gies in the names of men, not women. Again the Holy Spirit safeguards the truth of the Virgin Birth of Christ, according to Luke. It is interesting to note that Joseph came through the kingly line of Judah and David and Solomon, whereas Mary came through the kingly line of Judah and David, yet through an other son of David, Nathan (Luke 3:31). Anyone who calls these two gene alogies contradictory only manifests his ignorance of the original Greek— or, for that matter, of our English translation; or he shows that he doubts the infallible Word of God. In either case, he belongs to the class described by Paul in Romans 1:22, who “ pro fessing themselves to be wise . . . be came fools.” So it is with all the so- called contradictions of the Bible. There are no contradictions! The Master-Mind that wrote it knew how to do it perfectly. SERMON ON THE MOUNT Q. Why are some liberal ministers always reading the Sermon on the Mount, whereas other ultradispensa- tionalists say that this sermon, includ ing the Lord’s Prayer, is not for the church age? Does this beautiful dis course not have a message for us also? A. Your question is two-fold. First, let me say that this sermon does have a distinct message for every Chris tian. “ All scripture is given by in spiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16). To rob the child of God of these comforting, instructive les sons from the lips of our Lord, would be to “ take away from” the Book of His Word, and to rob His children of priceless truth. As to your question concerning the frequent use of the Sermon on the Mount by liberal ministers, let me say that they quote from these “ laws of the kingdom” of our Lord, seeking in their whole theology to work out a plan of salvation by works alone,
CONFLICTING GENEALOGIES Q. Are there two conflicting genealo gies of Christ? 1 do not believe there are, for I accept the whole Word of God. But I heard a minister say that Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Please explain. A. Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy; Luke gives Mary’s. But why did the Holy Spirit record Joseph’s genealogy, since he was not the father of Jesus? Because through him, the head of the Nazareth home, Christ had the legal right to the throne of His father, David. Had there been a king of the Jews in the time of Joseph, he would have been that king. And as the eldest Son of Mary, the eldest Son in that Nazareth home, Christ had every right to be King. Matthew traces Joseph’s ancestry back only as far as Abraham, for he was writing especially for the Jews; and this proved the point in question Bp that Jesus was the Heir to Abra ham’s land, and the Covenant-Heir to David’s throne. Luke, however, traces Mary’s ancestry back to Adam, “ which was the son of God” ; for Luke is showing that Christ is the perfect Son of Man, the Saviour of the whole world. Note in these genealogies how care fully the Spirit of God protects the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ. Matthew uses the word “ begat” until he comes to verse 16 of the first chap ter. He does not say that Joseph begat Jesus, thus guarding the fact that our Lord was bom of the Virgin Mary. Luke, on the other hand, uses differ ent phraseology throughout. Omitting the words in italics, which always in our English Bible are inserted by the translators to make the meaning clear, we have Luke 3:23 reading as follows, “ And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli.” Thus, according to Matthew, “Jacob begat Joseph” ; and, according to Luke, “ Joseph . . . was of Heli,” that is, the son-in-law of Heli. You see, it was the custom of the Jews to keep all their genealo
in self-righteousness, deliberately dis carding the many other passagesi which tell us of the cross of Christ. They will not go to Calvary, there to bow as sinners before the feet of the only Saviour. I refer to those who deny His vicarious atonement for sin. Yet these same “ wolves in sheep’s clothing” will quote these matchless words from our Saviour’s lips, trying to build up a code of ethics, which alone they seek to follow in order to get to heaven. Thus they lead the erring into a false hope. They call themselves Christian, yet deny the deity of the Lord, whose name they claim to bear. Now, on the other hand, the ultra- dispensationalists, to whom you refer, go to the extreme concerning the Ser mon on the Mount, recorded in Matt. 5-7. It is true that, primarily, these chapters do set forth the laws of Messiah’s kingdom; that Israel re jected her King, and that these laws will yet be obeyed when He comes again in glory to rule over a purified earth. But there are many funda mental, spiritual lessons for every child of God, in every age, to be found on these pages. Therefore, let us be careful not to rob ourselves and others of this portion of the Word of God. RETURN OF CHRIST Q. W ill you please explain Matt. 10: 23. Christ said to His disciples, “ Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come” ? A. In this chapter our Lord was not only giving the disciples instructions for their immediate work of witness ing, but He was also, as in the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chap ters of Matthew, looking on down the future, even to the time of His return to the earth in glory. The verse about which you ask was spo ken concerning this yet future event, and refers to the unfinished testimony to the nation of Israel, when the 144,- 000 witnesses of Revelation will pro claim once again the message, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
30
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs