Be it unto Me According to Thy Word


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is a conundrum for you that I came across while studying Lesson 2 of "Come Follow Me" (Matthew 1 and Luke 1):

  • On the one hand The Gospel According to St Matthew was reportedly written for a Jewish audience, and the first chapter was written from the perspective of Joseph, the husband of Mary,, and contained his genealogy. 
  • On the other hand, The Gospel According to St Luke was written for a general audience, including Gentiles, and the first chapter was written from the perspective of Mary and Elizabeth, and a later chapter contained the genealogy of Mary.
  • Yet, the genealogy in Matthew (Joseph's genealogy) contains the names of 4 women, which thing was expressly forbidden in ancient Jewish law, while the genealogy in Luke (Mary's genealogy) contains the names of no women, including Mary.
  • Why do you suppose that is?

In short, why would a record written for Jews from a male perspective contain the forbidden names of women in a man's genealogy, while a record for Jews and Gentiles written from a female perspective contain no women' names in a woman's genealogy?

I have my suspicions, but I am interested to see what you think.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to the mystery,  the 4 women named (or intimated) in Joseph's genealogy are Thamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary.

Why are these 4 women mentioned as opposed to others? Do these 4 women have something in common besides being female?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

Adding to the mystery,  the 4 women named (or intimated) in Joseph's genealogy are Thamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary.

Why are these 4 women mentioned as opposed to others? Do these 4 women have something in common besides being female?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just a guess: The deviation from tradition, aside from making just that point of fulfilling the law, is used to emphasize the legitimacy of the line where there may have been some question. The mention of Thamar by juxtaposition accentuates the legitimacy of the Phares line; the mention of Ruth the legitimacy of the Obed line (while recognizing that Ruth was not of Israel); Bathsheba is not named but Solomon is and he is the legitimate line (the Lord has also descended from below all things and well as from above all things); the mention of Mary accentuates that Joseph did not sire Jesus.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Just a guess: The deviation from tradition, aside from making just that point of fulfilling the law, is used to emphasize the legitimacy of the line where there may have been some question. The mention of Thamar by juxtaposition accentuates the legitimacy of the Phares line; the mention of Ruth the legitimacy of the Obed line (while recognizing that Ruth was not of Israel); Bathsheba is not named but Solomon is and he is the legitimate line (the Lord has also descended from below all things and well as from above all things); the mention of Mary accentuates that Joseph did not sire Jesus.

That is a fascinating perspective.

I can see why Mary may have been mentioned on that basis, since even though it is Joseph's genealogy, Joseph isn't Christ's biological father.

However, as you noted, Ruth was a GEntile (she was from Moab). So, I don't see your reasoning holding here.

And, while Bathsheba wasn't explicitly named, she was referred to as the wife of Uriah. More to the point, Mary's genealogy diverts from Joseph's just after David (Mary descended from Nathan, the son of David--though I am not sure who Nathan's mother was; and Joseph was descended from Solomon. So, I am not sure your reasoning holds here either.

As for Thamar, it is interesting that you used the word "legitimacy" since she was the widow of 2 of Judah's sons when Judah impregnated her after securing her services thinking she was a prostitute. In other words, Phares and his twin brother were conceived out of wedlock--i.e. illegitimately--by Judah and Thamar.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, wenglund said:

That is a fascinating perspective.

I can see why Mary may have been mentioned on that basis, since even though it is Joseph's genealogy, Joseph isn't Christ's biological father.

However, as you noted, Ruth was a GEntile (she was from Moab). So, I don't see your reasoning holding here.

And, while Bathsheba wasn't explicitly named, she was referred to as the wife of Uriah. More to the point, Mary's genealogy diverts from Joseph's just after David (Mary descended from Nathan, the son of David--though I am not sure who Nathan's mother was; and Joseph was descended from Solomon. So, I am not sure your reasoning holds here either.

As for Thamar, it is interesting that you used the word "legitimacy" since she was the widow of 2 of Judah's sons when Judah impregnated her after securing her services thinking she was a prostitute. In other words, Phares and his twin brother were conceived out of wedlock--i.e. illegitimately--by Judah and Thamar.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Some Jews may have taken exception to Ruth being a gentile and so the “elephant in the room” is acknowledged. I understand that in the halakhic (Oral Torah) tradition, the mother and not the father determines whether the child is a Jew. The Gospel of Matthew was written about the same time the Oral Torah was committed to writing and/or maybe subsequent versions added her to disabuse the Jews this particular sensitivity under the fulfillment of the law. Perhaps all the women's names were added much later but still for the same reasons.

I’m thinking that referencing Bathsheba is a testament that the Lord descended below (and from below) all things in that His mortal lineage was the product of adultery and murder; and Mary as a testament that He ascended (and ascended above) all things by virtue of His miraculous conception birth.

I think we can assume Nathan David’s son came from a morally more legitimate marriage.

My error on Phares since I didn’t delve too deeply into this—so thank you for the correction! As a result, I don’t have an idea about that except it is another indicator that Christ has descended below all things (similar to the reason to refer to Bathsheba). Or perhaps it serves as a reminder for the need for the Jews to have humility and remember God’s grace.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the whole genealogy thing interesting.  I agree the name dropping legitimizes his royal line.  

But as we all know, his real patriarchal line is very short & way more impressive —> God.

I'm not even sure if Mary's genealogy is legitimate. 

Most assume that Jesus is the zygote from the union of an immortal sperm with a mortal egg.  I think that the donor of the egg that produced Jesus is from Heavenly Mother.

And that Mary is a surrogate mother - Alma 7:10

Quote

And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, zil said:

You guys ever consider that maybe it was just for the sake of clarity - as in "this guy named John, son of this wife; not that guy name John, son of that other wife"?

I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense--except that there are multiple links in Joseph's genealogical chain, where the men had multiple wives and numerous concubines, with no mention (no clarification) of which of the many women was the mother.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Cool! Although, wasn't Christ both divine and mortal, and if partly mortal, how could he recieve that mortality through his heavenly mother?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

He was 100% divine and 100% mortal.  Not 50/50.

The 50/50 concept is an easy conclusion to jump to, especially when we have the Greek mythology background to draw upon.  But I don’t think Elohim was a galavanting Greek god and Jesus Christ is not a hero like Hercules. 

I think it is much more reasonable that Jesus Christ’s parentage was Heavenly Father and Mother and that the royal seed was placed by the Holy Ghost into the Virgin Mary.  

Because Mary was mortal her blood nurtured the holy seed thus Christ was mortal.  

Christ was able die because He was mortal.  He was able to resurrect because he possessed the priesthood keys to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Some Jews may have taken exception to Ruth being a gentile and so the “elephant in the room” is acknowledged. I understand that in the halakhic (Oral Torah) tradition, the mother and not the father determines whether the child is a Jew. The Gospel of Matthew was written about the same time the Oral Torah was committed to writing and/or maybe subsequent versions added her to disabuse the Jews this particular sensitivity under the fulfillment of the law. Perhaps all the women's names were added much later but still for the same reasons.

I’m thinking that referencing Bathsheba is a testament that the Lord descended below (and from below) all things in that His mortal lineage was the product of adultery and murder; and Mary as a testament that He ascended (and ascended above) all things by virtue of His miraculous conception birth.

I think we can assume Nathan David’s son came from a morally more legitimate marriage.

My error on Phares since I didn’t delve too deeply into this—so thank you for the correction! As a result, I don’t have an idea about that except it is another indicator that Christ has descended below all things (similar to the reason to refer to Bathsheba). Or perhaps it serves as a reminder for the need for the Jews to have humility and remember God’s grace.

My suppositions are similar to yours in that I believe that Matthew was helping to transition the Jewish disciples from the old to the new law, the old ways to the new ways, which I believe included elevating women to their rightful place alongside men. Luke didn't need to include the women in the genealogy because he was writing to a Gentile audience, and besides, his account of the Saviors birth was written from two women's perspective.

As for descending below, I agree with you, though I would put it another way:.

What each of the four women have in common is "illegitimacy" under Jewish law. Thamar and Bathsheba conceived their children out of wedlock and through adultery. As a non-Jew, Ruth conceived illegitimately outside the Israelite race. And Mary conceived while espoused to another man. At least 3 of these offenses, including Mary, were worthy of stoning under old Jewish law.

And, while I don't believe that the women were included in Joseph's genealogy as a way of sanctioning or encouraging illegitimate births, I believe it suggest that since Christ was able to gain perfection in spite of impurity in his blood lines, our impure bloodlines, and even our impure blood, will not prevent us from achieving perfection through Christ-.

So, let us -Come Follow Him?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

He was 100% divine and 100% mortal.  Not 50/50.

The 50/50 concept is an easy conclusion to jump to, especially when we have the Greek mythology background to draw upon.  But I don’t think Elohim was a galavanting Greek god and Jesus Christ is not a hero like Hercules. 

I think it is much more reasonable that Jesus Christ’s parentage was Heavenly Father and Mother and that the royal seed was placed by the Holy Ghost into the Virgin Mary.  

Because Mary was mortal her blood nurtured the holy seed thus Christ was mortal.  

Christ was able die because He was mortal.  He was able to resurrect because he possessed the priesthood keys to do so.

Fascinating!  

Actually, I didn't specify a percentage--the term "part" not only leaves the percentage unspecified, but also leaves unspecified what is the "whole" of which the immortality and mortality are part.

Interestingly enough, I believe that a part of mankind is 100% divine/immortal (i.e. the spirit), and part of mankind is 100% mortal (the body or flesh)

Granted,  I suspect you are speaking about the body/flesh of Christ as differentiated from the rest of mankind.

There is something quite appealing about what you propose--and this on a number of levels and in multiple ways, which tie in nicely with the atonement..

However, there is at least one other sticking point. If the spirits of all mankind are the literal children of divine parents, this would suggest that the offspring of resurrected  (spiritual) parents are spirit personages rather than personages of flesh and bones. If so, then how did the baby Jesus become clothed with flesh?

But, we digress. ;)

T%hanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

That is a fascinating perspective.

I can see why Mary may have been mentioned on that basis, since even though it is Joseph's genealogy, Joseph isn't Christ's biological father.

However, as you noted, Ruth was a GEntile (she was from Moab). So, I don't see your reasoning holding here.

And, while Bathsheba wasn't explicitly named, she was referred to as the wife of Uriah. More to the point, Mary's genealogy diverts from Joseph's just after David (Mary descended from Nathan, the son of David--though I am not sure who Nathan's mother was; and Joseph was descended from Solomon. So, I am not sure your reasoning holds here either.

As for Thamar, it is interesting that you used the word "legitimacy" since she was the widow of 2 of Judah's sons when Judah impregnated her after securing her services thinking she was a prostitute. In other words, Phares and his twin brother were conceived out of wedlock--i.e. illegitimately--by Judah and Thamar.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One other idea to consider, even though Tamar and Bathsheba conceived out of wedlock, if they were sealed to their first husband, (no mention of excommunication) their illegimate children would still be considered born in the covenant. If Ruth was sealed to either her first or second husband, her offspring would be born in the covenant. So, Jesus’ lineage is of covenant lineage. The same with Joseph and Mary’s also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, classylady said:

One other idea to consider, even though Tamar and Bathsheba conceived out of wedlock, if they were sealed to their first husband, (no mention of excommunication) their illegimate children would still be considered born in the covenant. If Ruth was sealed to either her first or second husband, her offspring would be born in the covenant. So, Jesus’ lineage is of covenant lineage. The same with Joseph and Mary’s also.

I like the way you tied this into covenants. I just wonder, though, if a women, today, who is married in the temple, has an adulterous affair, and gets pregnant, is the child of that affair considered born under the covenant? It would seem to me that that the covenant was broken by the adultery.

However, if it is the later, and the child isn't born under the covenant, the good news is that, because of Chris, and even given the illegitimate links in his genealogy, his atoning sacrifice, and by way of modern temple ceremonies, illegitimate births (including those in Christ's genealogy) can be made legitimate and brought under the covenant. This is good news for me since at least one of my grandparents was born illegitimately.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I like the way you tied this into covenants. I just wonder, though, if a women, today, who is married in the temple, has an adulterous affair, and gets pregnant, is the child of that affair considered born under the covenant? It would seem to me that that the covenant was broken by the adultery.

However, if it is the later, and the child isn't born under the covenant, the good news is that, because of Chris, and even given the illegitimate links in his genealogy, his atoning sacrifice, and by way of modern temple ceremonies, illegitimate births (including those in Christ's genealogy) can be made legitimate and brought under the covenant. This is good news for me since at least one of my grandparents was born illegitimately.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Today, if a woman is sealed to a man, as long as the woman has not been excommunicated, her illegitimate child/ren would still be born in the covenant. The children are protected by the sealing covenant. If the woman has been excommunicated then the children would not be born in the covenant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I wasn't aware that a Study Board has been set up for discussing Come Follow Me lessons, including a thread for the lesson I am here discussing.

Now that I am aware of it, when the discussion of my conundrum  is completed here , I plan to head over there for addition explorations, and I invite others to go there as well.

I really appreciate the participation. I have learned a lot.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, classylady said:

Today, if a woman is sealed to a man, as long as the woman has not been excommunicated, her illegitimate child/ren would still be born in the covenant. The children are protected by the sealing covenant. If the woman has been excommunicated then the children would not be born in the covenant.

That is good to know. I learned something else new today.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

Fascinating!  

Actually, I didn't specify a percentage--the term "part" not only leaves the percentage unspecified, but also leaves unspecified what is the "whole" of which the immortality and mortality are part.

Interestingly enough, I believe that a part of mankind is 100% divine/immortal (i.e. the spirit), and part of mankind is 100% mortal (the body or flesh)

Granted,  I suspect you are speaking about the body/flesh of Christ as differentiated from the rest of mankind.

There is something quite appealing about what you propose--and this on a number of levels and in multiple ways, which tie in nicely with the atonement..

However, there is at least one other sticking point. If the spirits of all mankind are the literal children of divine parents, this would suggest that the offspring of resurrected  (spiritual) parents are spirit personages rather than personages of flesh and bones. If so, then how did the baby Jesus become clothed with flesh?

But, we digress. ;)

T%hanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I wasn’t specifing percentages to quibble with you.  I am taking umbrage with a doctrine that had been taught many decades ago which continues to be propagated (without any scripture references to back up the premise btw).  

And I don’t think Jesus Christ’s body was significantly different than any other mortal.  But I know that his intelligence and spirit were light years ahead of us...  His power to atone likely did not come from a special body.  But originated instead from his intellect, will, and spiritual prowess; as well as prior experiences and commitments...

Your last question is excellent and you are absolutely correct.  Resurrected Celestial parents produce spirit children (the specifics of which, are totally unknown to us mortals).

Anyway, just for arguements sake let us assume that my premise is correct (that Jesus’s true parentage is our Heavenly Parents). One way to solve the delimma would be to give Elohim (plural) the ability to change their bodies from Immortal to mortal at will - and back again.  I can think of a way to accomplish this goal without much difficulty, and there is abundant scripture to bolster this proposal.

If this scenario is correct, it fixes many problems...

There are other sticking points, but I assume that Elohim has many powers and solutions that we are totally unaware of...

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I wasn’t specifing percentages to quibble with you.  I am taking umbrage with a doctrine that had been taught many decades ago which continues to be propagated (without any scripture references to back up the premise btw).  

Your last question is excellent and you are absolutely correct.  Resurrected Celestial parents produce spirit children (the specifics of which, are totally unknown to us mortals).

Anyway, just for arguements sake let us assume that my premise is correct (that Jesus’s true parentage is our Heavenly Parents). One way to solve the delimma would be to give Elohim (plural) the ability to change their bodies from Immortal to mortal at will - and back again.  I can think of a way to accomplish this goal without much difficulty, and there is abundant scripture to bolster this proposal.

If this scenario is correct, it fixes many problems...

There are other sticking points, but I assume that Elohim has many powers and solutions that we are totally unaware of...

If both Parents have the ability to change their bodies from Immortal to mortal, and the conception arose from the latter, do you have a fully mortal zygote or one that can also flip-flop back and forth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If both Parents have the ability to change their bodies from Immortal to mortal, and the conception arose from the latter, do you have a fully mortal zygote or one that can also flip-flop back and forth?

I don’t have the power to become immortal.

But... If I was lucky enought to find the Garden of Eden and could wreastle with and beat a Cherubim with a flaming sword, I might could find a way...  

Unlikely :) 

But then that would fusterate the plan of salvation. Guess I won’t go on that expedition. 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense--except that there are multiple links in Joseph's genealogical chain, where the men had multiple wives and numerous concubines, with no mention (no clarification) of which of the many women was the mother.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But maybe it only matters if multiple wives happened to have sons with the same name.  As long as each son had a unique name, who the mother was wouldn't matter (so to speak).  Though I suppose if who the mother was never, ever mattered - as in, they never kept the genealogy of women (but then how did they know Elisabeth was a daughter of Aaron, and how did they know the mothers of the sons in this genealogy?), then yes, these are weird exceptions - perhaps due to their unique places in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share