Waterrock,
So if you were "to speculate", you'd "say that Matthew regarded Jacob as the physical father of Joseph." And if you didn't know what Luke said, you'd have no doubt about it at all. But since you do know, you are forced to find another interpretation -- one that doesn't contadict Luke.
When Matthew (1:5) says that Salmon begat Booz, do you worry that maybe Matthew didn't mean it? That maybe he meant that Salmon was the step-father or uncle or something of Booz?
If not, then your interpretation of 1:16 is simply an ad hoc cover-up. Matthew can't mean that Jacob was the father of Jesus because that would contradict what Luke says (that Heli was the father of Joseph). You are creating a (possible, though extremely unlikely) interpretation to avoid a (certain) contradiction. Rather than trying to determine the correct meaning, you are trying to cover it up to avoid a contradiction.
So if you were "to speculate", you'd "say that Matthew regarded Jacob as the physical father of Joseph." And if you didn't know what Luke said, you'd have no doubt about it at all. But since you do know, you are forced to find another interpretation -- one that doesn't contadict Luke.
When Matthew (1:5) says that Salmon begat Booz, do you worry that maybe Matthew didn't mean it? That maybe he meant that Salmon was the step-father or uncle or something of Booz?
If not, then your interpretation of 1:16 is simply an ad hoc cover-up. Matthew can't mean that Jacob was the father of Jesus because that would contradict what Luke says (that Heli was the father of Joseph). You are creating a (possible, though extremely unlikely) interpretation to avoid a (certain) contradiction. Rather than trying to determine the correct meaning, you are trying to cover it up to avoid a contradiction.
Steve Wells
