Magus55

Because David is an ancestor of both Mary and Joseph. Luke details the biological geneology of Mary, from Adam to David, and David to Mary. Matthew details the legal geneology of Abraham to David, and David to Joseph. Jesus is a descendant of David both biologically and legally.

Secular Pinoy

Are you still claiming that crap? Where's the biblical evidence for this? It's quite clear that Luke 3:23 says it's Joseph's genealogy. Read: Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli. Where's Mary? Where? This argumentum ad nauseam of yours is getting really old.

Magus55

supposedly of joseph, meaning not biological father, but instead referring to Mary, since she is His biological parent. Mary is mentioned 11 times in Luke's geneology, and ends with the statement of Joseph not being Jesus' biological parent; implying that Mary is with the other verses mentioning her. Luke is through Mary, Matthew is through Joseph. If Luke intended his geneology to be through Joseph, as you seem to think, He wouldn't have said the supposed father of Jesus. Obviously a non-biological father, can't actually have a biological geneology to his son. And it makes sense that Luke would go through Mary instead of Joseph, since he was a physician, and would be more inclined to deal with biological ancestory instead of legal.

Mathetes

Well, Jesus does not answer the question, so that is why the ambiguity is there. And he is not mentioning at any point that the Israelites are not sons and daughters of David. He is only talking about the Messiah.

Right. So my interpretation is that the question ("David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?") is a rethorical one, meaning that Jesus was not expecting an answer, but trying to show the absurdity of the opposite point. Something like: "David calls him Lord. Of course he cannot be his son!".

I concede there is some ambiguity here, but I am not reading anything with my eyes shut, or trying to prove anything because I belong to an Atheist Conspiracy. I simply think this is the most natural reading of the text.

MortalWombat

Here is the geneology in Luke, Chap 3:
That is the whole geneology in Luke. Where exactly is Mary mentioned even once, let alone 11 times, in this geneology?

CJD

If it doesn't apply, please don't take it personally. Frankly, I have shown what the natural reading is, and have offered at least some semblance of textual/historical justification. I am therefore challenging what you deem to be the "natural reading" of the text. Our interpretations conflict. One of them must be wrong.

But the Messiah had to at least be an Israelite, no?


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CJD wrote:
The one who wishes to argue otherwise must show that Jesus was NOT answering the question: "How can David call his descendant Lord?" ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------


But your question here is different than the one I wrote above. You must show that the question I penned is NOT the one that Jesus was answering. I think it was the question he was answering because of the messianic expectations of the religious leaders of his day included a faulty ontological Christology. In other words, their views of the identity of the Messiah were only partially correct (they knew he must be from the lineage of David, but they did not expect him to be deity). They questioned Jesus, then Jesus returns the favor, showing them that the common view of the Messiah was too limited. I think Jesus is challenging their low Christology, you think Jesus is challenging their misconceptions as to his lineage. How does your interpretation fit into the context? How does your interpretation fit into the context of the other synoptics that record this event?

I will emend your statement in the previous post to show you what I think is going on here:

So my interpretation is that the question ("David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?") is a rethorical one, meaning that Jesus was not expecting an answer, but trying to show that despite the fact that earlier generations were regarded as greater and wiser than the present one (thus David would have been more important than any of his descendants), the Messiah is not simply a flesh-and-blood son of David but also the son of God and subsequently David's "Lord."

I have based my view on factual historical knowledge of the culture at hand. What have you based your interpretation on? Hence my scathing criticism.

Regards,

CJD

p.s. As to this genealogy stuff, I think it is quite clear that Luke's genealogy deals with Joseph, Jesus' supposed father, since it specifically (and terribly obviously) begins with "Joseph." The main difference between the two is that Luke traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam, while Matt traces it back to Abraham. Simply put, Matt is not giving direct ancestors but those who would have been legally in the line for the throne of David (thus keeping in line with Matt's "Jewish theme," emphasizing Jesus' identification with the nation of Israel). Luke, on the other hand, simply wished to identify Jesus with the entire world by tracing his lineage back to first man (note that Gentile inclusion into the kingdom of God is a big theme for Luke). Remember, genealogies in Scripture (or any ANE text for that matter) are anything but scientific, or pedantic historiography. They are in this case theological statements attempting to convey a theological message.

MortalWombat

I guess you could say that, given that Matt and Luke can't even agree on who Joseph's father was.

Magus55

The first few chapters of Luke, not the geneology list. As I said, Luke focused on the biological geneology, which is why he talks about Mary so much.

Magus55

Joseph's father was Jacob, Mary's father was Eli.

Mathetes

That is clearer. Thanks.

However, you are stating that we need to read this into the context of the culture. But your context seems not to be 1st-century Jewish but post 1st-century Christian, under which the divinity of Christ is obvious, and it so makes the natural reading. I would object that for a 1st-century Jew living in Palestine, the concept that a man (even the Messiah) was linked to God or even was the son of God was non-obvious, shocking or even blasfemous.

If this was indeed the point Jesus wanted to make in his teaching, I doubt that the average Jewish peasant would have understood that the answer to the question "how can David call him lord?" would be "because the Messiah is also divine somehow". At least Jesus would have gone ahead and explained it more, and not leave the open question. Like that, the teaching seems incomplete. I think context here plays against your interpretation.

I admit that the ambiguity is there, and I feel like splitting hairs. But I still believe that, if you clear your head from the Christian pre-conceptions, the passage makes more sense in my interpretation.