Science in Christian Perspective

Letter to the Editor


Comments on September Issue
R. Jim Seibert 
Silver Lake Community Church
Everett, Washington 90204


From: JASA 32 (March1980): 64.

I want to thank you for your efforts through the years as you have served the Lord with this publication. I did enjoy the two papers, each a part three of a series. Two minor matters were observed in the Volume 31, September (1979) issue that I might bring to your attention. I suspect, however, that you will receive mail from others on this subject as well. On page 160 about three inches down in the right hand column, Martin LaBar criticizes the book he is reviewing by pointing out that Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but Dowell says it is of Mary. Most conservative Bible interpreters feel that Luke 3 does indeed give the genealogy of Mary. In fact, many of the editions of she King James translation list a Luke 3:23 marginal reference as "son-in-law" instead of "son" of Heli. Why Joseph would have been called son of Fteli is a subject of speculation. Perhaps Heli had only daughters and, therefore, Joseph would have become his legal son. The clear difference in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew pose no small problem otherwise. It is entirely consistent with what we know of the authors to conclude that Matthew would have given Joseph's genealogy which, of course, was the legal right to David's throne. Luke, being a Greek and also being a physician and also showing considerable interest in women and children, would be more likely to give Mary's genealogy or the biological genealogy if anyone were to do so. I cannot tell you exactly why the word "son" is used and not "son-in-law," but I would prefer to leave son-in-law as a marginal reference until better information comes in.

Another letter that I'm sure you're going to get some flack concerning is the one on homosexuality. It bothers me that Mr. Hamby Jr., like so many other defenders of homosexuals, completely ignores such passages as Romans 1:27. He claims that Paul's exposure to homosexuality was very limited. I think this passage clearly indicates that Paul knew exactly what he was talking about and condemns the practice in the strongest possible terms. To suggest that a stable homosexual "love" relationship is somehow a normal relationship flies in the face of both Scripture and good sense.