In the meantime, I've been doing some rethinking of Luke's genealogy because of a phrase that is inserted in his text and also the Greek word that indicates "son" in that passage.
These thoughts and reflections were spurred by my reading of some old apologetics I found in a box I had at home that I found over break. I propose these reflections here because I wonder if there are any weight to the thoughts that my reading spurred.
In Luke 3, the beginning of the text reads:
"Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli..." (Luke 3:23 NRSV).
In this passage, the Greek isn't as certain as the English translation makes it out to be. The Greek reads:
" Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ"
The important part about this phrase is that it translates into "And when Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph (as was thought) of Eli"
Thus one can argue that Luke is tracing Jesus' lineage through his mother's side (Mary) and that Jesus was a descendant of Heli/Eli because "υἱός" has this wider meaning inferring descendant. Thus, Jesus still isn't Joseph's son but, according to Luke, is the literal "Son of God" via the virgin birth.
Therefore, Jesus' lineage in Luke can be seen as being traced through Mary's side and Jesus' lineage in Matthew being traced through Joseph's side. In either account, Jesus is not his blood son but rather his adopted son while God is the true father.
But, honestly, I think I may be begging the question with the text here a little bit.
Nonetheless, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth isn't that important anyway because it strangles the meaning out of what Jesus did and who he was. There are also other problems with the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke like where Jesus' parents lived (Nazareth or Bethlehem), where was the family during Jesus' first days (being dedicated at the Temple or fleeing from the massacre to Egypt), and so on.
These are all my musings - feel free to tear my argument apart.
Posts
2 comments:
As we talked about on the phone a couple of weeks ago, I don't know if the factual basis for the virgin birth is what is important in the text. The question that arises in my mind after reading this passage is
"What is the importance of Jesus being born of a virgin in the larger context of who Jesus is and the authority of his message?"
You may have had some time to think about this and other things since you have published this post. I would love to hear some of your feedback.
Well, it seems to be important for Matthew and Luke but not so much for Mark.
I think, as John Shelby Spong said, it is the tracing of when Jesus was invested with the Divine part of his identity. For Paul, it seems to be during his resurrection, for Mark, it was at Jesus' Baptism, for Matthew and Luke, he was born divine, and for John, well, Jesus was in essence, the creative force of G-d becoming flesh.
One can see a linear progression of when and how Jesus was "Divine" as well as human. However, I think the principle idea that is in view here is that Jesus was so radically different in his proclamations and actions that he became to be known as Divine. Whether the man was actually G-d, well, that is rather hard to say because we are stuck in time.
The reflection seems to be if G-d were a human, how would He act? What would He teach? Who would She care for?
I may have danced around your question but I hope this is useful reflection and feedback.
Thanks!
Post a Comment