597-587, and the birth of Jesus at ca. 5 B.C. Generations average out about 25 to 30 years, so that 14 generations would cover little more than 350 years. Here’s why generations average out about 25 to 30 years:
Almost exactly 600 years separated the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of Jesus; Matthew’s numbers would lead to about 46 years per generation, while Luke’s numbers (who has many more people in his genealogy) would lead to about 27 years. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 294, points out that Josephus’ list of post-exilic high-priests yields and average generation of about 27 years, a calculation that should be lessened to about 25 years by F.M. Cross’ observation that Josephus has omitted several names (A Reconstruction of the Judea Restoration”, JBL 94 (1975))
We have accurate knowledge about only the middle section of Matthew’s genealogy: in fact, there were 18 generations of kings of Judah in the 400 years that separated David from the Babylonian Exile, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/45526321@N07/4179582271/sizes/l/
A glance at the pic at the above link and at Luke’s generations after the Exile will show that for the monarchical and post-monarchical periods Luke allows many more generations than does Matthew; and an examination of the OT evidence shows that Matthew omits names in the pre-monarchical and monarchical periods:
Vs. 3, Aram. Aram’s father, Hezron, is connected in the OT (Gen 46:12) with the period of Joseph and the going down in Egypt; Aram’s son, Amminadab is connected (Num. 1:7) with Moses and the desert wandering after the Exodus. Thus Matthew allots one name, Aram (never mentioned in the Pentateuch), and only two generations to a period which traditionally lasted some 400 years (Gen 15:13; Exod 12:40).
Vs. 5, Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab. The statement that Boaz was the child of Rahab (Rachab in Matthew’s orthography) has no other biblical support and is curious since the famous Rahab lived at the time of the conquest, nearly two centuries before Boaz’ time. Despite the difference of spelling, Brown says it is virtually certain that Matthew means the Rahab of the conquest (I’m not so sure). In rabbinic tradition she married Joshua.
Vs. 8, Joram was the father of Uzziah. This notice embodies the first omission in the Matthean list of the Davidic kings. 3 kings, 3 generations and some 60 years separated king Joram and Uzziah. A complete list would have the sequence Joram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Uzziah (see pic above). At times we know of both the birth and regnal names for the kings of Judah; in this instance Azariah was the king’s birth name and Uzziah was his regnal name.
Vs. 11, Josiah was the father of Jechoniah and his brothers. In this instance Matthew prefers the birth name Jechoniah to the regnal name of Jehoiachin, the opposite of his choice in vs.8. This notice contains the 2nd omission in the Matthean list of the Davidic kings. Historically Josiah was the grandfather of Jechoniah who, as far as we know, had only one brother. The listing would be correct if Matthew read: “Josiah was the father of Jehoiachim and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian Exile”; for Jehoiakim, Josiah’s son, had two brothers (Jehoahaz II and Zedekiah; see pic link above) who were also kings. Indeed, Zedekiah’s kingship was precisely “at the time of the Babylonian Exile”, for he was reigning when the second deportation to Babylon began in 587 B.C. Thus, it appears that Matthew has confused Jechoniah (Jehoiachin) the grandson of Josiah with Jehoiakim the son of Josiah and thus omitted a generation.
Such omissions in a genealogy are a problem to Western mind with its quest for biological accuracy and completeness but are well attested in both ancient and modern tribal genealogies (Wilson, Genealogy stresses that these omissions occur for various reasons and that they are not usually found at the beginning of the list (founders are important) or at the end of the list (which involves living memory) , but in the middle of the list - just as in Matthew).
In the light of these facts, how do we interpret Matthew’s insistence (1:17) on the 3×14 pattern? It seems to indicate that the evangelist was not aware of the omissions in his list, or at least that he did not make such omissions himself. It would be strange for him deliberately to have omitted generations in order to create the pattern and then to have called the reader’s attention to it as something marvelous and (implicitly) providential.
Other problems in Matthew:
Vs, 7, Asaph. This is the best attested reading. Later copyists observed that Matt’s record had confused the psalmist Asaph (title of Pss 50, 73-83); 1 Chr 16:5-37; 2 Chr 29:30) with King Asa of Judah (1 Kgs 15:9); and so they changed the text to Asa, a reading common in the Byzantine Greek tradition and in the Latin and Syriac versions.
Vs. 10, Amos. Later copyists observed that Matt’s record had confused the prophet Amos with King Amon of Judah (2 Kgs 21:19); and so they changed the text to Amon. Some commentators would attribute the historically correct readings “Asa” and “Amon” to Matthew and blame copyists for the confused “Asaph” and “Amos”. The desire to spare Matthew an error may stem from a theory of inerrancy or from an overestimation of Matthew’s knowledge of the Scripture (Bornhauser, Kindheitsgeschichte, 12). In 27:9 Matthew attributes to Jeremiah a citation that comes from Zechariah; and in 23:35 Matthew confuses the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, with another Zechariah who was killed in the temple 3 centuries earlier (2 Chr 24:20-22).
Matthew’s Genealogy Compared to Luke’s
(*) Overall. Since Luke includes a pre-patriarchal (pre-Abrahamic) period, his list is much longer than Matthew’s - some 77 names compared to Matthew’s 41. Even in the 3 periods in which the two genealogies overlap (between Abraham and Jesus), Luke’s is longer - some 56 names compared to Matthew’s 41.
(*) The pre-monarchical period covering some 750 years between Abraham and David: This is the only area in which the two genealogies have any extended agreement.
(*) The monarchical period covering some 400 years from David to the Babylonian Exile (see pic link above): Here the two lists are totally different, agreeing only on David. Luke has 21 names, compared with Matthew’s 15. and of the 21 only David and Nathan have attestation in the OT history of the monarchy (as for Luke’s choice of a messianic line through Nathan (2 Sam 5:14) rather than through Solomon, this may reflect a popular Jewish uneasiness about the taint attached to Solomon’s scandalous life - see Johnson, Purpose, 135-36).
(*) The post-monarchical period covering some 575 years from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile to the birth of Jesus: The Matthean list with 13 names and the Lucan list with 22 agree only in the first two (Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) and in the last two (Joseph and Jesus). These 4 names are the only ones in either list for which we have any biblical information. The other persons are completely unknown from the OT and from the intertestamental literature.
But Matthew and Luke attribute different parentage to Shealtiel. Matthew’s attribution (son of King Jechoniah) has biblical support (1 Chr 3:17); for Luke he is the son of Neri of whom the OT tells us nothing.
Sorry, instead of “did believe that Joseph was literally, biologically Jesus’ son”, I meant Jesus’ *father*.
To say that Christ pre-existed before His birth just doesn’t hold a logical basis considering Matt 2:13. “When they had gon, an angel of the Lord appeared Joseph in a dream, “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to KILL him.” If the baby was the pre-existant immortal Christ, Son of God, then why the need to flee in order not to be killed? Why the sudden urge of an angel? Did the angel know as many espouse here that the child was a “mere human child” and indeed could die? As angels are messengers of the God clearly there should be a logical understanding that the host of heaven knew the child was the begotten Son of God, born not created, not pre-existant, but having come into the world as promised through this miraculous birth.
While on the subject of Jesus’ birth, why do we celebrate what we know is the obvious wrong day of His birth? Why even celebrate it at all? Christ’s only commandment regarding remembrance of Himself was at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” We have taken the traditions of men and made them the Law of God.
JohnE, I believe you have built a Master’s thesis here. Not ment to be negative, this is some in-depth research. Lots to digest.
Randy, Good question about the flight to Egypt. Would be worthy of its own thread.
RE: the “silly season”, it seems to me that just as “Christianity” has hijacked Christmas from the pagans, likewise, Paganism hijacked the true Christianity a looong time ago.
Randy,
I just read what I think is a good article on exactly these questions by one David Crank:
For the full article: http://www.focusonthekingdomagazine.com/2009/12/christmas-santa-claus.html
It would indeed be wrong if we made it the “law of God.” As far as I’m aware, nobody says it’s required by God to celebrate Christmas. On the other hand, the commonly held assumption that Christmas was “hijacked” from Paganism is not necessarily the case. More on that in my next post.
When I look at the two geneologies of Matthew and Luke and notice they are the same from Abraham to David, and then after David they split and are completely different all the way to the “Joseph”s , it seems to me that there are two different “Joseph”s.
Have any of you, two older relatives which recorded the generations that differ not 28 or so generations away, but differ the nearest 28 or so generations right up to your birth?
To add some more comments of Brown to the ones above, here’s one for this one:
“As for OT genealogies, the author of 1 Chr 6:33-43 could scarcely have missed the fact that for the same time span (between Levi and David) he alloted to Heman 21 ancestors, and to Asaph, Heman’s relative (1 Chr 15:17) only 14 ancestors. The list in Ezra 7:1-5 stretching from Seraiah to Aaron is 5 names shorter than the similar list of 1 Chr 6:3-14, namely, the 5 names between Azariah and Meraioth.” As for Matthew’s formula “A was the father of [begot] B”, Brown says there is a corrective rabbinic principle: “Grandchildren are counted as children” - TalBab, Kiddushin 4a.
But did this principle exist and was it applied before, in the 1st century, when Matthew writes his gospel? I don’t know.
Another comment on:
“Probably the genealogical heritage on which Matthew is drawing has been influenced by a different biblical tradition about the length of the period in Egypt, e.g., Gen:15:16: “And they shall come back here in the fourth generation”.”
And another very interesting comment on this one:
“Some have been impressed that, despite all biblical evidence, Luke makes Shealtiel the son of the otherwise unknown Neri rather than of the last king Jechoniah; but his motivation may have been theological, namely, to avoid having in Jesus’ ancestry a figure whom Jeremiah cursed thus:
“Write this man down as childless … for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah” (Jer. 22:30)”
Matthew is not as careful and has this Jechoniah in Jesus’ genealogy. So I would link this with an earlier comment of mine:
If Luke knew about the tradition behind Matthew’s genealogy, that Jechoniah was one of the ascendants of Jesus, he may have disagreed in light of Jer. 22:30, and eliminated Jechoniah.
So was the baby in the manger, God?
The baby in the manger was Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God. When a man dwells in Jesus he dwells in love, for Jesus is love.
I’ve heard from two different sources both of which have had interaction with the Lord in heaven, that in heaven, only God and Jesus are worshiped.
Now to me, that is two witnesses. I have two that were there in heaven interacting with the Lord, one in a vision / dream, and the other after he had died.
Now this brings up a question or two.
1. If the holy spirit is a person who is the third member of the trinity, why is it he is not worhiped?
2. If we are to understand that the holy spirit is God and therefore is included in the statement “In heaven only God and Jesus are worshiped.” Then I begin to wonder if shell games are played in heaven as they have been on earth.
3. In our worship on earth, have we heard of the holy spirit being worhiped as the third person of the trinity other than by the doctrine of the trinity? There is one song I can think of and it has had the ability to haunt my mind as if to stay there by it’s own power. This let’s me know it’s not clean.
This leads me to conclude that there is either something wrong with the trinity doctrine, or at the very least, it’s a doctrine that is a bit obscure and can very well be taken wrongly, which may so often be the case.
I heard once on a Christian radio talk show from a caller that called in that there was one trinity doctrine that’s OK but there’s another one that’s not right. I never heard that fully discussed. The caller wasn’t on after the break. I remember thinking that it was an interesting statement.
I’m thinking that there might be a sense in which the trinity doctrine might be able to be digested to a point, but as it is obscure, there is at the very least a sense in which it can not be digested.
Because of this and all the trouble it causes I do not wish to promote it, support it, or encourage it.
Ray
i just came across this study
this could help in your understanding of how the trinity is false
http://www.eliyah.com/mp3/broadcast/02072009study.mp3
An amusing question came upon me today. Here it is:
I’ve heard that only God and Jesus are worshiped in heaven. I began to wonder if the holy spirit, the third person of the trinity, well, I began to wonder….Whatever did he do wrong? He didn’t do anything wrong, did he? I don’t think so. I better not even think that he did. If he isn’t worshiped in heaven, why is that? Is it because he leads the worship? What about Jesus, doesn’t he lead worship?
The holy spirit must be the gift that allows us to worship God.