Re: ANDRA and ANHR in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ

From: Lemuel G. Abarte (
Date: Sun Jun 22 1997 - 03:41:17 EDT

This could be clarified when all the data are in: the Coniah line was
under a curse. There will never be a fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant
that a son would be king forever from the line of David in the line of

It is an understanding amongst conservatives that the line of Mary was the
line of Nathan - which still fulfills the Davidic Covenant and fulfills the
curse placed on Coniah and his descendants.

The reference in Genesis is definitely for the view that ANHR is applied to
a husband. This is how I understand the account in Matthew 1:16 TON ANDRA

> From: Micheal Palmer <>
> To:;
> Subject: Re: ANDRA and ANHR in the Genealogy of Jesus Christ
> Date: 22 2540 12:17
> At 4:47 PM +0700 6/21/97, Lemuel G. Abarte wrote:
> >The convincing evidence in context is Genesis 3:17 in the LXX: kai pros
> >ton andra sou hH apostrofH sou...
> How, exactly, is this 'convincing evidence'? How are you understanding
> LXX reference? The LXX of Genesis 3:17 uses ANDRA to mean 'husband', not
> 'father'.
> >The genealogy on Joseph's line was from Coniah, under the curse. The
> >genealogy on Mary's line was from Nathan.
> There is no real evidence that either Matthew or Luke has a genealogy
> following Mary's line. The wording of both texts makes it clear that they
> are tracing Joseph's genealogy. To posit that Matthew is tracing Mary's
> line requires either assuming that Matthew didn't know the meaning of
> or that the person you are talking to doesn't. The usage of this word is
> quite clear in the Greek literature. In the New Testament, the other
> Christian literature, the pagan literature, and all other texts even
> to the New Testament in time, ANHR means 'man'. When it is more specific
> than that, it means 'husband'. It is never used to mean 'father'.
> >It is worth noting that both evangelists are careful in their accounts
> >concerning the supernatural origin of Jesus Christ and his royal
> >They never took Joseph as his father but they do state that Mary is his
> >mother.
> True. They are both very careful to make this point. They both use
> genealogy while making the point that Jesus was not his physical son.
> is, of course, not a problem, since his being Joseph's adopted son was
> enough to make the point of the genealogy legitimate.
> The differences between the two genealogies are not a threat to Christian
> theology--or even to conservative views of inspiration. There is no need,
> even for a conservative Christian, to posit that one is Mary's genealogy
> despite the text's explicit claim to the contrary.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Micheal W. Palmer
> Religion & Philosophy
> Meredith College
> Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT