Difference between revisions of "Talk:Matt 1:6-10"
From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
|
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | How is it that Matthew seems to have found her guiltless? (and the same with Rahab?) --[[User:Seanmcox|Seanmcox]] 19:07, 21 Nov 2006 (UTC)
| |
| | | | |
| − | :I think Robert's x-ref's probably help with Rahab in general. My point is that there are five women in the list (none of whom "need" to be mentioned at all in a genealogy), and that all of them--this is as clear as can be--have some sort of sexual stigma about them. For three--perhaps four--it is clear that the sexual stigma is a common public misreading (this is for the four besides Bath-sheba). The implication--and it is only an implication I am trying to draw out here--is that the same is true of Bath-sheba, that somehow she is also misread in terms of her sexual stigma. In other words, she might have been guiltless. The genealogy suggests one go back and re-read the story carefully (this does not suggest that David was innocent, since Judah does not seem to be let off the hook at all). I hope that helps. --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 15:52, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::My original point was about the phrase "Matthew seemed to think her guiltless". It all seems a bit tenuous to me. There is nothing there that is either explicit or implicit, but rather interestingly anomalous, possibly.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Certainly the five women are interestingly anomalous. Perhaps (probably) they were foreordained to be mothers to the savior and thus, in order to fulfill their earthly missions, it became necessary to transgress the laws and they were then justified by the Lord for their necessary trnsgressions and perhaps that could be read into the [[James 2:25]] reference, though I hardly see what being a harlot had to do with it, unless it was by continued harloting that the savior's line came to be (do we know anything about that?) but short of that, their presence in the genealogy could be explained otherwise (these 5 women were well known scriptural figures) and I see no evidence either internal or external to support the intentions of the author that are being suggested.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::It is an interesting thought all the same and one thing that makes this bit of scripture apt for comment, I see, is that it ties all the women together in the genealogy. (perfect for commenting on the group) However, I think the idea needs some better explaining and I don't think there is any reason Matthew should be cited as suggesting something he did not really suggest, but if you want to read something into this genealogy, which I would not suggest, it could also be restated better. --[[User:Seanmcox|Seanmcox]] 15:31, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hi Joe, please take a look at my rewrite and make sure I didn't mess anything up. Thanks. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:04, 25 Nov 2006 (UTC)
| |
Latest revision as of 00:24, 1 December 2013
