The Lineage of Jesus and Biblical Accuracy

By Joe R. Price

Those who wish to reject the Bible as the verbally inspired word of God think they establish their case by claiming inconsistencies in the recorded lineages of Jesus, Matthew 1 and Luke 3. A Bible question just received asks about one variation on this theme:

“Concerning the lineage of Christ. An atheist claims to have found an error in scripture. Please help me as I am unable to refute. He made a couple of argu­ments. 1. Since Jesus was not from the actual line of Joseph, Jesus is disqualified as messiah. Jesus lacked the tribal identi­fication through the male line.”

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 offer different ge­nealogies for Jesus that merge when they arrive at King David (to whom the Messianic promise was made, 2 Sam. 7:12-14; Matt. 1:6; Lk. 3:31).

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 established his legal lineage and his right to claim the throne of David. It is Joseph’s ancestry that constituted this Jew­ish requirement. While it is true that Jesus was not literally from the body of Joseph, he was nevertheless the carpenter’s son (Matt. 13:55). Joseph exercised a father’s pre­rogative to name his son (Matt. 1:25; cf. Lk. 1:62). Mary referred to Joseph as the father of Jesus in Luke 2:48. Joseph raised Jesus as His adopted son (look closely at the wording of Matt. 1:16 to see that al­though Joseph did not “beget” Jesus, he was “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ”). Anyone claiming the right to inherit the throne of David would have his lineage scrutinized to see if such a claim would be legitimate. So, as Matthew introduces Jesus Christ as “the Son of David” (a Messianic expres­sion), he gives the lineage that establishes his case (Matt. 1:1).

While Jesus’ legal claim to the throne is established through the genealogy in Mat­thew 1, his physical lineage is recorded in Luke 3:23-38 (Mary… David… Judah… Jacob… Abraham… Adam). Jesus, the “Son of Man,” was from the tribe of Judah (see Heb. 7:13-14).

It is indeed curious that if Jesus’ claim of Messiah is discredited by a false and faulty lineage, why didn’t the high priest and the Sanhedrin council offer this “proof” into evi­dence against Jesus when they put him on trial (Matt. 26:59-66). The best they could do was to gather false witnesses (liars) against Him. There was no valid evidence against Jesus. The genealogical records of Jesus establish both his legal and physical claim as the Messiah. The Bible accurately records the evidence. &

An Unspoken Sermon

Author Unknown

A member of a certain church, who previously had been attending ser­vices regularly, stopped going. After a few weeks, the preacher decided to visit him.

It was a chilly evening. The preacher found the man at home alone, sitting before a blazing fire. Guessing the reason for his preachers visit, the man welcomed him, led him to a comfortable chair near the fire­place and waited.

The preacher made himself at home but said nothing. In the grave silence, he con­templated the dance of the flames around the burning logs. After some minutes, the preacher took the fire tongs, carefully picked up a brightly burning ember and placed it to one side of the hearth all alone then he sat back in his chair, still silent.

The host watched all this in quiet contem­plation. As the one lone ember's flame flick­ered and diminished, there was a momen­tary glow and then its fire was no more. Soon it was cold and dead.

Not a word had been spoken since the initial greeting. The preacher glanced at his watch and realized it was time to leave. He slowly stood up, picked up the cold, dead ember and placed it back in the middle of the fire. Immediately it began to glow, once more with the light and warmth of the burn­ing coals around it.

As the preacher reached the door to leave, his host said with a tear running down his cheek, “Thank you so much for your visit and, especially, for the fiery ser­mon. I shall be back in church next Sunday.”

We live in a world today, which tries to say too much with too little. Consequently, few listen. Sometimes the best sermons are the ones left unspoken. &

Embalming in Ancient Egypt

By Gary P. Eubanks

"Seti I died in 1279 B.C., and the grave builders had just 70 days - while priests mummified his body - to ready the tomb to receive the pharaoh's re­mains" (National Geographic, Sept., 1998, pg. 21). "To prepare the deceased for the afterlife during Pharaonic times, funerary workers removed most internal organs, then sterilized the body and dried it by packing it - inside and out - with natron salts. About 40 days later the body was wrapped in linen strips, placed in a series of wooden cases and an outer stone coffin, and laid in a crypt" (National Geographic, Oct., 1999, pg. 80).

There appears to be a contradiction be­tween these two accounts of embalming practices in ancient Egypt. The first seems to say that mummification took seventy days, but the second says forty days were required. So, those who are disposed to look for contradictions may even find them in reputable, modern publications, as well as the Bible. In fact, this is exactly the kind of "contradiction" which has been claimed against the Bible: facts, which seem to clash but not necessarily. If people were to treat other literature like they treat the Bible, they would undoubtedly find many more "contradictions." Yet, prejudice against the Bible makes itself evident in a readiness, if not eagerness, to find contradictions even where they do not exist.

Closer examination uncovers several pos­sible ways to resolve the apparent contra­diction between these two statements. (1) The second account says "about 40 days" were required (although seventy is hardly an approximation of forty). (2) The first ac­count does not actually say seventy days were required for mummification but to get the tomb ready. (3) The second account ac­tually says the forty days were how long the body was packed in natron salts before be­ing wrapped. Of course, there is always the possibility, not to be overlooked, that, since National Geographic is not divinely inspired, one or both figures may actually be in error.

However, the Bible itself may provide the explanation to the discrepancy, for it cites both the forty- and seventy-day periods as being involved in funerary preparations in ancient Egypt. The forty-day-period over which the second account says the body was packed in natron salts agrees precisely with what the Bible says. "And Joseph com­manded his servants the physicians to em­balm his father. So the physicians embalmed Israel. Now forty days were required for it, for such is the period required for embalm­ing. And the Egyptians wept for him seventy days" (Gen. 50:2, 3).

Perhaps the additional thirty days of the traditional Egyptian period of mourning al­lowed the funerary workers to complete preparations on the body and the tomb. On this point, it is interesting that, though Jacob was a Hebrew, it is the Egyptians who weep for him seventy days. The Bible seems to be relating the traditional process the Egyp­tians followed in burying their dead. This idea is supported by the fact that when Moses died, the Israelites mourned for him only thirty days (Deut. 34:8).

Also, both history and the Bible indicate that the ancient Egyptians placed the bodies of their dead in coffins (op. cit., Gen. 50:26), while the Hebrews only swathed corpses in cloths (cf. Jn. 11:44; 19:40) and did not use coffins. [The "coffin" or bier mentioned by Luke (7:14) was apparently nothing more than a platform on which the dead were borne to burial.]

History and the Bible enjoy a relationship that is mutually supportive. While these two accounts confirm the antiquity and precise accuracy of the Bible, it comes to their aid with a simple and reasonable explanation for an apparent discrepancy. &