another spot

I agree. I elimated it purely because it has a weird way of deadening colors. I don't have a concern about black other than the way I saw it used by mental patients. My shock about the posters was they had that same weird quality as the work of mental patients.

Larry, it may be you won’t find it. The PFAL book is not a transcript of the class. It has a lot, but not all. I remember it being taught because it drove me crazy for years. That is, I couldn’t make sense out of Romans because of it. I am sorry you’ve spent so much time looking for it and been unable to find it. Really the thrust of the thread isn’t particularly to discount VP. If it happens, it does. I guess I shouldn't have said he taught it since I can't document it.

My grandmother worked as an occupational therapist in a mental hospital when she was living, and was also an artist. She was the director for arts and crafts. I had ample opportunity to see the artwork of the patients during grade school and junior high. The work was every bit as disturbing as the patients. Every painting was dominantly black with little color. Fast forward to 1992. We are getting ready to run a class. A WC who had a little bit of artistic ability had made posters and since I was a TC and on crew I saw them. Well, they looked exactly like the artwork I’d seen in the mental hospital with very heavy use of black. Now I knew I wouldn’t be allowed to make them since I wasn’t WC and the decision had already been made who would, but I was so shocked I thought I should say something. Unbeknownst to me, anything Devine Design had come up with had already been cast off as evil and old wine skin. I say “did you know HQ teaches about using black in artwork?” I am thinking surely they must know, they took the ADV class. I caught wrath, screaming and carrying on that lasted two weeks. I never again mentioned black.

I am a female....lol No, I have none of the books, tossed them years ago. Even my very costly Univ. Life tapes. Larry, you posted in the other thread you had all that stuff on your computer. Did I mis-read it? VP taught sin in the blood stream in pfal. That much I remember. Totally irrelevant, but I read a verse the other day in the OT that blows away VP's assertion there is no degree of sin. I'll find it again. Deb

VPW and others taught sin nature is in the blood stream. There is no evidence for that position. There is no evidence it is genetic. That makes it necessary to reconsider sin nature. Romans makes clear a sin nature, so that rules out a nonexistence for it. That leaves the possibility of something subtracted (holiness/righteousness). Absent holiness of course leaves the mind subject to and even a proclivity for sin. Sin nature as something located in the physical body is a bit incomprehensible when one begins to read Romans. It would work much like a mind that is neutral that gets jumped by something in the physical body and causes it to sin. Sin dwelling in the flesh makes perfect sense if you understand your physical brain itself is flesh and your mind lacks righteousness/holiness. We know that it does because the Bible tells we acquired it via the new birth. When I get some time, I will post about blood. The conclusion of others that blood is sinful or contains sin I think is the opposite of what the Bible says.

Well I apologize. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I really tried not to sound angry, but I was. Wordwolf: I will derail long enough to express my thanks for your many, many hours of effort in posting that answered questions for me, set things in perspective and in general very healing to me personally to read as an ex-way. Thank you so much. Before I started this thread, I had pondered the thing long enough to reach one conclusion. Sin nature (as a genetic condition) in Mary plus holy sperm does not equal holy result. The first thought that crossed my mind is one or more components of the equation must not be correct. Even if you locate sin nature in the blood, there is still a problem. How do we commit sin? It’s via temptation and sort of natural tendency to do so according to Romans. That to me is more of a decision making or mental process. It seems to me the arena is the “soul life.” So then if sin is in the blood as a location or any genetic issue, how does that affect my mind? It dwells in the flesh according to Romans. Is that a figure of speech or a contradiction of in the blood or both. This has really been getting on my last nerve. I went over Romans 1-7 quite carefully several times. I could almost buy a genetic cause for death except that according to Genesis, it wasn’t so much something being done as something being withheld, ie the tree of life. What if sin nature isn’t something that was added, but the result of something subtracted, ie holiness/righteousness? The one thing that makes us righteous/holy now is the addition of holy spirit. We also get eternal life. Our minds still lack righteousness/holiness. Old man nature. So in that sense it dwells in us. Once Adam sinned, he was no longer holy, without sin. The judgment was death for everyone. Man would not be born righteous or holy. He would lack it. He would lack eternal life. Jesus was sent to give this back as a down payment, and later eternally. Because of the sin of Adam, God would not impart righteousness/holiness to Adam’s offspring. If death was judgment for disobedience, it wouldn’t make since to do so. His plan was redemption from sin (lack of holiness) and death (lack of eternal life). Sin and death go together. Righteousness/holiness and eternal life go together. The first Adam was created in the image of God. As such he had holiness and righteousness. The last Adam was holy at conception. Unlike the first Adam, he never sinned. It all fits together rather nicely, I think. If you leave sin as a genetic thing, there are several conundrums. There is no Scriptural proof it is genetic that I can find. There is no proof what I said is correct, but at least I didn’t add anything (I am supposing it’s added) to the Bible that isn’t there… I putting this out to test for flaws....or sanity check (lol).

Yes, exactly. Maybe I didn't read your post well enough. I am a speed reader, I do that sometimes.

Wordwolf is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. Nonetheless. “WordWolf, normally, in discussions of this sort the burden of proof rests upon the one making the assertion. I mean no offence to you but, you haven't adequately proven your claim (as far as I'm concerned).” (quote of Larry’s) Do you propose to set standards for discussions at GS? Normally according to who? “Try not to get too frustrated by those who don't readily see things from your perspective – your frustration will only make it more difficult for others to see things your way.” (quote of Larry’s) Do you propose to set standards for behavior vis a vis providing instruction for such? This isn’t a court of law. This isn’t a workplace. This is a forum. You are not in any position of authority over anyone here that I know of. We are all adults. No one is required to respond to you at all. (See forum rules). No one has to do anything to your satisfaction at all. Period. End of story. (See forum rules).

Wouldn't it be logical for Mary to tell Joseph herself? She had a visit by an angel. She was going to bear the Christ child. Why wouldn't she convey this very special information to Joseph? Especially knowing the law.

Likeaneagle, by all means share what you can come up with. I am pretty sure “innocent blood” is a figure of speech since others are referred to that way. Christ as THE innocent blood simply means it is emphatic he never committed sin. Deu 19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance, and [so] blood be upon thee. I have looked into sin in the blood and don’t find a single reference to it. Doesn’t mean yea verily it isn’t there, but I sure can’t find it.

HCW: The color scheme theory correlating to music keys actually came from Bullinger, although I don’t remember which book it was in. I used to have it. His idea was the colors would automatically have balance if they corresponded to music. Someone on twi staff took the theory and developed it by utilizing the colors in a prism. Part of the idea was to use major keys and avoid minor ones (considered depressing). So, C major being the first chord in the scale became red, yellow and blue. This used to be a handout in the ADV class. There was an admonition not to use black as it was thought to be the complete absence of light. I saw the paintings at Emporia during the ADV Class. They were pretty great. I particularly remember a very large landscape I liked the best. In any case, I am an oil landscape painter (although I am comfortable with all mediums including graphics, calligraphy and pen and ink). I did a series of posters for the pfal class using the chords. Worked out nicely because there are 12 major keys and 12 sessions. Since I also play piano, it wasn’t difficult for me to figure out the colors belonging to the different keys. Later on, I was not allowed to do art work for the ministry because I wasn’t WC. So WC would do the artwork with no artistic ability whatsoever…but you know they were WC so it must be more godly. I continue to use the chords sometimes. My favorite is blue-green, red-orange, and red-violet). The thing about using them is you have a balance of warm and cool and they are rather vibrant. I also prefer using odd numbers of things in my designs. Using 3 colors adds that composition element. I use prism colors to achieve depth (small amounts say in green if it’s a field). What I really like about landscape painting is conveying sunlight in different ways and very often that is the focal point of my paintings, or rather there will be an item that is especially lit up, ie it has flat surfaces that catch a lot of light. So the light becomes a strong composition element of itself in addition to light, medium and dark colors.

Re: 5487. It’s a verb, past tense. Here’s what Bullinger says about the root word, grace: “The word denotes specially, God’s grace and favour manifested towards mankind or to any individual, which as a free act is no more hindered by sin than it is conditional upon works. It is the grace of God, because it denotes the relation assumed and maintained by God towards sinful man. It is joined with Christ, because it is manifested in and through Him.” So, two actions of God’s grace. One toward Mary prior to conception (before the angel appeared); the second toward us before we believed. That’s one commonality.

"If the Bible has a consistent or even semi-consistent explanation, let's see what it is." (WW) Yep. Mark: “Understand and no offense taken.” Good I am glad. “There is a lot of disinformation out there.” Boy, ain’t that the truth, and a lot of it no better than twi, hence my frustration. “Please don't think I was flaming you...I just wanted to make sure that you understood doctrine is sometimes clarified, doctrine is sometimes applied to new situations that didn't exist in the ancient Church (e.g., artificial birth control), but doctrine is NEVER created out of thin air or arbitrarily changed. At least not by the Catholic Church.” I appreciate knowing that. I find it personally VERY challenging dealing with this topic. I know nothing at all except twi and prior to that, don’t smoke, drink, or cuss or I was going to burn in hell forever. I am further handicapped by a flat refusal on my part to even read the Bible for nearly 8 yrs. I have forgotten a lot. This is my first attempt to deal with doctrinal issues. “(BTW, I would be interested in your impressions of the word charitoo (5487) and its usage through the Bible. I do believe it is pertinent to the discussion)” I looked it up. Thayer’s gives to compass with favor, pursue with grace, honor with blessings. Eph. 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made (5487) us accepted (5487) in the beloved. Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Dadgum, Mark. The first thing I notice in Eph. is change. Not only in status, but spiritual condition!!! Ok. Lights are on, engine is running. What does it mean re Luke??? Am I on the right track? At all?

Mark: No disrespect intended and opposing or differing points of view are certainly welcome by me at least, else no learning can take place. I actually got my information from the internet. Evidently I didn’t check my facts thoroughly enough.

Shifra: Awhile back, you wrote a post in response to mine that I never responded to. You said something about didn’t I care how others treated me, and the rest of it, I frankly didn’t understand at the time. After reading your post on the accountability thread, I think I understand much better. For me personally, no I really don’t care in the sense I try to act ethically as much as possible and I really don’t believe 2 wrongs make a right. Do I like it that others sometimes treat me badly? Not at all. When I find myself around someone like this, I first try to communicate that I have boundaries if there is going to continue to be interaction. When my boundaries are not respected, I disassociate myself from them. Lifes’ circumstances don’t always make that easy or possible. To me, agape as I see it defined in the Bible has to do with ethics. Others clearly see it differently. Would I love someone in the sense of emotion who regularly treats me badly? No, I am not a masochist. One of many troubles with twi was there was no possibility of boundaries and their very theology prevented it. You could not say “no” regardless of how hurtful a circumstance or the actions of others were. For a lot of us, it didn’t cross our minds. It was living in a cactus patch and thinking that greater obedience was the solution. Obedience and service that requires personal harm is slavery and worse. If giving means I do all the giving while someone else does all the taking at my expense, then that is ethically wrong. The thing about boundaries is it is a way of defining where you stop and I begin. It is a form of self love. It is a healthy thing. It is your territory of yourself. It is OK to take care of it. We can take care of it ethically. It shouldn’t have to be either or, like in a war where someone must always lose and be hurt. When win/win can’t be achieved, then the simplest thing is to exit if possible. I believe the ethics of others are their responsibility and I avoid passing judgment or deciding what their ethics should be. That is controlling. In that sense I usually don’t care how others act, I simply require my boundaries to be respected. I don’t believe agape means we can’t have boundaries.

Wordwolf: lol. We were both writing at the same time. I agree. Back in the dinosaur age, there was a popular toy called a Rubik’s (sp?) cube. It was a puzzle game and the object was to get only one color on each side. My oldest son had one. After a week or so, he got frustrated with it and simply removed the colored stickers and rearranged them to get one color on each side. To me, when I read things like the RC’s believe Mary was born without a sin nature, it reminds me of the Rubik’s cube. I have spent enough time reading how denominations handle things to see that they handle difficult issues by simply changing theology. VP tended to do the same thing at times by changing the text and Greek. Both methods are like moving the stickers. Maybe the reason is not ignorance or insincerity as much as humans have a tendency to want the Bible to be inerrant, that is factual in the sense of taking a test. Only one correct answer and it should be consistent. I believe most of the time the Bible is that way. There are other times when we are expected to accept the authority of it, even though not fully explained or necessarily literally true. Some of Jesus’ parables were not literally true, but we are expected to accept the truth and authority of it. It is hard to distinguish sometimes when we are looking at something as to whether it is inerrant or authoritative. When it is simply being authoritative, it can be hard to understand. (To me, the story of the original sin is that way). That is when it is tempting to change the stickers to put reason to authority or explain something that isn’t so far fitting together. With regard to this topic, Scripture seems to indicate Mary was the genetic mother. The “seed” or “offspring” of Gen. 3:15 makes that pretty clear. How exactly God caused a conception that produced a Son who was Holy and without a sin nature is beyond me, but I accept the authority of it. Interestingly, the angel told Mary, “for with God nothing shall be impossible” in this context. The language in the verse especially with how God concealed how He did it, means to me that He deliberately did so. I am willing to accept that as is. I plan to continue to study this to see what more can be learned. I just don’t want to move stickers to make it fit.

“Overshadow” according to Thayer’s, refers to God’s immediate presence and power for significant events. God led Moses and the children of Israel with a cloud. Calvin gives a great analysis of this. (It is really interesting to me to read some of his stuff since it was written in the 1500’s). Note he seems to have a pretty good command of Greek. “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee The angel does not explain the manner, so as to satisfy curiosity, which there was no necessity for doing. He only leads the virgin to contemplate the power of the Holy Spirit, and to surrender herself silently and calmly to his guidance. The word ἐπελεύσεται, shall come upon, denotes that this would be an extraordinary work, in which natural means have no place. The next clause is added by way of exposition, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: for the Spirit may be regarded as the essential power of God, whose energy is manifested and exerted in the entire government of the world, as well as in miraculous events. There is an elegant metaphor in the word ἐπισκιάσει, overshadow. The power of God, by which he guards and protects his own people, is frequently compared in Scripture to a shadow, (Psalm 17:8; 57:1; 91:1.) But it appears to have another and peculiar meaning in this passage. The operation of the Spirit would be secret, as if an intervening cloud did not permit it to be beheld by the eyes of men. Now, as God, in performing miracles, withholds from us the manner of his proceedings, so what he chooses to conceal from us ought to be viewed, on our part, with seriousness and adoration.”

Larry. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Vp taught JC took a part (Heb 2:14) meaning flesh but not blood. He believed sin was in the blood so by having JC not take the blood, that avoided the sin nature of Mary. I think. Too many years.... Cman, I agree there is more depth to the word "holy." Overshadow is something I plan to look into. I found by accident an online commentary of Calvin. I thought you all might enjoy reading it, since it was written at the time the controvery of the genealogies came up. His solution is the two are in fact Joseph's, but include Mary because tradition was to marry within your own tribe. He handles very well the differences in the two and the controversies at the time....sorry it is long and difficult reading. "As all are not agreed about these two genealogies, which are given by Matthew and Luke, we must first see whether both trace the genealogy of Christ from Joseph, or whether Matthew only traces it from Joseph, and Luke from Mary. Those who are of this latter opinion have a plausible ground for their distinction in the diversity of the names: and certainly, at first sight, nothing seems more improbable than that Matthew and Luke, who differ so widely from each other, give one and the same genealogy. For from David to Salathiel, and again from Zerubbabel till Joseph, the names are totally different. Again, it is alleged, that it would have been idle to bestow so great pains on a thing of no use, in relating a second time the genealogy of Joseph, who after all was not the father of Christ. “Why this repetition,” say they, “which proves nothing that contributes much to the edification of faith? If nothing more be known than this, that Joseph was one of the descendants and family of David, the genealogy of Christ will still remain doubtful.” In their opinion, therefore, it would have been superfluous that two Evangelists should apply themselves to this subject. They excuse Matthew for laying down the ancestry of Joseph, on the ground, that he did it for the sake of many persons, who were still of opinion that he was the father of Christ. But it would have been foolish to hold out such an encouragement to a dangerous error: and what follows is at total variance with the supposition. For as soon as he comes to the close of the genealogy, Matthew points out that Christ was conceived in the womb of the virgin, not from the seed of Joseph, but by the secret power of the Spirit. If their argument were good, Matthew might be charged with folly or inadvertence, in laboring to no purpose to establish the genealogy of Joseph. But we have not yet replied to their objection, that the ancestry of Joseph has nothing to do with Christ. The common and well-known reply is, that in the person of Joseph the genealogy of Mary also is included, because the law enjoined every man to marry from his own tribe. It is objected, on the other hand, that at almost no period had that law been observed: but the arguments on which that assertion rests are frivolous. They quote the instance of the eleven tribes binding themselves by an oath, that they would not give a wife to the Benjamites, (Judges 21:1.) If this matter, say they, had been settled by law, there would have been no need for a new enactment. I reply, this extraordinary occurrence is erroneously and ignorantly converted by them into a general rule: for if one tribe had been cut off, the body of the people must have been incomplete if some remedy had not been applied to a case of extreme necessity. We must not, therefore, look to this passage for ascertaining the common law. Again, it is objected, that Mary, the mother of Christ, was Elisabeth’s cousin, though Luke has formerly stated that she was of the daughters of Aaron, (Luke 1:5.) The reply is easy. The daughters of the tribe of Judah, or of any other tribe, were at liberty to marry into the tribe of the priesthood: for they were not prevented by that reason, which is expressed in the law, that no woman should “remove her inheritance” to those who were of a different tribe from her own, (Numbers 36:6-9.) Thus, the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest, is declared by the sacred historian to have belonged to the royal family, — “Jehoshabeath, the daughter of Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest,” (2 Chronicles 22:11.) It was, therefore, nothing wonderful or uncommon, if the mother of Elisabeth were married to a priest. Should any one allege, that this does not enable us to decide, with perfect certainty, that Mary was of the same tribe with Joseph, because she was his wife, I grant that the bare narrative, as it stands, would not prove it without the aid of other circumstances. But, in the first place, we must observe, that the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their own age. When the ancestry of Joseph had been carried up as far as David, every one could easily make out the ancestry of Mary. The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous on that point: for, if any one entertained doubts, the research was neither difficult nor tedious. 8585 “ Il, leur estoit aise de le monstrer comme au doigt, et sans long ropos .” — “It was easy for them to point it out, as with the finger, and without a long story.” Besides, they took for granted, that Joseph, as a man of good character and behavior, had obeyed the injunction of the law in marrying a wife from his own tribe. That general rule would not, indeed, be sufficient to prove Mary’s royal descent; for she might have belonged to the tribe of Judah, and yet not have been a descendant of the family of David. My opinion is this. The Evangelists had in their eye godly persons, who entered into no obstinate dispute, but in the person of Joseph acknowledged the descent of Mary; particularly since, as we have said, no doubt was entertained about it in that age. One matter, however, might appear incredible, that this very poor and despised couple belonged to the posterity of David, and to that royal seed, from which the Redeemer was to spring. If any one inquire whether or not the genealogy traced by Matthew and Luke proves clearly and beyond controversy that Mary was descended from the family of David, I own that it cannot be inferred with certainty; but as the relationship between Mary and Joseph was at that time well known, the Evangelists were more at ease on that subject. Meanwhile, it was the design of both Evangelists to remove the stumbling-block arising from the fact, that both Joseph and Mary were unknown, and despised, and poor, and gave not the slightest indication of royalty. Again, the supposition that Luke passes by the descent of Joseph, and relates that of Mary, is easily refuted; for he expressly says, that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph, etc. Certainly, neither the father nor the grandfather of Christ is mentioned, but the ancestry of Joseph himself is carefully explained. I am well aware of the manner in which they attempt to solve this difficulty. The word son, they allege, is put for son-in-law, and the interpretation they give to Joseph being called the son of Heli is, that he had married Heli’s daughter. But this does not agree with the order of nature, and is nowhere countenanced by any example in Scripture. If Solomon is struck out of Mary’s genealogy, Christ will no longer be Christ; for all inquiry as to his descent is founded on that solemn promise, “I will set up thy seed after thee; I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son,” (2 Samuel 7:12-14.) “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne,” (Psalm 132:11.) Solomon was, beyond controversy, the type of this eternal King who was promised to David; nor can the promise be applied to Christ, except in so far as its truth was shadowed out in Solomon, (1 Chronicles 28:5.) Now if the descent is not traced to him, how, or by what argument, shall he be proved to be “the son of David”? Whoever expunges Solomon from Christ’s genealogy does at the same time, obliterate and destroy those promises by which he must be acknowledged to be the son of David. In what way Luke, tracing the line of descent from Nathan, does not exclude Solomon, will afterwards be seen at the proper place. Not to be too tedious, those two genealogies agree substantially with each other, but we must attend to four points of difference. The first is; Luke ascends by a retrograde order, from the last to the first, while Matthew begins with the source of the genealogy. The second is; Matthew does not carry his narrative beyond the holy and elect race of Abraham, 8686 “ Matthieu, en sa description, ne passe point plus haut qu'Abraham, qui a este le pere du peuple sainct et esleu .” — “Matthew, in his description, does not pass higher than Abraham, who was the father of the holy and elect people.” while Luke proceeds as far as Adam. The third is; Matthew treats of his legal descent, and allows himself to make some omissions in the line of ancestors, choosing to assist the reader’s memory by arranging them under three fourteens; while Luke follows the natural descent with greater exactness. The fourth and last is; when they are speaking of the same persons, they sometimes give them different names. It would be superfluous to say more about the first point of difference, for it presents no difficulty. The second is not without a very good reason: for, as God had chosen for himself the family of Abraham, from which the Redeemer of the world would be born, and as the promise of salvation had been, in some sort, shut up in that family till the coming of Christ, Matthew does not pass beyond the limits which God had prescribed. We must attend to what Paul says, “that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” (Romans 15:8) with which agrees that saying of Christ, “Salvation is of the Jews,” (John 4:22.) Matthew, therefore, presents him to our contemplation as belonging to that holy race, to which he had been expressly appointed. In Matthew’s catalogue we must look at the covenant of God, by which he adopted the seed of Abraham as his people, separating them, by a “middle wall of partition,” (Ephesians 2:14,) from the rest of the nations. Luke directed his view to a higher point; for though, from the time that God had made his covenant with Abraham, a Redeemer was promised, in a peculiar manner, to his seed, yet we know that, since the transgression of the first man, all needed a Redeemer, and he was accordingly appointed for the whole world. It was by a wonderful purpose of God, that Luke exhibited Christ to us as the son of Adam, while Matthew confined him within the single family of Abraham. For it would be of no advantage to us, that Christ was given by the Father as “the author of eternal salvations” (Hebrews 5:9,) unless he had been given indiscriminately to all. Besides, that saying of the Apostle would not be true, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,” (Hebrews 13:8,) if his power and grace had not reached to all ages from the very creation of the world. Let us know; therefore, that to the whole human race there has been manifested and exhibited salvation through Christ; for not without reason is he called the son of Noah, and the son of Adam. But as we must seek him in the word of God, the Spirit wisely directs us, through another Evangelist, to the holy race of Abraham, to whose hands the treasure of eternal life, along with Christ, was committed for a time, (Romans 3:1.) We come now to the third point of difference. Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe the same order; for immediately after David the one puts Solomon, and the other, Nathan; which makes it perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is reconciled by good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew, departing from the natural lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the legal genealogy. I call it the legal genealogy, because the right to the throne passed into the hands of Salathiel. Eusebius, in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History, adopting the opinion of Africanus, prefers applying the epithet legal to the genealogy which is traced by Luke. But it amounts to the same thing: for he means nothing more than this, that the kingdom, which had been established in the person of Solomon, passed in a lawful manner to Salathiel. But it is more correct and appropriate to say, that Matthew has exhibited the legal order: because, by naming Solomon immediately after David, he attends, not to the persons from whom in a regular line, according to the flesh, Christ derived his birth, but to the manner in which he was descended from Solomon and other kings, so as to be their lawful successor, in whose hand God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:13.) There is probability in the opinion that, at the death of Ahaziah, the lineal descent from Solomon was closed. As to the command given by David — for which some persons quote the authority of Jewish Commentators — that should the line from Solomon fail, the royal power would pass to the descendants of Nathan, I leave it undetermined; holding this only for certain, that the succession to the kingdom was not confused, but regulated by fixed degrees of kindred. Now, as the sacred history relates that, after the murder of Ahaziah, the throne was occupied, and all the seed-royal destroyed “by his mother Athaliah, (2 Kings 11:1,) it is more than probable that this woman, from an eager desire of power, had perpetrated those wicked and horrible murders that she might not be reduced to a private rank, and see the throne transferred to another. If there had been a son of Ahaziah still alive, the grandmother would willingly have been allowed to reign in peace, without envy or danger, under the mask of being his tutor. When she proceeds to such enormous crimes as to draw upon herself infamy and hatred, it is a proof of desperation arising from her being unable any longer to keep the royal authority in her house. As to Joash being called “the son of Ahaziah,” (2 Chronicles 22:11,) the reason is, that he was the nearest relative, and was justly considered to be the true and direct heir of the crown. Not to mention that Athaliah (if we shall suppose her to be his grandmother) would gladly have availed herself of her relation to the child, will any person of ordinary understanding think it probable, that an actual son of the king could be so concealed by “Jehoiada the priest,” as not to excite the grandmother to more diligent search? If all is carefully weighed, there will be no hesitation in concluding, that the next heir of the crown belonged to a different line. And this is the meaning of Jehoiada’s words, “Behold, the king’s son shall reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of David,” (2 Chronicles 23:3.) He considered it to be shameful and intolerable, that a woman, who was a stranger by blood, should violently seize the scepter, which God had commanded to remain in the family of David. There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is possible that the line of Solomon, so far as relates to the succession of the throne, may have been broken off. It may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised Messiah, if he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ But the answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon, yet he was reckoned his son by legal succession, because he was descended from kings. The fourth point of difference is the great diversity of the names. Many look upon this as a great difficulty: for from David till Joseph, with the exception of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, none of the names are alike in the two Evangelists. The excuse commonly offered, that the diversity arose from its being very customary among the Jews to have two names, appears to many persons not quite satisfactory. But as we are now unacquainted with the method, which was followed by Matthew in drawing up and arranging the genealogy, there is no reason to wonder, if we are unable to determine how far both of them agree or differ as to individual names. It cannot be doubted that, after the Babylonish captivity, the same persons are mentioned under different names. In the case of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, the same names, I think, were purposely retained, on account of the change which had taken place in the nation: because the royal authority was then extinguished. Even while a feeble shadow of power remained, a striking change was visible, which warned believers, that they ought to expect another and more excellent kingdom than that of Solomon, which had flourished but for a short time. It is also worthy of remark, that the additional number in Luke’s catalogue to that of Matthew is nothing strange; for the number of persons in the natural line of descent is usually greater than in the legal line. Besides, Matthew chose to divide the genealogy of Christ into three departments, and to make each department to contain fourteen persons. In this way, he felt himself at liberty to pass by some names, which Luke could not with propriety omit, not having restricted himself by that rule. Thus have I discussed the genealogy of Christ, as far as it appeared to be generally useful. If any one is tickled 8787 “ Si quem titillat major curiositas .” — “ S'il y a quelqu'un chatouille de curiosite qui en demande d'avantage .” — “If any one is tickled by a curiosity, which asks for more of it.” by a keener curiosity, I remember Paul’s admonition, and prefer sobriety and modesty to trifling and useless disputes. It is a noted passage, in which he enjoins us to avoid excessive keenness in disputing about “genealogies, as unprofitable and vain,” (Titus 3:9.) It now remains to inquire, lastly, why Matthew included the whole genealogy of Christ in three classes, and assigned to each class fourteen persons. Those who think that he did so, in order to aid the memory of his readers, state a part of the reason, but not the whole. It is true, indeed, that a catalogue, divided into three equal numbers, is more easily remembered. But it is also evident that this division is intended to point out a threefold condition of the nation, from the time when Christ was promised to Abraham, to “the fullness of the time” (Galatians 4:4) when he was “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16.) Previous to the time of David, the tribe of Judah, though it occupied a higher rank than the other tribes, held no power. In David the royal authority burst upon the eyes of all with unexpected splendor, and remained till the time of Jeconiah. After that period, there still lingered in the tribe of Judah a portion of rank and government, which sustained the expectations of the godly till the coming of the Messiah. 1. The book of the generation Some commentators give themselves unnecessary trouble, in order to excuse Matthew for giving to his whole history this title, which applies only to the half of a single chapter. For this ἐπιγραφή, or title, does not extend to the whole book of Matthew: but the word βίβλος, book, is put for catalogue: as if he had said, “Here follows the catalogue of the generation of Christ.” It is with reference to the promise, that Christ is called the son of David, the son of Abraham: for God had promised to Abraham that he would give him a seed, “in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed,” (Genesis 12:3.) David received a still clearer promise, that God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:13;) that one of his posterity would be king “as long as the sun and moon endure,” (Psalm 72:5;) and that “his throne should be as the days of heaven,” (Psalm 89:29.) And so it became a customary way of speaking among the Jews to call Christ the son of David 2. Jacob begat Judah and his brethren While Matthew passes by in silence Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born, and Esau, who was Jacob’s elder brother, he properly assigns a place in the genealogy to the Twelve Patriarchs, on all of whom God had bestowed a similar favor of adoption. He therefore intimates, that the blessing promised in Christ does not refer to the tribe of Judah alone, but belongs equally to all the children of Jacob, whom God gathered into his Church, while Ishmael and Esau were treated as strangers. 8888 “ Quum essent extranei .” — “ En lieu qu'Ismael et Esau en avoyent este rejettez et bannis comme estrangers .” — “Whereas Ishmael and Esau were thrown out and banished from it as strangers.” 3. Judah begat Pharez and Zarah by Tamar This was a prelude to that emptying of himself, 8989 ᾿Αλλ ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ἐχένωσε, — but he emptied himself. Such is the literal import of the words which are rendered in the English version, But made himself of no reputation. — Ed. of which Paul speaks, (Philippians 2:7). The Son of God might have kept his descent unspotted and pure from every reproach or mark of infamy. But he came into the world to “empty himself, and take upon him the form of a servant,” (Philippians 2:7) to be “a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,” (Psalm 22:6) and at length to undergo the accursed death of the cross. He therefore did not refuse to admit a stain into his genealogy, arising from incestuous intercourse which took place among his ancestors. Though Tamar was not impelled by lust to seek connection with her father-in-law, yet it was in an unlawful manner that she attempted to revenge the injury which she had received. Judah again intended to commit fornication, and unknowingly to himself, met with his daughter-in-law. 9090 “ In nurum suam incidit .” — “ Judas a commis sa meschancete avec sa bru, pensant que ce fust une autre .” — “Judah committed his wickedness with his daughter-in-law, supposing her to be a different person” But the astonishing goodness of God strove with the sin of both; so that, nevertheless, this adulterous seed came to possess the scepter. 9191 “ Afin que neantmoins ceste semence bastarde vint a avoir un jour en main le scepter Royal .” — “So that nevertheless this bastard seed came to have one day in its hand the Royal scepter.” 6. Begat David the King In this genealogy, the designation of King is bestowed on David alone, because in his person God exhibited a type of the future leader of his people, the Messiah. The kingly office had been formerly held by Saul; but, as he reached it through tumult and the ungodly wishes of the people, the lawful possession of the office is supposed to have commenced with David, more especially in reference to the covenant of God, who promised that “his throne should be established for ever,” (2 Samuel 7:16.) When the people shook off the yoke of God, and unhappily and wickedly asked a king, saying, “Give us a king to judge us,” (1 Samuel 8:5,) Saul was granted for short time. But his kingdom was shortly afterwards established by God, as a pledge of true prosperity, in the hand of David. Let this expression, David the King, be understood by us as pointing out the prosperous condition of the people, which the Lord had appointed. Meanwhile, the Evangelist adds a human disgrace, which might almost bring a stain on the glory of this divine blessing. David the King begat Solomon by her that had been the wife of Uriah; by Bathsheba, whom he wickedly tore from her husband, and for the sake of enjoying whom, he basely surrendered an innocent man to be murdered by the swords of the enemy, (2 Samuel 11:15.) This taint, at the commencement of the kingdom, ought to have taught the Jews not to glory in the flesh. It was the design of God to show that, in establishing this kingdom, nothing depended on human merits. Comparing the inspired history with the succession described by Matthew, it is evident that he has omitted three kings. 9292 “ Assavoir Ochozias fils de Joram, Joas, et Amazias .” — “Namely, Ahaziah son of Jehoram, Joash, and Amaziah,” ( 2 Chronicles 22, 23, 24, 25.) Those who say that he did so through forgetfulness, cannot be listened to for a moment. Nor is it probable that they were thrown out, because they were unworthy to occupy a place in the genealogy of Christ; for the same reason would equally apply to many others, who are indiscriminately brought forward by Matthew, along with pious and holy persons. A more correct account is, that he resolved to confine the list of each class to fourteen kings, and gave himself little concern in making the selection, because he had an adequate succession of the genealogy to place before the eyes of his readers, down to the close of the kingdom. As to there being only thirteen in the list, it probably arose from the blunders and carelessness of transcribers. Epiphanius, in his First Book against Heresies, assigns this reason, that the name of Jeconiah had been twice put down, and unlearned 9393 “ Indocti ;” — “ quelques gens n'entendans pas le propos ,” — “some peope not understanding the design.” persons ventured to strike out the repetition of it as superfluous; which, he tells us, ought not to have been done, because Jehoiakim, the father of king Jehoiakim, had the name Jeconiah, in common with his son, (1 Chronicles 3:17; 2 Kings 24:15; Jeremiah 27:20; 28:4.) Robert Stephens quotes a Greek manuscript, in which the name of Jehoiakim is introduced. 9494 “ Robert Etienne a ce propos allegue un exemplaire Grec ancien, ou il y a ainsi, Josias engendra Joacim, et Joacim engendra Jechonias .”— “Robert Stephens, with this view, quotes an ancient Greek manuscript, which runs thus: Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah.” 12. After the Babylonish exile That is, after the Jews were carried into captivity: for the Evangelist means, that the descendants of David, from being kings, then became exiles and slaves. As that captivity was a sort of destruction, it came to be wonderfully arranged by Divine providence, not only that the Jews again united in one body, but even that some vestiges of dominion remained in the family of David. For those who returned home submitted, of their own accord, to the authority of Zerubbabel. In this manner, the fragments of the royal scepter 9595 “ Qui avoit este mis bas, et comme rompu ;” — “which had been thrown down, and, as it were, broken.” lasted till the coming of Christ was at hand, agreeably to the prediction of Jacob, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come,” (Genesis 49:10.) And even during that wretched and melancholy dispersion, the nation never ceased to be illuminated by some rays of the grace of God. The Greek word μετοικεσία, which the old translator renders transmigration, and Erasmus renders exile, literally signifies a change of habitation. The meaning is, that the Jews were compelled to leave their country, and to dwell as “strangers in a land that was not theirs,” (Genesis 15:13.) 16. Jesus, who is called Christ By the surname Christ, Anointed, Matthew points out his office, to inform the readers that this was not a private person, but one divinely anointed to perform the office of Redeemer. What that anointing was, and to what it referred, I shall not now illustrate at great length. As to the word itself, it is only necessary to say that, after the royal authority was abolished, it began to be applied exclusively to Him, from whom they were taught to expect a full recovery of the lost salvation. So long as any splendor of royalty continued in the family of David, the kings were wont to be called χριστοί, anointed. 9696 Every reader of the Bible is familiar with the phrase, the Lord's anointed, as applied to David and his successors, ( 2 Samuel 19:21; Lamentations 4:20.) — Ed. But that the fearful desolation which followed might not throw the minds of the godly into despair, it pleased God to appropriate the name of Messiah, Anointed, to the Redeemer alone: as is evident from Daniel, (9:25, 26.) The evangelical history everywhere shows that this was an ordinary way of speaking, at the time when the Son of God was “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16.) « Prev Matthew 1:1-17;Luke 3:23-38"

There is a bit of a theological discrepancy with Mary as a genetic mother if you believe in the original sin and sin nature. This has been addressed by the denominations in various ways. According to Wikipedia: The RC’s have Mary as born without a sin nature. Some Protestants have her miraculously healed just prior to conception. Others discard the original sin. Others have JC born with a sin nature. I haven’t verified the facts in the article in the sense of what denominations believe, but this just shows others have recognized the problem. Of course, VP solved it a different way. (Could someone please post the detail of VP’s solution in the event elements are correct? Could save some time…I don’t have any of the books.) The fly in the ointment may well be simply one of understanding. But, on to “holy.” Luke 1:35 …that holy (hagios) thing which shall be born of thee…. Of course, “thing” isn’t correct, but compare with: Psalm 51:5 (KJV) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5 (NIV) Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. This verse gives the time frame of conception for when we are affected by sin nature and is in contrast of a holy conception in the case of Jesus. The word hagios is used in different ways, but what is working best for me right now with regard to this particular verse is without sin (separated from sin).

Clearly since both genealogies are so different, they would seem to not be both Joseph. I think the wording in Luke means the opposite of what Guzik said. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…. “As was supposed” reads like a qualifier or explanation to justify a genealogy of Joseph. To me, anyway. The one in Matt. has no qualifier implying one isn’t necessary. So if we are right, then either “husband” in Matt. is translated wrongly or there is some other explanation (Mary had 2 husbands named Joseph, lol). Btw, if you do an internet search on the subject, there are various people claiming to resolve the problem. I read a few. I quit on it out of frustration and the amount of time it was taking.

And here is what I got from Guzik, a commentary I read often. "a. Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph: According to ancient custom, genealogies were almost always traced through the father, not the mother. This was a problem in the unique situation of a virgin birth. i. Luke differs in the account of Matthew from David onward, but they both end their genealogies with Joseph. Why? Luke follows Mary’s line (Jesus’ actual lineage) while Matthew follows Joseph’s line (His legal lineage by adoption). This is Luke’s who point in his important phrase being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. ii. Luke ends with Joseph because he is following proper form and including no women in his genealogy" I have personally given up on the genealogy thing and thrown it into my "I don't know" box. I will not be tossing it out as fact anymore. With regard to this particular discussion, it doesn't actually matter. Mary's inclusion or exclusion to either genealogy neither proves nor disproves anything. That's what I realized the other night. It was rather a shock to me however to discover it wasn't a forgone conclusion.

Thanks Jean. What is odd is not that Bullinger assigns the genealogy in Luke to Mary, but that vp chose the one in Matt. No one else has done that as far as I know. Here's a quote from Wikipedia. It is interesting that the attempt to assign either genealogy to Mary didn't occur until the 15th century. "Mary, the daughter of Heli? The confusion over the name of Joseph’s father encouraged explanations to reconcile the two genealogies. One suggestion [4] assigns Luke's genealogy to Jesus's mother Mary, and not to his father Joseph at all. So Jacob would be the father of Joseph, and Heli the father of Mary. Therefore, no contradiction. The use of the term 'son' was often used in the sense of a 'descendant' or a head of a household's relative living under the same roof. An example of this in the Hebrew Bible would be Manasseh, who was described in Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14 and 1st Kings 4:13 as the 'son' of Jair. However, it is revealed in 1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15 that he is actually the distant son-in-law of Jair. Thus calling Jesus the 'son of Joseph' could be interpreted to mean Jesus was a member of Joseph's household without being a biological son. Assuming a virgin birth through Mary, Jesus's patrilinear genealogy could follow Mary's father. (A similar legal scenario was in place for the ancient concubines whose children did not inherit their father's property, but instead inherited property from their mother's father.) The suggestion focuses on the language of Luke's Greek text. Luke adds a phrase that today would be considered a parenthetical comment. Luke 3:23 says literally: "And Jesus himself was ... a son (being thought) of Joseph of Heli" (Greek: και αυτος ην ιησους ... υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι). The plain meaning of the text is usually understood as communicating the notion that Jesus was believed to be the son of Joseph but was actually the product of virgin birth. The suggestion simply expands the parenthesis to literally comment Joseph out of the genealogy altogether. "And Jesus himself was ... a son (being thought of Joseph) of Heli". In other words, people believed Jesus was the son of Joseph, but really he was the son of Mary's father Heli. Thus Joseph would be irrelevant to this genealogy. The suggestion accepts the accuracy of the exact wording of the biblical text, it resolves an apparent contradiction between two biblical texts, and it expands the reputation of Jesus's mother Mary by explicating her aristocratic origins all the way back to King David. Nevertheless, the genealogy does not actually mention Mary: making it her genealogy is thereforew a "daring" interpretation. More problematically, the Early Christians preserve no tradition identifying Luke's genealogy as Mary's. It was not until the 15th century AD, when Annius of Viterbo first suggested this reassignment of the genealogy to Mary, with it gaining popularity only in the following centuries since. Most scholars "safely" discount the possibility that the genealogy belongs to Mary."

Duh…..I am feeling about as smart as a post right now. If we believe the account in Genesis, everyone descended from Adam. So did Mary. It makes no difference at all whether the genealogies include or exclude Mary…the real purpose them was to verify prophesy and establish legal things. I do believe there is a connection to “seed of a woman” and what Jean said above. I don’t know what that is right now. Really astute, Jean. I’d love to know what it means. So…I spent many hours doing? Well, we know vp’s work on the subject is dubious.

Oakspear: I don't have a Companion Bible. I know I can't go with changing "husband" to "father." That word is never translated that way. For vp to do this is a guess at best.

Anyone remember why vp taught it was not a virgin birth? I don’t. Matt. 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. Matt. 1:15 (NIV) But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. I want to state for the record that I am not a Greek scholar and certainly not Hebrew (way more difficult) and no doubt many others on this board are much better at it than I am. In recent days, I try as much as possible to approach the Bible with an open mind and try to just read what is written without changing it in any way. The problem is I continue to have twi fleas in my brain and I continue to flip out things from twi without thinking. Having said that, the thought plickens…. I have spent many, many hours studying the genealogy of JC. I found out on the internet there is a tremendous amount of dispute on this topic that has been going on for centuries. I previously posted about Mary’s genealogy…well…a second look. Matt. 1:16 (KJV) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. This one goes back to Abraham. Luke 3:23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, was the son of Heli, OK. I was able to verify “as was supposed the son of Joseph” is in the Greek from multiple sources. IN NEITHER ACCOUNT OF THE GENEALOGY IS MARY MENTIONED. At all. The fundamentalists want her in there. So, some maintain Helial was Joseph’s father in law and others his uncle and Mary’s father. We have no scriptural proof of either. We have no scriptural proof of a heredity via Mary. That I can find at least. One account gives Helial as Joseph’s father the other Jacob. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam. Why the discrepancy between who was Joseph’s father? No one seems to know for sure. What can we say for a fact? Both accounts for sure pertain to Joseph. Mary could be in there but we don’t have proof. At this point. Jesus was Joseph’s legal son but not biological. As such, he was a legal descendant of Adam, David, Abraham and others. I vote we go with what we can prove and know for sure. Put the rest on a back burner.