After our discussion a couple of weeks ago about the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, my friend Daphne and I both realized this is the ancestry of Joseph. But since he was not Jesus' biological father, well, so what?
But I've been reading some Jewish apologetics recently, and now the significance of this genealogy is starkly clear. The Jews point out that ancestry is reckoned, in the Bible, through your father's line, and his father's, and so forth. So if Joseph is not Jesus' actual father in the flesh, then there's nothing to say He was descended from King David, as Messiah must be.
Ah, but that's just it! What does the Jew believe? If he believes Jesus was Joseph's biological son, then He was descended from David. Or if the Jew believes Jesus was born of a virgin - well, what does that say about Him?
So the genealogy makes its point either way.
Our Next Secretary of Defense
2 days ago
2 comments:
Another way of saying that is that Luke gives the "biological" line. This can be traced back to David. Since the throne went through the male line, Jesus, descended from David through his mother, was not a "legal heir" to the throne.
Matthew gives the "legal" line.
Joseph is perceived to be the father of Jesus so legally, He is an heir to the throne of David.
As you said, the point is made through both lines.
Yes, that's another way, and a very good way, of putting it. Thank you.
Post a Comment