What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study WELCOME TO AN IN DEPTH STUDY OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.

Jethro Bodine said:
In the present attitude of building great numbers in the church these days, apparently this is the rationale pastors are using to let sinning, hurtful church attendees remain in the church to keep numbers big:

"8“Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9‘Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ 10“Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests." (Matthew 22:8-10 NASB bold mine)

Is Jesus saying we are to open the arms of fellowship to the very people he says we are to distance ourselves from? That doesn't make sense. I think what he's saying is that inevitably there are going to be both good and evil people brought into and comprising the church on the Day of the Great Banquet. The bad will be revealed as such on that Day. He's not saying that we should purposely bring those bad people into the church.
Click to expand...

I believe the answer to your question is found in the following verses....

Matthew 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Apparently, good and bad were invited, but the King separated the bad from the good before the feast.


I believe the answer to your question is found in the following verses....
 
Chopper has mentioned some of this, and I am only stressing the steps.
The approach to problems is gradual and developmental:
Matthew 18:15
Very private between involved persons.

Matthew 18:16
Only if verse 15 failed. Still only very few involved.

Matthew 18:17 KJV (very special meeting)
I Corinthians 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,


eddif
 
jasonc said:
I noticed that matthew one starts with the book of the generation of Christ. I believe luked used the lxx and also temple records to make the connection. but matthew used the Hebrew tanach and also the temple record.
Click to expand...
Luke's Gospel generation is from the family of Christ's mother (Mary). Matthew's genealogy is from Joseph's linage. Every family has two genealogy, One through the mother and one through the father.. Luke starts with Adam, while Matthew goes only to Abraham. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. I have studied an exhaustive research on both genealogies. There are more facts, but that is the basic difference between the two. Matthew uses the Royal line through Solomon,using the legal descendants of David to establish the legal claim to the Davidic throne, whereas Luke uses the particular line of ancestry from David through Nathan to which Joseph actually belonged.
 
Douglas Summers said:
Luke's Gospel generation is from the family of Christ's mother (Mary). Matthew's genealogy is from Joseph's linage. Every family has two genealogy, One through the mother and one through the father.. Luke starts with Adam, while Matthew goes only to Abraham. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David. I have studied an exhaustive research on both genealogies. There are more facts, but that is the basic difference between the two. Matthew uses the Royal line through Solomon,using the legal descendants of David to establish the legal claim to the Davidic throne, whereas Luke uses the particular line of ancestry from David through Nathan to which Joseph actually belonged.
Click to expand...
jasonc said:
The sources come from where?
Click to expand...
From Scripture. The OT mostly and NT. If you are interested, you will have to do an in depth study. The information does not come from just a couple of Scriptures. It involves the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7: 4-19) (Psalms 89: 20-37). The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke are important to prove that the Christ is the Son of David, who was promised a perpetual King over the kingdom of Israel . And that Yoseph and Miriam (Hebrew) were descendants of King David.
That was the Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ was teaching in Matthew chapter 4, as He was the promised King, the Son of David in Matthew, who came to receive His throne.
 
Last edited:
I just rejoice to see Rahab, Ruth, and others have mention because of faith (I suppose). Grafting in hints are there. The one new man is forming all the time (Abraham +). Jew and Gentile.

eddif
 
Douglas Summers said:
From Scripture. The OT mostly and NT. If you are interested, you will have to do an in depth study. The information does not come from just a couple of Scriptures. It involves the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7: 4-19) (Psalms 89: 20-37). The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke are important to prove that the Christ is the Son of David, who was promised a perpetual King over the kingdom of Israel . And that Yoseph and Miriam (Hebrew) were descendants of King David.
That was the Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ was teaching in Matthew chapter 4, as He was the promised King, the Son of David in Matthew, who came to receive His throne.
Click to expand...

Douglas, I applaud you for your research. You have done a fine job. Thanks for sharing.
 
eddif said:
I just rejoice to see Rahab, Ruth, and others have mention because of faith (I suppose). Grafting in hints are there. The one new man is forming all the time (Abraham +). Jew and Gentile.

eddif
Click to expand...
I was teaching about the genealogy of Jesus and told those that Rahab was a distant grandmother of Christ. They shuddered at the thought and refused to believe that Christ would have any part with her. It is God's grace to all that trust Him.
 
Douglas Summers said:
Hi Chopper, The Scripture offer so much more than just a story. Finding the truth's hidden in Scripture to those who seek to know more about their Lord is a life time endeavor.
Click to expand...

Douglas, I would be extremely interested in your research on the genealogy of Jesus, especially the names like Rahab and others that sometimes startle people....Is it possible for you to start a thread? I would love your instruction.
 
Well as a prologue item I would like to say that Matthew was a Levite and a Tax collector for the occupation government (a Publican)...therefore he could read and write at least in Hebrew/Aramaic and probably in Greek...He would have been use to writing down names, amounts, dates, excuses, calculating interest , etc., on a daily basis...what a wonderful addition such skills would have made to Messiah's inner circle....

I am very excited about seeing what unfolds here and possibly participating as time allows
 
brother Paul said:
Well as a prologue item I would like to say that Matthew was a Levite and a Tax collector for the occupation government (a Publican)...therefore he could read and write at least in Hebrew/Aramaic and probably in Greek...He would have been use to writing down names, amounts, dates, excuses, calculating interest , etc., on a daily basis...what a wonderful addition such skills would have made to Messiah's inner circle....

I am very excited about seeing what unfolds here and possibly participating as time allows
Click to expand...

O my, Brother Paul. I'm honored that you would consider joining our little Bible Study family. what you said about Matthew was right on. thank you for this addition, "He would have been use to writing down names, amounts, dates, excuses, calculating interest , etc., on a daily basis...what a wonderful addition such skills would have made to Messiah's inner circle."

I hadn't thought of his experience as a Tax Collector. Thank you for this valuable addition. Please comment as much as you can. :hug
 
Douglas Summers said:
From Scripture. The OT mostly and NT. If you are interested, you will have to do an in depth study. The information does not come from just a couple of Scriptures. It involves the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7: 4-19) (Psalms 89: 20-37). The Genealogies in Matthew and Luke are important to prove that the Christ is the Son of David, who was promised a perpetual King over the kingdom of Israel . And that Yoseph and Miriam (Hebrew) were descendants of King David.
That was the Gospel of the Kingdom that Christ was teaching in Matthew chapter 4, as He was the promised King, the Son of David in Matthew, who came to receive His throne.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about where he got his lineages from .the lxx,the Hebrew texts of the time or the temple records where all of isreal records .were.John was the son of a levite.Zacharias had to be the son of Levites who at the return could prove their lineage.the first audience knew this
Jesus didn't call the tanach the old testement.when Luke and Matthew wrote their accounts I highly doubt they didn't seek the records of Joseph and Mary at the temple,as the tanach doesn't have the names from the kings sons after the captivity to zerrubbal to the man Joseph.that is what I meant.
 
jasonc said:
I'm talking about where he got his lineages from .the lxx,the Hebrew texts of the time or the temple records where all of isreal records .were.John was the son of a levite.Zacharias had to be the son of Levites who at the return could prove their lineage.the first audience knew this
Jesus didn't call the tanach the old testement.when Luke and Matthew wrote their accounts I highly doubt they didn't seek the records of Joseph and Mary at the temple,as the tanach doesn't have the names from the kings sons after the captivity to zerrubbal to the man Joseph.that is what I meant.
Click to expand...

These records were usually kept by the families. Matthew more then likely got his info from the proverbial horses mouths (Jesus, Mary, His cousins, His half-brother James, and so on) because Matthew was there with them the whole time. Where Luke got his I cannot say...probably records from synagogues, interviews after Jesus death, burial, and resurrection and so on...I do not think the Temple would have kept records of every family's lineage (Maybe the Priestly lines)...but no one really knows for sure.
 
The people at the marriage feast without the wedding garments (to me) represents people who pretend to be Christians but are not actually (like wolves in sheeps clothing or the five unwise virgins)...they claimed to be, attended meetings, probably prayed and even read scriptures, but all the time were really lords of their own lives...
 
Chopper said:
Absolutely. I don't really have time to research why V.11 was left out but I'd like to know.
Click to expand...
I have 6 Greek NT 3 have it 3 do not.
Nestle-Aland, Westcott-Hort, Sinaticus DONOT have it in the text. Receptus, BEZA Greek NT, Apostic bible DO have it.
I expect this is just a manuescript difference and we will never know. BUT I like it in there.
 
We have no means of knowing where the writer obtained the data for this genealogy. It differs radically from that in Luke 3:23-38. One can only give his own theory of the difference. Apparently in Matthew we have the actual genealogy of Joseph which would be the legal pedigree of Jesus according to Jewish custom. In Luke we apparently have the actual genealogy of Mary which would be the real line of Jesus which Luke naturally gives as he is writing for the Gentiles. (Robertson Word Pictures)

There is an important point here Joseph was the line of Jesus LEGAL claim to the throne of David. Joseph was not his father.
To show that Jesus WAS of the line of David one needs to go to Mary and will still lead back to David. HE IS THE KING!
 
Chopper said:
Douglas, I would be extremely interested in your research on the genealogy of Jesus, especially the names like Rahab and others that sometimes startle people....Is it possible for you to start a thread? I would love your instruction.
Click to expand...
Hi Chopper, I will give you, and anyone else what I have studied. It will not be as condensed as concise study, but it will suffice to get one interested to study further if they want.
 
I found Jethro's post. 1359 interesting - he was saying how a church he knows (or attended) thrived because it had a pastor who encouraged reconciliation between members.

First, I'd like to say regarding Mathew 18:15-17 that most of my church friends would never do what this asks us to do because they feel what one does is none of their business. Plus, we're not in a real church environment anymore nowadays so it would just probably get the brother who sins against you very upset. Especially if you showed up with one or two others who were on your side and came along to reprimand the offending party. Sounds a bit like the goings on in those gangster movies. Who, in these days, gives the church this much power that this would really work?? We might be willing to do what Mathew 5:24 says - before leaving your gift at the altar, go and reconcile with your brother. But it'll end there, whether or not the brother accepts my apology or reprimand, depending on the case.

The other idea that came to mind is that I hear many say that we're not to judge. Mathew 7:1 says to not judge or we too will be judged. In the same way we judge others, we will be judged and with the same measure. This doesn't mean we're not to judge. I like to say that we're not to judge the status of the soul of another - that's only for God to do and to know. But I can certainly judge that it's wrong for a person to steal. I can certainly bring it up to them if I can manage to do so.

And the last thought is Mathew 7:4-5 How can I say to my brother take the speck our of your eye, if I have a plank in my eye. So we kind of feel that we're not perfect so how could we possibly bring anyone else's sin to their attention?

Last, but not least. I'd have to say that Jethro's post made me think of a cultish type church. I'm not sure why, I'd have to think on it a bit. Conforming? Disciplining? Ruling my life? A little like scientology?

Wondering
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top