498
THE KING’S BUSINESS
th is is th a t M ary, b ein g a w om an, h e r n am e a cco rd in g to Je w ish u sag e co u ld n o t ap p ear in th e g en ealo g y as fo rm in g th e lin e o f descent, m ales alone fo rm in g th e line, so Jo sep h ’s n am e is in tro d u c ed in th e place o f M a ry ’s, h e b ein g M a ry ’s h u sb an d . H eli w as Jo se p h ’s iather-in-law, a n d so quite p ro p e rly Jo sep h is called th e son o f H eli an d th e line is th u s com pleted. W h ile Jo sep h w as so n -in-law o f H eli, acco rd in g to h is ow n n a tu ra l d escen t he w as in actual fact th e son o f Ja c o b (M a tt. 1 :1 6 ). 6. T w o gen ealo g ies a re ab so lu tely n ec e ssary to tra c e th e lin eag e o f o u r L o rd an d S a v io u r Je su s C h rist, th e one th e ro y al an d legal, th e o th e r th e n a tu ra l a n d lite ral, and o f th ese tw o g enealogies w e find th e legal an d ro y al in M a tth e w ’s G ospel (th e G ospel o f law an d k in g sh ip ), th e n a tu ra l an d lit e ral in L u k e ’s (th e G ospel o f h u m a n ity ). 7. W e are to ld in Je rem ia h 2 2 :30 th a t an y d escen d an t o f Jeco n iah co u ld n o t com e to th e th ro n e o f D av id .- Jo sep h w as o f th e line o f Jeco n iah , a n d w hile Jo sep h ’s g en e alo g y fu rn ish e s th e royal line fo r Je su s w ho w as h is son b efo re th e law , n ev erth eless if Je re m ia h ’s p red ictio n is to be fulfilled to th e v e ry le tte r (a n d G od alw ays fulfills H is p red ictio n s to th e v ery le tte r) Je su s eith er co u ld n o t be a d escen d an t in th e flesh of Jeco n iah , o r else H e could n o t be th e K ing, b u t as' w e h av e seen, Jesus, w as n o t Jo sep h ’s d escen d an t an d th e re fo re w as n o t the seed o f Jeco n iah an d could th ere fo re a tta in to th e k in gship, an d Je rem ia h ’s p re d ictio n still h e tru e. I f Je su s h a d been th e son o f Jo sep h in literal fact, an d n o t m erely legally, H e c o u ld , n o t h av e com e to th e th r o n e ; b u t as seen, H e is M a ry ’s son th ro u g h N a th a n (th e re fo re , h o t in Jeco - n ia h ’s lin e ) a n d can com e to th e th ro n e le g ally by h e r m a rry in g Jo sep h an d so c le a r in g H is w ay legally to it. In conclusion, as w e stu d y th ese tw o g en ealo g ies o f Je su s carefu lly , a n d at th e sam e tim e Study th e O ld T e sta m e n t p re d ic tio n s co n cern in g th e com in g M essiah , w e find th a t so fa r from c o n stitu tin g a reaso n fo r d o u b tin g th e accu racy o f th e ‘Bible, th ey
a re ra th e r a -w o n d e rfu l co n firm atio n o f the m in u te st accu racy o f th a t B o o k an d the c e rtain ty o f its p red ictio n s. I t is sim ply am azin g h ow on e p a rt o f th e B ible fits into a n o th e r p a rt w h en w e stu d y it th u s m i n u tely . T h e re fo re , w e n eed no longer stum b le o v er th e fa ct o f tw o g enealogies b u t ra th e r d isco v er th e deep m ean in g o f the fa ct an d rejo ice in th e ir testim o n y to the lite ral a c c u ra c y 'o f th e W o rd o f God. I t is e v id en t th a t th e re h a d a risen am ong th e C o rin th ian s in P a u l’s tim e a cu stom of th o se w h o w ere alive bein g b ap tized in be h a lf o f th o se iv h o , fo r on e re aso n o r an o th er, h ad died b efo re th ey w ere baptized. T h is cu stom does n o t seem to h av e been at all comm on as th is is th e only referen ce to it- in th e w hole B ible. P a u l does n o t com m an d th is p ractice n o r does he even com m en d it. H e sim ply re fe rs to it as ex istin g a n d p o in ts to it as sh ow in g th a t th o se w ho p racticed it believed in th e resu rrec tio n , fo r o th erw ise th is “b ap tism fo r th e d e ad ” w ould h av e no significance. S o fa r fro m com m an d in g , com m en d in g it, o r even san ctio n in g it, P a u l sep arates h im self fro m th e cu s tom an d th o se w h o p racticed it b y saying. W h a t sh all they do w hich a re b ap tized for th e d ead ?” B y th is p ro n o u n “th ey ” in the th ird p erso n , he d istin g u ish es b etw een h im se lf an d th o se w ho follow th is practice. T h e re is c ertain ly th e re fo re n o th in g in th is passag e to w a rra n t th e in tro d u c tio n o f such a cu stom in to th e ch u rch today)- fo r th is p ractice o f som e C o rin th ia n s is n e ith e r com m an d ed , -comm ended, san ctio n ed o r ap p ro v ed in an y w ay, an d P a u l n ev er h in ted n o r did a n y o f th e o th e r ap o stles in w ritin g to an y o f th e o th e r ch u rch es th a t th ey had o r sh o u ld have such a cu stom . C h u rch h is to ry show s th a t th is cu stom w as a fte rw a rd s e x te n d ed b u t only am o n g h eretics. I t w as re p u d iated by th e ch u rch . T h e M o rm o n ch u rch p ractices th e cu stom to d a y an d uses th is v erse as a w a rra n t fo r p ra ctic in g it, "How do you explain 1 Cor. 15:29, 'What shall they do which are baptized for the dead?’ ’’
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker