 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
pwelther
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Baton Rouge, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 12 |
| First Name: | Patricia | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Born Catholic, Spirit Filled |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 16th, 2008 02:18 pm |
|
Can someone explain the differences between the generology of Jesus between Matthew and Luke? In the research that I have done so far, I have found several explainations but I would like to know how the Church explains the differences.
Some of the explainations that I found were:
1) Luke's generology is of Mary and Matthew's was of Joseph
2) Both are of Joseph but the reference in Luke to Joseph being the son of Heli is because he was the son in law of Heli (Mary's father) so he could rightfully be called the son of Heli
3) Joseph's mother was married to Jacob but when Jacob died without children, Joseph's mother married Heli in a leverite marriage so Joseph was the legal son of Jacob but the genenic son of Heli.
4) Matthew traces the lineage of Joseph to king David through Solomon and Luke through Nathan. One explaination is due to the curse of Jehoiakim from Jeremiah 36:1-32 where Jehoiakim, the king desendent of David through Solomon, was cursed by God so that none of his children could sit on the throne of David. So God used the leverite marriage in 3) to allow Joseph to claim the throne of David without violating the curse of Jehoiaim.
My interest in this topic was peaked because it was proposed to me in my theology course that Joesph as the rightful heir to the throne of David. One proof was that the generology presented in both Gospels not only proves Jesus is the heir of David but also that so was Joseph (he had to have been or else he could not have passed it on to Jesus). Even through Joseph is not the true father of Jesus, he was the legal father who would have passed on his inheritance to Jesus.
Thanks so much for all insight.
Last edited on Sun Mar 16th, 2008 02:24 pm by pwelther
____________________
Patricia
"Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God." "I am making everything new!" Rev 21:3-5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 02:33 am |
|
pwelther wrote: Can someone explain the differences between the generology of Jesus between Matthew and Luke? I will leave it to others to deal with your specific questions, but keep in mind that Matthew and Luke were writing from very different perspectives, and writing to very different audiences.
Of all the gospels, Luke's Jesus is the most human. Luke is believed to have been a physician, possibly Mary's physician. He was a follower of Paul, but many of the episodes he recounts in his gospel may well have come from Mary. This is why he has so many details on the nativity that the other gospels lack. He was writing to a specific person, Theophilus, who may have been a gentile.
Matthew, on the other hand, was writing for a Jewish audience. He stresses the Jewishness of Jesus. He must establish to the Jewish people that Jesus is the rightful heir and the Messiah, so he must place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, and he must show that Jesus has a rightful claim to the throne of David through his legal Jewish father, Joseph. He also must show that if Jesus is to be recognized as high priest, he has an established claim to the Levitical priesthood.
Henry can comment more significantly on the necessity that Matthew show how Jesus fulfills the prophecies, and others will be able to address your points directly, but I think it is important to realize whenever we compare gospels that they were written by very different people and addressed to very different audiences, so they convey very different perspectives on the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ministry of Jesus.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
pwelther
Member
| Joined: | Fri May 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Baton Rouge, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 12 |
| First Name: | Patricia | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Born Catholic, Spirit Filled |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 02:45 am |
|
Rick,
Your points are very helpful. Thanks!
____________________
Patricia
"Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God." "I am making everything new!" Rev 21:3-5
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 07:26 pm |
|
Hi Patricia,
Excellent question. I haven't studied this myself (nor do I particularly wish to; it makes my head spin!), but you asked what the Church taught about this. I found an article in The Catholic Encyclopedia that gives a great amount of detailed explanation. Further related resources:
1) "New Light on the Genealogies of Jesus," John F. McCarthy.
2) "Genealogy of Jesus," Wibisono Hartono.
3) "The Genealogy of Jesus," Martin Mosebach.
4) "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," John A. Hardon, S.J. (Modern Catholic Dictionary).
5) "The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Through Mary," Bob Stanley.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Faith Admirer
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Florida USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Ryan | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Non-denominational Christian convert to Catholicism |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 07:26 pm |
|
I have always been very interested in this as well.
I believe I recently heard on Catholic Answers that #1 is not believed by most Catholic apologists today.
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17th, 2008 07:38 pm |
|
Hi Ryan,
From what I could make out in heavily scanning the articles I presented, this was one theory, but wasn't the consensus of the fathers of the Church, nor of exegetes today. It looks to be an extremely complex exegetical problem to work through. But it's not incapable of any solution.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
ordinary means
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | andy | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic in name only, now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 04:38 am |
|
| Number 1 is the reason I was given in 12 years of Catholic education.
|
|
|
Current time is 03:49 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
