Mary's Genealogy

nan

Well-known member
Throughout the Bible, it is normally the biological father's side of the family that
determines a child's tribal identity, but in Jesus' case there was no biological father.
So tribal determination defaulted to his biological mother's side.

Mary's situation was unusual but not unbiblical. Inheritance via women became an
expedient back in Num 27:1-8.
You might want to read Numbers again. There is nothing which attests to your claim that inheritance defaults to the mother's side.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Throughout the Bible, it is normally the biological father's side of the family that determines a child's tribal identity, but in Jesus' case there was no biological father. So tribal determination defaulted to his biological mother's side.
Why do you say "biological father"? Would this not also be true in the case of adoption? I would have guessed so - in part based on what you said in your other post about Joseph. If Jesus was adopted by Joseph, then Jesus became part of Joseph's tribe (as did Mary when she married Joseph).
 

e v e

Super Member
Perhaps if I scroll further I'll find your answer, but why answer with such a non-answer?
I've been on this forum for years. Spent a lot of time saying things...only to have it all dismissed or ignored. So perhaps I just don't like to go into a big answer unless someone actually is interested and responds.
 

e v e

Super Member
.
Hello;

Herein is a brief, four-part apologetic defending Mary's biological association with
Adam.

««« »»»

Eve wasn't made directly from the soil the way that Adam was. She was made of
human material taken from Adam's body. Eve, then, was the beginning of Adam's
progeny.

Hence, from then on, even if all of Eve's children had been 100% virgin-conceived,
they would've still been biologically related to Adam seeing as how every part of
her body was made from Adam's body.

So then, unless somebody can prove beyond a shadow of sensible doubt that no
part of Mary's body was in any way biologically related to Eve's body, then we have
to concede that Mary's son Jesus was biologically related to Eve too, and thus
biologically related to Adam.

««« »»»

It's sometimes suggested that Mary was a surrogate mother. In other words; baby
Jesus was implanted in her womb as an embryo.

But the angel predicted that Jesus would be the result of conception that was to
take place in Mary's body. Well; in order for Mary's body to conceive a baby, her
own ovum would have to be involved.

Luke 1:31 . .Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you
shall name him Jesus.

Luke 2:21 . . When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was
named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the
womb.

««« »»»

Heb 7:14 . . It is clear that our Lord arose from Judah, and in regard to that tribe,
etc.

Throughout the Bible, it is normally the biological father's side of the family that
determines a child's tribal identity, but in Jesus' case there was no biological father.
So tribal determination defaulted to his biological mother's side.

Mary's situation was unusual but not unbiblical. Inheritance via women became an
expedient back in Num 27:1-8.

Jesus' mom is sometimes alleged to be a member of Levi's tribe due to her
association with Elizabeth (Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36). However, Levi and Judah were
brothers, i.e. both men were Leah's sons (Gen 29:34-35). So then Mary and
Elizabeth were cousins due to their association with the same grandma rather than
with the same tribe.

««« »»»

This information is handy for proving that David was Mary's biological grandfather.

Rom 1:3 . . [God's] son Jesus Christ our Lord was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word translated "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper' mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to biological progeny and/or spiritual progeny.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the passage below is speaking of spiritual progeny.

"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise." (Gal 3:29)

However; Rom 1:3 is definitely speaking of biological progeny because David's seed
is according to the flesh, i.e. his body.

Also:

Acts 2:30 . .Therefore [David] being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would
raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Greek words for "according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ" are not in the
manuscripts. The KJV's editors took the liberty to pencil them into their English
translation.

However, Greek words for "fruit of his loins" are in the manuscript. Those are
reinforced by the wording of the oath at 2Sam 7:12 where again David's seed is
clearly implied to be physical rather than spiritual.

See also Psalm 132:11 where it's said: The Lord has sworn to David, a truth from
which He will not turn back: "Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne."
_


Alert, no violation

adam and eve did not have the type of bodies we have,
and neither was eden like this current earth...
before the fall they had a superior physicality
nothing like this current substandard flesh that ages and dies.

adm-human was a npsh soul, meaning a complete undivided being..
not a chimera as we are here, of a flesh body + a wee soul.

Adm-humans were made, God says "in our image", male and female...
man being in the image of He and His Feminine Spirit...

eve was not made of 'material' at all of the type of this world, which the writer of the op assumes
to be the kind of physical flesh we have now.

the progeny we have from eve, is after the fall, a fallen situation therefore, not what God intended...
and anyway, progeny is not the right translation at all.

so the term biological is being used in the OP, as if the nature of eden
was the same as ours here....that is the first set of points.

the natural biology of this current world has nothing to do with eden
except that attributes stolen from eden exist here, because of the fall, and held captive by
the satanic world.

biology is a fallen cosmos construct and not an eden term.
 

e v e

Super Member
Perhaps if I scroll further I'll find your answer, but why answer with such a non-answer?
alright, i answered a little bit, but only the first paragraphs...not the entire thing. There are many more mistakes in the op.

i can continue....but its best, i wait and see what response.
 

Bob Dobbalina

Active member
I've been on this forum for years. Spent a lot of time saying things...only to have it all dismissed or ignored. So perhaps I just don't like to go into a big answer unless someone actually is interested and responds.
Fair enough, thanks for the reply.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Most likely scenario is Mary subsequently "knew" Joseph, and conceived the usual way. The only hint in Luke that is was a virgin birth is that she was a virgin before she conceived.

No, Luke is careful to articulate a virginal conception and defend it against critics. He mentions not once but twice that Mary is a virgin in his introduction to her (1:27). Mary's bewildered response to the angel's pronouncement in which she underscores her own virginity (1:34) leads to the angel's claim that the agent of her conception will be the Holy Spirit (1:35). As soon as the angel departs Mary leaves Nazareth with haste and travels to the hill country of Judea where she spends three months with Elizabeth, who is herself in seclusion, and afterward returns to her house (1:24,38b-40,56). Mary is kept out of the company of her betrothed Joseph and men generally in the narrative during which time the miraculous conception is implied to take place (1:42-43). When next we hear of her, Mary is still betrothed to Joseph yet pregnant and traveling with him to Bethlehem where she gives birth to her firstborn son (2:5-7).

Seed is semen, it implies a line of male descent. Jesus was the male-line descendant of David, i.e., via Joseph, just as is recorded in Luke...

Luke does trace Jesus' claim to the Davidic line and throne through Joseph (1:27,32;3:23), but this is based on Joseph being Mary's husband, not because he is the biological father of Jesus, which suggestion Luke rules out by introducing his genealogy with reference to Jesus as the supposed son of Joseph. Mary, for her part in Luke's narrative, is a relative of Elizabeth (1:36), who was a descendant of Aaron (1:5).

All of this is not to say that Luke's gospel is free from tension... the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus found in 2:41-50 is difficult to reconcile with the virginal conception and is almost certainly an earlier tradition that the author has worked secondarily into the narrative with an introduction (2:40), conclusion (2:51-52) and gloss (2:47). And of course the question of who the historical Jesus' parents were is another issue entirely...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
No, Luke is careful to articulate a virginal conception and defend it against critics. He mentions not once but twice that Mary is a virgin in his introduction to her (1:27). Mary's bewildered response to the angel's pronouncement in which she underscores her own virginity (1:34) leads to the angel's claim that the agent of her conception will be the Holy Spirit (1:35).
I agree Luke is careful...

But think about what you typed. When the angel is talking there is no doubt that Mary is a virgin (I am assuming Luke is right for the purposes of this discussion). As you say, it gets mentioned twice. But as you also say: "the agent of her conception will be the Holy Spirit". That is, she will conceive at some point in the future. That does not preclude her having sex and conceiving, albeit with the involvement of the Holy Spirit (and there are other examples, such as when Sarah conceived Isaac).

As soon as the angel departs Mary leaves Nazareth with haste and travels to the hill country of Judea where she spends three months with Elizabeth, who is herself in seclusion, and afterward returns to her house (1:24,38b-40,56). Mary is kept out of the company of her betrothed Joseph and men generally in the narrative during which time the miraculous conception is implied to take place (1:42-43). When next we hear of her, Mary is still betrothed to Joseph yet pregnant and traveling with him to Bethlehem where she gives birth to her firstborn son (2:5-7).
I am not sure where your get "with haste" from. More importantly, however, I can see nothing in the text to suggest Mary had conceived Jesus before the three months expired and she returned home.

The text would seem to be consistent with an angel visiting the virgin Mary and telling her she would conceive, Mary then going to tell Elizabeth about it, and staying with Elizabeth three months, then returning home to Joseph. She then had sex with Joseph, conceiving Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit. This, of course, fits with Luke tracing Jesus genealogy through Joseph.

Luke does trace Jesus' claim to the Davidic line and throne through Joseph (1:27,32;3:23), but this is based on Joseph being Mary's husband, not because he is the biological father of Jesus, which suggestion Luke rules out by introducing his genealogy with reference to Jesus as the supposed son of Joseph. Mary, for her part in Luke's narrative, is a relative of Elizabeth (1:36), who was a descendant of Aaron (1:5).
The point about the Davidic line is that the messiah - the king of the Jews - had to be of David's seed to fulfil the promise made to David.

1 Sam 7:...“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

Jesus has to be a flesh and blood descendant of David, not merely as the supposed son of Joseph. This was vital to Jesus' claim to messiahship.

I suggest that what we see here is Luke trying to appeal to both Jewish Christians, who demanded a messiah descended from David via Joseph, and gentile Christians who wanted Jesus to be the product of a virgin birth. He has carefully worded the text to support both, while not excluding the possibility of the other.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
But think about what you typed. When the angel is talking there is no doubt that Mary is a virgin (I am assuming Luke is right for the purposes of this discussion). As you say, it gets mentioned twice. But as you also say: "the agent of her conception will be the Holy Spirit". That is, she will conceive at some point in the future. That does not preclude her having sex and conceiving, albeit with the involvement of the Holy Spirit (and there are other examples, such as when Sarah conceived Isaac).

Without denying some literary dependence in Luke on stories found in Israel's sacred literature, the example of Sarah does not offer much to support your proposition. She is married to Abraham (Mary is betrothed, not married), with whom she engages in sexual relations (Mary is a virgin), but cannot conceive because she is barren and now too old (neither is applicable to Mary). Moreover, the miraculous element of Sarah's subsequent conception does not involve the Holy Spirit as agent (Gen 21:1-3). The same could be said of Hannah (1 Sam 1:19b-20). A better example might have been the wife of Manoah (Judges 13), the agent of whose conception is ambiguous --- is it her husband or the angelic visitor? The latter is not so preposterous as it might at first seem given the superhuman strength Samson exudes. Aside from divine or semi-divine parentage, however, the parallel quickly breaks down... the woman is barren like Sarah and Hannah, nor is the angel who visits Mary himself the agent of her conception. These three stories from Israelite scripture offer much closer parallels for the married, barren and aging Elizabeth... her son John is constantly compared by Luke to Jesus and the latter exalted as superior, so too in the miraculous nature of their conceptions. Mary is a virgin and the agent is the Holy Spirit... this is offered as unique, not just another variation of these earlier stories.

I am not sure where your get "with haste" from. More importantly, however, I can see nothing in the text to suggest Mary had conceived Jesus before the three months expired and she returned home.

The Greek μετα σπουδης in 1:39. The noun σπουδη in this context refers to swiftness of movement or action (BDAG). I already supplied 1:42-43 as implying the conception as having by then taken place... Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of her Lord (v43) and, more importantly, pronounces a blessing there and then on the fruit of her womb (v42). That Luke situates the virginal conception within this short interval of Mary's hurried visit to her secluded female relative is to protect her from any charge of sexual impropriety and natural means of conception. When she returns, Mary does not, as you later claim, go to Joseph's home, but to her house... the betrothed couple live apart during this period and only begin to cohabit when the marriage takes place and it is consummated.

The text would seem to be consistent with an angel visiting the virgin Mary and telling her she would conceive, Mary then going to tell Elizabeth about it, and staying with Elizabeth three months, then returning home to Joseph. She then had sex with Joseph, conceiving Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Why would either of them need the help of the Holy Spirit to conceive a child together? There is no mention of barrenness and/or old age as in the cases of Sarah, Hannah, Manoah's wife and Elizabeth to necessitate divine intervention. The whole point of the Holy Spirit's involvement is to eliminate a natural conception so that the child is the 'Son of God' (1:35). As noted previously, Joseph and Mary are still betrothed during her pregnancy (2:5) and therefore have not had sex... indeed, to suggest they did would have them engaged in sexual immorality within that cultural context. It is unfathomable to think Luke indicts his paragon of pious Jewish womanhood with such illicit conduct!

Jesus has to be a flesh and blood descendant of David, not merely as the supposed son of Joseph. This was vital to Jesus' claim to messiahship.

It may very well have been vital to some first-century interpreters of the Messiah within Jewish thought, but clearly not to Luke. Jesus' divine paternity is far more important to him and that Joseph will be married to his mother and act as his father is sufficient for Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne (1:27,32). It is Luke himself who asserts that Jesus is only the supposed son of Joseph.

I suggest that what we see here is Luke trying to appeal to both Jewish Christians, who demanded a messiah descended from David via Joseph, and gentile Christians who wanted Jesus to be the product of a virgin birth. He has carefully worded the text to support both, while not excluding the possibility of the other.

Luke is aware of a tradition in which Jesus appears to have been born of natural means (2:41-50, as noted previously, and there were certainly early Christians who understood Jesus to have been fully human), but he has co-opted this story within his gospel and subordinated it to his own clear articulation of a virginal conception.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

rod.ney

Active member
I agree Luke is careful...

But think about what you typed. When the angel is talking there is no doubt that Mary is a virgin (I am assuming Luke is right for the purposes of this discussion). As you say, it gets mentioned twice. But as you also say: "the agent of her conception will be the Holy Spirit". That is, she will conceive at some point in the future. That does not preclude her having sex and conceiving, albeit with the involvement of the Holy Spirit (and there are other examples, such as when Sarah conceived Isaac).


I am not sure where your get "with haste" from. More importantly, however, I can see nothing in the text to suggest Mary had conceived Jesus before the three months expired and she returned home.

The text would seem to be consistent with an angel visiting the virgin Mary and telling her she would conceive, Mary then going to tell Elizabeth about it, and staying with Elizabeth three months, then returning home to Joseph. She then had sex with Joseph, conceiving Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit. This, of course, fits with Luke tracing Jesus genealogy through Joseph.


The point about the Davidic line is that the messiah - the king of the Jews - had to be of David's seed to fulfil the promise made to David.

1 Sam 7:...“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

Jesus has to be a flesh and blood descendant of David, not merely as the supposed son of Joseph. This was vital to Jesus' claim to messiahship.

I suggest that what we see here is Luke trying to appeal to both Jewish Christians, who demanded a messiah descended from David via Joseph, and gentile Christians who wanted Jesus to be the product of a virgin birth. He has carefully worded the text to support both, while not excluding the possibility of the other.
FYI - Matt.1:1-16 gives Joseph's side ( Jesus' step father ) and Jacob is Joseph's father as per verse 16! Luke 3:23-37 gives Mary's side because Heli ( verse 23 ) is Mary's father, but listed as Joseph's Father ( in law ) because the Jews do not do Genealogy on the mother's side! Joseph's father is Jacob and NOT Heli! Heli is his father in law! As per Matt.1:20 and Luke 1:34-35, God the Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High ( God the Father ) overshadows her to cause the ( Virgin ) pregnancy! In other words, God places a " Y " chromosome into one of Mary's eggs ( all are of the " X " Chromosome )! Jesus has NO human Biological father! He existed ( Precarnate ) as God the Word with God ( the Father & Holy Spirit ) in John 1:1! Then He became Flesh ( Incarnate ) in John 1:14 as the God-Man then called Jesus Christ! His name is still called " the Word " ( like in John 1:1 ) after His resurrection as per Rev.19:13, at His post-Trib. return to REIGN for 1000 years with the resurrected beheaded Trib. saints as per Rev.20:4-6! Joseph was going to secretly put her ( Mary ) away and not merry her because he though she had sex with some other human male! An angel came to him in a dream ( See Matt.1:18-20 ) and told him to merry Mary because God ( the Father & Holy Spirit ) caused her pregnancy!
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Without denying some literary dependence in Luke on stories found in Israel's sacred literature, the example of Sarah does not offer much to support your proposition. She is married to Abraham (Mary is betrothed, not married), with whom she engages in sexual relations (Mary is a virgin), but cannot conceive because she is barren and now too old (neither is applicable to Mary). Moreover, the miraculous element of Sarah's subsequent conception does not involve the Holy Spirit as agent (Gen 21:1-3). The same could be said of Hannah (1 Sam 1:19b-20). A better example might have been the wife of Manoah (Judges 13), the agent of whose conception is ambiguous --- is it her husband or the angelic visitor? The latter is not so preposterous as it might at first seem given the superhuman strength Samson exudes. Aside from divine or semi-divine parentage, however, the parallel quickly breaks down... the woman is barren like Sarah and Hannah, nor is the angel who visits Mary himself the agent of her conception. These three stories from Israelite scripture offer much closer parallels for the married, barren and aging Elizabeth... her son John is constantly compared by Luke to Jesus and the latter exalted as superior, so too in the miraculous nature of their conceptions. Mary is a virgin and the agent is the Holy Spirit... this is offered as unique, not just another variation of these earlier stories.
The point here is that the OT offers a precedent for a woman conceiving from the Holy Spirit but also at the same time conceiving after sex. Sarah and Abraham had sex, and Sarah conceived - but the Holy Spirit was there too, making sure it happened, because Sarah was barren. There is no doubt that there was a divine influence in the conception, but also there is no doubt that Isaac is the son of Abraham.

The account in Luke is consistent with the same for Mary. There was a divine influence, the Holy Spirit made it happen. But also there was also sex with Joseph.

And yes, Elizabeth is another example. Clearly there was a divine influence, presumably the Holy Spirit, but there is no suggestion John was conceived without Elizabeth having sex.

The Greek μετα σπουδης in 1:39. The noun σπουδη in this context refers to swiftness of movement or action (BDAG).
Okay, thanks for that.

I already supplied 1:42-43 as implying the conception as having by then taken place... Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of her Lord (v43) and, more importantly, pronounces a blessing there and then on the fruit of her womb (v42). That Luke situates the virginal conception within this short interval of Mary's hurried visit to her secluded female relative is to protect her from any charge of sexual impropriety and natural means of conception. When she returns, Mary does not, as you later claim, go to Joseph's home, but to her house... the betrothed couple live apart during this period and only begin to cohabit when the marriage takes place and it is consummated.
I think you are reading more into it than is there. It is certainly possible Mary was already pregnant, but that is by no means certain in the text. Elizabeth could as easily mean Mary is the future mother of the lord. The phrase "fruit of the womb" is used three times in the OT (Genesis 30:2, Psalm 127:3 and Isaiah 13:18) and none of them are consistent with a woman who is currently pregnant.

I think we need to be careful of what exactly betrothal meant back then. It was far more than merely being engaged. Mary was already Joseph's legal life once they were betrothed (see here for example). According to some sources, there was, in effect, two weddings. After the first a couple would be expect to consummate it, despite then being betrothed, and not yet living together. The husband would then set up a home for his wife ready for the second ceremony, when they would be brought together to live in the prepared home.

Now I appreciate this is not certain, but it is clear that betrothal was far more than merely being engaged, and the idea that there would be "any charge of sexual impropriety" if she had sex with Joseph is dubious, to say the least; it is likely that this was the expectation!

All that said, I must acknowledge that I was wrong to say Mary returned to the home she shared with Joseph. She would have returned to her family home, but it would still be likely that she saw Joseph, and could engage in sex with him, and so conceive a child, and furthermore, she could do so without doing anything considered improper.

Why would either of them need the help of the Holy Spirit to conceive a child together?
To conceive just any child? No need at all! But we are talking about conceiving the son of God.

It may very well have been vital to some first-century interpreters of the Messiah within Jewish thought, but clearly not to Luke. Jesus' divine paternity is far more important to him and that Joseph will be married to his mother and act as his father is sufficient for Jesus' claim to the Davidic throne (1:27,32). It is Luke himself who asserts that Jesus is only the supposed son of Joseph.
I would guess that Luke was trying to reach as wide an audience as possible. If it was important to Luke's readers it was important to Luke, at least in some sense. He may not have been Jewish himself, and may not have believed Jesus was the messiah in the Jewish sense, but it seems reasonable to suppose he wanted to appeal to Jews, or at least not to repel them. Why else bother with the genealogy?

I appreciate an adopted son could legally inherit, but is that also true of the messiahship? The former is a pragmatic necessity, while the latter is a divine covenant. God made the promise to David that it would be David's seed on the throne, and I do not believe that could be by adoption. There is certainly no precedent for such a thing; all the earlier kings were direct male-line descendants of David. Furthermore, every link in the genealogy Luke presents is from father to son (and the same is true of the genealogy in Matthew). It is an unbroken chain all the way from Adam to Joseph... but then it stops. If you are right, then it is Jesus' brothers who are the real descendants of David.

Luke is aware of a tradition in which Jesus appears to have been born of natural means (2:41-50, as noted previously, and there were certainly early Christians who understood Jesus to have been fully human), but he has co-opted this story within his gospel and subordinated it to his own clear articulation of a virginal conception.
He words it carefully to allow both - so carefully I not think it is clear which he believes (and that is what a good historian should do, by the way).
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The point here is that the OT offers a precedent for a woman conceiving from the Holy Spirit but also at the same time conceiving after sex.

Could you please point me to where the 'Holy Spirit' or the 'Spirit of God' or some equivalent of this was the agent behind the conception in any of the stories that have been offered as parallel... thanks.

Okay, thanks for that.

You're welcome.

I think you are reading more into it than is there. It is certainly possible Mary was already pregnant, but that is by no means certain in the text. Elizabeth could as easily mean Mary is the future mother of the lord. The phrase "fruit of the womb" is used three times in the OT (Genesis 30:2, Psalm 127:3 and Isaiah 13:18) and none of them are consistent with a woman who is currently pregnant.

Context and how the phrase is used therein are important factors, far more so than appealing to how other authors use it and then supposing the present author could not diverge from this usage. In Luke 1:42 the clause ευλογημενος ο καρπος της κοιλιας σου lacks a verb coordinating its constituent parts "blessed" (itself a perfect participle expressing completed action with present and/or ongoing consequences) and "the fruit of your womb" --- they are thus joined (correctly) by the present tense "is". If Luke wanted to keep open the possibility that Mary has yet to conceive by the Holy Spirit, he didn't do a very good job of it.

I think we need to be careful of what exactly betrothal meant back then. It was far more than merely being engaged. Mary was already Joseph's legal life once they were betrothed... According to some sources, there was, in effect, two weddings. After the first a couple would be expect to consummate it, despite then being betrothed, and not yet living together. The husband would then set up a home for his wife ready for the second ceremony, when they would be brought together to live in the prepared home.

That the marriage was consummated following rather than at the beginning of or during the betrothal period was the norm in their society. Evidence contrary to this comes from latter rabbinic texts and applies to Judea, with such a practice still being frowned upon in Galilee (where Luke notably situates Mary and Joseph).

All that said, I must acknowledge that I was wrong to say Mary returned to the home she shared with Joseph.

Props for acknowledging the mistake.

God made the promise to David that it would be David's seed on the throne, and I do not believe that could be by adoption.

Luke does not seem to agree with you, though I would hesitate to use the word 'adoption' --- Joseph's legal claim as Jesus' father was established through his marriage to Mary, not on any formal adoption. While this was practiced widely in the Roman world (Caesar's adoption of Octavian being one of the most important examples), the same cannot be said among the Jews living in Palestine.

He words it carefully to allow both - so carefully I not think it is clear which he believes (and that is what a good historian should do, by the way).

I respectfully disagree... Luke's belief on the matter seems evident enough to me, as well as to centuries of exegetes and to the majority of contemporary biblical scholars.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
I've been on this forum for years. Spent a lot of time saying things...only to have it all dismissed or ignored. So perhaps I just don't like to go into a big answer unless someone actually is interested and responds.
Doesnt everyone here have that same confession?
 
Top