The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1912-03-08
The Truth About The Two GeneaIogies
Of Jesus, The Christ.
(By El Nathan.)

Perhaps the readers OF the CnleI
tain, who have been somewhat inter.
ested in the controversy between Cap
tain White and several local free
thinkers, have been startled at the
bold and blatant assumptions made by
the latter as to the authenticity of the
sacred Scriptures; at their blasphem
Gus and obscene references as to the
origon of Jesus, the Christ; their con
temptuous treatment of the stories OF
THE Flood of Noah," the Sun Stand
ing STILL" and Jonah and the Great
Fish, etc.
With no desire to answer these an
cient fault-finders and sceptics, but
simply to set at rest the minds OF
some who may have been disturbed at
the aspersions cast on the Word OF
God, the writer temporarily enters the
list of 'the defenders of the faith once
for all delivered to the saints"
Not a solitary sentence these par
ties have given utterance to but is
hoary with age, and not an infidel OBJ
lection they have advanced but has
been answered thousands of times in
the past by able, devout, truthful, and
scholarly defenders of the Bible. And
satisfactorily at that, at least salts
factory to any reverent seeker after
the truth. But these little cheap two
by-four seventh-rate disciples of old
Astruc, Tom Paine, and Bob Ingersoll;
these intintesimal itch-microbes whom
a bath of the truth would annihilate
as thoroughly as did the food their
antediluvian prototypes; these men
whose lives and hearts would not bear
the inspeetio nof a half-bind bat;
these muckrakers of their father the
Devil, who seem to be oblivious to the
fact that long ago their old skunk
cabbage arguments" were supposedly
buried out of sight hopefully beyond
resurrection, will every now and then,
when opportunity is offered, bob up
and run into print with the same old
rotten bogey stuff, the which they
steal from the moldy and bad-smelling
pages of their old infidel books.
The latest assault these mildewed
and antiquated local infdels have
made on the Bible has been with ref
erence to the two genealogies of Jesus,
the Christ. For centuries, every now
and then, some old infidel kicker has
arisen and had his little say as to that
apparent discrepancy But the solu-
ton of the difficulty is very simple
FIRST The genealogy given in
Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph,
The reputed father of Jesus-hls father
IN the eyes of the law The genealogy
given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary
he mother of Jesus, and is the human
of Jesus Christ in actual
'aot To all Bible students of any
note it is well-known that Matthew is
essentially Jewish in character. and
vas written for the Jewes All through
t Joseph is prominent, and Mary is
scarcely mentioned. In Luke. on the
,ther hand. Mary is the chieI person
lge in the whole account of the Saw
ours conception and birth Here we
zee that Joseph is brought in only in
,identally and because he was Marys
There is deep significance
n all this
SECOND In the Gospel of Matthew
Iesus appears as the Messiah In
luke he is beheld as the Son OF Man,
,ur brother and Redeemer, who be-
ongs to the whole race and claims
lindred with all kinds and conditions
II men. But in Matthew We see the
takes its head in Abraham,
he federal head of the Jewish race,
md descends on down to Joseph and
.esus, because all predictions and
promises touching the Messiah. are
ulfilled in Him. In Luke the genealogy
.scends from Jesus to Adam, because
he genealogy is being traced back to
he head of the whole race and shows
he relation of the second Adam to the
Irst.
THIRD, In Matthew, again, we have
he strictly royal line from David to
oseph. In Luke. though the line of
escent is from David, il is not the
oyal line In this Jesus is descended
rom David through Nathan. Davids
on indeed, but not in the royal line.
nd the record follows line quite dis
mt from tha roval line