Two funnies

The Raise

Sam walked into his boss’s office. “Sir,” he said, “I’ll be straight with you. I know the economy isn’t great, but I have three companies after me. I would like to respectfully ask for a raise.”

They haggled a few minutes, but the boss finally agreed to a 5% raise. Sam thanked him and got up to leave.

“By the way”, asked the boss, “I’m curious; which three companies are after you?”

“The electric company, gas company, and phone company!” Sam replied and hurried out.

--

The Panda

As a couple were eating snacks on their back deck, a panda strolled up and gobbled down some peanuts. Then he pulled out a gun, fired it into the air, and headed off. 

“Hey, you!” shouted the man after him. 

The panda yelled back, “I’m a panda. Google me!” 

He did, and sure enough, he found the panda is: “A tree-climbing mammal with distinct black-and-white coloring. Eats shoots and leaves.”

Unaffiliated and Old-Time Associations Online

Some associations I have found online that are "old-time" or unaffiliated with any general bodies. These are linked as a matter of interest and does not constitute endorsement of all the associations linked.

• Bethel Missionary Baptist Association
• Central Missouri Association of United Baptist Churches of Jesus Christ
• Eastern District Association of Primitive Baptists
• Enterprise Association of Regular Baptist Churches
• Faithway Missionary Baptist Association
• Indian Bottom Association Of Old Regular Baptists
• Mt. Pisgah Baptist Association
• Northern New Salem Association of Old Regular Baptist
• Original Stone Association of Free Will Baptists
• Paint Union Association of United Baptists
• Sardis Association of Old Regular Baptist
• Separate Baptists in Christ
• Southwestern District Missionary Baptist Association
• Union Association of Old Regular Baptist of Jesus Christ

Flesch-Kincaid results, foreign languages

To compare with my previous Flesch-Kincaid results, I gleaned readability results in Microsoft Word from a Greek New Testament and two foreign language Bibles. I hope I did it right! It seemed to not matter – that is, change the results – whether the proofing language was set on English or Greek/Spanish/Swedish.

Greek New Testament: SBL Edition

Words 244

Sentences 9

Passive Sentences 0%

Flesch Reading Ease 9.4

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 18.6

Reina-Valera Antigua (Spanish)

Words 282

Sentences 14

Passive Sentences 0%

Flesch Reading Ease 35.8

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 12.2

Svenska Folkbibeln (Swedish)

Words 296

Sentences 17

Passive Sentences 0%

Flesch Reading Ease 69.4

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 7.9

The Flesch Reading Ease test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score means the easier it is to understand the document. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. A score of 8.0 would mean that an eighth grader can (theoretically) understand the document. Therefore, according to this test, the Swedish is easiest to read and the Greek is the hardest. If you cannot read either, they are equally hard!

Homosexuality and Texas (Southern) Baptist Fellowship

A month ago I posted a link to Bart Barber's post on The Baptist General Convention of Texas and Local Church Autonomy, regarding the Baptist General Convention of Texas disfellowshipping two churches for affirming homosexuality.

Those interested in the topic might want to read the Baptist Standard point/counterpoint by Roger Olson and David Currie: 

• Point: Sorting out the BGCT, LGBT and Baptist autonomy
• Counterpoint: Texas Baptists, what have we just lost?

Kindness, acorns and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

"Acts of kindness are like acorns which grow into mighty oaks." -- Fred Smith, Sr.

"It is not historians who toy with the fantasy of Christ-myth." -- J. N. Geldenhuys

"Speak to people about a subject, not on a subject to people." -- Fred Smith, Sr.

"Disarming good guys does not disarm bad guys." -- Gun Owners of America

"When you're surrounded on all sides, there is only one way to look -- up!" -- Heard

"Be kind. Everyone you meet is fighting a terrible battle." -- Philo of Alexandria

"Just as they became unnatural by worshipping nature, so they actually became unmanly by worshipping man." -- G. K. Chesterton

"It is a distinct principle with Baptists that they acknowledge no human founder, recognize no human authority, and subscribe to no human creed." -- M. L. Moser

"Be honest. Be real. God is not fragile. He can take it." -- copied

Christian leaders and Christian martyrs

Recent studies show Christians among the largest of two widely distinct groups. Christians comprise the largest percentage of the Congress of the United States of America. 
Survey finds Congress more Christian than the rest of America -- "Nine out of 10 members the new House and Senate (91%) sworn in Tuesday describe themselves as members of the Christian faith, according to a survey released by Pew Research Center Tuesday." 

Christians were the most persecuted religious group in the world in 2016. 
Report: Christianity Most Persecuted Religion in 2016 -- "The Center for Studies on New Religions said more than 90,000 Christians were killed in 2016."

King James and the Apocrypha

Over ten years ago I authored a piece on this blog called Baptists and the Apocrypha. In it I tried to offer a consistent cautious conventional approach for Baptists to what are known as the apocryphal books, sometimes set between the Old and New Testaments. Today I want to consider “King James and the Apocrypha”. At times some Baptists and others attack the King James Bible on the basis of it originally containing these 14 books.

The King James Bible in 1611 included 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament, as well as 14 other books usually called the Apocrypha.[i] The presence of the Apocrypha in the first King James Bible is set forth by the anti-KJVists as “proof positive” that the King James Bible cannot be defended,[ii] often asking, “Why do advocates of the King James Bible reject the Apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the Apocrypha?”[iii]

Some history regarding the Apocrypha

Jerome, in the Latin Vulgate, “introduced the term ‘Apocrypha’ to denote ‘books of the church’, as distinct from ‘books of the canon’.”[iv] All complete English translations of the Bible (Old and New Testaments, e.g. Wycliffe, Matthew’s, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishop’s) printed up to the 16th century included an Apocrypha, though it was not identical in all of them. The first Bible in English without the Apocrypha was the 1599 Geneva Bible. This section was also found in Bibles in other languages, such as Luther’s German translation, the Zürich Bible, the Spanish Reina edition, and so forth. Its long historical connection to the sacred writings goes back to inclusion in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. One can complain that these books were there, and argue about why they were there – but they were there nonetheless. There is nothing unusual or particularly significant about its inclusion in the King James Bible of 1611. King James Bibles may have officially included the Apocrypha until 1666, but various printings without it – dated as early 1619 – have been found. The much-touted Revised Version “replacement”[v] of the King James Bible included these books,[vi] as did the Revised Standard Version (1946-1957).[vii] Other modern English Bibles which contain the Apocrypha include New English Bible/Revised English Bible, Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Millennium Bible, World English Bible.

These books were placed at the end of the Old Testament and before the New, to set them apart from the canonical Scriptures. “…the historical context for Protestant English translations of the Bible out of which the KJB would emerge was one that included placing the books of the Apocrypha as a separate collection at the end of the Old Testament.” The Geneva Bible included a preface that the books of the Apocrypha “were not to be read or expounded publicly in church and could only prove doctrine inasmuch as they agree with the” Old and New Testaments.[viii] “[I]t was not until the 19th century that the removal of the Apocrypha from all Protestant Bibles became the norm.”[ix]

King James Translators and the Apocrypha

“The proposal for a new translation came from Dr. John Reynolds [Rainolds], President of Corpus Christi College at Oxford, a leader of the Puritan side in the Church of England, and one of the greatest scholars of his day. Reynolds’s proposal caught King James’ fancy and he set in order the machinery to bring about the translation.”[x]

As yet I have not found much in the way of direct statements on the Apocrypha by the King James Bible translators. King James himself perhaps preferred it more than the Puritans, but did not count the books inspired (See The King James Version at 400, pages 348-349).

Translator George Abbot, when later the Archbishop of Canterbury, issued an edict “that forbade the publication of Bibles without the Apocrypha.”[xi] But both the Puritans and High-Church Anglicans apparently subscribed to “Article VI on the Holy Scriptures” from the Book of Articles which was “agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy in the convocation holden at London in the year 1562...” Referencing the Apocrypha, Article VI stated, “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

    “The Third Book of Esdras. [I Esdras]

    “The Fourth Book of Esdras. [II Esdras]

    “The Book of Tobias. [Tobit]

    “The Book of Judith. [Judeth]

    “The rest of the Book of Esther. [The rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther]

    “The Book of Wisdom. [The Wisdom of Solomon]

    “Jesus the Son of Sirach. [The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus]

    “Baruch the Prophet. [Baruch]

    “The Song of the Three Children. [The Song of the Three Holy Children]

    “The Story of Susanna. [The history of Susanna]

    “Of Bel and the Dragon. [The history of the destruction of Bel and the Dragon]

    “The Prayer of Manasses. [The prayer of Manasses, King of Judah]

    “The First Book of Maccabees. [The first book of the Maccabees]

    “The Second Book of Maccabees. [The second book of the Maccabees]”[xii]

Dr. John Rainolds, the Puritan leader who suggested to the new Bible translation, opposed the use of the Apocrypha. At the January 1604 Hampton Court Conference, he “insisted boldly on various points” and demanded “the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service.”[xiii] Puritans argued that some of the Apocrypha contained “manifest errors, directly repugnant to the Scriptures.”[xiv] “Rainolds himself had from the late 1580s frequently lectured at Oxford on the Apocrypha, directing his ire at the Jesuit Bellarmine. These 250 lectures were published posthumously as Censura librorum apocryphorum veteris testament (Oppenheim, 1611), a monumental work of erudition whose central arguments influenced various shades of Protestant thinking on the subject throughout the seventeenth century.”[xv]

Other evidences that indicate the King James translators (and publishers) did not hold the Apocrypha as inspired include:

• The King James Bible segregates these apocryphal books together in a section between the Old and New Testaments, unlike Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles.
• Notations in certain book titles hint at a lower view of the Apocrypha. For example, the title of “The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther” adds, “which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde.” The additions to Daniel are marked as “That which followeth is not in the Hebrew” [The Song of the three holy children] and “it is not in Hebrew” [The history of Susanna].
• There is other material added between the covers, which is obviously not intended to be on the same level as inspired Scipture; for example, the genealogy on page 76 (lxxvi).

Hypocritical objection to the Apocrypha
Many modern scholars consider the Codex Vaticanus one of the best Greek texts, with the Codex Sinaiticus an important support for critical studies. The Codex Vaticanus contained most of the Apocrypha and the surviving Codex Sinaiticus contains seven books the Apocrypha – as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. These codices are the dual support of popular Greek New Testaments and the modern translations founded on them. Those who advocate these texts and translations should be ashamed to harp about the Apocrypha being in the King James Bible, when it is found in their favored texts and sometimes in their favorite translations.[xvi]

Conclusion
Fourteen books of the Apocrypha are found in the King James Bible. It is a matter of historical record. It is no stain on the King James Bible. Modern proponents of the King James Bible may well follow the precedent of the translators and others – “The books commonly called Apocrypha” are not divinely inspired and are not part of the canon of Scripture. They are not authoritative as a rule of faith and practice, but may be read like any other human writing.

[Note: For other points made against the Apocrypha as scripture, see Against the Apocrypha as Scripture.]

---

[i] I use “Apocrypha” as a singular noun standing for fourteen non-canonical books associated with the Bible.

[ii] A recent exchange with a closet anti-KJVist provided the impetus for this post. “Closet” anti-KJVists often couch their objections in “I love the KJV, but…” There are people who sincerely use this phrase, but closet anti-KJVists use it to deflect objections when their obvious motives are about to be uncovered.

[iii] The design of this rhetorical question is to posit that “the KJV as preferred text” is indefensible. If supporters of the King James Bible have rejected the Apocrypha, then if follows (so they say) that they should reject the King James Bible as well.

[iv] Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011, Gordon Campbell, London: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 44; Much can be found online claiming that the Roman Catholic Church had an early and long-established canon including the “Apocrypha,” or deuterocanonical works (literally meaning a second canon; to the Catholics this means second in chronology, while to the Orthodox it means second in authority). Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic 2001 Pontifical Biblical Commission study, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (English translation copyright 2002) admits that the “Apocrypha” or “deuterocanonical” works “were accepted only after centuries of hesitation” and this was not resolved (for them) until the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564. The Apocrypha of the Church of England and the section in the King James Bible is distinct from the Roman Catholic deutero-canon. The King James Bible includes three books (1 Esdras/3 Esdras, 2 Esdras/4 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh) which were not included in the list of the Council of Trent. The Eastern Orthodox deuterocanonical books vary somewhat from both of these.

[v] Of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort fame.

[vi] And included 70 more verses of 2 Esdras; this comes out as 140 verses in chapter 7 rather than 70 verses.

[vii] Though they are often printed without them.

[viii] The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation, edited by David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, Philip H. Towner, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013, p. 347

[ix] Jeffrey Khoo

[x] C. Matthew McMahon

[xi] The King James Version at 400, edited by David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, Philip H. Towner, p. 349

[xii] The first book name in the list is from the “Book of Articles,” while the book name that follows in brackets is from the King James Bible.

[xiii] Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, Vol. III, London: Cassell, Petter and Galpin, 1865, p. 15

[xiv] The Summe and Substance of the Conference: Which It Pleased His Excellent Majestie to Have with the Lords, Bishops, and others of his Clergie...at Hampton Court, William Barlow, n.p. 1804, pp. 44-45; German Reformer Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt divided the Apocrypha into non-inspired but good books and “foolish writings ‘worthy of the Censor’s ban’.” Martin Luther’s Bible set them apart, noting that these books “are not held equal to the sacred scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.” (See The Apocrypha, Martin Goodman, Editor, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 3.)

[xv] The Apocrypha in Early Modern England, Ariel Hessayon, p. 143; See also The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church, p. 106

[xvi] KJV-Onlyists often invite these kinds of arguments with ill-advised and hypocritical arguments of their own.

6 Reasons, and other music links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• 6 Reasons Congregational Singing Is Waning -- "...if the desire is truly to lift all the voices before God, some things will need to change."
• 2016 Analysis of changes in song choices from The Sacred Harp (Denson Revision) -- "What songs were lead the most in 2016? Which the least? Which none at all? What were the top gainers and losers? How stable are the song choices compared to 1995 and 2015?"
• AACH1957: All-American Church Hymnal, 11th ed. -- "The publisher, Benson, is one I generally admire more when the notes are in seven distinct shapes than when, as here, they are all roundish."
• A Collection Of Poems To Stir The Heart Of The Believer To Prayer -- "A Godliness which feeds on form...Will satisfy an earthly worm"
• A Corpus-Based Model of Harmonic Function in Shape-Note Hymnody -- "...while shape-note hymnody is predominantly tonal, this music’s harmonic priorities are clearly different than common-practice tonality’s."
• Dick Clark Productions rejects Mariah Carey's sabotage claim -- Should anyone care...
• Echoes From Sand Mountain -- "To our left the altos' unearthly wail is met, facing, by the trebles' ringing hoot and the tenors' strong lead at the right hand."
• 'Ellen' Show Boots Gospel Singer Kim Burrell for Comments on Homosexuality -- "...in a Facebook Live video on Friday Burrell referred to unspecified "enemies" for spreading only a portion of her speech."
• Everybody Sings...the Sacred Harp Way -- "Journeying along Judge Logue Road in Wicksburg on a late spring afternoon, motorists often hear the sound of music."
• The small town of Arley, Alabama has a long and strong tradition with Sacred Harp Music -- "Orin Adolphus Parris, who resided in Winston County, became a major figure in southern music as a publisher, teacher, and composer in varied styles for the Sacred Harp, Christian Harmony, and shape-note convention music."
• What If I Don’t Want to Sing? -- "We have the privilege, in a way, to open our mouths for the mute. You may not want to sing, but the person next to you, in front of you, or behind you may need you to sing."

f and ff: An Explanatory Note

The following brief explanation was written by Elder C. C. Morris and first appeared in the July-August 1994 issue of The Remnant. It also appeared in the November-December 2015 issue and appears here by permission of the author. I have been asked about the “f” and “ff” abbreviations in the past and asked Elder Morris for permission to post this on my blog for others who have questions about this usage.[i]

f AND ff: AN EXPLANATORY NOTE
By C. C. Morris

Bible references, or citations, are usually given in the order of book, chapter, and verse. The verse number is usually separated from the chapter number by a colon or period.

“Isaiah 53:6” and “Isaiah 53.6” both mean the book of Isaiah, chapter 53, verse 6. “Romans 3.6-10” means Romans, chapter 3, verses 6 through 10.

We were recently asked about the use of “f” and “ff” which we sometimes use in our scriptural references. These two notations, “f” and “ff,” are short, convenient and widely used ways to abbreviate a Biblical citation.

“f” means “and the following verse.” For example, “Genesis 3.15f” means Genesis, chapter 3, verses 15 and 16, which is also sometimes written, “Genesis 3.15-16” or “Genesis 3:15-16.”

“ff” means “and the following verses.” “ff” implies at least two or more verses. For example, “Acts 2.23ff” means Acts, chapter 2, verse 23 and the following verses – at least two more verses, through the 25th verse, but maybe more. Usually the citation’s context itself will clarify how many more verses are meant.

We thank you for your questions. It is by your questions and comments we learn of your concerns. By our learning from you, the reader, we hope to continue making THE REMNANT a quality paper you will appreciate receiving.

---

[i] [From the blog author, R. L. Vaughn] For those curious about the etymology, the abbreviations derive from the Latin folio ‎(“page, leaf” “on the next page”). Outside of Bible references it may be used for page ranges in a book. For example, “256f.” would stand for pages 256-257. Another abbreviation that I often use is the abbreviation “cf.” It stands for the Latin word confer which means “compare.” For example, “Cf. Acts 2.23” means to compare Acts, chapter 2, verse 23 with the verses or topic being discussed.

Old and New

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

"All new news is old news happening to new people." -- Malcolm Muggeridge

"Old friends pass away, and new friends appear;
As the old day passes, the new day is near." -- copied

"Sooner or later, everything old is new again." --  Stephen King, and others

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana, often repeated as "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

"People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors." -- Edmund Burke

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." -- Solomon

On Learning Our Lessons from History

Popular posts in 2016

The following are the 10 most read posts in 2016 on Ministry and Music: Seeking the Old Paths:

• A Singer and His Songs: E. W. Billups and The Sweet Songster
• Baptisms described, AD 100—400
• Collecting Sacred Harp quotes
• Hits all the notes, and other Sacred Harp quotes
• Multi-site or Multi-campus “Churches”
• Old-Line Primitive Baptist Hymn and Tune Book: First Impressions
• The Pilgrim's Hymnal
• The Seven Beatitudes of the Revelation
• Two Important Southern Hymn Books: Mercer’s and Lloyd’s
• Two Important Southern Hymn Books; Comparing Mercer and Lloyd

And the two most read of all time are:

• How does the Bible define drunkenness?
• Who Can Baptize?

The man before time

“He, through whom time was made, was made in time and He, older by eternity that the world itself, was younger in age than many of His servants in the world. He, who made man, was made man, He was given existence by a mother whom He brought into existence.” -- Augustine of Hippo

Happy Birthday, y'all

I don’t remember it, but I’m told I was born on the last day of the year sometime near the middle of the last century. In addition, I’ve found that God commonly added some important people to the world as he was filling his end of year quotas. Here are some of them:

Jacques Cartier, 1491

Andreas Vesalius, 1514

Emperor Go-Yōzei, 1571

Herman Boerhaave, 1668

Charles Lord Cornwallis, 1738

Henri Matisse, 1869

Elizabeth Arden, 1878

George C. Marshall Jr., 1880

Simon Wiesenthal, 1908

Pat Brady, 1914

Anthony Hopkins, 1937

John Denver, 1943

Bart Barber, 1969

Gabby Douglas, 1995

Choose Your Miracle

Going around the internet, credited to Glen Scrivener (don't know who that is):

"Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Materialists believe in the virgin birth of the cosmos. Choose your miracle."

Confusion

Andy Stanley: “I stand firmly within the orthodox Christian tradition regarding the incarnation of Jesus — including the birth narratives as presented in Matthew and Luke.”

Matthew: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

Luke: “To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.”

Andy Stanley: “A lot of people just don’t believe [the virgin birth]. And I understand that. Maybe the thought is, ‘Hey, maybe they had to come up with some myth about Jesus to give him street cred, you know, later on.’ Maybe that’s where that came from.”

Christ Mass on December 25

Following is a brief statement of opinion why December 25 was set as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, by Elder Grady Dearman. For more detail on when Elder Dearman believes Jesus was born, see his article The Star of Bethlehem.

The Christ Mass originally became pronounced as one word and the final “S” was dropped to remove future objections. But how in the world did the thing turn out to be adopted erroneously as the birth day of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Below is strictly my opinion, and mine alone. If you agree, “Well.” If you disagree that is also “Well.” Everyone has the right to their own opinions. My opinion has been formed over many years and is based on what others have written on the subject, what I have heard in innumerable conversations, etc.

From my understanding of the Gospels, I see where the family of Jesus – his mother, Mary’s husband, his brothers and sisters – must have known to the very day when their son, and brother, was born. You know when you were born and so do your parents, and probably your siblings.

The Jews of that time kept meticulous records. However, when the Romans burned the Temple, the records burned also. The Romans made a wasteland of the entire country, from North to South, and the Jews that weren’t killed were driven out of the land, or sold into the slave markets of the world. Josephus and historians of that time chronicled it well.

However, the writers of the Gospels knew when he was born. There were direct statements to that effect. And I feel certain there were disciples who companied with him who knew how old he was when he began his ministry. There was no A.D. or B.C. at that early date, but they had a much sense as we do. By the time of the large population of Christians and “Christians” in Rome – about the year of Emperor Constantine around 325 A.D., Constantine decreed Christianity was to be recognized as a state-approved religion. In fact, there was the major council of Nicea in 326 A.D., at which many facets of the faith, such as the approval of the 66 books of the canon of Scripture [occurred], and there may have been discussion of the possible date of the Lord’s birth.        I believe Christ was born 6 days before the end of the Jewish Year 3759 on Elul 23. Someone may have said, “He was born 6 days before the end of the year” – meaning the end of the Jewish Year. And since the 25th of December was already the date of sun worship, Constantine, for political expediency, ordered the day be observed as Christ’s birthday, because it was also 6 days to the end of the year.

By Grady E. Dearman, Sr., of Laurel, Mississippi, March 6, 2016 – as posted by Hoyt D. F. Sparks, December 25, 2016

Tracing the genealogy of Jesus, 2

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Tracing a genealogy through the mother is unusual. I do not know of any biblical instance of it, other than in Luke Chapter 3.[i] In Matthew’s Gospel, the genealogy of Jesus is traced from Abraham to Jesus, through his legal representative Joseph. Matthew’s wording in verse 16 is clear that Jesus is born of Mary and not Joseph – he goes on to explain that in Matthew 1:18-25. The circumstance of Jesus’s birth – born of a virgin – was unique, designed by God to fulfill his promise.

Though Matthew 1:1-17 does not trace the genealogy through the mother, it testifies that Jesus was born of one named Mary. Besides Mary, Matthew references four other women: Thamar/Tamar, Rachab/Rahab[ii], Ruth, and her that had been the wife of Urias/Bathsheba. Each of these four adds interesting flavor to the earthly ancestry of the Jesus the Christ.[iii] Tamar bore children by her father-in-law Judah by posing as a wayside harlot – after he had failed to fulfill the custom of giving her another of his sons to marry. Rahab was the harlot in Jericho who hid the Israelite spies and cast her lot with the people of God. Ruth was a foreigner, a Moabite woman, whose second marriage to Boaz yielded the grandfather of David the future king. Bathsheba was an adulteress who married the king David after he connived to have her soldier husband (his loyal subject) killed in battle. If one of us were telling the story, we might had left out some of the references to unpleasant details!

On the surface the genealogies of the Bible – including the New Testament genealogy of Jesus – may seem boring, but they are included with skillful purpose.

Jesus’s genealogy integrally links the Old and New Covenants. In the first verse of the New Testament, introducing Jesus the Christ, Matthew immediately ties him to the covenants of Abraham and David and begins to narrate his descent. As one compares to the Old Testament the genealogies – providing the physical descent and legal succession – demonstrate that the Christ Jesus is of the nation, tribe and family out of which the Messiah was promised (e.g. Abraham, Judah, David). The genealogy apprises us that the Christ Jesus took on our human nature (the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us). Jesus completely identified with our fallen condition, as seen in the fallen condition of his human forebears. Matthew Henry notes that when “we read the names in his genealogy, we should not forget how low the Lord of glory stooped to save the human race.” His human ancestors were fallen; he identified with them, yet Jesus was completely without sin (Cf. Romans 8:3). And, though much of the Old Testament deals with God’s promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Matthew’s inclusion of the Gentile women emphasizes that God is not God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles and that his covenant of salvation reaches the end of the earth.

---

[i] And even then it traces through the male ancestors.

[ii] It is generally believed, but not beyond controversy, that this was Rahab the harlot of Jericho. The events in the book of Ruth occur in the times of the Judges (and Ruth 1:1 may suggest that the earliest times are meant).

[iii] And the fifth is exceptional from all the rest.

Tracing the genealogy of Jesus, 1

Those willing to admit it might tell us that they hasten through certain parts of the Bible because they are “boring.” The genealogies of the Bible often receive that label.[i] They are full of hard to pronounce names that go on and on. But these genealogies are included for a reason. God made a promise, beginning in Genesis 3:15, about a descendant of Eve (Abraham, Judah, David, and so on). The Bible focuses on this descendant. So, by tracing a part of the human family from Adam and Eve forward, the Bible funnels us down to the one descendant who fulfills the prophecies about that one.

The New Testament provides two accounts of the lineage of Jesus – one in Matthew 1:1-17 and the other in Luke 3:23-38.[ii] Matthew starts with Abraham. Luke begins (chronologically) with Adam.[iii] The lists are identical between Abraham and David,[iv] but differ from that point moving to Jesus. Matthew traces the lineage through David’s son Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), while Luke traces the lineage through David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31).

Are these errors in the Bible and the genealogy of Jesus? Those who reject the inspiration and preservation of the biblical record are quick to say so,[v] but the differences are easily explained.[vi] Matthew records Jesus’s legal line, through Joseph (though not his biological father, Joseph was recognized as Jesus’s legal father). This line descends from David through his son Solomon. Luke records Jesus’s biological (or blood) line through his mother Mary. This line descends from David through his son Nathan. Both legally and biologically, Jesus is a son of David. Luke called Joseph the “son of Heli” due to his marriage to Mary, who was Heli’s daughter.[vii] Tracing a genealogy through the mother is unusual. I do not know of any other biblical instance of it. But the circumstance of Jesus’s birth – born of a virgin – was unique. There is none other like it! We are clued to the difference in this genealogy through Luke’s explanation is that Jesus being “(as was supposed)” the son of Joseph, (Luke 3:23).

This will not satisfy those who reject the authority of the Bible, but simple Christians have no problem with this explanation.

---

[i] The genealogies of the Bible fall into two styles, ascending and descending. Descending genealogies begin in the present and trace backward to some person (as in Luke 3; Cf. Ezra 7:1-5). Ascending genealogies start with a particular person in the past and move forward to the present (as in Matthew 1; Cf. Genesis 5:1-32; Ruth 4:18-22). Biblical ascending genealogies are more likely to include extra information, while descending genealogies tend to be linked lists of names.

[ii] The gospels of Mark and John begin with Jesus as an adult, while Matthew and Luke begin with his birth. It is logical those two would recite the lineage and the other two would not.

[iii] Since Luke starts at the present and works backward, he technically ends with Adam.

[iv] The male ancestors are identical; Matthew includes some details not in Luke.

[v] Even if one rejects Holy Spirit inspiration and providential preservation, it is strange to believe that both those who wrote and those who compiled the books of the New Testament overlooked what would have been such a blatant contradiction in the genealogies – suggesting they understood the differences. Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, claimed Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies “contradict each other in every particular” (they do not) and that this “proves falsehood absolutely.” Yet, if the disciples of Jesus fabricated a genealogy of Jesus to prove the point of his being David’s son, it is inexplicable that they would have deliberately included two contradictory accounts!

[vi] The church historian Eusebius, referring to Julius Africanus in his epistle to Aristides, gives a different harmony of the genealogies – according to nature and according to the law.  Evidently he believed that Matthew was tracing the biological line and that Luke was taking into account what we call “levirate marriage”. In The Virgin Birth of Christ, J. Gresham Machen argues that Joseph is the legal heir of Jacob, who died without issue, and that Joseph is the son of Jacob’s brother Heli. So, according to Machen, Matthew gives the legal descent and Luke the physical one. “…the Lucan genealogy traces the actual physical ancestors of Joseph back to David, while the Matthæan genealogy enumerates the successive heirs to the Davidic throne.” (p. 207) Under this explanation, Matthan and Matthat would be different spellings for the same person – Joseph’s grandfather.

[vii] I have been taught that there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” but have made no personal investigation of the subject. God’s promise was made to David. Jesus was a legal heir of Joseph (a descendant of David), but was not the son of Joseph. Therefore, it is important to show that his mother Mary was also a descendant of David.

More on Moore

At the Southern Baptist Convention meeting last June (2016), an Arkansas pastor addressed ERLC President Russell Moore: “Yes. My name is John Wofford. I pastor Armorel Baptist Church in Armorel, Arkansas and I have a question for Dr. Moore. I would like to know how in the world someone within the Southern Baptist Convention can support the defending of rights for Muslims to construct mosques in the United States when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans. They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world. Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today that He would support this and that He would stand up and say, ‘Well, let us protect the rights of those Baal worshipers to erect temples to Baal?’ Do you believe that Dr. Moore?”

Moore replied, in part, “Sometimes we have to deal with questions that are really complicated and we have to spend a lot of time thinking them through...sometimes we have really hard decisions to make. This isn’t one of those things. What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody...The answer to Islam is not government power. The answer is the gospel of Jesus Christ and the new birth that comes from that.”

Following up later in the Arkansas Baptist News, Pastor Wofford complained that this is a ‘spiritual issue’ – an issue of unequally yoking together with unbelievers and bidding them God speed – and that Moore did not answer his question. There is a fine line for Christians to walk between supporting freedom of religious views and actions while not bidding Godspeed to those who do not hold the true doctrine of Christ. Perhaps both Pastor Wofford and President Moore both missed the mark.

Pastor Wofford said that he was addressing a spiritual issue of yoking with unbelievers and bidding them God speed – rather than the issue of religious liberty. We ought to accept his explanation, whether or not one agrees with his position. On the other hand, Wofford and others on his side are too hard on Russell Moore about not answering the question. Yes, Moore promoted religious liberty and didn’t really address the “spiritual issue” put forth at the end of the question. Wofford’s “set-up” to his question was somewhat distracting from the point. In the beginning Pastor Wofford apparently alludes to the brief filed by ERLC. Then he goes into the fact of Muslims threatening “our very way of existence,” not only as Christians but also as Americans. When we bring “Americans” into it, it is no longer just a spiritual question, but a temporal one as well. If Pastor Wofford wanted to know about the spiritual issue aspect he didn’t give the best introduction he could have. He must take some responsibility for getting the answer he got and not just blame that on Russell Moore. Moore addressed religious liberty, soul freedom and the right to build – more than specifically whether the ERLC including their name (and that of the SBC) on an amicus brief was a spiritual issue, some kind of unequal yoking with unbelievers. Moore was wrong, and even comes off a bit flippant, when he says “sometimes we have really hard decisions to make. This isn’t one of those things.” But avoiding spiritual adultery while supporting religious liberty is an issue with which many are struggling, and they need “hard” answers that address the entire scope of what they are asking. Some seem to backing into the corner of religious liberty without dealing with spiritual adultery.

I think a sane mind must realize that a major part of the problem is the word “Muslim”. There have been no previous outcries over the ERLC (or IMB for that matter) signing amicus briefs[i] that support or ally with some other religion (for example, the amicus brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor case).[ii]

The government should/must recognize the same kind of religious rights for Muslims as everyone else; I would not go on a crusade to help them get mosques. I agree with the thrust of the brief, which is that “A Muslim mosque cannot be subjected to a different land-use approval process than a Christian church simply because local protesters oppose the mosque.” I believe in our American judicial system. For it to work every person must be given a fair trial with the best legal counsel available. I could not defend someone I knew was guilty. I would support their having someone else do so, because that’s necessary for our system to work. Supporting religious liberty from both a biblical and civil standpoint can be like that.

---

[i] When you get into issues like the IMB and ERLC filing amicus briefs you also get into an issue of Southern Baptist people feeling like “you are taking my money to further a cause I don’t believe in.” That is always a source of frustration.

[ii] “Revolting as the pagan religion is, it is no better, nor is it any worse than any other worldly religion.  It possesses the essential elements of the religion of Cain, delusion and bloodshed.  It is doubtful whether the human sacrifices made to their idols would suffer by comparison with the religion of the world which in this day claims the Christian name, either papal or Protestant.” – Gilbert Beebe, Signs of the Times, January, 1871