|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Luke and Matthews geneologies | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
Isn't it a simpler solution to this whole business that Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience, and so used a "traditional" lineage that portrayed Jesus as David's heir, and Luke was writing for a gentile audience and was merely showing that Jesus was as much a son of Adam as the rest of us - a real man, Son of Man as He keeps calling himself. Probably neither of them has the "true" lineage because the information probably wasn't available. But the early church "knew" Jesus was the Messiah, and therefore must be David's heir; the actual names are pretty immaterial.
The gospels are not biographies; they are highly selective works written by people with an agenda - to communicate in story things which they knew to be fundamentally true through their experience of Christ alive in the early church. That doesn't make the writers liars - they firmly believed that the truths that they were communicating through their writings were really true. But you only have to take one look at the different order the synoptic writers put things in, and the way they change the parables to suit their own intentions, to see that we're not dealing with biography. That's my wishy-washy liberal view on it, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
Knowing the genealogies assumes that the nativity accounts are historical - many scholars don't think they are, and that the writers hadn't a clue who Jesus was. I don't go that far, but do take the view that by the time the genealogies were written down there were variant forms. I think they were not in Jesus' own lifetime, but indeed decades later.
I don't think divine inspiration is blown out of the water. The truths that the gospel writers were expressing were divinely inspired; their actual words and literary vehicle were not. Divine inspiration does not have to equal divine dictation - that is the fundamentalist view, but it is not the universal Christian one. For my money, there are too many contradictions and errors that can only be resolved by very convoluted and unlikely arguments - viz. the recent "rabbits chew the cud" debacle. Luke traced back to Adam because although he was writing for a non-Jewish audience, he was working within a Judaistically derived tradition. Besides, there was no single human ancestral type common to all the Mediterranean myths, so linking it to Adam (who Christian converts would know about through adoption of the Hebrew Scriptures) is a good move. Besides, Adam means Man; Luke can then reinforce Our Lord's common humanity by reference to the "Son of Man" = "Son of Adam". Quite clever really. And totally missed by a lot of fundamentalist commentators who get tied up using Luke's genealogy to (a) "prove" Adam was a historical figure, and (b) get totally hosed when comparing the genealogy to Matthew's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
Not so fast.
I've looked this passage up (NIV) 30 This is what the LORD says:"Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah." The context is the coming exile in Babylon; Jeremiah is saying to Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) "The nation of Judah's been up to no good, you've been a bad lad; so you're all going into exile. Therefore, your sons will not be kings". It does not have to be, as far as I can see, a curse on the line from Jehoiachin for ever. I am sure that, given the fact that Matthew was (a) writing for a Jewish audience, and (b) was well versed in the OT himself, he would not have made an elementary error like this if he thought it was a problem. IIRC, this whole issue came from a site with a religious motive for discrediting Matthew's genealogy. Such sources need to be treated with caution; it's a bit like getting your science of a creationist website. [This message has been edited by Karl, 11-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
It's a shame I have to nip off now, as the sites you quote raise interesting issues. There is definitely a contrast between how Matthew used OT as prophecy and how modern fundamentalists try to use it.
I'll address it next week, or, possibly, over the weekend. Suffice it to say, I don't think Matthew was making mistakes; I think he was understanding the OT in a different paradigm to the one modern fundamentalists, and the authors of the websites you cite, expect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
Judge - you really are barking up a pretty poor tree here, basing an argument on an alleged Aramaic document that we have no copies of, and at best disputed evidence for. Let's stick to what we have got, eh?
All - I haven't forgotten my promise to examine this whole "Matthew's use of the OT" issue, and the Jeconiah curse issue - I actually think they are closely related. Will be up very shortly - probably before you US types are out of bed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
First, the inclusion of Jeconiah/Jehoiachin.
First of all, Jesus remains of David's line regardless of the position wrt this curse - it just means that the line is dispossessed. I wonder if Matthew included this gentleman on purpose? After all, we know that he missed people out, presumably to get the religously significant 3 x 14 (7 x 2) generations. Matthew was Jewish, writing for a Jewish audience, who knew the Scriptures very well. What would the inclusion of Jeconiah have meant for them? If your sources are right that the curse goes right through the line indefinitely, it seems to me they'd have said "hey, this means this Jesus is under God's curse!" Wierd? Yes - and no. The concept that Jesus was voluntarily under God's curse is actually part of the NT theology: Galatians 3 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. This refers back to the OT law: Deuteronomy 21 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. and: 2 Corinthians 5 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I suggest Matthew's point was that Jeconiah is a type of mankind, estranged from God; under a curse if you like. Jesus voluntarily takes on the same state, and through the cross and resurrection, God lifts the curse, makes Jesus King, and so lifts our "curse", or our estrangement from God. Philippians 2 ...Christ Jesus:6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Just flying a kite.... Moving on to Matthew's 'dodgy' use of OT prophecy. It seems that Matthew (and the other NT writers) are not using the OT as if it were some Hebrew Old Mother Shipton, but rather referring to Jesus' words that He was the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. In other words, the things that are recorded in the OT are forshadowings of Jesus' work and person, not foretellings. So Matthew sees a parallel between Isaiah's sign to King Ahab of Immanuel - God with us, delivering us from evil. He sees a parallel between God calling Israel out of Egypt, and in Christ, God calling humanity out of fallenness. He is well aware of what these passages originally meant, but he is showing how Jesus fulfills them, not in the sense of a prediction coming true, but rather in the sense of revealing what they mystically foreshadowed. Perhaps we are meant to imagine this is what Jesus talked about on the road to Emmaus: Luke 24 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Sorry to quote Scripture, and bang on, but I felt it was necessary to give a full account of what I think Matthew is driving at. (all Bible quotations from the NIV)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
I don't quite see where Matthew contradicts the OT prophetic tradition. Matthew presents Jesus as being of David's line, which is all that the prophetic tradition said on the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
I was referring to the line of David aspect. Which particular part of the Messianic tradition do you think Matthew contradicts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
If Matthew's implication is that through the work of Christ the curse is lifted, there is no problem. If God put the curse in place, God can remove it. And that is what I suggest he is doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
No, because I don't see why the curse has to be lifted for Jesus to be the Messiah. He is of David's line, even though it be a dispossessed line.
I am suggesting that Matthew included Jeconiah in the lineage not as a proof of Jesus' Messiahship, but as an illustration of what Jesus' work achieves. I agree that redefining is not the same as fulfilling. I suggest that Matthew has Jesus do both - the Messiah's achievements go beyond the prophecies, which is OK theologically - "No ear has ever heard, nor eye has ever seen...." [This message has been edited by Karl, 12-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
The messiahship is not up for grabs because the existing conditions still have to be met. Adding to them is not a problem.
My point is that the Philippians passage I quoted earlier, and to an extent Peter's speech before the crowds at Pentecost (Acts) implies that it was after Christ's passion and resurrection that God exalted Him. If Christ's work removes the curse, then there is no problem. I think part of the problem here is that you're expecting scientific accuracy and logic flow from a pre-scientific, pre-enlightenment book, which was written to bolster pre-existing faith, not to prove a particular theological position from scratch. Matthew seems to feel free to pull in whatever illustrations and ubtuse OT passages he feels elucidate what he is trying to say. Had he been Norse, he'd probably have quoted from the story of Balder; had he been Egyptian, he'd probably have used the myth of Osiris.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
John - I've concluded my part in this discussion with a post down in "Eye of the Needle".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
quote: No. I think the question for the church to answer is how to demonstrate the reality of the risen Christ in the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
quote: Quite correct. I wish the Young Earth brigade would realise this. As regards the rest, yes, we need to self examine and all the rest - that's basic to the spiritual life. However, getting tied up in unnecessary arguments over the minutiae of the text is unimportant. Chuck out inerrancy (which has only dodgy circular Biblical interpretation to support it) and the problems evaporate. Look beyond the contradictions and get a hold of what the Bible writers are trying to say. Who cares that the order of creation is different in Gen. 1 and Gen. 2? Different spiritual truths, neither of them concerned with scientific descriptions. Who cares that Matthew and Luke record different genealogies for an obscure carpenter who turned out to be the Son of God? Trying to express different truths about the Jesus they had experienced on their personal road to Emmaus. Much more important that we do the same - meet with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, and try our best to express what He is. See, I don't think you're wrong, I just think that this is not where it's really at. These minutiae are best examined after a good meal, with a glass of brandy in front of a roaring fire. And not as if anything really depended upon them, because I don't think it does. Only inerrancy, which is an irrelevance to me. Only use words if absolutely necessary, as St Francis said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
FMF - I'm sure you are correct. However, there was another reason. By pointing out that Jesus is the offspring of Adam and Eve, Luke is drawing attention to the universality of Jesus' mission - hardly surprising given that Luke was a gentile himself.
So Matthew's genealogy is to illustrate that Jesus is the Son of David and Abraham and therefore the hoped for Messiah of Judaism. Luke's is to illustrate that He is the fulfilment of the hopes of all humanity. Matthew says "Jesus is the Messiah", Luke says "Jesus is a man".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024