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: I believe Uriah was most likely a proselyte of Hittite ancestry, as that would be the most straightforward reading of the various texts including his name. He seems to clearly be a believer in YHWH based on David's inclusion of him in living in such proximity to the palace, his repeated inclusion among David's mighty men, and the way that his wife seems to be treated as a woman of honor despite David's obvious abuse of Uriah and David's rebuke by God through Nathan. I also doubt that David would have trusted a foreigner without first verifying his sincerity to YHWH and to Israel (having deceived the Philistines himself several times). However, David also came from a heritage of accepting foreign believers in YHWH into Israel and into the tribe of Judah: being only a few generations descended from both Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab. As to the potential perception that inclusion of Uriah into the (legal but non-blood) lineage of the Messiah would somehow remove David, that is clearly not the case based on the remaining lineage. For example, Boaz is included in the lineage, and Judah is included with no mention of Judah's son Er (Tamar's first husband). If the dead husband automatically replaced the actual father in the lineage, Boaz should have been replaced by Elimelech or Mahlon as indicated in application of the principle in Ruth 4:5-17 - but shown not to impact Boaz's place in the recognized genealogy for David in Ruth 4:18-22 or in Matthew 1. There is no suggestion whatsoever here to discredit Jesus as the Messiah descended from David, Judah, and Abraham. Also, as you noted earlier, this is not a blood lineage to Jesus. That is recorded in Luke 3:23, which I would interpret, "Jesus Himself.. being the son (supposedly of Joseph but really) of Eli [Mary's father]..." I was actually surprised to find that this was also through David and Bathsheba (and not another wife) through their son Nathan (Luke 3:31-32; 1 Chron 3:5). It is true that this lineage establishes Jesus' legal inheritance to the throne of Israel and Judah (by adoption through Jesus' earthly father Joseph) all the way from David and Solomon through all the descended kings of Judah to Jeconiah/Jehoiachin at the deportation to Babylon and beyond. However, this is not a parable, so this does not mean that God has nothing else to communicate through the text but that one point. This is a completely paternalistic genealogy except for the inclusion of 4 women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah's wife (whose own name is not even directly mentioned in the original text of Matthew). What do these named people have in common through the unique mention of women in this patrilineal line? They are all foreign believers in the true God YHWH who were grafted into God's people -- and they are all noted deliberately in the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah who reigns on David's throne. (Someone may argue about Tamar, but there are strong potential indicators that she was a foreigner, and Judah certainly did not seem averse to having a foreign wife for himself or having sexual relations with someone he considered to be a foreign prostitute.) So we see that God always included all true believers (in His true Self as revealed in His words of the Bible and in the world and heavens that declare His glory) among His children and His people. Grafting in Gentiles may seem a new concept to the Judaizers of New Testament times, but God had always grafted them in -- even into the line of the Messiah. This seems to me evident from the text. My question is whether God went beyond this and here (at least metaphorically) honors a believing Gentile by applying the rights of kinsman redeemer. Yes, this would be beyond what the Jews would normally do. It would include a Gentile who had bonded himself to David and God's people as a believer in God and one of David's trusted mighty men by mentioning him specifically in the lineage of Christ. If the kinsman redeemer principle is applied, this explains Solomon's description as the son of David by Uriah's wife and the parallel with the other women mentioned. It would also potentially resolve the reason as to why Solomon was listed last among David and Bathsheba's sons in 1 Chron 3:5, 1 Chron 14:4, and 2 Samuel 5:14. This explanation does not make this true. I believe it to be a possible interpretation, but not something I would hold strongly. However, I also do not see it as of yet to be negated or disproven by anything given so far. My purpose in asking the question was to see whether this was way off base or plausible. So far, it still seems plausible to me. |