Why does Joseph's genealogy matter to Jesus since he wasn't the real father?

Why does Joseph's genealogy have relevance to the Lord when Joseph was not His natural father?

Matthew begins with, 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David." His purpose is to present our Lord Jesus as the Son of David Who will reign as king, sitting on the throne of David. Matthew shows that Joseph had descended from David through Solomon, and therefore had the legal rights to the throne. Matthew lists 15 kings by name, but only David is referred to as king (verse 6). Jechonias is the last king named in the genealogy. Concerning him, Jeremiah 22:30" TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 22:30 says, "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David."

When Joseph obeyed the angel of the Lord and took Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:20,24)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:20,24), he also accepted her son as his. Our Lord Jesus thus inherited the legal rights to the throne of David. Since Joseph was not his natural father, He did not inherit the curse of Jechonias. It is wonderful how God worked it out!

W. Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Can a single person be an elder?

Yes. If the Spirit has developed shepherd care in the heart of a single brother and the brother expresses that care in a character consistent with 1 Timothy 3:1-7," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:6-9," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6-9, and 1 Peter 5:13," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:13, God apparently has called him to that work.

This question stems from the words, "the husband of one wife" (1Tim. 3:3;" TARGET="_blank">1Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:6)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6). Three considerations clarify this statement: the context; a comparison; a construction. The context in 1 Timothy 3:2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:2 describes moral character. The overseer’s character must be blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behavior. Dealing with hospitality, Paul doesn’t say he must show hospitality (that would describe acts), but that he must be given to hospitality (describing a characteristic). "Apt to teach," judging by its only other usage (2 Timothy 2:24)," TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:24), likewise appears to describe character. The following verse also deals with character and that seems to be the emphasis through verse 6.

By comparison, the expression in 1 Timothy 5:9" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:9 is "the wife of one husband." The description of the woman here and of the man in 3:2 is consistent. First, this can hardly apply to polygamy, since that doesn’t involve a woman’s being married to more than one man. It hardly seems fair for Paul to state that a true widow who will receive financial support from the assembly can only have been married once. Five verses later, he advises younger widows to marry. If, in later life, they were again widowed, by obeying God’s Word to remarry they became ineligible for financial assistance, even though they otherwise qualified. The expression then must describe her as a woman who was obviously faithful to her husband before her widowhood and retained that dignity when she became widowed. The overseer, by comparison, must be above reproach in relating to women.

The construction of Titus 1:6" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6 and 7 is instructive. Verse 7 insists on the irreproachable character of an overseer. Verse 6 is a conditional clause, "if any be blameless" in family life. If married, he must evidently be faithful; if a parent, the respect in which his children hold him supports his character.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What did Old Testament believers know about Christ's sacrifice?

Is it correct to say that the Old Testament saints had the Gospel preached to them as we know it?

(see Galatians 3:8)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:8).

Did Abraham know when he offered up Isaac, that his son was a type of the Son of God? or did Isaiah know when speaking of the sufferings of Christ, that He was the Son of God? or again, did Job know that his Redeemer was the Son of God?

It is not possible, it seems to me, for anyone to search the hearts and understandings of these Old Testament saints, and define the exact extent of their spiritual apprehension of the Person of whom they spake. Spiritual truths are spiritually apprehended.

Certainly the Gospel preached to Abraham was not the Good News as we know it, but it contained it, for its promise of salvation was alone through Christ. Probably the apprehension of Patriarchs and Prophets was much greater than we might naturally suppose. For instance, would it not be difficult to define the limitations of our Lord’s words in John 8:56" TARGET="_blank">John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” This seems to refer to a special occasion, as the verbs are all in the aorist and speak of a point of time in the past, probably to the great deliverance on Mount Moriah. Abraham might have called the name of the place “Jehovah-rahah”__the Lord has provided, had he thought all was over. Evidently he perceived that what had just taken place was the figure of a greater deliverance and so he called it “JehovahJireh”—the Lord will provide. Whether Isaiah and the prophets knew that the Messiah about whom they wrote was to be actually the Son of God, it seems profitless to enquire. They knew they were inspired by the Spirit of Christ testifying in them, and that they were speaking for us, concerning “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” (1 Peter 1:11)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:11). Their difficulty was not to know of whom they spake, but of what manner of time. As for Job’s wonderful words, “I know that my Redeemer liveth,” he would be a bold man (which boldness I neither share nor desire to share), who would undertake to limit this prophecy. It seems to me that in these words God gave His tried servant to understand a bit of “Romans” truth—”My Redeemer”; a bit of “Corinthian” truth —“He shall stand in the latter day upon the earth”; a bit of “Thessalonian” truth—”In My flesh I shall see God”; a bit of “Colossian” truth—”My Redeemer is God”; and a bit of “Timothy” truth—”I know.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I get my spouse to change?

How can I get my spouse to change?

If that word "get" means "make," "manipulate," or "manage," it is unacceptable.

Changing others is not our responsibility. Our responsibility in all our relationships is enabling others to be all the Lord intends them to be. We attempt to change others for our own interests. We enable others to fulfill God's will for the Lord's sake and for theirs. The model for our relationships is the One Who "took upon Him the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:7)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:7), therefore serving is the key to relationships.

Even if we were married to a perfect spouse, some days we'd find things to change.

Three truths will help settle our viewpoint. First, God's sovereignty assures us that our spouse is the perfect instrument with which the Lord intends to mold us into His likeness (Romans 9:20)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 9:20). Second, our spouse's bothersome qualities indicate where either we (see the previous paragraph) or our spouse need divine refining. That directs us to the "feet" that need to be washed (John 13:4-17)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:4-17). Lay aside your rights, slip on the servant's towel, fill the basin, and serve. Third, the Lord never entrusts us with a responsibility for which He does not enable us (Philippians 4:13, 19)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:13, 19).

Since it's generally easier to answer a different question that what has been asked, it may seem unfair to change this question; however, the more appropriate question is, "How can I be a better spouse?"

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

The Gospel Hall Forum

The Gospel Hall Forum is an email ListServ that has been in operation since 1996. It provides a way for believers to share news updates related to gospel work, prayer requests and to ask for information about others.

Click on the following links for more information:

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does 1 Timothy suggest a paid pastor position?

Does 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, 18 suggest a paid pastorate?

A few obvious details in 1 Timothy make it clear that neither Timothy nor any Ephesian elder was the paid pastor. No New Testament passage supports such a practice, no matter how convenient or prevalent it may be.

All the overseers in Ephesus, where Timothy was, were to assist in teaching the saints (1 Timothy 3:2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:2). Paul had taught these men to labor with their hands in doing their work with the flock (Acts 20:34, 35)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:34, 35). In addition, in 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, Paul is not speaking about one man, but about "elders that rule well." These elders received honor for the responsibility entrusted to them. They were also to be honored in another way. The law taught that an ox was allowed to eat in order to satisfy the necessity (his hunger) caused by his work. Thus, elders that ruled well were to receive financial assistance in cases where their labors caused them to lack the necessities of life. This is quite different from a contractual arrangement where one man is paid to do the preaching.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does "for as the days of a tree are the days of my people" mean?

What is the meaning of God’s message in Isaiah 65:22" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 65:22?

"They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands" (Isa 65:22)." TARGET="_blank">Isa 65:22). This echoes from the beginning of Israel’s national history in their land. The sins of the idolatrous inhabitants of the land rose to such a level that God removed them and gave it to Israel (Genesis 15:7, 16)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:7, 16). When they went into that land, they received cities they didn’t build, houses they didn’t fill, wells they didn’t dig, and vineyards and olive trees they didn’t plant (Deuteronomy 6:11)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 6:11). Because of God’s judgment, the previous tenants built and didn’t inhabit, and planted but didn’t eat the fruit. God warned His people that disobeying Him would bring a curse; they would build a house and not dwell in it and plant vineyards and not eat the grapes (28:30), because invaders would oppress and spoil them (v 29).

As the decades of their disobedience mounted, they suffered tastes of this from invading armies, as in the days of Judges. Eventually, the Babylonian army carried them away captive and they suffered the full weight of the curse; their houses and vineyards were left for their captors to enjoy. During their captivity, the Lord pointed to a future day when He would regather them, judge their enemies, and cause His people to dwell safely in their land (Ezekiel 25, 26)." TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 25, 26). They would build houses, plant vineyards, and dwell there with confidence. That promise has not yet been fulfilled, but will be during the coming earthly reign of Christ. They would no longer be disobedient and never again suffer from invaders.

The passage in Isaiah 65" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 65 includes this blessing, but extends it. The context deals with the longevity God’s obedient people will enjoy during those thousand years (Isa 65:20)." TARGET="_blank">Isa 65:20). Even if no enemy invaded their land in the past, death would eventually intervene and someone else would live in their house and eat from their vineyards. In that future kingdom, where believers have God’s law written on their hearts, even death will not dispossess them of houses and lands. Their days will be lengthened to the age of trees, which generally outlive animal life. Horticulturalists indicate that some of the olive trees presently standing in Jerusalem’s Garden of Gethsamane were there when the Lord agonized in the garden’s dust.

The result would be prolonged enjoyment of their labors, for their days would be long on the land which the Lord gave them (Exodus 20:12)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 20:12). The verse then assures their security (no dispossession), longevity (no death), and felicity (no departure).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does excommunication involve two forms of discipline?

Does excommunication involve two forms of discipline?

Because of the nature of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5, the individual must be put away to cleanse Gods temple. Sins of the kind mentioned there cannot coexist with Gods presence. Since 2 Thessalonians 3:14" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3:14 shows that social discipline ("with such an one, no not to eat", 1 Corinthians 5:11)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:11), is a form of discipline in itself, two forms of discipline are imposed when an individual is excommunicated. Social discipline can be imposed by itself (2 Thessalonians 3:14)," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3:14), but excommunication cannot. Pauls instruction regarding excommunication joins social discipline with putting a person away.

As in 2 Thessalonians 3," TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 3, a potential problem in Corinth was that the sin in the assembly could adversely affect the behavior of others, "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (verse 6). For this reason, the believers were to have no company with the offender in order to protect the assembly. Both forms of discipline are also to promote the persons recovery. The passage in 2 Thessalonians indicates that social discipline is to make him ashamed verse 14), to see the wrong of his behavior. There is a contrast between them, however. In 2 Thessalonians he is to be admonished as a brother (verse 15). 1 Corinthians merely states that he is "called a brother." His is put away and is on the same ground as a heathen man and a publican (Matthew 18:17)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:17).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Bible Verse Finder

The Online Bible Verse Finder provides a free way to add the ability to your site visitors to find a Bible verse directly from your page. The Bible verse finder is available along with the dictionary under the link titled "Online Bible Search" or here.

Instructions for the Bible verse finder

1. Select this link Bible Verse Finder.

2. Choose a Bible version in which to find your verse (ASV -American Standard Version, BBE - Bible in Basic English, DBY - Darby "New Translation", GFR - God's Word for Readers, KJV - King James Version, WEB - World English Bible, YLT - Young's Literal Translation, or the ESV - English Standard Version)

3. Click "Go" to launch the Bible verse finder.

The results of your bible verse finder search will be different with each Bible version since the language in each Bible version is slightly different.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was baptism required for salvation before Pentecost?

Was baptism required for salvation before Pentecost (Luke 3:3)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:3)?

Paul invokes "the law of first mention" in Romans when he notes that righteousness and faith are introduced together in the Scriptures. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 4:3). Paul is teaching that, from the beginning, being right with God was on the basis of faith, not by observing religious rites (circumcision) or obeying the Law (vv 1-13). Paul is supporting the text for Romans, "The just (those declared righteous by God) shall live by faith" (1:17). Being saved, which is inseparable from being declared righteous by God, is, has always been, and will always be on the basis of faith.

John the Baptist’s "baptism unto repentance" was not a baptism for salvation. Gabriel described John’s mission: "Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, . . . to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:16, 17)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:16, 17). He ministered to the nation to prepare from their number a people waiting for the Lord." John awakened the conscience of his hearers, whose question was, "What shall we do?" (3:10, 12, 14). His answer did not direct them to faith, as did Paul and Silas’ (Acts 16:30, 31)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:30, 31), but to works, to "bear fruits in keeping with repentance" (Luke 3:8" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:8 ESV, with vv 11, 13, 14). Their baptism to repentance did not save them; it prepared them for John’s climactic message, "Behold the Lamb of God . . ." (John 1:29)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:29).

If the 12 disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:1-7) had been saved through John’s baptism, they would have received the Spirit and been part of the Church at Pentecost (1 Corinthians 12:13)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 12:13).

John’s baptism was an expression of submission to John’s message from God. It confirmed a recognition of guilt linked to their own sins and the sins of their nation. It said, in effect, "We need the coming Savior." For at least some who were baptized by John, their baptism unto repentance preceded faith in Christ.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu

Bible Verse Finder