Who Was Joseph’s Father in Jesus’ Genealogy? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/who-was-josephs-father/

Who Was Joseph’s Father in Jesus’ Genealogy?

 

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Alleged Discrepancies

From Issue: R&R – October 2021

In his book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, skeptic Dennis McKinsey confidently asserts that the “contradictory” genealogies found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 open up “a Pandora’s box that apologists would just as soon remained closed forever.”¹ One “contradiction” he cited revolves around the father of Joseph.² Whereas Matthew 1:16 states that “Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ,” Luke 3:23 says, “Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.” How is it that Joseph could be the son of both Jacob and Heli? Is this a contradiction that Christian apologists prefer to keep under lock and key as McKinsey suggests? Not at all.

Admittedly, on the surface, the two statements may appear contradictory. However, there actually is a very simple explanation for the differences in the two verses: Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, while Luke presents the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary. Thus, Jacob is Joseph’s father (in Matthew 1:16), while Heli is Mary’s (in Luke 3:23).

But how can this be? Luke does not say that Mary is the offspring of Heli; rather, “Joseph” is “the son of Heli.” What logical, biblically sound explanation leads to the rational conclusion that Luke 3 is the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary? Consider the following seven points.

First, the two genealogies are totally different from the time of David to Jesus. It’s not merely that two different “grandfathers” of Jesus are listed—all the names given for the preceding 1,000 years before Christ are different (except in the case of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, where there likely was intermarriage among the two families, or else they were different people who wore the same names). Joseph descended from David’s son, Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), while Mary descended from David’s son, Nathan (Luke 3:31).

Second, Matthew and Luke were writing to different audiences: Matthew to the Jews and Luke to the Greeks. From the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel account, he focused on Jesus’ connection to Abraham and David, from whom the Old Testament repeatedly prophesied that the Messiah would come. Luke, on the other hand, writing to a broader audience, took the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam (the father of all mankind) and to God (the Creator of all mankind).

Third, though writing to a wider audience, Luke follows the Jewish tradition of only mentioning males in a line of descent. David Roper noted: “Women might be mentioned incidentally (Mt. 1:3,5), but the lines of descent were through men…. [A]s a rule, Jews did not include women in genealogies.”³ What’s more, according to Adam Clarke, “whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law.”⁴ Thus, Luke gives a fleshly genealogy of the virgin-born Jesus (Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-7) through His mother, Mary, though designated by her husband’s name.

Fourth, the terms “son” and “daughter” are used in Scripture in a wide variety of ways. “Son” may mean (among other things) son by actual birth, grandson (Genesis 29:5; cf. 24:24,29), descendant (Matthew 1:1), step son (Matthew 13:55; Luke 4:22), as well as son-in-law (1 Samuel 18:27; cf. 24:16).⁵ Likewise, in addition to the ordinary usage of the word, Bible writers used the term “daughter” to designate daughter-in-law (Ruth 2:2), female descendant (Luke 1:5; 13:16), the women of a particular place taken collectively (Luke 23:28), women in general (Proverbs 31:29), etc.⁶ In short, in different senses, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were all “of Heli.”

Fifth, Matthew tells of the coming and arrival of Jesus from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke writes from Mary’s point of view. Give serious attention to the following narratives of Matthew and Luke and consider how different their overall frame of references are:

• From Matthew (1:18-2:1a):

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king….

• From Luke (1:26-49,56; 2:7,17b-19):

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible.” Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”

And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; for behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name….” And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her house….

And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths….

[T]hey [the shepherds] made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.

Given the Gospel writers’ stark differences in perspectives of the accounts of the coming and arrival of Jesus—with Matthew’s clear focus on Joseph and Luke’s heavy attention on Mary—it was perfectly natural for Matthew to give the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph and Luke through Mary.

Sixth, the Greek article tou (“the”) is absent before Joseph’s name in Luke’s genealogy of Christ. Yet, as Frederic Godet correctly highlighted, the word occurs before every one of the other names in the genealogy (e.g., the Heli, the Matthat…the Adam, the God).⁷ Godet also noted: “In the genealogy of Matthew, the article ton⁸ is put in the same way before each proper name, which clearly proves that it was the ordinary form in vogue in this kind of document.”⁹ Thus,
“[t]his want of the article [in Luke’s genealogy—EL] puts the name Joseph outside the genealogical series properly so called, and assigns to it a peculiar position.”¹⁰ Perhaps such peculiarity is a heavy hint of this genealogy being through Jesus’ maternal grandfather (Heli), and not Joseph.

Finally, “If Luke were presenting Joseph’s genealogy,” Lenski logically argues, “it would according to his own statement be the genealogy only of the supposed father of Jesus, and of what value would such a genealogy be? No man could find a reference to the legal relation of Joseph to Jesus in hos enomizeto”¹¹ (“as was supposed”).¹² Furthermore, Roper suggests, “The phrase ‘being, as supposed, the son of Joseph’ should probably be thought of as parenthetical, with the words son of Eli [or Heli—EL] referring to Jesus, not Joseph.”¹³ Thus, as A.T. Robertson concluded, “Jesus would…be Heli’s grandson, an allowable meaning of ‘son.’”¹⁴ In fact, not only should

[t]he parenthesis in our versions…be extended to include the name Joseph: “(as was supposed of Joseph).” To shorten it as is done in our versions makes the entire list up to “of God” (v. 38) dependent on “as was supposed,” for there is no way to restrict this clause except by including “of Joseph” in it as a part of the parenthesis.¹⁵

The New Testament Greek manuscripts lack parentheses in Luke 3:23, just as they lack parentheses and all other sorts of punctation throughout (which English Bible translators have added in attempts at greater clarity). Though “as was supposed” is undoubtedly a parenthetical expression, it makes better sense if such includes Joseph [“(as was supposed of Joseph)”]. Had this fuller expression been made parenthetical long ago, fewer individuals might have had difficulties seeing Mary’s ancestry in Luke’s genealogy of Christ.

In conclusion, it is perfectly logical to argue that Luke did not trace Jesus’ legal lineage from Joseph back to David and Abraham (as did Matthew). Rather, he traced the physical bloodline of His virgin mother (not his stepfather) back to David, Abraham, and Adam. Such a logically possible explanation exonerates Luke and Matthew of any error in their penning of Jesus’ genealogies.

Endnotes

¹ Dennis McKinsey (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 46.

²  Ibid., p. 80.

³ David Roper (2003), Truth for Today Commentary: The Life of Christ (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications), 1:43.

⁴ Adam Clarke (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

⁵ In fact, as Dave Miller explained, “[T]he Jews had no word to express this concept [of a son-in-law—EL] and so just used ‘son’” [Dave Miller (2003), “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke,” https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=932].

⁶ See “Daughter” (1996), International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

⁷ Frederic Godet (1881), A Commentary on The Gospel of St. Luke (New York: I.K. Funk), 1:128, www.google.com/books/edition/A_Commentary_on_the_Gospel_of_St_Luke/htQ2AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1.

⁸ “The Definite Article ‘the’ has various endings (e.g., u and n—EL), which show the function of the word it describes in the sentence” (see “Grammar: The Definite Article,” in Shirley’s Greek Courses, http://www.drshirley.org/greek/grammar/g_def-art.pdf).

⁹ Godet, 1:128.

¹⁰ Ibid.,  emp. added.

¹¹ R.C.H. Lenski (1961), The Interpretation of the St. Luke’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg), p. 219, emp. in orig.

¹² Joel Green noted in his commentary on Luke that “[o]ther appearances of the verb [nomizo—EL] ‘to think’ or ‘to assume’ [translated ‘as was supposed’ in Luke 3:23—EL] in Luke-Acts show that Luke has in mind an assumption, wrongly made, that leads to persons acting as if it were true” [Joel Green (1997), The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 189, emp. added]. Though obviously assumed to be, Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son.

¹³ Roper, 1:43, emp. in orig.

¹⁴ A.T. Robertson (1950), A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ (New York: Harper & Row), p. 261, emp. added.

¹⁵ Lenski, p. 220, emp. added.

Should We Guided by Law or Love? –Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

https://thepreachersword.com/2016/04/12/should-we-guided-by-law-or-love/#more-8771

Should We Guided by Law or Love?

 

“Pope stresses spirit over rules” read the front page headline of Saturday’s Kansas City Star.

The article reported Pope Francis’ news conference at the Vatican Friday unveiling his latest 260 page writing entitled “Amoris Letitia” or “The Joy of Love.” According to the article “Francis’ worldwide challenge (is) to minister to the consciences of people in all their fragile imperfections and not be cornered by rigorous doctrine.”

“I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no more for confusion,” Francis wrote. “But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness.”

I’m not an expert on Catholic doctrine, but just a cursory reading of responses by those who are reveals a divide among liberals and conservatives in the Catholic church.

Some see this as a call , as reported by the Star, for a change that “opens the door to broader thinking around divorce, remarriage, love and sex.” Jim Caccamo, executive director of the Ignatian Spirituality Center in Kansas City applauded the direction that Francis is leading saying, “When people in irregular situations feel love, forgiveness and mercy, it causes them to act more comfortable and forgiving in life themselves.”

Apparently the Pope’s paper, while it pleased many progressives, did not proceed far enough in the direction they desire. They are hoping to expand the “Joy of Love” to accept homosexuals and those in homosexual marriages into the fellowship of the Catholic church. While the Pope’s pontifications stopped short of that, they are hopeful for a more merciful day.

ThePreachersWord is more concerned about God’s Word on matters of rules and relationships, morals and mercy, and the joy of love. Consider these four simple observations

(1) The Bible is our guide in all matters of morals and Christian living.

The apostle Peter affirms that we have been given “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). The Scripture, not the writings of mere men, is inspirited of God. It is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No blog, paper, book or pronouncement of a religious leader can change God’s infallible, eternal guide for the human race.

(2) God is love.

The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, constantly affirms that God is the epitome of love. He loved mankind so much that He sent Jesus on a rescue mission to earth to redeem us from our sins. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

(3) God is also a God of law.

Love and law are not mutually exclusive with God. The Old Testament is filled with statements and examples of God’s love for His people, yet he revealed to them a law to follow. Jesus also calls us to “love one another,” but has given us a law to obey.

Jesus said, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk 6:46). And the Lord says, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15).

(4) The joy of love does not exempt us from the law of the Lord.

The Bible speaks often of the joy of the Christian life. “The joy of faith” (Phil 1:25) should fill our hearts and issue itself in fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). Peace, patience, kindness and goodness are reflections of a spirit that is in tune with God.

However, love is even called “the fulfillment of the law” (Rom. 13:10). Love for God leads us to honor Him, exalt His Word, and obey His laws for our lives (Deut 30:20).

Love does not negate God’s laws on marriage, divorce, sexuality, salvation or sanctification. No man has the right to amend, change or alter what God has revealed to us.

The true call for Christians in this secular age is to love God with all our being. Accept His word. Obey His rules. And share His message to saint and sinner alike in the spirit of love.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

What matters by Gary Rose

This picture can have two meanings, depending upon how you read it:

1. You don’t matter – give up.

2. You matter – Don’t give up.

As I consider this, I think about our country and the rights of the individual in the United States of America. Over the course of several decades, our country has slowly been changing from a Democratic Republic into a Socialistic Dictatorship. Within the past two decades this change has accelerated into a violent one that has the whole-hearted support of the Democratic party and our foreign adversaries.. Individual rights are being eroded at an ever increasing rate and our country is being divided into the “haves” and the “have nots”.

At the time the Bible was written, Rome was in fact divided into “haves” and the “have nots” but, the names were different: Slave and Free or Roman and non-Roman.

Consider this passage from the book of Romans…

Romans 16 ( World English Bible )

¹ I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant of the assembly that is at Cenchreae,

² that you receive her in the Lord, in a way worthy of the saints, and that you assist her in whatever matter she may need from you, for she herself also has been a helper of many, and of my own self.

³ Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,

⁴ who for my life, laid down their own necks; to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the Gentiles.

⁵ Greet the assembly that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first fruits of Achaia to Christ.

⁶ Greet Mary, who labored much for us.

⁷ Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

⁸ Greet Amplias, my beloved in the Lord.

⁹ Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved.

¹⁰ Greet Apelles, the approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus.

¹¹ Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet them of the household of Narcissus, who are in the Lord.

¹² Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord. Greet Persis, the beloved, who labored much in the Lord.

¹³ Greet Rufus, the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

¹⁴ Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers who are with them.

¹⁵ Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.

¹⁶ Greet one another with a holy kiss. The assemblies of Christ greet you.

¹⁷ Now I beg you, brothers, look out for those who are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and turn away from them.

¹⁸ For those who are such don’t serve our Lord, Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and flattering speech, they deceive the hearts of the innocent.

¹⁹ For your obedience has become known to all. I rejoice therefore over you. But I desire to have you wise in that which is good, but innocent in that which is evil.

²⁰ And the God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

²¹ Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you, as do Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, my relatives.

²² I, Tertius, Who Write The Letter, Greet You In The Lord.

The Apostle Paul was a very unique individual. He was both an introverted person with a bookish nature and yet a very outgoing one who fervently loved his fellow Christians. As his letter to the Romans indicates, he could both present lofty concepts of intense insight into the Scriptures and yet have wonderful inter-personal relationships as well.

Paul is very important, but when I think of that sign, my thoughts turn to the last ( and perhaps the most unimportant person ) of this last chapter of Romans. Tertius, who was a slave and whose name was only a number, is very important because he actually wrote Paul’s letter to the Romans. He was a nobody who was a somebody because God loved him and put him into a very special work of assisting in the spread of the word of God.

Jesus Christ died for all human beings, rich and poor, slave, free and everything in between. He died for me and also the one who reads this blog post. We all matter because God thinks we do; read the above sign at the top in the correct way: You don’t matter – give up. Why? Because you are beloved of God and that is the only thing that really, really matters!

What Guides My Life? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

https://thepreachersword.com/2016/04/13/what-guides-my-life/#more-8778

What Guides My Life?

 

The church where I currently preach, Hickman Mills church of Christ, in Kansas City, MO, recently presented a special series called “Week-End in the Word.” The theme was Bible Answers To Tough Questions. The speaker invited to address these questions was Dan DeGarmo from Chillicothe, Ohio.

The questions included, “Why Bad Things Happen to good people” How should I Respond to Terror?” “Who Am I? And “God, What Do You See in Me?”

In my mind the key question, answered Sunday morning, was “What Guides My Life?” This answer impacts the answers to all other questions.

As Dan correctly observed the world today is looking for answers. People are seeking guidance regarding questions about marriage, parenting, religion, and personal values.

Some people seek answers in self-help books. Others tune in to Dr. Phil or popular media personalities. And many simple rely on the guidance from friends or family.

Dan stated that the answer to “What Guides My Life” must be based on two important criteria. First, it must be objective. In other words what guides our live cannot be influenced by personal opinions, subjective feelings, or emotional experiences. It must be unbiased. Impartial. Equitable. Fair. And nonpartisan.

Second, such an important answer must come from a source that is authoritative. It must be accurate and authentic. It must be truthful and trustworthy. It must be validated and verified.

Based on these two measurements, there can be only one standard by which to guide our lives. The Bible. The Word of God.

Dan reminded us of Jeremiah’s exhoration, “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23).

If you don’t believe in the Bible, this short post won’t convince you. But Dan’s lesson was really addressed to Bible believers who may be failing to follow it. Dan shared 6 things we must do, for the Word to really impact and guide our lives

(1) Put your trust in the power of the Word.

God’s word is powerful, penetrating, and potent. The Bible teaches that God’s Word has the power to create. Sustain. Save. Destroy. And affect growth in your life. (Rom. 1:16; I Pet. 2;2; 2 Pet. 3:5-6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)

(2) Prepare your heart.

The Bible compares the heart to the different kinds of soil in which a sower plants seed. (Lk. 8:5-15). Seed will not produce a crop when it falls on hard ground. Rocky soil. Or thorny soil. It is the good soil in which seed will germinate and produce a bountiful harvest. Is your heart open to the Word of God? Receptive to His guidance? Willing to accept His answers?

(3) Cleanse yourself from the world’s contamination.

The wickedness of the world will hinder us from receiving God’s inspired guidance. “Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the Word planted in you, which can save you” (Jas 1:21).

(4) Long for the Word.

Like an infant desires to be fed by the milk from his mother’s breast, so should Christians crave the spiritual milk of the Word (1 Pet. 2:1-3). We must earnestly yearn to be fed. Don’t allow distractions to delay or deter regular feeding time from the Word.

(5) Meditate on the Word

Mediation is more than simply reading. It is contemplating. Reflecting. And pondering. “Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,

Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. (Ps 1:1-2)

(6) Live the Word in your life.

The Bible is more than a book to be believed. It is a way of life to be lived. Daily. In our homes. Jobs. Recreation. And in all the decisions and challenges we face.

Christian friend, the Bible is the only objective and authoritative standard to guide our lives in this complex and troubling world. Dan DeGarmo affirmed, “I will go to my grave standing on the Truth of the Word of God.” Will you?

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

By What Authority? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

https://thepreachersword.com/2018/01/16/by-what-authority/#more-11792

By What Authority?

Several years ago I attended an event at a local high school. As I drove into the parking lot, a bumper sticker on a student’s car caught my eye. I’ve never forgotten it. It was only two words. But they say a lot.

QUESTION AUTHORITY.

Authority has become a four letter word to this generation. School officials, law enforcement officers, and religious leaders don’t occupy positions of respect that they once enjoyed. Of course, some has abused their authority and brought shame upon themselves and the office they hold.

But there is one person who holds a position of authority who deserves our respect, honor and absolute obedience. Jesus Christ. However, He, too, is questioned, disrespected and ignored. But this is nothing new.

During the final week of Jesus’ life after he entered Jerusalem, he was approached in the temple by the Chief Priests, the scribe, and the elders and questioned. “By what authority are you doing these things? And who gave you this authority to do these things?” (Mk. 11:27-29).

Their question was insincere. For most of His ministry, the religious leaders had been trying to trap Jesus with some hypothetical question. Or find in Him some inconsistency. Or even discredit Him because of his parentage, hometown, or lack of educational credentials.

In this encounter, Jesus turns the tables on them. He tells them that he will answer the question if they will answer one question. “The baptism of John–was it from heaven or from men?”

Quickly the realized they are the ones trapped. If they admit it was from heaven, Jesus will say, “Why did you not believe him?” However, it they say it was from men, the people will turn on them because they revered John as a prophet.

So, they responded to Jesus, “We do not know.”

The fact is they did know. But refused to accept the Truth. And they could not deny the power of Jesus and the impact of His teaching. But they resisted because their hearts were hardened, their motives were impure and they were more concerned about their positions than they were about their spiritual relationship.

Two thousand years later, people are still questioning the authority of Jesus. Denying his deity. Rejecting His Word. Disobeying His commands. And twisting his teaching to suit their own preconceived notions.

Jesus commissioned the apostles to take the gospel into all the world saying “All authority has been given to Me.” It was given to Him by God the Father. Jesus’ voice is the one we are instructed to hear today. (Heb. 1:1-4). Thus, the Bible identifies Jesus as “Lord of Lords.” “King of Kings.” “The Anointed One.” And the “Blessed and only Potentate” (1 Tim. 6:15; Ax 2:46)

Therefore, since Jesus possesses all authority, what he said ought to be of supreme importance of us. It ought to mold our thinking, influence our decisions and guide our lives.

What does Jesus say about how to treat other people? (Lk 6:31)

What instruction does Jesus give regarding marriage? (Mk 10:1-12)

What attitudes and actions does Jesus condemn that are too often accepted (Matt 5:21-43)

What should be our priorities in life? (Matt 6:19-34)

These and a myriad of other issues are answered directly by Jesus or through the writings of his divinely inspired ambassadors, the apostles. Jesus said he came the we might experience life in all its fullness (Jn. 10:10). And Peter affirmed that we’ve been given “all things that pertain to life and godliness (2Pet. 1:3).

In an age that turns to the internet for answers, is influenced by pop culture and worships celebrities, it’s time to come to Christ. To turn to Him. To accept His Word. And submit to His authority.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

From Heaven or From Men? by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 

https://thepreachersword.com/2019/01/15/from-heaven-or-from-men/#more-13430

From Heaven or From Men?

Though it happened years ago, I will never forget driving into the parking lot of the High School where I lived and seeing for the first time a bumper sticker that challenged: “Question Authority.” I’m guessing it wasn’t on a teacher’s car. Since then, I’ve seen and heard it many times.

This slogan was popularized by the late, controversial psychologist Timothy Leary who was known for advocating the use of LSD and psychedelic drugs.

Questioning authority is nothing new.

In the final week of Jesus’ life when he came to Jerusalem, the Jewish religious leaders constantly questioned Jesus trying to trap him. They were fed up with Jesus. He healed on the Sabbath. Associated with sinners. Forgave sins. Condemned their traditions. Overturned the tables in the temple. And generally disrupted and disturbed their comfortable lives.

By what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?” They demanded.

But Jesus turned the tables on them by asking, “The baptism of John — was it from heaven or from men? Answer Me.” If they could answer, then he would answer their question.

They were caught in a perplexing dilemma of their own devising. They realized, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ He will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ However, they could not say it was from men, because “they feared the people, for all counted John to have been a prophet indeed.”

“So they answered and said to Jesus, ‘We do not know.’”

Jesus responded, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Mark 11:27-30).

“From Heaven or from men.” That’s a good question. When we seriously examine our religious beliefs and practices are they of divine or human origin?

Authority is necessary for every area of life. The government. The home. The church. Societal order. Imagine driving where there is no respect for the rules for the road. No regard for speed limits. No agreement on the purpose of a red or green light. No recognition of a stop sign. Without authority you have chaos.

Religiously speaking it is possible to become like the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day and be guided by tradition instead of Truth. When asked “by what authority do you do these things,” some respond, “We’ve always done it that way.” Or “that’s what my church teaches.” Or may even admit, “that’s just our tradition.” But is your practice “from heaven or from men”?

Furthermore, subjectivism diverts us from divine authority and leads us into justifying ourselves with reasoning that begins with subjective statements like “ I feel.” “I think.” “I don’t believe God will ______”(you fill in the blank). And the ever-popular “That’s not my truth.”

It’s disconcerting to hear Christians hurl pejorative epithets that disparage the Lord’s church, gospel preachers, and Bible authority. Often on facebook I read statements that scorn the apostolic examples recorded in the New Testament. Or poke fun at the idea of a common sense Biblical inference. And even outright reject the plain, simple commands of Scripture.

I want to ask those inclined to ridicule authority, what is your Biblical hermeneutic? Your method of interpretation? Your approach to understanding Scripture? I would like to know, “Is it from heaven or from men?”

It is well to remember that the church is not democracy. It is not our place to change God’s Word. Some vote to amend their doctrine. Or sanction an alternative lifestyle condemned in the Bible. Or eliminate from Scripture that which they find offensive and not politically correct. Is it fair to ask, as Jesus did, “Is it from heaven or from men?”

Finally what directs our personal lives? Our morals? Ethics? Behavior? And habits? Is it based on popular opinion? Political correctness? Or fleshly desires? Jesus has given us a standard to live by. The Bible says, “Be not conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2). “Abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11). “Be holy for I am holy,” says the Lord. (1 Pet 1:16).

Jesus’ question to the Pharisees was not difficult. But it was painful to ponder.

What about you and I? How will we answer? “Is it from heaven or from men?”

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

“God Was Not ‘Within Time’ When He Began Creation?” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

https://apologeticspress.org/god-was-not-within-time-when-he-began-creation/

“God Was Not ‘Within Time’ When He Began Creation?”

Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Age of the Earth Creation vs. Evolution

The vast majority of people in the western world today believe the Earth and the Universe are billions of years old. This teaching is based on dating methods that are founded on assumptions that have not been proven and are riddled with error. In spite of these assumptions and errors, it has been common for many Bible believers to adopt this ancient Earth belief (or at least tolerate it) and attempt to find places in the biblical text to insert the possibility of billions of years. The two most common attempts at this effort are known as the Day-Age Theory and the Gap Theory. The Day-Age Theory asserts that the days of Creation were not literal 24-hour days, but were long, extended periods of millions or billions of years. The Gap Theory suggests that the days are regular 24-hour periods, but a large gap of billions of years existed in the biblical account of Creation between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3. At Apologetics Press, we have dealt extensively with these two theories and shown them to be incorrect.¹

Periodically, however, we run across a twist in one of these two theories which requires attention. One such idea is that there must be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the creation because, since God created time, He could not have been “in time” when He initially brought the world into existence. According to this idea, it must be true that “when God created the heavens and the Earth, God did so before time.”[2] And we are then told that it must be false that “when God created the heavens and the Earth, God did so during time.” In argument form the allegation looks like this:

Premise 1: If God is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation, then He cannot be within the first day’s 24-hour period.

Premise 2: God is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15).

Conclusion: Therefore, He cannot be within the first day’s 24-hour period.

The concluding argument then states:

1. “If God cannot be within the first day’s twenty-four-hour period at the point of time’s initial creation, then Exodus 20:11 excludes Genesis 1:1 in its reference to six days.

2. God cannot be within the first day’s twenty-four-hour period at the point of time’s initial creation (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15; Genesis 1:1).

3. Then, Exodus 20:11 excludes Genesis 1:1 in its reference to six days.”

Admittedly, this all seems fairly complicated, but to summarize the argument, if God is outside of time when He begins creating, then Exodus 20:11, which is talking about time, cannot apply to what God created while outside of time.

While the argument seems complicated, the answer to it is straightforward. Time begins at the exact point at which physical matter and space come into existence. The initial creative event is a simultaneous occurrence of both matter and time.[3] All time starts with the first atom of matter that is created since time (as it relates to the physical Universe) is connected to the Universe. The simple response to the above argument is to recognize that, though the author of the argument focuses on the “location” of God in relation to time, Genesis 1:1 and Exodus 20:11 are not addressing how God relates to events before the creation of the physical Universe. These passages address the passing of time that is connected to the physical Universe. God existed before time, is currently outside of time, and is from everlasting to everlasting, as Psalm 90:2 states. Thus, all of God’s activities before the creation of the physical world were “before” time, but those activities would have no bearing on the time that has elapsed in the material Universe. They would not add billions of years to the age of the Universe. Time is an aspect of the physical creation and cannot be separated from it.

It is interesting that the proponent of the argument admitted this very idea, when he stated: “When did time begin? The correct answer is that it began at the point at which the first thing came into existence. Since God did not come into existence, the point at which the first thing came into existence was the creation of the heavens and the Earth…. Simultaneously, time arrived at the same point at which the heavens and the Earth arrived.” If that is true, then anything that God did before creating the heavens and the Earth would be irrelevant to how long the Earth and Universe have been in existence. In other words, God’s pre-creation activity does not add years to the age of the Earth, since time began at the moment of Creation and not before.

So, we must look at the premise: “If God is not within time at the initial point of time’s creation, then He cannot be within the first day’s twenty-four-hour period.” The premise is incorrectly worded because “where” God is “in time” is unimportant in relation to the age of the Earth. God was not within the first day before Creation because neither time nor the first day had started. When did it start? When the first atom was created. This would mean that whatever God was doing “before” the creation of matter had nothing to do with the time that passed in the physical world.

We then move to the premise that states: “If God cannot be within the first day’s twenty-four-hour period at the point of time’s initial creation, then Exodus 20:11 excludes Genesis 1:1 in its reference to six days.” The second half of this premise does not follow from the first half (the idea that God is not within time), since the point at which matter was created is the point at which time began. So, why would Exodus 20:11 exclude Genesis 1:1 if Genesis 1:1 includes the creation of matter and we know that all matter in the Universe must be within time? Since we know that “all matter must be within time’s initial creation,” then we know that “Exodus 20:11 must include Genesis 1:1 in its reference to six days.”

So, if time begins the instant matter is created, and Exodus 20:11 states that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; and if matter would be included in “all that is in them”; then we must conclude that Exodus 20:11 applies to Genesis 1:1 as it does to the rest of the Creation account. The attempt to force (or at least accommodate) a gap between Genesis 1:1 and the six days of Creation by claiming that God is outside of time when He begins His creation fails. The clock of the Universe began when the first atom came into existence, and it ran and continues to run continuously from that point. When did God start creating the heavens, the Earth, and the Seas? At “the beginning.” The beginning of what? Matter and time. How long does the Bible say it took Him to complete this creation? Six days, no more, no less.

Endnotes

¹ Justin Rogers (2015), “Is the Gap Theory Linguistically Viable?”, https://apologeticspress.org/is-the-gap-theory-linguistically-viable/; Eric Lyons (2014), “Creation and the Age of the Earth,” https://apologeticspress.org/creation-and-the-age-of-the-earth-500/; Dave Miller (2004), “The Implications of Rejecting the Literal Days of Genesis 1,” https://apologeticspress.org/the-implications-of-rejecting-the-literal-days-of-genesis-1-1200/; Wayne Jackson (1984), “That Loaded Questionnaire,” https://apologeticspress.org/that-loaded-questionnaire/.

² All quotations regarding this idea are taken from Mac Deaver (2020), “Could God Create (Ex Nihilo) on the First Day?” Sufficient Evidence, Fall, pp. 129-138, emp. added.

³ Jeff Miller (2012), “Simultaneous Causation,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/simultaneous-causation-687/.

---

Published October 22, 2021

“As Often As” and the Lord’s Supper by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/as-often-as-and-the-lords-supper/

“As Often As” and the Lord’s Supper

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Bible Interpretation Difficult Passages Doctrinal Matters Lord's Supper Worship

Paul’s allusion to the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Jesus in his remarks to the Corinthians includes these words:

In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:25-26).

Some have alleged: “The phrase ‘as often as’ means that the Corinthians were permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper as often as they chose to do so—anytime they decided to without any limitations on the day or the frequency.”

This viewpoint is characterized by two flaws: (1) it fails to grasp the grammar and context of the passage and (2) it fails to consider everything God says about the matter elsewhere in the New Testament.

The Grammar/Context:

Several phrases/words in the context indicate the notion of time: “do this” (vss. 24,25), “as often as” (vss. 25,26), “until” (vs. 26), and “when” (vs. 33). However, none of these words provide any assistance in ascertaining when or how often the Lord’s Supper is to be observed. Frequency, repetition, and consistency are certainly inherent in the construction of such expressions, but they do not specify the precise parameters of frequency. Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 11 simply do not provide any assistance in ascertaining exact observance, although he indirectly clarifies the matter in chapter 16 where he links another act of worship with Sunday. J.W. McGarvey reflects this awareness in his comment on 11:26—“The constant observance of this feast through the centuries is one of the strongest of the external evidences of the truth of gospel history. By a chain of weekly links it will connect the first and second comings of our Lord; after which there will be no further need of symbols.”¹

The contextual focus is on the perpetual nature of the Lord’s Supper until the end of time. Hence, when it is observed (without any indication of when that observance occurs, whether Sunday or some other day of the week), every time it is observed, it must be done for the purpose of remembering what Jesus did. God intended for the Lord’s Supper to be an ongoing, repetitious proclamation to Christians and outside observers of the reality of what Jesus did on the cross and the fact that He will come again. Findley paraphrases: “Paul assumes that celebration will be frequent, for he directs that, however frequent, it must be guided by the Lord’s instructions, so as to keep the remembrance of Him unimpaired.”²

The Greek word that the Holy Spirit selected in both verse 25 and verse 26, rendered “as often as” in the NKJV, is hosakis. This relative adverb is used three times³ in the New Testament with two of the three occurrences found in these two verses. According to respected Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson, the word is “only used with the notion of indefinite repetition.”⁴ In his discussion of general temporal clauses, he categorizes the term with other “Conjunctions Meaning ‘When.’”⁵ Hence, the term provides no insight by which one can ascertain any specificity to the repetition. It most certainly provides no indication that the reader is free to select his own frequency; nor does it exclude a stipulation of frequency that might be indicated elsewhere in the New Testament. Lexicographers provide the following synonymous meanings: “whenever,” “as often as,” “so many times as,” “how many times as,” “how often,” “how often soever,” “as many times as.”⁶ Observe that all these expressions are simply referring to the event occurring without specifying frequency.

English translations demonstrate that hosakis does not convey the idea that the Lord’s Supper may be taken anytime one chooses or that Sunday is not the singular day God intended. Consider the following chart that summarizes English translation⁷ usage:

Translation	1 Cor. 11:25	1 Cor. 11:26
CEB	Every time you drink	Every time you eat
CEV	Drink this	When you eat
ERV	When you drink	Every time you eat
EXB	When you drink	Every time you eat
GW	Every time you drink	Every time you eat
GNT	Whenever you drink	Every time you eat
ICB	When you drink	Every time you eat
PHILLIPS	Whenever you drink	Whenever you eat
JUB	Each time that ye drink	Each time that you eat
NOG	Every time you drink	Every time you eat
NCB	Whenever you drink	Whenever you eat
NCV	When you drink	Every time you eat
NET	Every time you drink	Every time you eat
NIRV	Every time you drink	When you do this
NIV	Whenever you drink	Whenever you eat
NTE	Whenever you drink	Whenever you eat
VOICE	Whenever you drink	Every time you taste
WE	Every time you drink	Every time you eat

Observe that “every time,” “when,” “whenever,” and “each time” are equivalent expressions. They convey repetition without specifying the day or time of observance. The text does not intend to imply that therefore Christians are free to pick and choose their own days. Rather, the language selected by the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 11:25-26 provides no assistance in determining whether God intends for the Lord’s Supper to be observed on a particular day or at a particular time. If He so specified, the New Testament would have to so indicate elsewhere.

Summary

Neither the Greek nor the English convey the idea that Christians are free to select their own times for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The reader must read that idea into the text. If the New Testament gave no further directives regarding the frequency or the day of the Lord’s Supper, the reader would be free to select his own observance occasions, deciding which days of the week and how often it would be observed. But the Lord gave us additional instructions on the matter.

Further Instructions from God

To be fair and honest with Scripture, one must gather everything the Bible has to say on a subject and reason about that material correctly to arrive at the totality of God’s will on that subject. Specifically, one must examine the New Testament to ascertain God’s will regarding observance of the Lord’s Supper. As it pertains to frequency of observance, the following verses clarify the matter by providing a complete picture: Acts 2:42,46; Acts 20:7; Acts 20:11; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.⁸

Implications

Consider these implications of the foregoing. If God did not specify His intentions regarding frequency of observance of the Lord’s Supper, a person could partake one time after conversion and fulfill God’s expectations. If the Christian lives to be 90 years old, he would please God by the single observance.

Further, could the Jews have celebrated the Sabbath on days other than the Sabbath/Saturday? According to Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the Sabbath commemorated the Exodus—the deliverance of the Jews from Egyptian bondage. Could they not have reasoned—like those today who dislodge the Lord’s Supper from Sunday—that the perpetual commemoration of the Exodus could also be achieved on days other than Saturday? The Jews could not have known when to commemorate the Exodus unless God had so stipulated. If God had not given any indication of the day, the Jews would have been free to observe it on any day and their observance would not necessarily have to have even been weekly. But by associating commemoration of the Exodus with Saturday, the Jews were under obligation to conform to God’s directive and to do otherwise would have been sinful.

The fact is that the bulk of Christendom—though generally associating observance of the Lord’s Supper with Sunday—has felt free to alter and adjust God’s instructions on a variety of matters over the centuries, including tampering with the scriptural directive regarding Sunday. Yet His potent declarations remain in effect and offer somber warning to those who would presume to alter His directives:

• “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 4:2).
• “Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (Deuteronomy 5:32).
• “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).
• “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6).
• “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
• “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day (John 12:48).

ENDNOTES

¹ J.W. McGarvey (1916), Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Co.), p. 118, emp. added.

² G.G. Findlay, “St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians,” in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed. (1900), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:881, italics in orig.

³ W.F. Moulton, A.S. Geden, and H.K. Moulton (1978), A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), fifth edition, p. 712.

⁴ A.T. Robertson (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), p. 973; A.T. Robertson (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman), p. 165, emp. added.

⁵ Robertson, Grammar, p. 971.

⁶ Daniel Wallace (2000), The Basics of New Testament Syntax (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 209; H.E. Dana and Julius Mantey (1927), A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto, Canada: Macmillan), p. 281; Charles Robson (1839), A Greek Lexicon to the New Testament (London: Whittaker & Co.), p. 322; John Pickering (1839), A Greek and English Lexicon  (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little, & Wilkins), p. 653; Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press), p. 1082.

⁷ The translation abbreviations signify the following: CEB (Common English Bible), CEV (Contemporary English Version), ERV (Easy-to-Read Version), EXB (Expanded Bible), GW (God’s Word Translation), GNT (Good News Translation), ICB (International Children’s Bible), PHILLIPS (J.B. Phillips New Testament), JUB (Jubilee Bible 2000), NOG (Names of God Bible), NCB (New Catholic Bible), NCV (New Century Version), NET (New English Translation), NIRV (New International Reader’s Version), NIV (New International Version), NTE (New Testament for Everyone), VOICE (The Voice Bible), WE (Worldwide English New Testament).

⁸ For an extensive analysis of these verses and New Testament teaching on Sunday observance of the Lord’s Supper, see Dave Miller (2007), “Sunday & the Lord’s Supper,” https://apologeticspress.org/sunday-and-the-lords-supper-1254/.

---

Published April 14, 2022