Trey Smith
As we start into the New Testament, what's the first thing we're hit with in Matthew 1:1-18? The lineage of the baby Jesus through Joseph, his "father."
But wait a minute! According to our story, Joseph did not impregnate Mary, his betrothed. That work was done by the holy spirit. So, Mary is with child and yet she and Joseph have yet to consummate their relationship.
So, if Joseph is NOT the biological father of Jesus, what's the point in tracing the baby's lineage through Joseph's bloodline?
Even long ago, when I was a believer of this faith, this part of Matthew made no sense to me. The answers that church leaders provided didn't make any sense either. The ONLY way the listed lineage makes any sense at all is if Joseph is, in fact, the child's biological father! Then, and only then, does it makes sense to trace the bloodline back to Abraham.
To see what other questions I've asked about the Christian Bible, go here.
I suggest that designating Jesus as Joseph's heir is to connect Jesus to the house of David. From my understanding of Roman culture, a biological offspring was not de facto one's heir; one had to name (i.e. designate) someone as one's heir and successor. In a similar vein, by having Jesus designated as Joseph's son (or in a similar sense, Joseph designated as Jesus's father) Jesus is now connected to the house of David, biological relation or not, giving Jesus further legitimacy to his followers.
ReplyDelete- Khalil
But none of the people listed in the generation-to-generation links was adopted into the family tree. This list is about the bloodline and, since Jesus is not OF this bloodline, it makes little sense to connect him to it.
Delete