In the past few months we have sent some letters to editors on various subjects. The one reprinted below was published in The Dallas Morning News.
Editor,
Regarding Jim Borgman’s January 2nd editorial cartoon: he undoubtedly thought he was very clever in the cartoon captioned, “If We Taught Driver’s Ed the Way We Teach Sex Ed.” Students are being told, “Don’t drive. That’s all you need to know. Don’t even think about driving.” Well, of course they think about it, but young people must wait until they are 16, have the proper training, and can pass the appropriate tests.
When they are 14, we tell them they are not old enough to get behind the wheel and drive. Although they may have sufficient knowledge and ability at that age, it is not lawful to do so until they have a license. The state has objective standards that qualify young people for this privilege.
Likewise, today’s 14-year-olds may have the knowledge and equipment to express themselves sexually, but it is not lawful for them to do so until marriage. God has an objective standard that qualifies young people for this privilege. No, we are not suggesting laws regarding sexual behavior; we are just pointing out that it is appropriate to teach young people to wait until the right time.
[This next one was recently sent to a monthly magazine; they indicated that they would publish it in their May issue; however, there was no guarantee. It answers an attack made upon the Scriptures (a practice becoming quite commonplace these days).]
Elliott Lesser’s assertion (“Biblical Roots,” April) concerning the genealogies of Christ that there is no proof that “Luke’s version pertained to Mary and Matthew to Joseph’s” is false. First of all, it is presumptuous and perhaps arrogant to think that Christians throughout the first century were not as clever as Mr. Lesser and that no one therefore noticed the differences in the list of names. Did it never occur to him that the followers of Jesus had a satisfactory explanation for the differences?
But beyond insulting the intelligence of believers who lived far closer than the critic to the time of both the establishment of Christianity and the recording of this information by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13), the fact is that both genealogies fit the purpose of their authors. Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience concerning their prophesied king and His kingdom; he would naturally refer to Joseph’s descent through the kings of Israel and Judah. Luke emphasized the humanity of Jesus in his gospel account of the Lord’s earthly life; so what could be more appropriate than to trace Jesus’ human parentage from His mother back to Adam, the first human being?
Concerning Luke 3:23 the text states that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph; then it continues by calling Jesus “the son of Heli.” In genealogies the word translated “son” can also mean “grandson.” There is no contradiction here. Furthermore, the Jewish Talmud mentions that “Mary the mother of Jesus was called the daughter of Heli.”
Although Mr. Lesser assures us that reconciliation of the two accounts is futile, it did not prove to be that difficult; a minimal amount of research was sufficient. Perhaps he would profit from Paul’s admonition not “to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith (1 Tim. 1:4, NKJ).”