Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 243016 | ||
The one who raises up an heir for the dead does not need to be a brother. The principle is that someone should raise up an heir for the man who tragically dies early having no heir, and the first child is then treated as his child. For example, David's grandfather Obed was legally the son and heir of Naomi and Elimelech through Ruth and her first husband (who is not clarified, probably Chilion but maybe Mahlon per Ruth 1:2-5), even though he was Boaz and Ruth's first child by blood. (See Ruth 4:5-22.) This responsibility was typically fulfilled by the closest available male relative (as indicated in Ruth 3:11-13). However, the idea of a patron fulfilling this duty is also understandable, particularly in a case where the patron was responsible for the death of the childless man. This would be David's role as king, adulterer, and killer over the foreigner Uriah, who might otherwise have no inheritance at all in Judah or Israel. 2 Samuel 12:22-24 seems to make it absolutely clear that Solomon was the first son born to David and Bathsheba after the death of Uriah. Yet 2 Samuel 5:13-16 and 1 Chronicles 3:1-8 both list Solomon last among the sons born to David and Bathsheba in Jerusalem. This seems to contradict precedence of listing according to birth order -- unless of course in God's eyes they were all born to David and Bathsheba but Solomon is legally another man's son. |
||||||
2 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243020 | ||
Brent you make many assumptions and overlook scripture. The law requirement for a relative to provide a heir for a dead relative that died without heir was a Jewish law. David was a Jew, Uriah was not, therefore the provision of providing a child was not the case. In the other cases you cite the dead husband was a Jew and therefore under the law a family member was required to provide the dead relatives wife a child so the father's inheritance In the land of Israel would remain in the family. Second Solomon was not the first son of David, but he was the first of David and Bathsheba. For whatever reason Adonijah was heir apparent. However that all changes when David's favorite Bathsheba come to David and made him name Solomon her favorite son as his successor. We know Solomon was in fact King. The lineage of Matthew 1:6 does not provide blood lineage to Jesus it shows the kingly succession. The blood line back from David to Jesus is shown in Luke 3. I'm miss the point in your hypothesis. Since it is not a question of blood lineage. Matthew 1 is only a listing of Kingly succession from David who was named in the prophecy that the Kingly succession would pass from David to the Messiah. Which it did. What difference would your incorrect hypothesis make if it were correct? |
||||||
3 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | DocTrinsograce | 243021 | ||
Dear Ed, I have no interest in entering into your discussion with Brent. I was thinking about the assumption that Uriah was a Gentile. The consensus in Rabbinic thinking is that Uriah was a Jew. They look at it from four points of view: (1) Uriah was a proselyte, taking on the name of God is Light. (2) Uriah was born a Jew, his father was one David's mighty men. (3) Uriah was not a Hittite, but the title came from his having lived amongst them as some point. (4) Uriah may have been one of the original Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem, perhaps originally in the lineage of the King. All agree that Uriah would necessarily have had to be a Jew in order to marry a Jewess. Eliam would never have given her hand to a Gentile. Furthermore, although mercenaries were sometimes used by Israel, it would be very problematic for a Gentile to be a high officer in the King's military. Gentiles were inherently unclean -- Jews would pass by a Gentile by going to the opposite side of the road. Furthermore, it would have been quite an issue for a Gentile to live so near David's palace. His father and grandfather were from Giloh, a town in the mountains of Judah. That town was a Jewish town, mentioned a number of times in the Scriptures. Finally, his name is a highly Hebraized -- recognized by Rabbinic Scholars as a Jewish name. I've checked my own books, I've checked the Midrash -- Josephus affirms that Uriah was a convert, as does John Trapp, John Gill, Robert Jamieson, Charles Whitaker, etc. In fact, the only people that I found who seem to take an opposing view to the Jewish and Christian Scholars are ones who focus entirely on the phrase "the Hittite." They seem to believe that that settles the matter, without need of deeper research and thought. However, I am certain that even with this agreement that Uriah was a Jew, I have not read all possible commentaries. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243022 | ||
I have always assumed Uriah was a proselyte, a man that had met David and became a close friend and fellow warrior. As such he would have no claim to the promised land and there would not be considered in the requirement to have an inheritance redeemer to provide an heir to possess his part of the promised land. However if that is right or wrong, the fact remains the Matt 1 was written to show the succession of Kings from David to Jesus. Uriah's bloodline plays no part and is of no effect. Because of this I don't understand Brent insistance that Solomon was the product of the inheritance redeemer law. We know David named Solomon The son he fathered by Bathsheba, king thus the kingly succession is complete just as God had promised |
||||||
5 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | DocTrinsograce | 243026 | ||
Sounds right to me, Ed. Sorry for jumping in. | ||||||