Comments on: Jesus’ Female Ancestors

By: DKL

DKL — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 05:18:13 +0000

Wasn’t there a post at BCC by Bob Caswell about how he was related to Jesus?

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:03:49 +0000

The Word Biblical Commentary suggests the following theories:

(1) These women were sinners and including them points to a need for a Savior and also justify Christ’s defense of Mary’s alleged adultery (implicitly reminding them that David was descended from sexual sinners…).

(2) The four women were Gentiles so Matthew is establishing the propriety of the eventual inclusion of the Gentiles in Christ’s salvation.

(3) Matthew is showing that God often uses surprising and unlikely turns of events to bring about his will (e.g. Mary’s virgin birth).

By: grego

grego — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 22:45:26 +0000

They were aberrations to a normal lineage.

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:34:56 +0000

Space Chick: Some think that Luke is giving Mary’s genealogy. It doesn’t look that way in English, but in Luke 3:23 the phrase â€œthe sonâ€? (of Heli) is assumed by the translators. It is possible that this phrase means â€˜of the family of Heliâ€™, that it applies to Jesus, not Joseph, and that Heli is Maryâ€™s father. But who knows?

By: Space Chick

Space Chick — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:41:39 +0000

So what is Mary’s lineage then, if the one described here is Joseph’s?

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:47:39 +0000

Of course the whole idea of primogentiture is a little foreign to a Zion society, which by all accounts is more like a society of friends than the French monarchy. President Hinckley is an excellent example, as is the Savior himself.

It is eminently worth noting that the Melchizedek Priesthood is the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. That this is the Church of Jesus Christ. That we take upon *his* name. That the Lord is the ultimate servant, not the enlightened despot.

Why do we honor Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, George Washington and not Louis XIV; Kaiser Wilhelm; and Caesar Augustus? Is it perhaps that because the former had something greater in mind than their own personal glory? The welfare of the people perhaps?

By: Bro. Jones

Bro. Jones — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:38:39 +0000

#2: “As for the relevance of a genealogy, if our goal is to understand what Matthew was trying to teach us about Jesus, then *our* view of genealogies is not relevantâ€“all that matters is what *Matthew* thought about genealogies.” Oh, point taken. I was just suggesting that part of what you’re getting at is that *Matthew’s* audience placed great stock in geneaologies, which is part of why he put it in–it’s like the ritual beginning to a tale. You see the same thing in other ancient stories; I think specifically of ancient Scandinavian sagas, although they only tend to go back two generations when they introduce a person.

#3: What I meant was, “We modern types are not necessarily impressed (and shouldn’t be) at the fame or noteriety of a person’s ancestors.” Naturally geneaology is important in the modern Church’s mission, but we’re most interested in the biological/demographic details of our ancestors, not necessarily their pecking order in the hierarchy of ancient civilizations. We don’t have twenty-generation geneaologies preceding the introduction of new Apostles at conference, do we?

By: danithew

danithew — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:03:36 +0000

Julie, I re-read Matthew 1 just this last Sunday and had similar thoughts. These women really are interesting. I think Thamar (or Tamar) sticks out especially. But they are all interesting.

By: Kimball L. Hunt

Kimball L. Hunt — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:27:02 +0000

Julie: Brilliant. Stupendous. Thanks!

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:34:45 +0000

The Numbers account is one I did not recall, Julie, one that gives great support for the idea that a daughter may rule under the conventions of Jewish inheritance, if she has no brothers. (i.e. her prerogative is higher than that of her fathers brothers, or her grandfathers brethren, or their descendants).

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their fatherâ€™s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his fatherâ€™s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.
(Numbers 27:6-11)