Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 1:6 Jesse was the father of David the king. ¶ David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 1:6 Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. [Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chr 2:13-15] |
Subject: Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? |
Bible Note: 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. |