6 deleted 488 characters in body
source | link

Greek syntax

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according toof Luke (cp. 3:23-38),1 the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is statingnotion that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gil'adGilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as, «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ ("son of"“son of”) precedes the name of eacheach father. So, it is understood as Gil'ad,Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir, the son of Menashe, i. (Formula: Ae., A son of B, [B]B son of C).

Another example is Num. 16:1Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and KohatKehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as, «Κορε υἱὸςυἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦυἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦυἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father in the genealogical series by υἱὸς/ υἱοῦa declension of the Greek word υἱός.

The problem is that υἱοῦa declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke'sLuke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there'sthere’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it'sit’s not unusual to see υἱὸςυἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. Luke 6:15) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν).2 But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

A rule, you say?

A Rule, You Say?

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughterdaughter of the succeedingfollowing name. Hence, when people read the following (Luke 3:24)in Luke 3:24,

24 Which was [the son]the son of Matthat, which was [the son]the son of Levi, which was [the son]the son of Melchi, which was [the son]the son of Janna, which was [the son]the son of Joseph, KJV, 1769

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38Luke 3:38, which states,

38 Which was [the son]the son of Enos, which was [the son]the son of Seth, which was [the son]the son of Adam, which was [the son]the son of God. KJV, 1769

and thus, it is believed that Luke wrote that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy.

and thus, it is believed that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy. However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2Gen. 36:2:

2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; KJV, 1769

IWe must ask, "Who“Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite"Hivite? Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, "It“It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon'sZibeon’s daughter."

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp.anyone’s Gen. 36:24)daughter.3 So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and the same Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah'sAnah’s father (cp. Gen. 36:24),4 and thus, Aholibamah'sAholibamah’s grandfather).

Therefore, there is no reason to assumeassume, especially in light of the absence of υἱοῦ before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, [B]B is the son of C, [C]C is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assumingassuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is notnot evidence of such a rule.

If Joseph is not Heli's son, then who is?

If Joseph is not Heli’s son, Then Who Is?

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man'sman’s father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man'sman’s son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David,5 but also the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1),6 even though neither were Jesus'Jesus’ direct, biological father.

In Luke 3:32 states23, it is written,

καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ23 And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli,

And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] sonΚΓʹ καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli...NA28

Let us consider the notion that Luke intentionallyintentionally omitted υἱός from each father and only included it after Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) and before Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ). Again, it wasn'twasn’t normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. My belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of:

Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Janna... (Luke 3:24)

  • Matthat
  • Levi
  • Melchi
  • Janna

...all all the way to...

Enos, Seth, and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

  • Enos
  • Seth

The Nativity

and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God.7

Is Jesus the son of God? Well, of course. If there's anything that a Christian should believe, it's that.

The Nativity

Is Jesus the son of God? The books of the Bible unanimously declare him to be so. In fact, if we actually take a step back and read the narrative --- again, taking a step back --- you'llone will see that it was Luke'sLuke’s very intent to declare Jesus as the son of God, rather than Adam.

In Luke 1, it is written,

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin'svirgin’s name [was]was Mary.... (Luke 1:26-27)KJV, 1769

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the the SonSon of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (Luke 1:31-32)KJV, 1769

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)KJV, 1769

So, theThe angel says that Jesus will be "the“the Son of the Most High"High” (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the“the Son of God"God” (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God God the Father is Jesus'Jesus’ actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. John 3:16).

AgainTo reiterate, Luke commences his very gospel by demonstrating that Jesus is truly and literally the Son of God. But, he does not stop there.

ButIn chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus.8 He writes that “Joseph and his mother marvelled...” (rather than “his father and mother”),9 and he does not stop therewrites that Jesus tells his mother, “...I must be about my Father’s business...”10

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus (Luke 2:7). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") (Luke 2:33), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." (Luke 2:49).

Baptism

Baptism

Luke also emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the son of God during the baptism narrative in Luke 3.

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luke 3:22-23)

Of course, it was God the Father who declared to Jesus, "You“You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

THEN” Then, just one verse later, Luke begins the genealogy. Again, looking at this from the big picture, youone can see that Luke'sLuke’s very intent was to describe Jesus as being God'sGod’s son. This is accomplished in the narratives of the nativity, baptism, and finally, the genealogy (chapters 1-3Luke 1–3).

Not only does Luke focus on Jesus being God'sGod’s son, but he also focuses especially on Mary. On the other hand, if you read Matthew'sMatthew’s narrative, he focuses especially on Joseph. Hence, we need to understand that Luke'sLuke’s genealogy is of Mary, and that Jesus is the son of God (not Adam). Accordingly, Jesus is Heli'sHeli’s son, because Heli is his grandfather (Mary'sMary’s father).

This is actually provenmay be corroborated by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam“Miryam, daughter of Eli") (Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, GemaraEli”).11

Here is theIn his commentary of John Lightfooton Luke 3:23, John Lightfoot wrote,12

Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader'sreader’s mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: "Jesus“Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph'sJoseph’s pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too.

For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam 'the‘the son of God'God’ too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, "This“This is my Son," was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman.

And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother'smother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi"; and so of the rest... Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, “Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi”; and so of the rest...

Jesus is descended from David via his mother Mary, who was of the tribe of YehudaJudah and thus physically descended from David. This fulfills God'sGod’s promise to David that the fruit of his loins would reign on his throne forever. Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status, and thus the right to the Davidic throne, is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus.13


References

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his motherLightfoot, John. Tribal status is actually passed paternallyHorae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations. Trans. SoGandell, how then does Jesus inherit the throneRobert. Vol. 3. Oxford: UP of David? AdoptionOxford, in1859.

Footnotes

1 Luke 3:23–38
2 cp. Luke 6:15. However, he includes the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesusdefinite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν.
3 cp. Gen. 36:24
4 (Rom. 8:15-17)ibid.
5 cp. Matt. 1:1
6 ibid.
7 Luke 3:38
8 Luke 2:7
9 Luke 2:33
10 Luke 2:49
11 Tractate Chaggiga, Chapter 2, Folio 11a, Halakha 2, Gemara; cp. Lightfoot, p. 55
12 p. 54
13 Rom. 8:15–17

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according to Luke (cp. 3:23-38), the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is stating that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gil'ad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as, «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ ("son of") precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gil'ad, the son of Makhir, and Makhir, the son of Menashe. (Formula: A, son of B, [B] son of C).

Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kohat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as, «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father by υἱὸς/ υἱοῦ.

The problem is that υἱοῦ does not precede the name of each father in Luke's genealogy. In a genealogy, where there's a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it's not unusual to see υἱὸς absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. Luke 6:15) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν). But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

A rule, you say?

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughter of the succeeding name. Hence, when people read the following (Luke 3:24),

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,

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,

Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

and thus, it is believed that Luke wrote that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy.

However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2.

Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

I ask, "Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite"? Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, "It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon's daughter."

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp. Gen. 36:24). So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah's father (cp. Gen. 36:24), and thus, Aholibamah's grandfather).

Therefore, there is no reason to assume, especially in light of the absence of υἱοῦ before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, [B] is the son of C, [C] is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is not evidence of such a rule.

If Joseph is not Heli's son, then who is?

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man's father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man's son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David, but also the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1), even though neither were Jesus' direct, biological father.

Luke 3:32 states,

καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ

And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli...

Let us consider the notion that Luke intentionally omitted υἱός from each father and only included it after Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) and before Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ). Again, it wasn't normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. My belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of:

Matthat, Levi, Melchi, Janna... (Luke 3:24)

...all the way to...

Enos, Seth, and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

The Nativity

Is Jesus the son of God? Well, of course. If there's anything that a Christian should believe, it's that.

In fact, if we actually take a step back and read the narrative --- again, taking a step back --- you'll see that it was Luke's very intent to declare Jesus as the son of God.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.... (Luke 1:26-27)

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (Luke 1:31-32)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

So, the angel says that Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the Son of God" (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God the Father is Jesus' actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. John 3:16).

Again, Luke commences his very gospel by demonstrating that Jesus is truly and literally the Son of God.

But, he does not stop there.

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus (Luke 2:7). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") (Luke 2:33), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." (Luke 2:49).

Baptism

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Luke 3:22-23)

Of course, it was God the Father who declared to Jesus, "You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

THEN, just one verse later, Luke begins the genealogy. Again, looking at this from the big picture, you see that Luke's very intent was to describe Jesus as being God's son. This is accomplished in the narratives of the nativity, baptism, and finally, the genealogy (chapters 1-3).

Not only does Luke focus on Jesus being God's son, but he also focuses especially on Mary. On the other hand, if you read Matthew's narrative, he focuses especially on Joseph. Hence, we need to understand that Luke's genealogy is of Mary, and that Jesus is the son of God (not Adam). Accordingly, Jesus is Heli's son, because Heli is his grandfather (Mary's father).

This is actually proven by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam, daughter of Eli") (Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara).

Here is the commentary of John Lightfoot,

Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader's mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph's pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too.

For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam 'the son of God' too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, "This is my Son," was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman.

And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother's side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi"; and so of the rest...

Jesus is descended from David via his mother Mary, who was of the tribe of Yehuda and thus physically descended from David. This fulfills God's promise to David that the fruit of his loins would reign on his throne forever.

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus (Rom. 8:15-17).

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel of Luke,1 the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the notion that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”) precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir the son of Menashe, i.e., A son of B, B son of C.

Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father in the genealogical series by a declension of the Greek word υἱός.

The problem is that a declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’s not unusual to see υἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative.2 But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

A Rule, You Say?

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/daughter of the following name. Hence, when people read the following in Luke 3:24,

24 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, KJV, 1769

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. KJV, 1769

and thus, it is believed that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy. However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2:

2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; KJV, 1769

We must ask, “Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite? Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, “It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon’s daughter. Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone’s daughter.3 So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and the same Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah’s father4 and thus, Aholibamah’s grandfather).

Therefore, there is no reason to assume, especially in light of the absence of υἱοῦ before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, B is the son of C, C is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is not evidence of such a rule.

If Joseph is not Heli’s son, Then Who Is?

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man’s father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man’s son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David,5 but also the son of Abraham,6 even though neither were Jesus’ direct, biological father.

In Luke 3:23, it is written,

23 And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli,

ΚΓʹ καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ NA28

Let us consider the notion that Luke intentionally omitted υἱός from each father and only included it after Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) and before Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ). Again, it wasn’t normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. My belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of:

  • Matthat
  • Levi
  • Melchi
  • Janna

all the way to...

  • Enos
  • Seth

and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God.7

The Nativity

Is Jesus the son of God? The books of the Bible unanimously declare him to be so. In fact, if we actually take a step back and read the narrative, one will see that it was Luke’s very intent to declare Jesus as the son of God, rather than Adam.

In Luke 1, it is written,

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. KJV, 1769

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: KJV, 1769

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. KJV, 1769

The angel says that Jesus will be “the Son of the Most High” (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and “the Son of God” (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because God the Father is Jesus’ actual father. To reiterate, Luke commences his gospel by demonstrating that Jesus is truly and literally the Son of God. But, he does not stop there.

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus.8 He writes that “Joseph and his mother marvelled...” (rather than “his father and mother”),9 and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, “...I must be about my Father’s business...”10

Baptism

Luke also emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the son of God during the baptism narrative in Luke 3.

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Of course, it was God the Father who declared to Jesus, “You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Then, just one verse later, Luke begins the genealogy. Again, looking at the big picture, one can see that Luke’s very intent was to describe Jesus as being God’s son. This is accomplished in the narratives of the nativity, baptism, and finally, the genealogy (Luke 1–3).

Not only does Luke focus on Jesus being God’s son, but he also focuses especially on Mary. On the other hand, if you read Matthew’s narrative, he focuses especially on Joseph. Hence, we need to understand that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, and that Jesus is the son of God (not Adam). Accordingly, Jesus is Heli’s son, because Heli is his grandfather (Mary’s father).

This may be corroborated by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי (“Miryam, daughter of Eli”).11

In his commentary on Luke 3:23, John Lightfoot wrote,12

Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader’s mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: “Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God. For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph’s pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too.

For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam ‘the son of God’ too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, “This is my Son, was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman.

And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, “Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi”; and so of the rest...

Jesus is descended from David via his mother Mary, who was of the tribe of Judah and thus physically descended from David. This fulfills God’s promise to David that the fruit of his loins would reign on his throne forever. Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status, and thus the right to the Davidic throne, is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus.13


References

Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations. Trans. Gandell, Robert. Vol. 3. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.

Footnotes

1 Luke 3:23–38
2 cp. Luke 6:15. However, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν.
3 cp. Gen. 36:24
4 ibid.
5 cp. Matt. 1:1
6 ibid.
7 Luke 3:38
8 Luke 2:7
9 Luke 2:33
10 Luke 2:49
11 Tractate Chaggiga, Chapter 2, Folio 11a, Halakha 2, Gemara; cp. Lightfoot, p. 55
12 p. 54
13 Rom. 8:15–17

5 Rollback to Revision 3
source | link

Greek syntax

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according to Luke,1Luke 3:23–38 (cp. 3:23-38), the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is stating that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that GilʿadGil'ad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as, «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”"son of") precedes the name of eacheach father. So, it is understood as GilʿadGil'ad, the son of Makhir, and Makhir, the son of Menashe, i.e., (Formula: A, son of B, B[B] son of C).

Another example is Num. 16:1Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and KehatKohat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as, «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father by a declension of the Greek word υἱόςυἱὸς/ υἱοῦ.

The problem is that a declension of υἱόςυἱοῦ does not precede the name of each father in Luke’sLuke's genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’sthere's a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’sit's not unusual to see υἱόςυἱὸς absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. [Luke 6:15][4]Luke 6:15) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν). But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughter of the succeeding name. Hence, when people read the following ([Luke 3:24][5]Luke 3:24),

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of [Luke 3:38][6]Luke 3:38, which states,

However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of [Gen. 36:2][7]Gen. 36:2.

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp. [Gen. 36:24][8]Gen. 36:24). So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah's father (cp. Gen. 36:24), and thus, Aholibamah's grandfather).

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man's father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man's son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David, but also the son of Abraham ([Matt. 1:1][9]Matt. 1:1), even though neither were Jesus' direct, biological father.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.... ([Luke 1:26-27][10]Luke 1:26-27)

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: ([Luke 1:31-32][11]Luke 1:31-32)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. ([Luke 1:35][12]Luke 1:35)

So, the angel says that Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the Son of God" (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God the Father is Jesus' actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. [John 3:16][13]John 3:16).

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus ([Luke 2:7][14]Luke 2:7). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") ([Luke 2:33][15]Luke 2:33), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." ([Luke 2:49][16]Luke 2:49).

This is actually proven by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam, daughter of Eli") ([Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara][17]Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara).

Here is the commentary of [John Lightfoot][18]John Lightfoot,

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus ([Rom. 8:15-17][19]).


References

Footnotes


  Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus
 (Rom. 8:15-17).

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according to Luke,1Luke 3:23–38, the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is stating that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”) precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir the son of Menashe, i.e., A son of B, B son of C.

Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father by a declension of the Greek word υἱός.

The problem is that a declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’s not unusual to see υἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. [Luke 6:15][4]) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν). But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughter of the succeeding name. Hence, when people read the following ([Luke 3:24][5]),

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of [Luke 3:38][6], which states,

However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of [Gen. 36:2][7].

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp. [Gen. 36:24][8]). So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah's father (cp. Gen. 36:24), and thus, Aholibamah's grandfather).

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man's father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man's son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David, but also the son of Abraham ([Matt. 1:1][9]), even though neither were Jesus' direct, biological father.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.... ([Luke 1:26-27][10])

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: ([Luke 1:31-32][11])

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. ([Luke 1:35][12])

So, the angel says that Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the Son of God" (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God the Father is Jesus' actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. [John 3:16][13]).

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus ([Luke 2:7][14]). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") ([Luke 2:33][15]), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." ([Luke 2:49][16]).

This is actually proven by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam, daughter of Eli") ([Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara][17]).

Here is the commentary of [John Lightfoot][18],

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus ([Rom. 8:15-17][19]).


References

Footnotes


 
 

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according to Luke (cp. 3:23-38), the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is stating that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gil'ad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as, «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ ("son of") precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gil'ad, the son of Makhir, and Makhir, the son of Menashe. (Formula: A, son of B, [B] son of C).

Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kohat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as, «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father by υἱὸς/ υἱοῦ.

The problem is that υἱοῦ does not precede the name of each father in Luke's genealogy. In a genealogy, where there's a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it's not unusual to see υἱὸς absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. Luke 6:15) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν). But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughter of the succeeding name. Hence, when people read the following (Luke 3:24),

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,

However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2.

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp. Gen. 36:24). So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah's father (cp. Gen. 36:24), and thus, Aholibamah's grandfather).

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man's father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man's son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David, but also the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1), even though neither were Jesus' direct, biological father.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.... (Luke 1:26-27)

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (Luke 1:31-32)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

So, the angel says that Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the Son of God" (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God the Father is Jesus' actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. John 3:16).

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus (Luke 2:7). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") (Luke 2:33), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." (Luke 2:49).

This is actually proven by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam, daughter of Eli") (Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara).

Here is the commentary of John Lightfoot,

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus (Rom. 8:15-17).

4 deleted 1341 characters in body
source | link

Greek syntax

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according to Luke (cp. 3:23-38),1Luke 3:23–38, the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is stating that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gil'adGilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as, «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ ("son of"“son of”) precedes the name of eacheach father. So, it is understood as Gil'ad,Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir, the son of Menashe, i. (Formula: Ae., A son of B, [B]B son of C).

Another example is Num. 16:1Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and KohatKehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as, «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father by υἱὸς/ υἱοῦa declension of the Greek word υἱός.

The problem is that υἱοῦa declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke'sLuke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there'sthere’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it'sit’s not unusual to see υἱὸςυἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. Luke 6:15[Luke 6:15][4]) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν). But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughter of the succeeding name. Hence, when people read the following (Luke 3:24[Luke 3:24][5]),

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38[Luke 3:38][6], which states,

However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2[Gen. 36:2][7].

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp. Gen. 36:24[Gen. 36:24][8]). So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah's father (cp. Gen. 36:24), and thus, Aholibamah's grandfather).

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man's father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man's son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David, but also the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1[Matt. 1:1][9]), even though neither were Jesus' direct, biological father.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.... (Luke 1:26-27[Luke 1:26-27][10])

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (Luke 1:31-32[Luke 1:31-32][11])

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35[Luke 1:35][12])

So, the angel says that Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the Son of God" (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God the Father is Jesus' actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. John 3:16[John 3:16][13]).

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus (Luke 2:7[Luke 2:7][14]). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") (Luke 2:33[Luke 2:33][15]), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." (Luke 2:49[Luke 2:49][16]).

This is actually proven by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam, daughter of Eli") (Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara[Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara][17]).

Here is the commentary of John Lightfoot[John Lightfoot][18],

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus (Rom. 8:15-17[Rom. 8:15-17][19]).


References

Footnotes



Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according to Luke (cp. 3:23-38), the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is stating that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gil'ad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as, «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ ("son of") precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gil'ad, the son of Makhir, and Makhir, the son of Menashe. (Formula: A, son of B, [B] son of C).

Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kohat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as, «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father by υἱὸς/ υἱοῦ.

The problem is that υἱοῦ does not precede the name of each father in Luke's genealogy. In a genealogy, where there's a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it's not unusual to see υἱὸς absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. Luke 6:15) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν). But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughter of the succeeding name. Hence, when people read the following (Luke 3:24),

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,

However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2.

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp. Gen. 36:24). So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah's father (cp. Gen. 36:24), and thus, Aholibamah's grandfather).

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man's father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man's son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David, but also the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1), even though neither were Jesus' direct, biological father.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.... (Luke 1:26-27)

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (Luke 1:31-32)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

So, the angel says that Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the Son of God" (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God the Father is Jesus' actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. John 3:16).

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus (Luke 2:7). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") (Luke 2:33), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." (Luke 2:49).

This is actually proven by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam, daughter of Eli") (Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara).

Here is the commentary of John Lightfoot,

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus (Rom. 8:15-17).

Greek syntax

First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel according to Luke,1Luke 3:23–38, the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the assertion that Luke is stating that Joseph is the son of Heli.

Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”) precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir the son of Menashe, i.e., A son of B, B son of C.

Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father by a declension of the Greek word υἱός.

The problem is that a declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’s not unusual to see υἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative (cp. [Luke 6:15][4]) (however, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν). But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.

When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/ daughter of the succeeding name. Hence, when people read the following ([Luke 3:24][5]),

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of [Luke 3:38][6], which states,

However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of [Gen. 36:2][7].

Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone's daughter (cp. [Gen. 36:24][8]). So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah's father (cp. Gen. 36:24), and thus, Aholibamah's grandfather).

I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man's father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man's son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David, but also the son of Abraham ([Matt. 1:1][9]), even though neither were Jesus' direct, biological father.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.... ([Luke 1:26-27][10])

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: ([Luke 1:31-32][11])

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. ([Luke 1:35][12])

So, the angel says that Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and "the Son of God" (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because...God the Father is Jesus' actual father. For that reason, John in his gospel refers to Jesus as "the only-begotten Son of God| (ὁ υἱός ὁ μονογενής τοῦ θεοῦ; cp. [John 3:16][13]).

In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus ([Luke 2:7][14]). He writes that "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." (rather than "his father and mother") ([Luke 2:33][15]), and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, "...I must be about my Father's business..." ([Luke 2:49][16]).

This is actually proven by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי ("Miryam, daughter of Eli") ([Masekhet Chaggiga, Daf 11a, Ch. 2, Halakha 2, Gemara][17]).

Here is the commentary of [John Lightfoot][18],

Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus ([Rom. 8:15-17][19]).


References

Footnotes



3 added 15 characters in body
source | link
2 added 566 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link