Matthew 1 gives the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph

Matthew 1:16: 
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23: 
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,

The contradiction in the references about the different fathers of Jospeh is caused by the general assumption that the Joseph mentioned in these two gospels is one and the same person, i.e. the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

For a solution to this apparent contradiction one must recognize that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are different in various points. They obviously serve different purposes and show that Jesus Christ is the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matthew) as well as the son of man (Luke). In Matthew therefore the genealogy leads from Abraham down to Jesus, in Luke however it goes back from Jesus beyond Abraham all the way back to the first man, Adam. In Matthew we have the lineage of Jesus’ ancestors through his mother Mary, in Luke however we have the genealogy via his supposed father Joseph. Both genealogies go back to king David, but through different sons of David. In Matthew, the rightful claim of Jesus to the throne of David is emphasized because he was by the descent of his mother Mary of the royal lineage of David (through Solomon); in Luke it is shown that even Joseph, Jesus’ “supposed father” was of the house of David (through David’s son Nathan).

That Matthew gives the genealogy of the lineage through Mary (and not that of her husband Joseph) becomes clear from the text itself which traces the line from Abraham to Jesus in 3 x 14 generations (Matthew 1:17). If one puts the generations mentioned in their proper order, there are 14 generations from Abraham to David; then from Solomon to Jechonias again 14 generations, but from Salathiel to Christ there would then only 13 (!) generations if the Joseph mentioned was the husband of Mary, but 14 generations if the Joseph mentioned was the father of Mary.

The word for “husband” in Matthew 1:16 in the Greek text (aner) and in the Aramaic text (gavra) first and foremost only designates an adult male person, and it can then according to the context be further defined (cp. Luke 24:19 — prophet; Acts 3:14 — murderer; Romans 7:2 — husband, etc.) In Matthew 1:19, the Aramaic text uses a different word for “husband” (bala) which is the proper word for “husband”. From the statement in Matthew 1:17 about the 14 generations in each of the 3 divisions of the genealogy, it is clear that the “Joseph” in Matthew 1:16 (“the husband of Mary”) could not have been her husband but must have been her father, and it would have been more accurate to translate the words used in Greek and Aramaic as “father”.

This way the records in Matthew are in harmony with each other, and the apparent contradiction between Matthew and Luke regarding the different fathers of Joseph is solved. Matthew speaks of Joseph, the father of Mary whose father was Jacob; Luke mentions Joseph, the husband of Mary whose father’s name was Heli.

Some other explanations given do perhaps explain the different “fathers” of Joseph, but still don’t solve the problem with the 14 generations mentioned, and therefore cannot be correct. They also rest on the assumption that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke gives the lineage of Mary. In Luke however, Mary isn’t even mentioned in his genealogy, and on the other hand Joseph, Mary’s husband, is not mentioned in the genealogy as the above study has shown. In reality, it is just opposite, and in Matthew we have the lineage through Mary, whereas Luke gives the lineage of Jesus’s supposed father Joseph.

Original article here

I’m only speaking the Truth!

We’ve all heard it. Someone will be there speaking at a pulpit, in a Youtube video, in a blog, podcast etc – and they take the time to explain just how correct they because they are speaking the truth. They tell us how they’re not like others who teach traditions of their churches, denominations, cultures, etc. No, these special folks are merely giving us the truth.

Honestly, whenever I hear someone say this kind of thing, it makes me weary. The fact is that every single one of us is affected and limited in some way when it comes to understanding things. We have all been shaped by our upbringing in particular cultures, or ability to speak specific languages, our experience of particular religious traditions, our access to information, etc. Whatever we now think is the pure truth could well be exposed in future once we learn more.

Another thing I want to say here is that I think many people have too low a view of church history. Though I’m not a Roman Catholic, I have much admiration for the point their apologists often make about Protestants trampling over millennia of Christian lived experience. The Reformation brought a lot of good into the western world, but it also unleashed a storm of personal interpretations which has given us the abundance of denominations we see today. Basically, anyone can decide that they have some special teaching that has somehow been missed by saints of old, and from there they gather followers and start a new church. Then someone else within that church does the same thing, starts a new church, etc.

I long for a time when Christians will learn to tolerate diversity of opinion while still being able to maintain doctrinal ‘purity’ on essential matters of the Faith. It seems like an impossible hope, but with God, all things are possible.

⁸ Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part. ¹⁰ But when that which is ^]perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
¹¹ When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. ¹² For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
¹³ And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13)

Give to whoever asks you

The Spirit of the Most High has begun to convict me regarding love and obedience of the Son. Specifically this command:

Matthew 5:42 HNV — Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.

It’s a simple teaching from the one we call Master. My prayer is that I will be able to obey from the heart, with His power. Not as a box-ticking thing (“see, I gave, so I’m righteous”) but as a manifestation of His power working in me.

How to identify Core biblical teachings

One of the things I look for in identifying core biblical teachings is whether the teaching is given by more than one writer and in more than one book or letter. If only one writer mentions it or if it’s only contained in one book or letter, then that should raise question marks. It doesn’t mean it’s not true, but it can’t be a foundational/ core teaching.

Secondly, the passages where the teaching is given should be given in as clear and plain language as possible. For example, a core teaching wouldn’t only be given in one or two ambiguous references in apocalyptic literature. Related to this, the passages should be as lengthy and detailed as possible so as to limit room for subjective interpretation.

One such core teaching that meets these criteria (at least when it comes to the apostolic writings/new testament) is that Yahshua died and was raised again and that believers in him have salvation. It’s one of the clearest teachings given at length in the gospels, in Acts, and in most of the epistles (possibly all of them)?

Reject Paul, you’ll probably reject Jesus

Rejecting Paul of Tarsus puts one in great danger of rejecting Jesus of Nazareth, in my opinion. Rejecting Paul means you have to reject the majority of the New Testament including the book of Acts which presents Paul as being a bonfide servant of Jesus. You then have to reject Luke which is basically the first part of Acts. You then should probably reject the Peter epistles, one of which cosigns Paul. It’s a path I’ve I’ve trodden before and I don’t wish others to do so without knowing the risks.

Paul says some things which are hard to understand, for sure. He says some things which appear to be anti Torah. He also clearly has disagreements with the Jerusalem brethren. But the early believers including the Twelve accepted him as an apostle, so who are we to think we know better than them.