The Highway.com

(July 10.2005)

Almost a month ago, I made the decision to leave AOL after nearly ten years (five as a regular member of its chat community.)  During my time there I exchanged email with people seeking to establish and bolster the fundamentalist propaganda machine.  Sometimes they debated directly with me; sometimes they debated with my wife (Nastybrat1, who decided to remain . . . and has my full support in her decision); sometimes they debated me when they thought it was her, a fact we never hid.  The following was an email she received last year after a chat room debate over the inconsistencies in the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke . . . and my response: 

If you have a question, send it to: mrbline5784@comcast.net

I challenge you to refute this.

Of David's House?

(May 25,2004)

One of the things that amazes me the most whenever I enter into discussion over religion with Christian, be it Fundamentalist, Born again, Non-denominational, Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, is the double standard applied to the research behind a particular belief or idea. Time and time again I see some of the most complex and detailed attacks against anything in seeming opposition to what they hold to be true, an underlying cynicism that demands "independent verification" and will discard a theory for the slightest discrepancy. Yet when it comes to their own list of "experts" and their own belief system, I often find blind trust in the words of another . . . that the research is wholly accurate and true.

The article you sent me is a classic example. Chuck Missler is now the expert, and your article directly comes from a site expounding his ideas (not to mention advertise his books). My question to you is simple: Did you bother to confirm his footnotes? Did you go to the Bible yourself and read the verses he quoted to establish the validity of his case?

That you challenged me to refute the article says you did not.

You could have refuted the article yourself, for his reading of the verses in question is slip-shot at best.

"Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.'"(Jer 22:30)

Missler speaks of a degeneration of kings of the House of David, which finally incurs God’s wrath and the fateful curse on Jeconia, but was the curse on him?

"As I live," declares the LORD, "even though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet {ring} on My right hand, yet I would pull you off;and I will give you over into the hand of those who are seeking your life, yes, into the hand of those whom you dread, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans."I will hurl you and your mother who bore you into another country where you were not born, and there you will die."But as for the land to which they desire to return, they will not return to it."Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known?"O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD! "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.'" (Jer 22: 24-30)

Coniah, the true target of the curse, does not appear in the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew:

After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. (Matt 1:12)

Coniah’s seed was severed from the House of David, and Shealtiel became the begotten son, which any simple reading of the Bible would clearly show was commonplace. Matthew already solved the problem Missler suggested as giving reason for the "councils of Satan to celebrate" (another major inconsistency Christianity has with the Old Testament, the Bible in general, but I will let this one slide). The problem never existed in Matthew. I offer the following as confirmation:

The sons of Jeconiah, the prisoner, {were} Shealtiel his son,(1 Chr 3:17)

Then Jeshua the son of Jozadak and his brothers the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brothers arose and built the altar of the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses, the man of God.(Ezra 3:2)

Now in the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem in the second month, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak and the rest of their brothers the priests and the Levites, and all who came from the captivity to Jerusalem, began {the work} and appointed the Levites from twenty years and older to oversee the work of the house of the LORD.(Ezra 3:8)

then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak arose and began to rebuild the house of God which is in Jerusalem; and the prophets of God were with them supporting them.(Ezra 5:2)

Now these are the priests and the Levites who came up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra,(Neh 12:1)

In the second year of Darius the king, on the first day of the sixth month, the word of the LORD came by the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, saying,(Hag 1:1)

Then Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, with all the remnant of the people, obeyed the voice of the LORD their God and the words of Haggai the prophet, as the LORD their God had sent him. And the people showed reverence for the LORD.(Hag 1:12)

So the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,(Hag 1:14)

"Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and to the remnant of the people saying,(Hag 2:2)

'On that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,' declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like a signet {ring,} for I have chosen you,'" declares the LORD of hosts.(Hag 2:23)

We are clearly left with the curse not affecting the House of David, God declaring favor on Zerubbabel, but Missler neglected to mention this, and Matthews geneology remains intact and legitimate, which returns us to the original problem: how do we reconcile Matthew’s genealogy (Matthew 1:1-16) with Luke’s (Luke 3:23-38)?

Missler suggests that we are actually seeing the genealogy of Mary, not Joseph, and cites several entries in Numbers to support his claim:

Now Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but only daughters; and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah.(Num 26:33)

Then the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph, came near; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah and Hoglah and Milcah and Tirzah. They stood before Moses and before Eleazar the priest and before the leaders and all the congregation, at the doorway of the tent of meeting, saying, "Our father died in the wilderness, yet he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons."Why should the name of our father be withdrawn from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father's brothers." So Moses brought their case before the LORD.

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "The daughters of Zelophehad are right in {their} statements. You shall surely give them a hereditary possession among their father's brothers, and you shall transfer the inheritance of their father to them."Further, you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. 'If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. 'If he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 'If his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his nearest relative in his own family, and he shall possess it; and it shall be a statutory ordinance to the sons of Israel, just as the LORD commanded Moses.'"(Num 27: 1-11)

and they said, "The LORD commanded my lord to give the land by lot to the sons of Israel as an inheritance, and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother to his daughters. "But if they marry one of the sons of the {other} tribes of the sons of Israel, their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of our fathers and will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; thus it will be withdrawn from our allotted inheritance."When the jubilee of the sons of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they belong; so their inheritance will be withdrawn from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers."

Then Moses commanded the sons of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, "The tribe of the sons of Joseph are right in {their} statements. "This is what the LORD has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, 'Let them marry whom they wish; only they must marry within the family of the tribe of their father.' "Thus no inheritance of the sons of Israel shall be transferred from tribe to tribe, for the sons of Israel shall each hold to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. "Every daughter who comes into possession of an inheritance of any tribe of the sons of Israel shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. "Thus no inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another tribe, for the tribes of the sons of Israel shall each hold to his own inheritance."

Just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so the daughters of Zelophehad did: Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad married their uncles' sons. They married {those} from the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained with the tribe of the family of their father. (Num 36: 2-12)

Here Missler suggests that house does indeed transfer through a daughter if there are no males born within the family, but not without restrictions as noted above. Missler continues:

However, Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, only daughters; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They came near before Eleazar the priest and before Joshua the son of Nun and before the leaders, saying, "The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers." So according to the command of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among their father's brothers. Thus there fell ten portions to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan, because the daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance among his sons. And the land of Gilead belonged to the rest of the sons of Manasseh(Josh 17: 4-6)

Again it seems to be an attractive explanation . . . a confirmation that house can and does transfer through a woman in rare cases. He finally cites:

Machir took a wife for Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister's name was Maacah. And the name of the second was Zelophehad, and Zelophehad had daughters.(1 Chr 7:15)

In his eagerness to reconcile Matthew and Luke, however, he made a major mistake. All his examples clearly make note of the break in traditional inheritance! It is made painstakingly clear that the lineage is passed through the daughter not the son. Luke makes no such distinction. Nor does Luke account for the places in which the lineages coincide after David (which are numerous, but unnecessary here to refute Missler). Nowhere does Luke mention a daughter of the house of David, not even Mary. In fact Luke is very careful to point out that the House of David comes through Joseph’s side:

it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;(Luke 1:3)

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.(Luke 1:26-7)

Joseph here is tied to David, Mary’s ties through Joseph. They were engaged to be married . . . Luke’s careful investigation.

And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord {is} with you." But she was very perplexed at {this} statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 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 bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."(Luke 1:28-33)

Simple reading shows us how Jesus is to inherit the throne. . . through "a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David." Still no mention of Mary’s blood ties to the house.

Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. "And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. "For nothing will be impossible with God."(Luke 1: 34-37)

An interesting example of Luke’s attentiveness, his careful investigation, we see a unique twist: Elizabeth, Mary’s "relative", is also with child . . . John the Baptist. Only Luke makes this connection between Jesus and John; as of yet though we see nothing linking the blood of Mary to the house of David.

Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,(Luke 2:4)

Again Luke’s attentiveness to detail, we see Joseph’s connection to David, but as for Mary:

in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.(Luke 2:5)

They were engaged. Luke painstakingly makes the engagement connection . . . part of his careful investigation. Nowhere in Luke does he call Mary a daughter of the house of David; her connection to David clearly trough marriage, yet Missler would have us believe that Luke made a glaring error in not clarifying his lineage to be through Mary:

When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,(Luke 3:23)

Luke, if his investigation was careful, would have listed Mary as well . . . aka. "son of Joseph, husband of Mary, the daughter of Eli," thus explaining the different grandfather of Jesus.

Is Eli Jesus’ grandfather?

Is Jacob Jesus’ grandfather? (Matt. 1:16)

Are they both?

We are back to the dilemma, which gets worse when we consider Shealtiel. Both Luke and Matthew agree on Shealtiel, though Luke lists a different father:

the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,(Luke 3:27)

as compared to Matthew:

After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.(Matt 1:12)

Putting aside an interesting way in which this can be made consistent regarding Shealtiel’s true father, it still shakes Missler’s theory to the core. Here we have a convergence after David as listed in both Matthew and Luke, which would make Mary a redundant factor in the equation. Either way Joseph is covered. . . legitimized. . . able to pass on heirship of the throne of David. Mary is simply not needed, yet Missler would say she is.

Each and every passage Missler cites contains its own list of problems; I choose only to list two. I didn’t need another list of "experts." I simply read his footnotes. I went to the Bible. Why should I be reading the Bible for you? You can read and write. Why should it be my task to pick up your slack? Why should I spend my time and effort to do YOUR work? As you took the easy way out with Missler, you again have somebody else to read your Bible for you. You have somebody else to give you an explanation for what you could figure out easily on your own.

I know already what your response will be to this . . . almost to the word. I hope I am wrong, but whenever I have dealt with those who swallow Fundamentalist propaganda hook, line and sinker, I know I have wasted my time.

Check your sources.

Read the Bible.

He never responded, and we never saw him again.

The internet is a great place to expand and simplify research.  I use it all the time, but I realize that it is only as good as its sources, and anyone, even an insignificant carpenter can create and maintain a web site.  Never lose the ability to question, because you see it in black and white . . . even if it gives you the answers you want to hear.