On the one hand, patriarchs are patriarchs. The lion of Judah is the lion of Judah. And the root of David ... or Jesse ... is just that. In other words, if the genealogy is through Joseph and Mary, respectively, it must agree up to David. So, even without being listed, Tamar appears in Mary's line, too.
But whose line is it, anyway?
Luke 3:23 - He [Jesus] was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, ...
Matt 1:16 - ... the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
My Scofield Bible has this note on Luke 3:23 -
"Two views have been maintained by equally godly and learned scholars. Some believe both genealogies are of Joseph, but that the one in Matthew gives the legal descendants ... blah, blah, blah.Wouldn't it be a remarkable thing, in the Bible, if a man's genealogy was recorded through his mother, as many claim Luke does? Such a thing would trump the length and the star-studded personages.
"A far simpler solution ... Matthew presents Joseph's genealogy whereas Luke presents Mary's genealogy. In addition, appeal may be made to Nm. 27:1-11 and 36:1-12 to give Scriptural precedent for the substitution of Joseph's name in Lk. 3:23. At the same time it avoids the judgment spoken of in Jer. 22:28-30."
Thankfully, the Spirit of the Reformation Bible does less hemmin' and hawin':
"They ... differ in that some of the names are different. Some suggest that Matthew's traces Joseph's line and Luke's Mary's, but Luke's specifically starts with "Joseph," the son of Heli. What is clear is that both Gospels defend the fact that Jesus descended from David."I don't have a problem affirming that, that Jesus descended from David. But let's not pretend that Mary's genealogy is recorded in the Bible.
Besides, I don't see Joachim listed.1
1 Someone who has given this some thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment