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: 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? |