Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243009 | ||
Is there any way that Jesus could be considered a descendant of Uriah, with David occupying the place of the responsible brother with Uriah's widow (based on Uriah being apart from his family as a Hittite given to David's service and brought to his death at David's hand for David's sin)? This would make Solomon Uriah's legal son before God. Is this impossible, or would this be a reason for the mention of Uriah here as a foreigner? | ||||||
2 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243010 | ||
David fathered Solomon through an adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Uriah was alive at the time she became pregnant, it was not a case of a brother giving his dead brother's wife a child, it was clearly adultery. Uriah is mentioned to show God grace against a sinner (David). Even a sinner can be in the lineage of Christ. There were still consequences to David's sin but God allowed David to be in the very honored position of being in the lineage of Jesus. God did not wink or overlook the sin of adultery as evident by all the happened to David and his family after it occurred. In fact Bathsheba's grandfather tried to over throw David, in attempt to get even with David for the disgrace to the family. 2 Sam. 16-17 |
||||||
3 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243011 | ||
Actually, this is an easy oversight to make, but David did not father Solomon through an adulterous affair, and Uriah was not alive when Solomon was conceived. Solomon was the first child conceived by David and Bathsheba after Uriah had died. I am afraid this leaves the question unanswered. That first baby (conceived through adultery) died as a punishment from God. Remember Nathan's pronouncement about the lamb taken from the poor man, "You are the man..." See 2 Samuel 12:1-24 Note: It also seems to me that every other reference to a woman in Matthew's patrilineal lineage of Christ - except for Mary of course - references a foreigner being brought into Christ's lineage. (Some may argue that Tamar could have been a descendant of Israel but was likely a foreigner from Timnah, but Rahab and Ruth certainly were God-fearing foreigners joined into Christ's lineage through marriage.) It is also notable that Bathsheba's name is not mentioned in the lineage but instead that of her faithful foreign first husband ("the wife of Uriah". That set of observations is part of what brought on the original question, but the question of (the wording of) Uriah's inclusion is what I am focusing on here. He seems deliberately included as a foreigner into the lineage of Christ, as are the other (2 or) 3 foreigners. While Jesus was unquestionably a blood descendant of David and not Uriah, does God treat Him legally as a descendant of Uriah the Hittite as well. |
||||||
4 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243012 | ||
Right you are and I'm not sure how I made that mistake. But the fact remains David and Bathsheba's affair did create a child that died and was contributed to David not Uriah or David as Uriah's stand in. Solomon was born of David and Bathsheba after they were married but the marriage was tainted by the adultery they committed. Uriah was one of David's chosen men and from all accounts honorable. The mention of him was as I stated that while Davod's sin could be forgiven and he could take his place in the lineage of Jesus there were still consequences and he would always carry the taint of adultery as would Bathsheba. Bathsheba is mentioned, reread Matt 1:6 her name is there. Fact David fathered Solomon so however you want to look at it Jesus came from the kingly line of David. Also Jesus came from the bloodline of David see lineage in Luke 3. David through Nathan through Mary. So Jesus has both title and blood of David, just as God said he would. |
||||||
5 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243013 | ||
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate the input, and I am honestly not trying to be argumentative. I am not a Greek scholar, but more literal English versions and a parallel text confirm to me that Bathsheba's name was not really mentioned directly in any of the Greek texts. I was not looking at the on-line version of the NASB but rather an off-line version. I guess I was looking at the 1977 NASB version (in my e-sword software) before the interpretive phrase "Bathsheba who had been the" was added into v.6 of the NASB translation. The older version has simply "her who had been the wife of Uriah" (with "who had been the wife" in italics to show it was added to flow more smoothly) per a more literal translation of the Greek ("her of Uriah"). I do not at all question the truth of your statement that God was supremely gracious to David in including him in Jesus' line despite his adultery. However, I don't at all see this particular passage as speaking to that. It seems to me that the inclusion of Uriah as a foreigner by obliquely referencing his wife in the lineage instead fits much more accurately into the pattern of all other insertions of women into this passage of a purely patrilineal legal inheritance through Jesus' adopted father Joseph, not His mother - so not through blood.) Once again I am back to observations of the original wording of Matthew 1:1-16, a completely patrilineal genealogy that deliberately references only 4 women other than Jesus' mother Mary. (I don't count Mary in the observation because she really needs to be mentioned from a genealogy standpoint as the only human parent of Jesus). Three of these women mentioned are foreigners (if one can allow that Tamar was almost definitely a foreigner) and the other is only mentioned as the unnamed wife of a named foreigner. The addition of these 4 women seems to have a fairly clear and consistent purpose of identifying foreigners with the genealogy of Jesus. That seems the only obvious explanation for their inclusion. I tend to doubt your view that this oblique mention of a woman's previous husband (who then just randomly happens to be a foreigner like every other woman added) breaks with the purpose of the other three women in order to insert a non-stated and completely separate interpretation that the Writer wanted to quietly introduce an idea of grace granted to David as a man who was previously an adulterer into the midst of the genealogy. (Solomon was not conceived under adultery after all, but only after God had forgiven David.) Therefore, I believe Uriah is mentioned in the list specifically because he is a foreigner (or perhaps the three foreign women are even mentioned partly to draw attention to Uriah as a foreigner, but that's a stretch). If so, what then is Uriah the Hittite's significance as a foreigner being included in the genealogy of Jesus? (The answer seems to be that Uriah may indeed be a legal ancestor in God's eyes, and I want to know if this is completely unrealistic or a viable understanding of the passage. I need a more careful investigation of the implications and validity, not a polite and cordial dismissal.) |
||||||
6 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 243014 | ||
Ed, after posting my reply, I now see I was short-sighted in not noting the aspect of adultery that also applies to all 4 women: Tamar who resorted to deceit and posing as a prostitute to be included in Judah's family; Rahab the former harlot; Ruth whose in-laws had intermarried with an idolatrous people although Ruth herself was apparently already a believer when she met Boaz; and a woman who had been brought into David's house through adultery, deceit, and murder. This could be singly associated with the aspect of grace offered to adulterers, but it also seems odd that the names given all appear to be those of foreigners, so it doesn't remove the possibility of both. It does put your interpretation in a very different perspective though, so I understand better where it came from. |
||||||