Why did God choose Israel?

[kaylagrl]

OK, I'm confused.
Who was Joseph's father ?

Matthew 1​

[SUP]15[/SUP] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[SUP]16[/SUP] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
.

The two genealogies trace through two of David’s sons, and both trace to Abraham. Matthew focuses on the kingly relationship through David and, ultimately, to the Jewish patriarch Abraham. However, Luke doesn’t stop there. He continues to trace Christ’s genealogy back to Adam. Luke focuses more on the humanity of Christ going back to Adam, where sin and death first entered into creation—hence the need for a Savior in the first place.

Heli is listed as the father of Joseph, who had 2 daughters. The first is Mary, and the other was Zebedee’s unnamed wife (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25). When there were no sons to preserve the inheritance in accordance with the Law of Moses (Numbers 27:1–11;Numbers 36:1–12), the husband would become the son upon marriage to keep up the family name. Therefore, Joseph, when he married Mary, became the son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and could legally be included in the genealogy.Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s—with Joseph’s name listed due to inheritance laws—and Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s. From Answers in Gensis

 

[Pumicestone]

Great try, Haven - AND Kayla !
But it sure involves an awful lot of assumptions to reach the required conclusion.
I particularly liked the "once upon a time ....." bit.


How about this as an equally plausible story ...
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph (but actually) the son of Heli, son of Matthat etc "

That way, the Matthew version can quite simply mean what it says.

 

[valiant]

Great try, Haven - AND Kayla !
But it sure involves an awful lot of assumptions to reach the required conclusion.
I particularly liked the "once upon a time ....." bit.


How about this as an equally plausible story ...
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph (but actually) the son of Heli, son of Matthat etc "

That way, the Matthew version can quite simply mean what it says.

one or two problems for you.

'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'

'A virgin shall be with child.'

'Before they came together she was with child by the Holy Spirit.'

So yes Matthew means what he said

 

[MarcR]

I love this one, I posted it here before

[video=youtube;U3bsAMyRwbw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3bsAMyRwbw[/video]

And because I detest following lines because they are so boring this makes it simpler (at least it does for me) for just a few minutes, watch till the very end though it shows you what the RCC says I believe, and shows the contradiction according to how this is understood.

Or...

This is what he shows... (although much better to watch then write out)

Heli and Jacob were brothers (Heli died childless ) and Joseph performed duty of brother

(Performing the duty of a brother see... Duet 25:5-6)

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

So it shows, Jacob BEGOT Joseph (by nature) in Mat 1:16 but Joseph is counted as the Son of Heli (by law of Duet 25:5-6) in Luke 3:23 even though Heli died.

Then the question becomes...

How can these two be brothers? These two brothers have two different fathers (with two different geneaolgies)

These "so called" brothers had two different fathers (still being brothers?)

Matthan married Estha and had a son named Jacob .But Mattham died. Only if she had seed (named Jacob) could she then marry outside the family. Which (if so having) she was free to do. So Estha (now a widow of Matthan) having Jacob married (again) to Matthat with whom she had another son Heli.

So Jacob and Heli were brothers (having the same mother) but two different fathers (Mathan and Matthat) of two different genealogies.

Once upon a time...These two brethren grew up

Heli married (dying childless) so his brother Jacob (according to the law of Duet 25:5) was to perform the duty of a brother. Jacob married his (Heli's) widow to raise up seed to Heli which was Joseph

And so we read...

Jacob BEGOT Joseph (by nature) as recorded in Mat 1:16 but Joseph is still counted as the Son of Heli (by law) of Duet 25:5-6 as recorded in Luke 3:23 Jacob was to raise up seed to his dead brother Heli (whose name remains)

Only one can BEGAT (as it shows Jacob BEGOT Joseph) but Joseph is still recorded as THE SON of Heli (though he be dead). So He that BEGOT (was Jacob) to raise up seed (Joseph) to his dead brother (Heli)


So Jacob begot Joseph, but Joseph is also the Son of Heli

By nature (of Jacob) by law (of Heli) the seed counted through both (being brothers) having the same mother but two different fathers (both having different genealogies)

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Luke 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

While Eusebius' answer is plausible there is a much simpler and IMO more correct answer.

While Luke wrote in Greek, the genealogies were written in Hebrew. In Hebrew, 'Ab' is usually translated as father; but it can mean grandfather, ancestor, or father-in-law. In Luke's genealogy it simply means father-in-law.

 

[DesiredHaven]

Great try, Haven !
But it sure involves an awful lot of assumptions to reach the required conclusion.
I particularly liked the "once upon a time ....." bit.


How about this as an equally plausible story ...
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph (but actually) the son of Heli, son of Matthat etc "

That way, the Matthew version can quite simply mean what it says.

That is not anything new to me, its just how men hand with the genealogy wrangling in respects to the lines of Joseph

He (Jesus Christ) being the seed of the woman was a child born and a Son given, he is the Son of man but was never by man but the Son of God, conceived of the Holy Ghost.

Same principle in the seed is the word which was with God, and was God, and the word was made flesh

This is just following the lines as men reason with them.

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)

This here is the focus on Jesus

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph

Same is after the question he asked the pahrisees, whose son is the Christ? They say "David's" and he asked them why did David call him Lord if he was "his son"?

As was supposed, the Son of David (as the scriptures say) as even the Son of Joseph, but was the Son of God. The sign of a virgin with child is to the house of David which has Joseph as the one contemplating putting her away when she is found to be with child, because Luke 2:4 states it is he who come into Judaea to be taxed (out of Nazareth) because he was of the lineage of David.

Jesus even said,

Matt 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ?

whose son is he?

They say unto him, The Son of David.

Jesus said to them

Mat 22:49 If David then call him Lord,

how is he his son?

Unto us a child is born unto us a son is given, he is with them "as supposed" the Son of David

Search Joseph and David and who the sign of a virgin with child would be to

Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David;
Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,
before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

He was going to put her away

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things,
behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,
saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph is called a son of David, the sign was for him of the same house to reccognize

Isaiah 7:13 And he said,

Hear ye now, O house of David;

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;

And of Joseph it says,
(because he was of the house and lineage of David)

But here is the focus on Jesus

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph

In continuance its of the a lineage, but Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost not through Joseph

So, unto us a child might be born and unto us a Son is given (who is the word is made flesh)

But by Jesus Christ was the same created which is why genealogies are neither here nor there.

I dont see the problem with a supposed as it pertains to Jesus Christ himself, if its not obvious fto every christian that he was not conceived of Joseph but of the Holy Ghost so supposing he was of Joseph and Mary (through their own union) is what is supposed in that case.

 

[atwhatcost]

are you saying esau was forced against his will to take canaanite wife's? do you actually want to know why the bible says these things or are you just looking for a reason to say Our Lord "hates".

I want to take God at his word and accept it as just that -- his word. Twice in his word it says God hates Esau. If he only hates Esau, then poor Esau. I'm seeing he hates more than Esau. If God hates Esau because he married someone not of his beliefs system, as you say, then God really hates Solomon. Solomon did that a whole lot.

(Please note: It is present tense. God is the creature of time and space, therefore everything -- literally everything right down to the universe isn't created yet or it's over -- is present tense to him. I don't know what that looks like, but I believe that is true.)

How about stop assuming only what you say is God's word, and if I disagree I speak against God? I don't speak against God. I'm trying to see as much of God as I can grasp through his power in me knowing I'll never grasp all of it.

One thing I'm sure of at this point is I'm really tired of people assuming I'm wrong, therefore I don't believe God's word. That I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm against God's word. I'm against what you believe in this specific case. Nothing more. Nothing less. For all either of us know, we well may be BOTH wrong. It still doesn't mean either one of us is against God's word. It means what we think of his word came out different than what he actually means. That's on us, not God. I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with you, without it being some form of violation of God's word, just as you are perfectly capable of disagreeing with me with the same understanding.

I still want to take God at his word. His whole word, not a little ditty there and a little ditty here. Tell me that's not complicated by our limited understanding.

Or in the words of a biblical scholar hubby read one time: "I am 100% sure of what I believe. I am also 100% sure, I got some wrong."

Fair enough without the sense we're perjuring ourselves by the mere gall to disagree?

 

[DesiredHaven]

one or two problems for you.

'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.'

'A virgin shall be with child.'

'Before they came together she was with child by the Holy Spirit.'

So yes Matthew means what he said

Exactly!!

You got it

 

[atwhatcost]

Deut 7
6"For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.7"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,8but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.…

God Chose to sent His love upon them, for no other reason than His Goodness and His Name Sake

You and CWJ just agreed through direct quotes from God's word. I count this as one of those special moments God talked about when he said "When two or more...."

I think many of us gave a good shot at trying to get at the heart of the Why. I think those who came up with those verses hit the bull's eye right smack in the middle -- aka This was God in that answer.

Amen!

 

[DesiredHaven]

While Eusebius' answer is plausible there is a much simpler and IMO more correct answer.

While Luke wrote in Greek, the genealogies were written in Hebrew. In Hebrew, 'Ab' is usually translated as father; but it can mean grandfather, ancestor, or father-in-law. In Luke's genealogy it simply means father-in-law.

Hey Im cool with anyone who can get past the flesh of the endless genealogies and make a shortcut to the conception of Jesus Christ by Holy Ghost.

Whatever works, we really arent to be going down that route, but examing why that is by the obvious was fun.

 

[atwhatcost]

I would have to disagree with this, this basically saying that God saw something good in these people, therefore meriting salvation.

This also assumes that God doesn't know the end from the beginning, and if He saw it this way, it would go against the work of Jesus, and Grace

I see Marc's answer as a "hard to tell." He got foreknowledge. We know foreknowledge is in the same sentence as predestined. Marc brought up foreknowledge.

To me it's kind of like saying "The man over there is smart and handsome." And then disagreeing with someone else because he/she said the guy in the corner is smart, without ever checking to see if the someone else thinks the guy is handsome too. It's hard to tell if Marc believes both, since he only mentioned the one. Harder to judge, simply because Marc didn't say both.

 

[Pumicestone]

If the messiah was to be born of the tribe of Judah 'according to the flesh'
and Mary was a LEVITE,
how could Yeshua fit the bill unless he had a physical earthly father in the right tribe ?

 

[atwhatcost]

I might think that as well.

Except for the Lord Jesus Christ.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for the "Hebrew" God to send His Son to be crucified and then the religion of Judaism rejects Him as their messiah but those who have been chosen by God don't reject Him.

Interesting shift, if you are able to see it. Not all of Israel rejected Christ as their Saviour. Only the ones too stubborn to even entertain the possibility that God would send His Messiah to die for them. I suppose that is not the way a King is supposed to act...

I prefer not to waste much time thinking out something someone says when the person's conclusion is the Bible is "Hebrew myth."

 

[kaylagrl]

Great try, Haven - AND Kayla !
But it sure involves an awful lot of assumptions to reach the required conclusion.
I particularly liked the "once upon a time ....." bit.


How about this as an equally plausible story ...
"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph (but actually) the son of Heli, son of Matthat etc "

That way, the Matthew version can quite simply mean what it says.

Well Im going to stop answering. Apparently you are a Bible scholar,historian and archaeologist all rolled into one. I'll ask your opinion on all questions from now on and stop making a fool of myself.

 

[atwhatcost]

I'm glad you said the last part. That's where the confusion came for me. I know Israel has a purpose, but because they were first, I was thinking it was more of a favoritism thing. And how that would continue over today in that you could be a believer in Christ all you want, but God may not want you. If that makes any sense. I have trouble getting my point across sometimes so I apologize if that doesn't make total sense.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Same verses I referenced a few pages back. Belief comes through salvation. Salvation doesn't come from belief. When we believe in God, we are already saved. He gives us belief and adoption when he redeems us. Nothing we earned. God's will is no do-overs. No Mulligans. If we believe in him, it's because he already chose us. He doesn't unchoose, and we would never choose without him first choosing us. Verse 36 states our natural inclination against God. The rest of it is his supernatural inclination to those whom he has chosen. Supernatural trumps natural each and every time.

(If you keep rewording your question, it is possible you finally understand ask the question you couldn't quite explain clearly the first time. If we keep giving you answers, it's possible you finally get what we're trying to say in return. There is a very good chance we both will understand each other eventually. A better chance we'll each get to "Ooooooh, that's what you meant" at different times. lol)

 

[Chica]

How odd
Of God
To choose
The Jews.

Why is that?

 

[jaybird88]

I want to take God at his word and accept it as just that -- his word. Twice in his word it says God hates Esau. If he only hates Esau, then poor Esau. I'm seeing he hates more than Esau. If God hates Esau because he married someone not of his beliefs system, as you say, then God really hates Solomon. Solomon did that a whole lot.

(Please note: It is present tense. God is the creature of time and space, therefore everything -- literally everything right down to the universe isn't created yet or it's over -- is present tense to him. I don't know what that looks like, but I believe that is true.)

How about stop assuming only what you say is God's word, and if I disagree I speak against God? I don't speak against God. I'm trying to see as much of God as I can grasp through his power in me knowing I'll never grasp all of it.

One thing I'm sure of at this point is I'm really tired of people assuming I'm wrong, therefore I don't believe God's word. That I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm against God's word. I'm against what you believe in this specific case. Nothing more. Nothing less. For all either of us know, we well may be BOTH wrong. It still doesn't mean either one of us is against God's word. It means what we think of his word came out different than what he actually means. That's on us, not God. I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with you, without it being some form of violation of God's word, just as you are perfectly capable of disagreeing with me with the same understanding.

I still want to take God at his word. His whole word, not a little ditty there and a little ditty here. Tell me that's not complicated by our limited understanding.

Or in the words of a biblical scholar hubby read one time: "I am 100% sure of what I believe. I am also 100% sure, I got some wrong."

Fair enough without the sense we're perjuring ourselves by the mere gall to disagree?

i didnt mean to sound like a smart butt in that reply, i didnt mean anything by it.
i dont think our Lord hates or judges the innocent. there may be more to esau than what we are seeing but from my perspective i see him getting judges for his actions even though they are in the future.
i like esau and feel bad for the guy. he killed Nimrod (some debate this) and his reward was getting robbed of his birthright. there are many references to him as a great hunter which seems to have significance as they always seem to turn out bad.

 

[atwhatcost]

i didnt mean to sound like a smart butt in that reply, i didnt mean anything by it.
i dont think our Lord hates or judges the innocent. there may be more to esau than what we are seeing but from my perspective i see him getting judges for his actions even though they are in the future.
i like esau and feel bad for the guy. he killed Nimrod (some debate this) and his reward was getting robbed of his birthright. there are many references to him as a great hunter which seems to have significance as they always seem to turn out bad.

If I could be friends with Jacob or Esau, I'd choose Esau. He doesn't seem as conniving.

And, I don't think God judges the innocent either. Then again, no one is innocent.

But you're right. What's up with hunters? (I never noticed before.) I like hunters. Won't ever do it, but I like their general character (and the food they bring to the table. lol)

 

[thecreationtutor]

We can probably look at certain things to see some of the reason why God chose Israel.

Look at how closely they cherished and guarded the Word of God. It remained pretty well unchanged in written form for a really, really long time.

I think God really likes that.

Could you imagine if the OT were lost, or re-translated so many times that it lost its original meaning? Israel wasn't about to let that happen. Their stubborn-ness is ultimately their downfall, but the inclusion of the rest of the world.

I don't think God is indebted to physical Israel today in any way. He sent the Lord Jesus Christ for a reason. But to say He is finished or not finished with physical Israel is completely guess work on our part. Only God Knows. I know people study a lot about this but for some reason, the bible will tend to show you exactly what you want to see...

The jews loved the word but did nothing about it - I am pretty sure that would be a strike, not a positive


Biblically - God chose them for His name sake - which isn't this about loving God's word...

 

[DesiredHaven]

If the messiah was to be born of the tribe of Judah 'according to the flesh'
and Mary was a LEVITE,
how could Yeshua fit the bill unless he had a physical earthly father in the right tribe ?

Jesus have a physical father in Joseph no?

John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know?
how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

They "supposed" he was his son right?Even if they did reccognize Joseph as the father (in reality) of Jesus that seemed to present a stumbling block as well

As they (after acknowledging the same) asked,

Which is somewhat the same as can be shown in the Pharisees in respects to

how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?(John 6:42)
Davids son

David therefore calleth him Lord,
how is he then his son? (John 20:44)

The word was made flesh, unto us a child is born and unto us a Son is given
he sprang out of Judah in respects to where he was actually born (Mat 2:4-6, Mic 5:2, Heb 7:14)

Mat 2:4And when he (Herod) had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together,
he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Mat 2:5 And they said unto him,
In Bethlehem of Judaea:
for thus it is written by the prophet,

According to Micah (here)

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me
that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Thats what they knew, and spoke according to the same

Joseph and Mary were in Galilee in the city of Nazareth until a decree
from Caesar Augustus went out for the world to be taxed.
And so all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from the same into Judaea

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,
into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
(because he was of the house and lineage of David

Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Luke 2:6 And so it was, that,
while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And so we see...

Luke 2:11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour,
which is Christ the Lord.

When eight days were accomplished, he was circumcised and the days of her purification according to the law of Moses
as it speaks of them (as he was made of a woman made under the law) to redeem the same

Luke 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Thats all I have of the Lord spring out of Judah according to Mich even (which they themselves acknowledge) the Christ should be born (in respects to place of birth). Joseph is named as being of the lineage of David, and so to both (those who rejected Christ) and those who received Him acknowledge he sprang out of Judah (which is evident to all the Lord would).

The sign of the virgin with child Isaiah 7:13-14) was to the house of David (to hear) and Joseph (of that lineage of the house of David) before he come together with Mary was the one needing to comtemplate that present situation (in the fulness of times). He being helped along by angels in respects to what to do in various situations which presented themselves according to the scriptures but especially in what he might typically put away (because who would believe a virgin was actually with child)? Certainly Joseph, who was of the lineage of David was scratching his head over this dilema (pertaining to his virgin) who he knew not.

The Son of man (conceived of the Holy Ghost) being the child unto us that would be born (and where, out of Judaea ) and the Son given who David called Lord, declared the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead in that picture, which they did not presently understand (since Jesus was not yet crucified or raised from the dead) and declared so after that manner.

It acknowledges that Christ was made of a woman made under the law whom he come to to redeem (since the law made nothing perfect).

If God can raise up seed, couldnt it been seen in any way like how the video presents (which was true among them) in respects to raising up seed for another (or a son) which is by nature (to the one) or a son by law (to another) according to the same maybe?

That is one thing I am desirous to iron out far better, so I am glad for your post actually.

 

[jaybird88]

If I could be friends with Jacob or Esau, I'd choose Esau. He doesn't seem as conniving.

And, I don't think God judges the innocent either. Then again, no one is innocent.

But you're right. What's up with hunters? (I never noticed before.) I like hunters. Won't ever do it, but I like their general character (and the food they bring to the table. lol)

I would go fishing with esau for sure. the hunter thing always bothers me, i come from the rural south and hunting is a big part of my culture. i think in ancient hebrew/aramaic, "great hunter/mighty hunter" may have a different meaning than what we think of hunter in todays world. kinda like mighty man which sometimes is good as in davids mighty men but sometimes is used to emphasis evil as nimrod became a mighty man.its confusing but can unlock wisdom once you figure it out. IMO