ArchivedSOME CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE :: Re: SOME CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLEThe first genealogy in Matt. is of Joseph and traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham. The second in Luke is of Mary and traces it back to Adam. A careful examination of the genealogies shows what a safegurad God threw about the birth of Jesus and how careful He was to see that the Scriptures were literally fulfilled in Him. Matt. traces the genealogy of Jesus back to David, through Solomon; Luke traces it back to David thru Nathan. There are similar names in the two tables that present no difficulty in tracing any long line of descent. The statement in Matt. that "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary," and the statement in Luke that Joseph was (as supposed) the son of Heli is easily reconciled, since Joseph could not be the son of both Jacob and Heli. The fact that the KJV translators used the word supposed and that the word "son" is in italics, indicates that some other word could be inserted that would make sense, and that word is "son-in-law." So, the passage could read "Joseph which was the "son-in-law" of Heli. The two genealogies are clearly un-alike. But why two lines of descent, one thru Nathan and the other through Solomon? Why wasn't Mary's genealogy sufficient? During King David's residence in Hebron, while he was as yet only the king of Judah, six sons were born to him. Of these, three appear to have died in infancy. Of the other three, Amnon was murdered, Absalom died while in rebellion against his father, and Adonijah, having usurped the throne, was subsequesntly put to death by Solomon. The right of succession to the crown was secured to the sons of David born "after" he was enthroned king over all Israel. The children that were born to David after he was crowned kind over all Israel are also enumerated. 1Chron.3:1-9. Of these two only need be mentioned, Nathan and Solomon. Solomon, as we know, succeeded his father as king, but Nathan was older than Solomon, and on that ground might have contested Solomon's right of succession, though we are not told that he did. Nevertheless Solomon's title had the shadow of Nathan's claim on it and so that there shouldn't be a cloud on Jesus' title to the "Throne of David," God ordained that Mary the mother of Jesus should be a direct descendant of David through Nathan, the "legal heir" to the throne. But Jesus had no right to Daivd's Throne through Mary since she was not in the "Kingly Line" of descent through Solomon. How was Jesus' right to David's throne brought about? Through marriage. God safeguarded the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus by having Mary marry (after coneption) a man who could not be the natural father of Jesus because of a taint or defect in his ancestry. Joseph was a lineal descendant of David through the "Kingly Line" of Solomon, but in that line there was Jechonias (Matt.1:11,12), called in Jer.22:24-30, Coniah, of whom God had said: So we see that Joseph could not be the natural father of Jesus since no descendant of his could sit on the Throne of David and "prosper." This sets at rest forever the claim that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus and establishes the fact of his "Virgin Birth." The marriage of Joseph and Mary made Jesus the adopted son and "legal heir" of Joseph. The title, unaffected by the curse pronounced upon Coniah, was conveyed to Jesus, in whom there centres, through both Nathan and Solomon, exclusive right to the "Throne of David." |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame