BY Argie Simonis
In this message we will examine the genealogy of Jesus as presented to us by Matthew and Luke in their gospels.
Both genealogies are the same from Abraham to David, but from David to Jesus they are completely different, and this argument has been used by some to question the integrity of the Scriptures.
Despite these differences, both these genealogies were accepted by the Church, which indicates their reliability. And I will explain why.
Matthew records the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus (Matt. 1:1-16), while Luke traces it from Jesus to Adam (Luke 3:23-38).
Matthew traces the lineage of David through Solomon (Matthew 1:6),
"And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;" Matt. 1:6
while Luke traces the line through Nathan, another son of David:
"Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David," Luke 3:31
For Nathan as David's son, there is a reference in 2 Samuel:
"And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David." 2Sam. 5:13
"And these be the names of those that were born to him in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon," 2Sam. 5:14
Here is where the curse on the seed of Coniah mentioned in Jeremiah 22:24-30 is bypassed:
"As I live, said the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet on my right hand, yet would I pluck you there;" Jer. 22:24
"And I will give you into the hand of them that seek your life, and into the hand of them whose face you fear, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans."
Jer. 22:25
"And I will cast you out, and your mother that bore you, into another country, where you were not born; and there shall you die." Jer. 22:26
"But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return." Jer. 22:27
"Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? why are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?" Jer. 22:28
"O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD." Jer. 22:29
"Thus said the LORD, Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." Jer. 22:30
---------------
--- The reason for the two genealogies is that Matthew records the linage of Joseph while Luke records the linage of Mary. ---
In Luke's record it appears that Joseph was the son of Eli, and that Luke also follows the Joseph's linage, but this is not so.
-- There is Biblical reference in the book of Numbers, that a man's first son is counted in the mother's linage if her father had no sons --
"And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying," Num. 27:2
"Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons." Num. 27:3
"Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has no son? Give to us therefore a possession among the brothers of our father." Num. 27:4
"And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter." Num. 27:8
This explains the substitution of Joseph's linage for Mary's linage in Luke's account. Matthew writes:
"And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;" Μatt. 1:15
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Μatt. 1:16
But look what Luke writes:
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was THE SON OF HELI," Luke 3:23
"Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph," Luke 3:24
--- This means that JACOB was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and ELI was the father of Mary, who died without leaving a son, so Jesus as the firstborn of Joseph according to Num. 27:8, is recorded in the lineage of His mother, Mary. ---
Luke, in addition to being a physician and writer, is considered by modern scholars to be a historian. And the record of the genealogy of Jesus that he makes from the side of Mary's linage, is more appropriate, since Jesus was the SEED OF THE WOMAN, not the seed of the man:
"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and HER SEED; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Gen. 3:15
-----------------
I would also like to expose a myth and present the truth:
I explained that according to Luke, Mary's father was Eli. According to tradition though, Joachim and Anna are her parents, and that information is taken from the 2nd century "First Gospel of James" and the 3rd century "Gospel of the Birth of Mary", which especially in the West, were explicitly referred to as apocryphal (non-canonical) gospels and were EXCLUDED FROM THE CANON.
According to these non-canonical sources, Anna was born in Bethlehem of Judea. She married Joachim and, although they enjoyed a rich and pious life in Nazareth, they were childless.
Joachim was condemned in the Temple for their barrenness, retired to the countryside to pray, while Anna, saddened by his disappearance and her barrenness, prayed to God that if he gave her a child, she would dedicate it in the service of the Lord.
So according to the myths, they both received a vision of an angel, who announced that Anna would miraculously conceive and give birth to a child. The couple rejoiced at the birth of their daughter, whom Anna named Mary. When the child was three years old, Joachim and Anna, fulfilling her promise to God, brought Mary to the temple in Jerusalem, where they left her to grow up.
The story of the life of Joachim and Anna bears many similarities to the Old Testament story of the barren Anna and the conception of Samuel (1 Samuel 1), where she dedicated her child to the service of God.
According to later myths, Joachim died shortly after Mary's birth, and Anna remarried, after the encouragement by the Holy Spirit,.
Some traditions hold that Anna in her supposed second marriage became the grandmother of the Apostles John and James (sons of Zebedee), Simon, Judas and James the Younger (son of Alphaeus) and also of James, the "brother of the Lord."
The worship of Anna was fervent in the Eastern church as early as the 4th century, and many churches, (the first dating from the 6th century), were built in her honor.
In the early 8th century Pope Constantine probably introduced her devotion to Rome, while the worship of Joachim was introduced to the West in the 15th century.
The "First Gospel of James" became the foundation for the establishment of the liturgical feasts of the "Nativity of the Virgin" (September 8) and the "Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary" (December 8), things that are totaly against the teachings of the Bible.
The dedication of Mary in the Temple became so important in church teaching that by 1585 Pope Sixtus V included in the Western church calendar the liturgical feast of the Entry of the Virgin (November 21).
This position of the Western Church was based on the work
Decretum Gelasianum, which designated a long list of scriptures and considered those texts as "composed or recognized by heretics or schismatics."
The Decretum Gelasianum commented that the books in this list of apocryphal writings "are by no means accepted by the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church"
----------
In summary,
all the information about Joachim and Anna that presents them as Mary's parents and all the traditions and myths introduced by the Church surrounding their lives, are based on the false "Gospel of the Infancy" of false-Thomas and the "First Gospel of James", respectively.
Although they were considered apocryphal and non-canonical in the West, they were extremely well received in the Christian East.
No comments:
Post a Comment