|
|
Post by katmak on Jan 24, 2018 14:24:22 GMT -6
I DIG it, kjs! I LOVE that all of us sinners, NOT Israelite and different people played a part in Jesus' lineage  We are truly grafted in and I'm so grateful. It's probably a shining light that ANYONE, regardless of past deeds can enter into the kingdom at the foot of the cross! Our God is indeed an awesome One! |
|
|
|
Post by katmak on Jan 24, 2018 14:27:09 GMT -6
Also, because the line of Moab began with Lot and his daughters' children. Part of my bible reading this morning, sir! Gen:19.
God is so good! Thank you for dialogue get with me, brother!
Off to carpool...
|
|
|
|
Post by katmak on Jan 24, 2018 14:27:43 GMT -6
oi! Double post :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jan 24, 2018 15:25:24 GMT -6
Deuteronomy 23 states: A bastard must not enter God’s marriage group. Even after the tenth generation, he may not enter God’s marriage group. An Ammonite or Moabite may not enter God’s marriage group. They may never enter God’s marriage group, even after the tenth generation. This is because they did not greet you with bread and water when you were on the way out of Egypt, and also because they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to curse you. Do not despise the Edomite, since he is your brother. Do not despise the Egyptian, since you were an immigrant in his land. [Therefore,] children born to [members of these nations] in the third generation [after becoming proselytes] may enter God’s marriage group. I have heard it translated "even to the tenth generation". Bible trivia -- Who was the tenth generation from Perez? |
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Jan 24, 2018 15:33:54 GMT -6
Deuteronomy 23 states: A bastard must not enter God’s marriage group. Even after the tenth generation, he may not enter God’s marriage group. An Ammonite or Moabite may not enter God’s marriage group. They may never enter God’s marriage group, even after the tenth generation. This is because they did not greet you with bread and water when you were on the way out of Egypt, and also because they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to curse you. Do not despise the Edomite, since he is your brother. Do not despise the Egyptian, since you were an immigrant in his land. [Therefore,] children born to [members of these nations] in the third generation [after becoming proselytes] may enter God’s marriage group. I have heard it translated "even to the tenth generation". Bible trivia -- Who was the tenth generation from Perez? Give a listen to this old tape recording ..... very worth your while (in my opinion) Note they ask for a donation, but you can listen to it without donating.......... |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jan 24, 2018 15:36:51 GMT -6
I will give it a listen this evening, my in-laws are do to be here any minute. |
|
|
|
Post by witness1 on Jan 24, 2018 15:39:29 GMT -6
Will listen too. I love Tommy Nelson!
|
|
|
|
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Jan 24, 2018 16:02:27 GMT -6
and this:
Thanks kjs, this seems quite valuable to the thread. What you wrote brought up something I read from a Chuck Missler book (he sites his sources for this info). He writes about the reasonings for the geneologies of Jesus:
Mathew, as a Levite, focused his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, thus traces the LEGAL line from Abraham through David, then Solomon to Joseph (the legal father of Jesus).
Luke, as a physician focused on the humanity of Jesus and presented Him as the Son of Man. Luke starts with Adam, the first man, through to David, but Missler states: "But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the 2nd surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, which carries it down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Jospeh is the son-in-law of Heli. Missler then states: Jesus is "of the house and lineage of David" but not heir to the blood curse pronounced upon the decendants of Jeconiah."
Anyone care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jan 24, 2018 16:49:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by disciple4life on Jan 27, 2018 7:10:52 GMT -6
and this: Thanks kjs, this seems quite valuable to the thread. What you wrote brought up something I read from a Chuck Missler book (he sites his sources for this info). He writes about the reasonings for the geneologies of Jesus: Mathew, as a Levite, focused his gospel on the Messiahship of Jesus and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, thus traces the LEGAL line from Abraham through David, then Solomon to Joseph (the legal father of Jesus). Luke, as a physician focused on the humanity of Jesus and presented Him as the Son of Man. Luke starts with Adam, the first man, through to David, but Missler states: "But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the 2nd surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, which carries it down through Heli, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Jospeh is the son-in-law of Heli. Missler then states: Jesus is "of the house and lineage of David" but not heir to the blood curse pronounced upon the decendants of Jeconiah." Anyone care to elaborate? Hello @bsg and others - this topic of the geneologies has always been very very fascinating to me, and I've heard and read some very interesting reasons from Messianic Jewish rabbis.
One from multiple sources is that the Biblical languages have no word for father-in-law [Or mother in law] and so they simply used the word father in these places and this makes sense why there would be two different people listed as father. Heli, who was actually the father in law of Joseph. Another very compelling explanation is that Judaism is passed through the mother's side, and yet Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit and so the two accounts is tracing the royal bloodline from Joseph's side and also from Mary's side.
Interesting side note, but we can even see this today. Ivanka Trump was not Jewish but converted before she could marry Jarod Kushner, and now, her children are fully Jewish. Trumps sons - although they are Gentile all married Jewish women, and therefore, all Trump's grandchildren are Jewish. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Jan 28, 2018 15:07:51 GMT -6
The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. - Genesis 32:22 The two wives and two servants are listed separately. Concubines have never been wives, and I think this is true for any culture. If a man today has a mistress, that would not make her a wife. Bilah and Zilpah were servants used to build the kingdom of Israel but did not have the status of wife. There is a legal issue. Do not confuse it with a moral issue. See the Code of Hammurabi for details about how concubinage works. It isn't quite what we consider it today. Marriage was used for legal and financial contracts. Not moral contracts. Modern law and morality have been conflated in this matter. The legal issue of the sons who were not Rachel's and Leah's (because they were not the son's of wives, but of concubines) means that they could not legally inherit their father's estate (bastardy). The oldest son was Reuben who was supposed to inherit due to primogeniture, but disqualified himself legally because he did something (I forget what). Same for the next two sons. The story of Judah and Tamar is the details of how Judah got disqualified. The next bunch of sons are not Rachel's and Leah's (they are the concubines' sons) so they do not qualify either. Finally the legal inheritance ('sonship') fell upon Joseph, whose eldest son according to the blessing, was not Manasseh, but came to be Ephraim. (someone in another thread talks about kingship versus sonship, et c which may be relevant). So Ephraim became the legal successor (sonship) to Jacob/Israel, while the Kingship passed through Judah. So when you read that geneology at the beginning of Matthew, that is what you were getting the overview of: Josephs lineage for kingship combined legally once again in the person of the Lord, Jesus Christ - both Son and King. (I forget where I read about Mary coming from Ephraim. I think it is in one of the other gospels?) |
|
|
|
Post by witness1 on Jan 28, 2018 16:05:07 GMT -6
I'm not familiar with the Code of Hammurabi, but this is not how I am reading this situation.
"Then she (Rachel) said, 'Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her.' So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. Then Rachel said, 'God has judged me, and has also heard my voice and given me a son.' Therefore she called his name Dan. Rachel's servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. Then Rachel said, 'With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister and have prevailed.' So she called his name Naphtali." Genesis 30:3-8
It sounds to me like the sons were Rachel's, both by her statement that Bilhah gave birth on her behalf and by the fact that she named them.
The note in my Bible says:
This practice was part of ancient Near Eastern culture (E.g., the Nuzi texts from the 15th century BC treat the concept of marriage, and many of these texts deal with the issue of childlessness and provisions for new wives.) Children born to the substitute, or second, wife were regarded as belonging to the main, or first, wife. In this way, continuity of the family line was preserved.
I agree that there is a legal issue vs a moral issue, but it seems like legally these sons belonged to Rachel and Leah and therefore would inherit the land, even though the mothers were servants and not wives. I wonder if the consent of the wife determined whether the son was a bastard or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Jan 28, 2018 22:35:29 GMT -6
You could consider the Code of Hammurabi to be man's attempt at codifying God's laws, long before Moses got the laws given to the Israelites.
Interestingly, Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldeans - the same area that Hammurabi ruled! (IDK how close chronologically they were, but I bet they were contemporaries, or Abraham followed Hammurabi chronologically (but that's just a guess on my part - I havent checked). It would certainly explain why God told Abraham to leave.
Anyhow, the Code covers a number of topics, mostly related to financial transactions, but also had laws related to marriage responsibilities and concubinage as well.
I suggested reading, because it is relevant to the discussion related to plural wives which I had not read before I replied; namely how it can be legal for a man to have more than one wife, yet the morality is questionable.
It lends itself to a look at why we believe that just because there is a law prohibiting something (or allowing it), there is an assumption of morality equivalent to the capacity of that law. That is, the law is moral, just because it is a law. Something is immoral, just because it is illegal. Or something is moral, just because it is legal.
This should bring a single question to the top of the pile: What is the definition of 'wife'?
|
|
|
|
Post by witness1 on Jan 29, 2018 8:37:42 GMT -6
That is all very interesting! Also an interesting explanation as to why God would have told Abraham to leave. This is a good reminder to weigh the laws of men vs the laws of God. Many things are legal that are not moral.
And the question at the top of the pile: what is the definition of wife?
You hit the nail on the head, and it's a hard question to answer.
The one thing I keep coming back to is that covenants are paramount to God. He has worked through covenants since the beginning of time, explaining to His people how He is going to relate to them and giving His people promises so they can know what to expect from Him. Then He displays His glory by upholding both His end of the covenant and also holding up the people's end when they break it. His covenant at Mt Sinai was a marriage covenant. So we see that 1) God takes marriage very seriously, and 2) there is very much a legal binding in the way He relates to His people. Paul speaks very much about the legality of our fate... that God is not operating capriciously but that laws have been established, laws have been broken, and propitiation was made on our behalf. God is a God of laws. Of course He is moral and His laws are just, but law is how He relates to us.
On the flip side, Jesus taught the spirit of the law in addition to the mere legality of it. Hating your brother is akin to murder. Looking at a woman lustfully is akin to adultery. So we see that simply obeying the letter of the law does not mean everything is ok.
But then I take that idea a step further... Jacob essentially committed adultery with Bilhah and Zilpah, except it's weird because his wives gave consent. (It's the abominable open marriages my neighbors practice!) So does committing adultery make that woman a wife? If this is the case, Jesus said looking at a woman lustfully is adulterous... that would imply that men have dozens of wives over their lifetime if adultery makes a woman a wife.
Following this line of thought, I think the covenant of marriage has to be held highly in determining the definition of wife.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jan 29, 2018 9:56:19 GMT -6
As having been married for a second time I have asked this question of several people as well as look into scripture and never really get a clear answer. While many hold to tradition scripture seemingly contradicts our current knowledge of what a wife is/means. Or perhaps I should clarify as to how one becomes a wife rather than what a wife means. A wife means a lot of things (thats a loaded one there ) but I am more focused on how one becomes a wife. Take a look Genesis 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wifeGenesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name [was] Keturah.Genesis 26:34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife JudithGenesis 28:6 When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padanaram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan; 7 And that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram; 8 And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; 9 Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.
Genesis 29:21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give [me] my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
There are many more...but in the verb took or take there is implication that the meaning is impregnate (among other things). But in some cases as we are seeing here impregnation didnt occur, yet there is the term "wife" (Sara-already a wife yet no child, same for Rachel). My point in questioning this "marriage" with several verses adds a bit of a "twist" in that what was the ceremony? None are really mentioned until the feast that Laban had. In that there was obviously no ceremony where Jacob was with Rachel at any point during the feast. I think that our tradition would indicate that husband/wife go through a courtship, then some 'formal' ceremony where each are pronounced to the other as husband/wife, kiss each other and ride off happily. However in no area of the scripture can we find that such a ceremony exists. I am not trying to deviate just something that has caused me to think quite a bit over the years about how we allow our traditions to paint our worldview |
|
