Moderator: Watchman555
I sincerely believe that "adopted" is a poor rendering of a word that literally means "son placing", and not "adoption" as we normally think of it. If it did mean "adoption", then there is a contradiction to resolve, because it says in numerous places that we are "begotten". I strongly believe that Scripture shows that Yahweh is procreating His OWN KIND. We have gone through the Spirit-conception (at conversion - Justification); we are currently going through the Spirit-gestation period (growth in the womb - Sanctification); and we will eventually come to the Spirit-birth (resurrection - Glorification), when we will be truly & completely "Born Again" or "Born from Above" as literal Sons of the YHWH-Kind.We are the children of Yahweh, not because Yahweh is our literal father, but because we have been adopted by Yahweh and bought with the price of the precious blood of His Son, Yeshua the Messiah.
One of the most common objections to the virgin birth of Messiah is that the genealogies listed in the books of Matthew and Luke are in complete contradiction towards one another. Certain groups even go so far as to teach that if the New Testament writings cannot even get the genealogy of Messiah correct, then why should we trust anything else the New Testament has to teach?
The truth is this: this objection stems from a cursory review of the genealogies with presupposed biases against the doctrine of the virgin birth.
We should rather seek to harmonize the two to the best of our limited ability before claiming one or the other (or both) to be nothing short of spurious.
ErichMatthewJanzen wrote:Shalom, Eric,
I appreciate your detailed response to what I posted. Here are a few comments in regards to your responses.
1) Your explanation of the "Michal - Merab" issue was very good. I can see how the one I gave is not conclusive and most likely is incorrect. I will continue to study this further.
2) You made this statement: "There is NOTHING in the word "gennao" that suggest the possibility of an adoption." If this is the case what do you do with the Scriptures which refer to Yeshua as the only begotten Son of Yahweh? (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; 5:1) The Greek word for "only begotten" in John 3:16 is monogenes coming from two Greek words (1) mono, and (2) ginomai. This word is used in other passages like Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38 in reference to an only child of a parent. 1 John 5:1 uses the word gennao in reference to Yeshua being begotten of Yahweh.
3) Neither genealogy (Matthew or Luke) say that Joseph begat Yeshua. What do you make of this?
4) 1 Samuel 8:7 and 12:12 show that Yahweh was the King of Israel prior to Saul. 1 Chronicles 29:22-23 state that the "throne of David" was originally the "throne of Yahweh". It was Yahweh's throne because He was King prior to Saul. Thus Saul, David, Solomon, and every other king in Israel sat upon the "throne of Yahweh" when ruling, seeing Yahweh was the 1st King. All these kings were adopted by Yahweh yet permitted to rule on his throne. Yeshua is the begotten Son of Yahweh and would have the right to rule on the "throne of David" which is originally the "throne of Yahweh".
Your friend,
Matthew Janzen
I firmly believe that 1 genealogy is Joseph's, and the other is Mary's; i lean strongly toward Luke's being Mary's, because of the "childless curses" on both Jehoiakim & Jechoniah. But aside from that, there are arguments for reckoning it both ways, which i'll give briefly:
Matthew,
In your original posting, you make the case that the difference in the name of the two geneologies is the adoption aspect of Hebrew law. While this is an interesting prospect, how does it explain the true blood line of David.
Blood is blood. Taking ones family name does not change ones DNA and blood. I take it from your post that you believe that various blood lines (that of any tribe, even gentile?) can make up that blood line.
I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
LKDW
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests