What is there a difference in the genealogy of Matthew and Luke?

Why do the genealogies in Matthew and Luke differ?

Matthew presents the credentials of the King. The genealogy of Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1 traces His lineage through David and Solomon. David typifies the "King of Glory," strong and mighty in battle (Psalm 24:8)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24:8), and Solomon typifies the glorious reign of the "King of peace" (Hebrews 7:2)," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:2), the eternal Son of God (verse 3).

Luke presents a perfect Man Whose pathway leading to Calvary was the revelation of the heart of God (Luke 1:78)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:78). Matthew portrays Him as the "Seed of David;" Luke describes the virgin-bom "Seed of the Woman." Luke's genealogy traces Him through David's son, Nathan, not Solomon. Throughout this list, "son" is not in the text except in verse 23 where "as it was supposed" qualifies it. In every other case, Luke says, "of Heli, of..." until he says, "of Adam, of God," "the Son of God" (in the singular and with the article, this is used only of the Lord).

Matthew lists the genealogy of Joseph. Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary. Through Joseph legally and Mary personally, the despised Jesus of Nazareth was truly "born King of the Jews."

N. Crawford

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the "Book of Mormon" have any spiritual value?

Does the "Book of Mormon" have any spiritual value?

No. Revelation 22:18" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 22:18 warns against adding to the prophecies of that book. Hebrews 1:1-2" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:1-2 indicates that the time of varied and partial prophecies culminated and concluded in the coming of God’s Son. The Lord authorized His followers to complete the revelation of truth (John 14:26; 16:13, 14)." TARGET="_blank">John 14:26; 16:13, 14). Biblically, then, the Word of God was completed when John went home to heaven. The purported origin of the "Book of Mormon" cannot be confirmed. The three witnesses who allegedly saw the "plates" from which it was translated all eventually turned from Mormonism. In the ensuing years, the "inspired translation" has been changed in over 2000 places. It contradicts the Scriptures, saying, for example, that the Son of God would be born at Jerusalem. Its history contradicts available evidence; its language is an apparent plagiarism of the King James Version and violates accepted rules of grammar; it contradicts its own statements of doctrine. (W. Martin, "Kingdom of the Cults," Bethany House Publishers, pp. 156-171.)

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should I be baptized again if I was baptized as a baby?

There are many verses in the Bible that teach about various kinds of baptism. For a full explanation of the topic see the following 13 chapters of the online book Baptism by Harry Ironside .

Let’s examine the possible reasons why you may ask “should I be baptized again?”

1) If your reason to be baptized again as an adult is to complete a spiritual requirement to be saved, then the answer is NO. You should not be baptized yet. You need to be saved first before being baptized. Baptism is for people who already are Christians. You should not use baptism as a way to be saved or any other Christian activity such as participating in communion, joining a church, confirming your faith, getting married in the church or making a vow. Your real need is to trust Christ to be your savior. Baptism as a baby didn’t save you and neither will being baptized as an unbeliever make you saved.

2) If your reason to be baptized again is because you have recently accepted Christ as Savior and are now a true Christian, then the answer is YES. You should be baptized even if you were baptized before - as a baby or an adult.

Baptism for believers

Baptism is for a person who has been saved, trusting in Christ alone for salvation. If someone who was baptized before he/she became a Christian and then was saved, then being baptized again is the right thing to do.

Babies are not believers in Christ. The Bible does not teach that babies should be baptized. The tradition of baptizing a baby is purely from a tradition of the church. Baptism for babies gives a false security that “something” was done to help the child become a Christian.

Baptism by immersion

The symbolism of baptism is explained in Romans 6:1-5." TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:1-5. The believer is saying that he has died with Christ. He has died to sin. Therefore he should be symbolically buried. The word “baptize” means immersed or buried in water. Immersion is the only way to illustrate the truth of being dead and buried.

Romans 6:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:1-5 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (2) By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

There are many verses in the Bible that teach about various kinds of baptism. For a full explanation of the topic see the following 13 chapters of the online book Baptism by Harry Ironside .

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the consequence of not serving others?

What is the consequence of not serving others?

To a servant mind (Philippians 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">Philippians 2:5), meeting the needs of others is a way of life. Human nature being what it is, the absence of a servant mind introduces "strife and vainglory" (rivalry and conceit, ESV) (v 3) into the assembly. It creates a dead, difficult-to-define, negative atmosphere that causes the disenfranchised to go elsewhere and children to turn from the gospel. The existence of the assembly in Philippi was endangered because of the lack of a servant mind. By adopting a servant mind, the believers were to "work out" the salvation of the assembly (v 12). Only by this means could the believers be effective Christian witnesses in the community. Failure to serve others is totally foreign to the heart of God and therefore is destructive to testimony, personal growth, and gospel outreach.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the subject of homosexuality a necessary part of an assembly

Is the subject of homosexuality a necessary part of an assembly’s teaching?

This lifestyle is flaunted on the streets. The public media paints this as part of the mainstream of living. The brunt of the effort to change society’s thinking assails the young especially. They are particularly susceptible to the pressure of peers, the usual curiosity of maturing, and the onslaught of prurient literature and web sites.

The Bible addresses this subject. To be fully equipped to live as believers and testify effectively in this world, we need "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:27). Paul assures us that the Scriptures equip us for every need (2 Timothy 3:17)," TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:17), and his letters exemplify the application of truth to current needs.

This is an emotional subject, so we may tend to avoid it, overreact to it, or fail to understand the devious nature of the attack. As comfortable or appealing as it may be to either avoid the subject or handle it with a "hit and run" approach, an assembly must provide guidance and teaching on the many issues relevant to this subject.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Shouls someone "break" the loaf before distributing it during the Lord's Supper?

BREAKING THE BREAD

Is it right to take the loaf, that which answers to the Body of our Lord and break it in two, and then hand it round the Assembly?

In Matthew 26:26;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19," TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:19, we read that the Lord took bread and gave thanks (or blessed) and brake and gave unto His disciples saying, “This is my body,” and Luke adds, “which is given (not broken) for you.” In 1 Corinthians 11:23, 24, the Lord Jesus is said to have followed the same order, with the words, “which is broken for you,” but this, R.V. changes simply (and with sufficient MS. authority) to, “which is for you.” Now, compare this with Luke 24: 30," TARGET="_blank">Luke 24: 30, where a simple meal was about to begin (for it can hardly be maintained that the two disciples had spread the table of remembrance that evening at Emmaus, in the condition in which they were of unbelief and ignorance of the true meaning of all that had taken place), and where we read that the Lord took bread and gave thanks, as he sat down to the meal, and then brake it. I do not, therefore, think we must put undue emphasis on the breaking of the bread even by the Lord, though far be it from us to affirm that any act of His was not significant. However, the brother who gives thanks in the Assembly for the bread or the cup, would shrink from any pretention to be taking the place that the Lord rightly took. His giving thanks is no official act, but only as representing the Assembly, and his breaking the bread is only for the convenience of distribution. The true breaking of bread is done by all, each one for him or herself, as we read in 1 Corinthians 10:26" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:26: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ”? What is important is that the giving of thanks should take place before the loaf is broken for distribution, for the loaf is one, and this must be maintained, for it not only represents the one holy Body of the Lord given for us, but His mystical Body, the oneness of which is thus witnessed to. “The bread which we break is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? seeing that there is one bread, we who are many are one body” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16-17, R.V., margin).

To pass a whole loaf around would be very inconvenient, and would necessitate its being divided in some way by the one who received it first, which would come to the same thing as that to which the questioner objects. The breaking of the bread by the saints is not a dividing of the Body of Christ, but a communion in it (“Him we all in common share”), a remembrance of Him in the act, and a proclamation of His death.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

When someone dies, where does his spirit go?

Man is composed of spirit, soul, and body. When he dies where does the spirit go?

The spirit and the soul must not be confused, nor yet divided. They together form the spiritual part of man. When a believer falls asleep he only does so as regards his body. The spiritual part of him, with which the personality is really connected, goes at once to be with Christ (see a 2 Corinthians 5: 8)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5: 8). “Absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” This, of course, cannot refer to the resurrection state, as then no believer will be absent from the body. Paul describes dying as departing to be with Christ which is far better (Philippians 1:23)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:23). It is a most serious denial of God’s truth to describe the condition of the believer who dies, as that of sleep, except as regards his body.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is "the destroyer" (Exodus 12:23) a destroying angel?

Is "the destroyer" (Exodus 12:23)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:23) a destroying angel?

"The destroyer" is actually a verb form and could be translated "that which causes destruction." Strong’s Lexicon relates it to "destroyer" in verse 13, "the plague shall not . . . destroy you." This suggests that the plague itself is "the destroyer."

Support for the widely-accepted thought of "the destroying angel" apparently comes from Psalm 78:49," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 78:49, "He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, . . . by sending evil [harmful] angels among them." The previous verses (verses 43-48) review the plagues prior to the Passover in Egypt.

Verse 51 deals with the Passover, but verse 50, the intervening verse, seems to indicate that verse 49 reflects back on the plagues prior to the Passover. It states, ". . . He spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence." The only time this word "pestilence" appears in Exodus is regarding the plagues before the Passover. It never refers to the Passover in the rest of the Old Testament. One time (1 Chronicles 21:12)," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 21:12), the pestilence is equated with the angel of the Lord’s "destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel" after David’s sin in numbering the people. This however seems to be a weak link.

Scripture affirms that the plague destroyed the firstborn but doesn’t clearly support that an angel was the destroyer.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it part of your doctrine that Gospel Hall members do not attend other Christian churches?

Hello;

I have a niece who is attending a Gospel Hall and she has been told she can not attend any other Christian church. She is going away to college and there is no Gospel Hall near her college but there is another Christian church nearby. Now she does not want to attend college as there is no Gospel Hall near her college.

Is it part of your doctrine that Gospel Hall members do not attend other Christian churches?

Thank you for your time;

Answer:

Thanks for writing. Your concerns may you lead to investigate a number of issues about the nature of the Church from the scriptures.

The fellowship of a believer with others is based on commonly-held doctrines. An assembly at a gospel hall usually is a conservative group that holds to the teaching of the inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth, salvation through faith in Christ apart from works, the regular practice of the breaking of bread, the desire to live a pure life.

Some doctrines that your niece may wish to uphold that are not universally accepted in churches:

- tongues and other gifts of the spirit given to the apostles ceased with the completion of the New Testament.
- a group of elders in the assembly lead in guiding the flock of believers instead of a single pastor.
- women show the submission of the church to the Lord by covering their heads with a hat or veil during the meetings. Women to not participate in teaching or leading the group in prayer (1 Timothy 2" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:)
- a church/assembly takes the name of no denomination. The name Gospel Hall applies to the building, but not an organization or group of people (Matthew 18:20)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:20)
- the fellowship of the church consists of believers who can identify a time when they received Christ, later were baptized and hold to the doctrines mentioned above. Those who are not saved or do not hold to such doctrines are received as visitors, but do not form part of the fellowship (Acts 2:42-43;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42-43; 1 Corinthians 14:16, 23, 24)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:16, 23, 24).

There is no official list of doctrines or creeds among the assemblies. The scriptures are their guide. One assembly's decisions and views may differ from another.

Your niece probably feels uncomfortable joining a church that may not follow some of these practices.

Shad Sluiter
Postville, Iowa

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do we worship Christ or the Father or the Holy Spirit?

PRAYER AND WORSHIP
THE PROPER OBJECT OF OUR WORSHIP

In this dispensation, to which Person in the Godhead should the worship of the assembly be directed?

Without question our Lord Jesus Christ is a true and proper object of His people’s worship. The wise men from the east came to worship Him (Matthew 2:2)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 2:2), and “when they saw the young child with Mary His mother, they fell down and worshipped (not them, as the Romanist and Ritualist would have it, but) Him”—not to mention such cases as occur in Matthew 8:2;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:2; Matthew 9:18," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 9:18, which perhaps would hardly mean more than an act of deep reverence (for “worship” etyrnologically means “worth-ship,” and is thus used in law courts—”your worship”).

In Matthew 14:33 we read that those in the boat recognised Him as “Son of God;” as did the healed man of John 9:38" TARGET="_blank">John 9:38 when he exclaimed, “Lord, I believe, and he worshipped Him.” In each instance it is the revelation of the glory of His person, which draws out the adoring worship of His own. This was the case on earth after His resurrection (Matthew 28:9)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:9), and never did the Lord disclaim such worship, as did Peter (Acts 4:12)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 4:12), but accepted it as His rightful due.

This is all perfectly true and most blessed, and wherever to-day God is worshipped, our Lord Jesus Christ receives His part, for He is God the Son. But this being so, we must not confuse the Persons of the Trinity. Each has His proper place and function, and in John 4" TARGET="_blank">John 4: the Lord clearly indicates that it is God the Father who is seeking worshippers, and it is “in spirit and in truth” that the true worshipper must worship Him.

The worship of the Old Testament saints was figurative. The worship of the Lord when on earth was direct and personal, but there was another worship, even then beginning, true and spiritual. The Lord Jesus is the Way to the Father. If in our priestly worship we habitually stop short of Him, we fall below what the Lord wills for His people. He is the High Priest over the house of God, delighting to present their worship to the Father. The object, the way, and substance, the power of worship are all indicated in that most inclusive verse, Ephesians 2:18," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 2:18, “For through Him (the Lord Jesus) we both (Jew and Gentile) have access by one Spirit unto the Father.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu