Conflicting Scriptures

Jonathan Ledbetter

Question & Answer • Sermon • Submitted a year ago

0 ratings

· 1 view

Notes

Transcript

Any New Questions to Add to the List?

Any Topics You’d Like Discussed?

Conflicting Scriptures

We’ve Got a Few Questions that Deal with the Same Idea

Questions About Scriptures that Seem to Conflict with Each Other

Sometimes We Run into Separate Passages that Seem to Contradict

Christians have Studied These “Contradictory” Scriptures Since They were Written…

And There’s Always Been an Explanation

So Let’s See What Our “Conflicting” Scriptures are…

And Look at Some Explanations

Why is Jesus’ Genealogy in Matthew & Luke Different?

Here’s Both Genealogies

Luke’s Genealogy Works Backward From Jesus and Goes All the Way to Adam

Matthew’s Begins with Abraham and Works Down to Jesus

Because of that, I Started Both Genealogies with Abraham

And, as You can Tell, Luke has More Names than Matthew

From Abraham to David, All the Names are the Same

But After David, the Only Names that are the Same are:

Shealtiel and Zerubbabel; Joseph and Jesus

So We can See Where the Genealogies Begin to Go Different Directions, and Why

Matthew is Following Jesus’ Genealogy Through David’s Son Solomon

Luke is Following Jesus’ Genealogy Through David’s Son Nathan

So that Fixes One Major Conflict with the Genealogies

They are Traced Through Different Sons of David

But We Can’t Stop There Because that Doesn’t Solve All the Issues

Both Genealogies End with Joseph and Jesus

But Matthew Says, “Jacob was the Father of Joseph”

And Luke Says, “Joseph, the Son of Eli”

How can Joseph have 2 Dad’s?

There are 2 Possible Explanations to this Conflict:

Either Matthew or Luke is Taking into Account “Levirate Marriage”

Matthew and Luke are Tracing Jesus’ Genealogy Through Different Parents

We Read About Levirate Marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6

Deuteronomy 25:5–6 (NASB95)

5 “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 “It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

If this is the Case in One of the Genealogies…

Then Either Jacob or Eli would Be Joseph’s Biological Father…

And the Other would Be the Dead Brother of the Biological Father…

Which would Be Considered the Child’s Legal Father

This would Also Account for Why Shealtiel has 2 Different Fathers in the 2 Genealogies

So that’s One Possible Explanation

The Other Possible Explanation Simply Says:

Matthew is Following the Biological Lineage of Joseph…

And Luke is Following the Biological Lineage of Mary

But if that’s the Case, Then Why Does Luke Say:

“Joseph, the Son of Eli”

There’s an Easy Explanation

It Seems There wasn’t a Koine Greek Word for “Son-in-Law” in that Day

To Call Joseph the “Son of Eli” could Also Mean “the Son-in-Law of Eli”

This would Mean that Eli was Mary’s Father…

And Therefore, Luke’s Account Traces Jesus’ Lineage Through Mary

Jesus would Be Related to King David Through Both Sides of the Family

Legally Through Joseph

Biologically Through Mary

So There’s 2 Possible Explanations for the Conflicting Genealogies of Jesus

Should I Help the Needy or Let Them Go Hungry?

One of the Primary Expectations of a Citizen of God’s Kingdom…

Is to Give to/Help Those in Need

We See this Taught By Jesus and the Apostles

And We See it Acted Out in the Early Church

But We See Another Teaching of Paul Where He Tells the Church in Thessalonica…

To Let Those Who Don’t Want to Work Go Hungry

2 Thessalonians 3:7–12 (NIV)

7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” 11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.

One of the Main Programs of the Early Church…

Was Making Sure that Every Member of the Body was Taken Care of

Those Without Homes Received Lodging

Those Without Clothes Received Clothes

Those Without Food Received Food

And that was One of the Primary Ones

They Worked Together, Contributing Where They Could…

To Make Sure Everyone had Food to Eat

But There were Some Christians in Thessalonica…

Who were Taking Advantage of this Program

I Love the Way the NIV Puts it:

“They are Not Busy; They are Busybodies”

They Refused to Work for a Living

Instead, They Busied Themselves with Things They Shouldn’t

Paul Says that These Siblings Need to Taste the Bitter Fruit of Idleness

If They are Able But Unwilling to Provide for Themselves…

Then They Need to Go Hungry

Maybe Their Growling Bellies will Change Their Hearts

Paul Even Taught this When it Pertained to Widows in the Church

1 Timothy 5:3–16 (CSB)

3 Support widows who are genuinely in need. 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them learn to practice godliness toward their own family first and to repay their parents, for this pleases God. 5 The widow who is truly in need and left all alone has put her hope in God and continues night and day in her petitions and prayers; 6 however, she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.

7 Command this also, so that they will be above reproach. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own family, especially for his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 No widow is to be enrolled on the list for support unless she is at least sixty years old, has been the wife of one husband, 10 and is well known for good works—that is, if she has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the saints’ feet, helped the afflicted, and devoted herself to every good work.

11 But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when they are drawn away from Christ by desire, they want to marry 12 and will therefore receive condemnation because they have renounced their original pledge. 13 At the same time, they also learn to be idle, going from house to house; they are not only idle, but are also gossips and busybodies, saying things they shouldn’t say.

14 Therefore, I want younger women to marry, have children, manage their households, and give the adversary no opportunity to accuse us. 15 For some have already turned away to follow Satan. 16 If any believing woman has widows in her family, let her help them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it can help widows in genuine need.

Widows were Typically in Need of Care and Support in that Time/Culture

In the Early Church, Christian Widows would Be on the Pay Roll

But Not All Christian Widows

There were Several Requirements to Enrolled on the List for Support:

She Must Not have Children Who can/will Care for/Support Her

It is a Child’s Duty to Take Care of Their Elderly Parents, Not the Church’s

She Must Be 60+

She had to have Been a One Man Woman (Faithful in Marriage)

She Must Be Known for Good Works

Good Works Such as:

Raising Her Children

Showing Hospitality (Loving/Caring Others)

Washing the Feet of the Saints (Serving Her Siblings in Christ)

Helping the Afflicted

Devoting Herself to Every Good Work

If They Didn’t Meet These Qualifications, They were Not to Be Enrolled

The Topic of Helping Those in Need is Not a Simple One to Answer

To Paul, There was a Lot that Went into this Question:

Who Should Receive Help/Support From Christians/the Church and Who Shouldn’t?

In a Nutshell, it Seems to Be:

Those Who are Truly in Need, Christians are to Help

Those Who aren’t Truly in Need, Christians are Not to Help

Those Who aren’t Able to Help Themselves, We are to Help

Those Who are Able to Help Themselves, But Choose Not to, We are Not to Help

Who are We to Help, First and Foremost?

Our Siblings in Christ

Shame on Us if We Support Outsiders and Neglect Our Own

One of the Struggles We Often Run into is:

How Do We Know When We should Help and When We shouldn’t?

How Do We Know When Someone is in Need or in Want?

How Do We Know When Our Compassion will Be Helping or Enabling?

There are 2 Ways of Looking at Helping the Needy

And Both of These Perspectives are True

1.) To Help Those Who Say They are in Need for the Glory of God is a Good Work

2.) To Help Those Who Refuse to Help Themselves is Enabling Them to Continue in Sin

It’s Always Good to Do Good

But What We Think is Good is Not Always Good

I Think the Best Path Lies Between the Christ-Like Characteristics of:

Being Compassionate and Generous on One Hand

And Loving Others (Wanting What’s Best for Them) on the Other Hand

When it Comes to Helping Others, May it Be Done with the Spirit of:

Compassion

Generosity

Love

And for God’s Glory

So, to Answer the Question:

Should I Help the Needy or Let Them Go Hungry?

Help Those Who are Truly in Need

Allow Those Who Refuse to Help Themselves Face the Consequences

It Seems Harsh and Unloving

But it’s Actually the Most Loving Thing to Do in Such Situations

Sometimes the Consequences of Our Actions are the Best Motivation for Repentance

Related Media

Related Sermons