Truth Magazine

By Steve Willis

“I am Mesha, son Chemosh[it], king of Moab, the Dibonite — my father (had) reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father, — (who) made this high place for Chemosh in Qarhoh….” This is the beginning of the text inscribed on the Moabite Stone, one of the major finds relating to biblical archaeology. The inscription goes on to tell of Mesha’s successful revolt from Northern Israel and mentions his conquest of Israelite territory.

Background
After Israel’s kings Saul, David, and Solomon, the Kingdom of Israel divided into two sections, Israel to the north and Judah to the south (see 1 Kings 12). Judah’s kings, ruling from Jerusalem, would all be from the family of David. Northern Israel would be ruled by several families in Tirzeh and Samaria.  The kingdom was never again united: “Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19).

Texts and excavation in archaeology have provided background for the time of the Divided Kingdom. A few significant finds include Syrian’s king Benhadad’s Stele, the monolith of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, and the Moabite Stone, which is the subject of this article. The Moabite Stone is also called the Stele of Mesha. Mesha was king of Moab, Israel’s neighbor to the East beyond the Dead Sea (see 2 Kings 3:4).

The nation of Moab figures importantly into the Bible accounts of Lot, Israel’s Wilderness Wanderings, Ruth, and the United and Divided Kingdoms of Israel. Moab had been subjected to United Israel during the time of David (2 Sam. 8:2). By Solomon’s time they were probably allied, for Solomon loved a Moabitess and built a temple to her god, Chemosh (2 Kings 11:1, 7). Sometime after the division of Israel, Moab was subjected to the northern king Omri (880-874 B.C.) and received a tribute from Moab of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams with their wool (2 Kings 3:4). Moab’s king Mesha would rebel against Omri’s Dynasty when Omri’s son Ahab (874-853 B.C.) died. Mesha also revolted against Omri’s grandsons, Ahaziah (853-852 B.C.; 2 Kings 1:1-2) and Jehoram (852-841 B.C.; see 2 Kings 3:4-27). (For dates and problems with determining chronologies, see Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings; Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament.)

Setting up the Moabite Stone

2 Kings 3 gives the Bible account of the rebellion of Moab under their king Mesha against northern Israel, whose king was Jehoram (Joram):

Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and used to pay the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. But it came about, when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. And King Jehoram went out of Samaria at that time and mustered all Israel. Then he went and sent word to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, “The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you go with me to fight against Moab?” And he said, “I will go up; I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses.” And he said, “Which way shall we go up?” And he answered, “The way of the wilderness of Edom.” So the king of Israel went with the king of Judah and the king of Edom; and they made a circuit of seven days’ journey, and there was no water for the army or for the cattle that followed them. . . . But when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites arose and struck the Moabites, so that they fled before them; and they went forward into the land, slaughtering the Moabites. Thus they destroyed the cities; and each one threw a stone on every piece of good land and filled it. So they stopped all the springs of water and felled all the good trees, until in Kir-hareseth only they left its stones; however, the slingers went about it and struck it. When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too fierce for him, he took with him 700 men who drew swords, to break through to the king of Edom; but they could not. Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land. (Text taken from 2 Kings 3.)
Each side could claim a victory, and this is what Mesha  did when he would later erect the Mesha Stele, or Moabite Stone, in Dibon, the Moabite capital. The Mesha Stele was made of basalt rock. It was 3 feet 10 inches tall, 2 feet wide, and 2-1/2 inches thick. It was rectangular except that the top had been rounded to a semi-circle. It had 39 lines of text inscribed into the rock in the Moabite language. Mesha described victories and building projects, including building a “high place,” probably for worship in gratitude for his various victories. Here is Mesha’s version of events in 2 Kings 3:

As for Omri king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years (lit. days), for Chemosh was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, “I will humble Moab.” In my time he spoke (thus), but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished forever! Now Omri had occupied the land of Medeba, and (Israel) has dwelt there in his time and half of the time of his son (Ahab), forty years; but Chemosh dwelt there in my time. (Moabite Stone, lines 5-10).  (One may read the entire inscription from The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, volume 1; ed. James B. Pritchard; Dr. A. Neubaurer’s translation, with Bible references inserted, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr.)

However, this is not the only victory he claims against Israel. He also says he slew all in Antaroth, took Nebo, and he slew many thousand men, women, boys and girls, devoting them to his god, Chemosh. The stone also describes other cities Mesha reclaimed and rebuilt as well as other building projects he is said to have finished. It was set up to honor Mesha’s god, Chemosh, who is mentioned in the Bible (1 Kings 11:33; 2 Kings 23:13). The Mesha Stele was probably set up between 850 and 830 B.C. 
    
The Moabite Stone in Modern Times

In August 1868, in Dhiban (biblical Dibon), German missionary F.A. Klein (V. Klein, in ISBE) was shown an inscribed slab by an Arab sheik. Before that the French scholar Clermont-Ganneau had heard reports of its existence in Jerusalem, but Klein saw it first. The British Museum, German and French consular authorities, and eventually the Turkish officials showed interests in the Stele. In 1873, Arabs broke the Moabite Stone into many pieces by kindling a fire under it, then pouring water on it. This caused it to crack. Fragments were carried away as charms to bless their crops. 

The French, however, had previously taken a “squeeze” (impression) of the Stone before it was broken. With that, and efforts to recover as much as possible (two large fragments and eighteen smaller pieces), archaeologists were able to reconstruct about two-thirds of the texts inscribed on the stone. Parts of 34 of the 39 lines are readable, as scholars have restored 660 of the estimated 1,100 letters. An edition of the text was prepared by Professors Smend and Socin in 1886. William F. Allbright’s translation is in “Palestinian Inscriptions” in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. James B. Pritchard (1954, 1958).

By 1873, the Stele was taken to the Louvre museum in France, where it is on display. (For more on the history of the Moabite Stone, see The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr; The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney; The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer.)
    
The Value of the Moabite Stone to Biblical Archaeology

The Moabite Stone is historical confirmation of the biblical narrative and is a historical document of the first order for a number of reasons. First, it is a text written close to the time it describes. It was written by — or at least commanded to have been written by — a person named in the Bible, Mesha (2 Kings 3:4). The name “Israel” is mentioned six times on the Moabite Stone. The text names Israel’s sixth king Omri and refers to his sons as well. The Bible hints at Omri’s greatness (1 Kings16) whereas the Moabite Stone and confirms it so by reporting Moab’s vassalage to Israel until Mesha’s revolt. 

Initially, there were few ancient texts to compare to biblical Hebrew, but by careful comparison (paleography), the Mesha Stele helps scholars understand the language used in Old Testament times. Moab and Israel’s languages were probably mutually understandable. “With the political and economic domination of Moab by Israel during parts of the 10th and 9th centuries (B.C.), it is not surprising that the Moabite would be similar to Hebrew . . .” (Dearman and Mattingly, in “Mesha Stele,” Anchor Bible Dictionary). The inscription on the Moabite Stone was written in an Aramaic dialect and in early cursive Hebrew-like script, which was very similar to the language used in ancient Israel. The inscription on the Moabite Stone has allowed scholars to see the early alphabet and formation of letters (orthography), the use of punctuation marks, word dividers and the use of phrases from that time period. Mesha used “high place” as a place of worship to his idol (cf. 2 Kings 23:15). The use of “Chemosh” — his god — in his father’s name is comparable to the forms of Jehovah (Yahweh, Yah) in Israelites’ names (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, etc.). The term or rite of “cherem” (devoted, under the ban) is used by Mesha much as it was in Bible times (Josh. 6:17-18; 1 Sam. 15:21), and has been better understood since finding the Moabite Stone. Another term used by Mesha is “forty” of the length of Omri’s oppression, which has been thought to have been used figuratively, indefinitely, or at least as an upward-rounding of numbers. R.K. Harrison wrote that even combining Omri and Ahab’s reigns, could “. . . hardly have been more than twenty-three years at the very most” (Introduction to the Old Testament 1164). Some have suggested the Bible uses this term this way as well in a few places.

The Moabite Stone confirms the geography of many Bible place names. In the acquiring of cities by war and rebuilding campaign of Mesha, we can read many places named in the Bible. Arnon (Num. 21:13, Deut. 2:24; 3:16), Aroer (Josh. 13:16), Ataroth (Num. 32:34), Baal-meon or Beth-baal-meon (Josh. 13:17; Num. 32:38), Beth-bamoth (Bamoth-baal, Josh. 13:17), Beth-diblathaim (Jer. 48:22), Bezer (Josh. 20:8), Dibon (Num. 32:34; Josh. 13:17; Isa. 15:2), Horonaim (Isa. 15:5), Jahaz (Josh. 13:18; Isa. 15:4), Kerioth (Jer. 48:24), Kiriathaim (Josh. 13:19; Jer. 48:23), Medeba (Madeba, Josh. 13:9, 16; Isa. 15:2), and Nebo, where Moses stood to view the Promised Land (Num. 32:38; Deut. 34:1; Isa. 15:2). (From Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, Vol. 1, 189]. Mesha also credited himself with building the highway in Arnon (river valley, cf. Judg. 11:18; Jer. 48:20). (One should consult one of the Bible atlases to locate these on a map. See Baker’s Bible Atlas; The Harper’s Atlas of the Bible; Oxford Bible Atlas.)

Last, and certainly not least, the Moabite Stone was the first non-biblical text or inscription found in modern times using “Yahweh” (YHWH, or Jehovah), as a name for the God of Israel; Mesha knew “Yahweh” was Israel’s God:

And I took there the […] of Yahweh, dragging them before Chemosh. 

Some have supplied “vessels” in the space where the text it lacking. Since finding the Moabite Stone, there have been other secular sources found with this biblical name of God, but the Moabite Stone was the first witness of it found in modern times. In addition to Israel’s God, the Moabite Stone supplies the names of Mesha and Moab’s gods which are named and condemned in the Bible: Chemosh (Num. 21:29) and Ashtar, which is known in the Scriptures in the plural as Ashtaroth (see 1 Sam. 12:10). Again we can see the trustworthiness of the biblical account as witnessed by the Moabite Stone.
    
The Moabite Stone: Archaeological Light on the Bible

In 1925, R.A.S. McAllister wrote, “The chief light shed by excavation upon Palestinian political history has come, not from Palestine itself, but from foreign countries which from time to time influenced it in one way or another” — to which Oswald T. Allis added in 1972, “The statement is largely true today” (McAllister quoted in Allis, The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics 180). Few archaeological discoveries show this to be truer for the time of the Divided Kingdom than the Moabite Stone. 

18 Rossmere Ct. SE, Medicine Hat, Alberta Canada T1B 2M3

By Doug Roush

The Code of Hammurabi, was discovered by a French archaeological expedition under the direction of Jacques de Morgan in 1901-1902 at the ancient site of Susa in what is now Iran. It was written on a piece of black diorite, 2.25 m (7 ft. 5 in.) in height, and contained 282 sections. Although the block was broken into three pieces, the major portion of it has been restored and is now in the Louvre in Paris.

Many scholars believe that the code is actually a series of amendments to the common law of Babylonia. It addresses legal procedure with statements for penalties for unjust accusations, false testimony, and injustice done by judges. In addition, it states laws concerning property rights, loans, deposits, debts, domestic property, and family rights. The sections covering personal injury invoke penalties for injuries sustained at the hand of another as well as permanent injury incurred by unsuccessful operations that were performed by physicians. In addition, the code established rates for various services in trade and commerce.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Written Word

Bible critics once made the charge that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Old Testament because the art of writing was not developed until well after his death. This criticism, however, has been negated by a multitude of archaeological discoveries, among which is The Code of Hammurabi. Free and Vos have stated: 

The Code of Hammurabi was written several hundred years before the time of Moses (c. 1500-1400 B.C.). . . . This code, from the period 2000-1700 B.C., contains advanced laws similar to those in the Mosaic laws. . . . In view of this archaeological evidence, the destructive critic can no longer insist that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time (Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos [1992], Archaeology and Bible History 103, 55).

The Code of Hammurabi, among other discoveries of ancient writing, established beyond doubt that writing was practiced for hundreds of years before the time of Moses. This fact is so well documented by archaeological discovery and historical confirmation that only the dishonest or  misinformed critic of the Bible would appeal to this line of argumentation.

Similarities and Contrasts Between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses

The other misuse of the Code of Hammurabi against the Law of Moses by Bible critics was the similarities between the two systems. Since it had been established that the Code predated the Law, it was charged that Moses had plagiarized Hammurabi, or at least had borrowed from him.

It is true that the Code and the Law contain many similarities. However, most of the similarity ends with the topics they address. The specifics as to how the topic is handled are, in most cases, different, if not contrasting.

Bible critics often point to the principle of equal retribution in the Code. Paragraphs 196, 197, 199 establish, an eye for an eye, a broken bone for a broken bone, and a tooth for a tooth, respectively. However, the Code treats those who are born free, made free, and slaves differently in the matter of retribution. Equal retribution is practiced only toward those who are born free. A price of one gold mina was to be paid to an injured freed man, and if the injured be a slave, the offender was to pay one-half of the slaves value to his master. No mention is made of a slave who suffers permanent injury at the hand of their owner, however the Law of Moses provided for the freedom of a slave that was so injured (Exod. 21:26-27).

The Law provided that, “. . . he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death” (Exod. 21:15). In comparison and contrast, the Code provided, “If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off” (§195).

Numerous comparisons can be made between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Few are exactly the same, however the similarities are striking. Perhaps one explanation for these similarities can be the civil and moral portion of the law of God that was handed down by word of mouth through the patriarchs. Just as there are similarities between the Mosaic Law and the law of Christ in their moral principles, it should not be surprising to find hints of the civil and moral aspect of the Patriarchal Law in the written codes of ancient cultures; even though these cultures had become corrupt and, like Hammurabi, attributed their code to gods of idolatry.

Explanation of Pre-Mosaic Customs 
Among the Patriarchs

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the Code of Hammurabi is the insight it provides into the customs of patriarchal cultures. Although, as near as one can now tell, Abraham lived shortly before the time of Hammurabi, other ancient writings verify that many of the customs that Hammurabi codified were widely practiced by patriarchal cultures.

For instance, Abraham had resigned himself to the situation that Eliezer of Damascus, “one born in my house (i.e., the son of one of his slaves) is mine heir” (Gen. 15:2-3). This statement is consistent with the practice of adoption as outlined in the Code of Hammurabi and other, more ancient codes. Therefore, in the mind of Abraham, adoption of a child born to one of his slaves presented a acceptable cultural solution to God’s promise as it was stated in Genesis 6:2-3.

In addition, the insistence of Sarah, Rachel, and Leah for their husbands to bear them children by their handmaids (Gen. 16:1ff; 30:1ff, 9ff) is consistent with the cultural custom that is described in paragraphs 144 and 146 of the Code of Hammurabi. As written in the Code, it is apparent that the practice was common prior to the time of Hammurabi; however, his code protected all parties involved in this arrangement.

Paragraphs 159-161 of the Code address fair treatment of the “purchase price” for a bride in the event the prospective groom or father-in-law should change his mind about the marriage. Although there are some differences, the practice of a purchase price or dowry is consistent with what we find in Genesis 24:10, 53, where we find Abraham’s servant went in search of Isaac’s prospective wife with “all goodly things of his master’s in his hand,” and then giving Rebekah and Rebekah’s mother and brother precious things. The practice of a “purchase price” being paid to the father of the bride is especially evident in the case where Jacob, when he did not have possession of a “purchase price,” worked for Laban for two consecutive seven year periods to satisfy the “purchase price” for each of Laban’s daughters, Rachel and Leah.

Conclusion

Archaeological discoveries provide us with some fascinating information that enhances our appreciation of the Bible record. Perhaps, most striking, as exemplified in the early years of Abraham, is how ancient cultures attempted to make God’s revelation fit their cultural practice rather than fully embrace God’s promise. Thousands of years have passed, but man continues to make the same mistakes. However, like Abraham, we come to know the grace of God and his blessings when we fully accept him at his word.

18883 Pinkley Rd., Fredericktown, Ohio 43019 DougRoush@ecr.net

By Dick Blackford

One night I dreamed I died and went to heaven. I heard songs, and was asked to join the huge group that was singing. There were 1000 sopranos, 1000 altos, 1000 tenors, and one bass — me. We reached a crescendo, which called for as much volume as we could muster. Right in the middle of it the conductor stopped and said, “Brother Blackford, pu-leez, a little softer on the bass.

Well, that didn’t really happen. But sometimes I sing too loud. Sometimes I sing the wrong verse when everybody else is singing something different. I hate it when that happens. And those times when I sing too loud seem to always happen when I’m singing the wrong verse! I enjoy singing, but I’ve got to stay in my place and sing with the group.

When I was younger and much of a dreamer, I imagined what it would be like to be the conductor of a huge orchestra and chorus. I never made it, but I have done something that far exceeded those dreams. There is scarcely anything more rewarding than directing the hearts and voices of children in vacation Bible school! Their bright eyes, smiling faces, enthusiasm and volume (!) do more for me than being an orchestra conductor could ever do. Children who are eager to learn and unashamed to sing of their faith are worth more than gold.

Another opportunity a few years ago reminded me of some of our heavenly benefits. I returned to my hometown to direct 17 grandchildren as they sang at the funeral of their grandmother. It hadn’t been long since we had done the same at their grandfather’s funeral. Surely, the angels couldn’t have sung any sweeter. 

One of the most touching and memorable occasions was when I spoke at the funeral of a little girl. It was difficult to keep my composure as children sang the cherished children’s hymn, “Jesus loves me, this I know.”

Singing fits many occasions. We sing when we are sad, and we sing when we are happy. Paul and Silas sang after having been beaten and imprisoned unjustly (Acts 16). “Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise” (Jas. 5:13). In John’s heavenly vision he saw victorious saints singing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev.15:3). Some were depicted as singing “a new song” (Rev. 5:9; 14:3).

Those who miss heaven will miss one of the greatest joys for having chosen the sounds of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the song of victory.

One of the reasons we sing today is to encourage people to obey the gospel. It is difficult to understand why anyone would reject the invitation. It is the strange mercy of our God that he continues to linger while “sweetly the tones are falling.” We sing a number of hymns that express in words better than we could the need and urgency for you to obey the gospel. I often wonder how anyone could resist. But ever so often there is a breakthrough. And perhaps at the next worship service, as we sing, there will be a tender heart that is touched by the message and will break out of the bonds of sin and declare their faith in Jesus Christ. Will it be you?

P.O. Box 3032, State University Arkansas 72467 rlb612@aol.com

By David Dann

The New Testament opens in the book of Matthew by introducing, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ” (Matt. 1:1). Matthew’s opening statement is followed by a lengthy list of names, that establishes a direct family line from the patriarch Abraham to Jesus Christ. 

Anyone who has even casually read the Bible knows that it contains numerous genealogical lists, the first of which is found as early as Genesis 4. In fact, there are so many genealogical lists in the Old Testament that we are often tempted to rush through them or even skip over them altogether, rather than take the time to patiently try to pronounce the various names included in the list. Why does the Bible include these genealogies? Since the Scriptures are a product of the mind of God (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), our Creator must have had some purpose for including them in the inspired text. And, the great frequency with which they occur further points to the importance and necessity of their inclusion. But, what exactly is that purpose, and why are they necessary? 

Bible Genealogies

1. Are an evidence of the historical authenticity of the Scriptures. While many may view the genealogies recorded in the Bible as boring and tedious, they actually serve to support the historical integrity of the Scriptures. For example, Genesis 5 contains the genealogy of Adam all the way down to Noah and his sons. The genealogical record of Genesis 5 contains important details, as well as the various ages of the patriarchs mentioned. We live in an age in which it is popular to dismiss the early chapters of the book of Genesis as nothing more than mythical poetry. But, the genealogies are present as a testimony to the historical authenticity and accuracy of the Genesis record. The genealogies serve to show that the men mentioned in Genesis are real individuals who lived real lives and fathered real sons and daughters, who in turn, raised real families of their own. The history of the nation of Israel recorded in the Old Testament is replete with detailed genealogical records. One cannot simply discredit the historical accuracy of the Old Testament without having to grapple with the fact that the Israelites were able to carefully preserve these detailed genealogies.

2. Help to establish an accurate chronology of events. We know from secular history that approximately two thousand years have passed since the coming of Christ. Secular history and archaeology also affirm that roughly two thousand years elapsed from the time of Abraham to the time of Christ. In Luke 3:23-34, Luke presents a genealogy of Jesus in which he includes 55 generations within the period of time falling between Abraham and Christ. If each generation spans about 40 years, we have approximately 2000 years from Abraham to Christ. Luke continues his genealogical record from Abraham all the way back to Adam, which covers twenty generations (Luke 3:34-38). Since Genesis 5:1-32 provides the ages of those mentioned in Luke’s genealogy, we can estimate the time from Adam to Abraham to have been no more than a few thousand years. It is possible to cover this span of time with only twenty generations due to the fact that the ages of the patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5 often exceed nine hundred years. Since we know that the earth is only five days older than Adam (Gen. 1:1-31; Exod. 20:11), we can be sure that the earth’s age should be referenced in the context of thousands, rather than billions, or even millions, of years.

3. Were necessary in order to keep the Law of Moses. The law of the Old Covenant that God gave Israel at Mt. Sinai made it necessary for the nation of Israel to keep careful genealogical records. One of the key components of the Law of Moses was the Levitical priesthood. God instructed Moses saying, “And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest’s office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death” (Num. 3:9-10). The only way the Israelites could keep the Law of God was to make sure that the priests were descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. And, the only way to be make sure of that was to keep genealogical records. Because of this, we should not be surprised that God commanded Moses to make a careful record of the families of the Levites (Num. 3:14-39). Correct genealogical records had to be maintained in order to ensure that the priests were selected from the proper tribe and family. 

4. Are not important under the New Covenant. The only genealogies recorded in the New Testament are the two genealogies of Christ found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, respectively. These genealogies are necessary in order to show the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the family line of Christ. However, the New Testament includes no other genealogies beyond these. There is no longer a need to keep track of the families of the priests, since the priesthood and law have been changed (Heb. 7:12). Genealogical records are conspicuously absent throughout the New Testament. We do not have genealogical records of the apostles and evangelists of the New Testament, nor do we need them. In fact, the apostle Paul warned Titus to “avoid foolish questions, and genealogies”(Tit. 3:9). He gave similar instructions to Timothy (1 Tim. 1:4). Under the gospel, genealogies are of no spiritual importance, since we are to “rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).

Conclusion

The genealogical records presented in the Bible serve an important purpose in unfolding the story of mankind’s redemption, and in upholding the historical accuracy and validity of the Scriptures. Before you skip over those    genealogies, remember that God put them there for a reason, for “his work is perfect” (Deut. 32:4).

2 Wesley St. #5, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M8Y 2W3 www.preachthegospel.com