Descendant of David?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tamsulosin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tamsulosin

Guest
According to Matthew,Joseph ,spouse of Mary, was a descendant of David.Since Joseph had no (name removed by moderator)ut in the conception of Jesus,why would the latter be considered to come from the line of David and so fulfill the prophesy?:confused:
 
Others will go into more detail on this, but keeping in mind that Israelites did not marry outside their tribe, if Joseph was of the lineage of Judah, then we can conclude that Mary was, too (although her kinswoman Elizabeth was married to a Levite).
 
Jewish status is determined in accordance with matrilineal descent. Maternal.Mary’s mother was of the tribe of Judah (kingly line), Mary’s father of levi descent(priestly line)
 
Jewish status is determined in accordance with matrilineal descent. Maternal.Mary’s mother was of the tribe of Judah (kingly line), Mary’s father of levi descent(priestly line)
I’m not sure that I buy this. The TRIBE of someone depended on the lineage of the mother. But we see in the kingdom of Judah, the kings often fathered children from outside of Judaism. Still, the kingship followed the father’s son.
Futhermore, why does Matthew’s genealogy follow the line through the man?

Instead, I’m inclined to believe that, when one adopts the child, the child gains all the heritage of the father. Hence, if Joseph is of the line of David, then Jesus is.
 
Both Matthew and Luke list king David in the genealogy of Jesus, Matthew mentions David three times in his genealogy, in Matthews case the genealogy lists king Solomon as David’s son.

(Mat 1:1 NIV) A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

(Mat 1:6 NIV) and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

(Mat 1:17 NIV) Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Luke mentions David once in his genealogy, in his genealogy Luke lists Nathan as the son of David.

(Luke 3:31 NIV) the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

Luke also takes great pains to indicate that Jesus descended from David (apart from the genealogies):

(Luke 1:27 NIV) to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

(Luke 1:32 NIV) He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

(Luke 1:68-70 NIV) "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people. {69} He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David {70} (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),

(Luke 2:4 NIV) So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

Luke also emphasises the virgin birth:

(Luke 1:34-35 NIV) “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” {35} The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

(Luke 3:23 NIV) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

As does Matthew

Mat 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit… (Mat 1:23 NIV) “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” --which means, “God with us.”

There are four important OT messianic prophecies: the first says that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem; and the second says that he will be born of a virgin; and third and fourth that says that he will be descended from David.

Mic 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. "

(2 Sam 7:12 NIV) When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom.

(Isa 7:14 NIV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

(Isa 9:6-7 NIV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. {7} Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

Matthew traces his ancestry through his legal father Joseph and Luke his ancestry through his actual mother, both of who are descended from David. Paul is clear that as to his human nature, Jesus descended from David.

(Rom 1:1-3 NIV) Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- {2} the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures {3} regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

If Jesus were not descended from David then both the apostles Peter and Paul got it wrong.

Firstly Peter, the apostle to the Jews

(Acts 2:29-32 NIV) "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. {30} But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. {31} Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. {32} God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

Secondly Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles:

(Acts 13:22-23 NIV) After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’ {23} "From this man’s descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised.

(Rom 1:3 NIV) regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

(2 Tim 2:8 NIV) Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,

It is clearly both Matthew and Luke’s aim to show that Jesus descended from David. The legal claim to David’s throne is clearly established through Joseph, this is quite clear. Both Peter and Paul accept and affirm this in their preaching. Further Jesus affirms this in Rev 22:16.

(Rev 22:16 NIV) “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

apocalipsis.org/difficulties/descendantofdavid.htm
 
I do not believe Joseph considered Jesus his “adopted” son. Or that he had to do any paper work to make that official, for that would have placed Mary in a difficult position.
Jesus" happened’ to be his son.That was God’s will.He was a loving true father to him.
But on the other hand we know Jesus did not carry Joseph’s genes ,so in truth He was not of David’s lineage, really.
So why it is presented that way?
Maybe a scripture scholar would have an answer.
 
I do not believe Joseph considered Jesus his “adopted” son. Or that he had to do any paper work to make that official, for that would have placed Mary in a difficult position.
Jesus" happened’ to be his son.That was God’s will.He was a loving true father to him.
But on the other hand we know Jesus did not carry Joseph’s genes ,so in truth He was not of David’s lineage, really.
So why it is presented that way?
Maybe a scripture scholar would have an answer.
Joseph would have probably considered Jesus his true Son. And according to Jewish Law, Joseph would legally be Jesus’ father. Matthew’s geneaology is following Jewish Law.

Why is that hard to understand?
 
I’m sorry. I meant to have this in my last post but I forgot.

Here’s what Catholic Answers has to say about it:
To explain that issue, one needs to know something about how ancient Jewish genealogies work. Adoption, whether of a child or an adult, was common and affected which genealogical line one was ascribed to. For example, the faithful spy Caleb was biologically the son of a non-Jew named Jephunneh (Num. 32:12), but he was adopted into the tribe of Judah and ascribed to the line of Hezron (1 Chron. 2:18).

Adoption could take place posthumously. The most striking example is what is known as the* levirate* marriage (from the Latin* levir* = brother-in-law). If a man died childless, it was the duty of his brother to marry the widow and father a son on behalf of his brother. This son then would be posthumously “adopted” by the dead man and reckoned as his son in the family genealogy.
 
It is clearly both Matthew and Luke’s aim to show that Jesus descended from David. The legal claim to David’s throne is clearly established through Joseph, this is quite clear. Both Peter and Paul accept and affirm this in their preaching. Further Jesus affirms this in Rev 22:16.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that Jesus was descended from David through Mary as well as being “of his lineage” through Joseph has never done very much geneaology. Rare is the family tree in which a descendant 7 to 10 generations down the line from the patriarch cannot trace back to that patriarch through multiple lines.

This is a normal consequence of small towns and big families. You get down a couple of generations and the pool is pretty well mixed.

And that doesn’t even speak to the fact that David had multiple wives, all of whose sons were “of his lineage.” Or that the son who inherited the throne also had multiple wives and numerous sons.

There is no basis whatsoever to suggest that Jesus either had to be Joseph’s biological son or he was not David’s descendant. Except, of course, the basis of wanting to deny Scripture.
 
Thank you for your answers.My question had arisen because of the concept of descendant as lineage or family bloodline. And there is emphasis in the Scriptures on the fact that Jesus descended from David.I had no knowledge of jewish law,and I am amazed at how everybody is so learned in jewish customs.Where did you guys had an opportunity to learn such laws or had exposure to that information?
These forums contain a wealth of information and I am learning everyday I turn to them.
Thank you again.🙂
 
NHInsider,:This forum, as I understand, it is to ask about one’s doubts.At least that is one of the purposes.So I asked.
I am not denying any Scripture.I am trying to understand it when I read it.
Anyways,your argument does not hold.It sounds as if almost everybody descended from David.If that was the case, it would not have been a reason to emphasize it in the Scriptures as something that fullfilled the prophesy.
 
Anyone who doesn’t believe that Jesus was descended from David through Mary as well as being “of his lineage” through Joseph has never done very much geneaology. Rare is the family tree in which a descendant 7 to 10 generations down the line from the patriarch cannot trace back to that patriarch through multiple lines.

This is a normal consequence of small towns and big families. You get down a couple of generations and the pool is pretty well mixed.

And that doesn’t even speak to the fact that David had multiple wives, all of whose sons were “of his lineage.” Or that the son who inherited the throne also had multiple wives and numerous sons.

There is no basis whatsoever to suggest that Jesus either had to be Joseph’s biological son or he was not David’s descendant. Except, of course, the basis of wanting to deny Scripture.
Well, there is one problem with your thought-line. Jesus descended through the blood of the kings of Judah. So, its irrelevant if one is descended through one of Solomon’s 300 wives. The line that Jesus followed went through Solomon to Rehoboam and on through all the Judaic Kings.

THAT WAS CRUCIAL to Jesus’ claim to kingship.
 
NHInsider,:This forum, as I understand, it is to ask about one’s doubts.At least that is one of the purposes.So I asked.
I am not denying any Scripture.I am trying to understand it when I read it.
Anyways,your argument does not hold.It sounds as if almost everybody descended from David.If that was the case, it would not have been a reason to emphasize it in the Scriptures as something that fullfilled the prophesy.
Hi Tamsolosin-

my apologies, I didn’t mean to suggest you shouldn’t ask questions. I was refering to the so-called scholars who make it their lives’ work to prove that what the Church has taught for 2000 years is wrong . . .

NotWorthy -

Again, I’m not suggesting that Mary didn’t descend from the royal line, only that it’s not at all unlikely that she, as well as Joseph, could trace her lineage back to David.

You raise an interesting question, though. Did the Messianic promise necessarily mean that the Messiah would trace in a straight line back through all the kings to David? Because while Matthew does take the line down from Solomon, Luke goes back not to Solomon but to his brother Nathan. . . .
 
NotWorthy -

Again, I’m not suggesting that Mary didn’t descend from the royal line, only that it’s not at all unlikely that she, as well as Joseph, could trace her lineage back to David.

You raise an interesting question, though. Did the Messianic promise necessarily mean that the Messiah would trace in a straight line back through all the kings to David? Because while Matthew does take the line down from Solomon, Luke goes back not to Solomon but to his brother Nathan. . . .
I would think that Matthew was wanting to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the true King of Judah. Hence, he must have descended through the line of kings. For instance, Abinijah, the son of David, didn’t have a legal right to be king.

But, I must admit, I am confused on Luke’s reasoning. Nathan was the prophet for David. There’s no indication that they were even blood kin.

Maybe Luke was showing that Jesus was a descendant of prophets and kings.
 
I would think that Matthew was wanting to prove that Jesus was, indeed, the true King of Judah. Hence, he must have descended through the line of kings. For instance, Abinijah, the son of David, didn’t have a legal right to be king.

But, I must admit, I am confused on Luke’s reasoning. Nathan was the prophet for David. There’s no indication that they were even blood kin.

Maybe Luke was showing that Jesus was a descendant of prophets and kings.
Different Nathan. (1 Chron. 3:5) Though probably named for the prophet!
 
Different Nathan. (1 Chron. 3:5) Though probably named for the prophet!
Wow!

Not only did I miss that one (which certainly doesn’t deserve a “Wow”), but the NAB missed that one! Here’s the footnote to the NAB on the USCCB.ORG site
13 [31] The son of Nathan, the son of David: in keeping with Jesus’ prophetic role in Luke and Acts (e.g., Luke 7:16, 39; 9:8; 13:33; 24:19; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37) Luke traces Jesus’ Davidic ancestry through the prophet Nathan (see 2 Sam 7:2) rather than through King Solomon, as Matthew 1:6-7.
On second thought, I don’t think the NAB footnotes being wrong deserves a “Wow” either! 😉
 
If you buy the adoption arguement, which I don’t because one cannot be adopted into a Royal Throne (Ah Common Sense), then why did Jesus choose a line that was cursed?

Matthew 1 gives Joseph’s lineage through Jeconiah. Jeconiah was cursed from having a descendant sit on the throne FOREVER. YHWH SAID…It’'s the same Jeconiah. Check out his father and grandfather.

Jesus can’t be the Son of David, nor Moshiach Ben David.
 
If you buy the adoption arguement, which I don’t because one cannot be adopted into a Royal Throne (Ah Common Sense),
How does common sense deal with post #8 on this thread?
then why did Jesus choose a line that was cursed?
It would be just like Jesus to choose a line that was cursed. After all, Jesus overcame the old “cursed is he who hangs from a tree”. Why should He let an additional curse to stop Him?
Matthew 1 gives Joseph’s lineage through Jeconiah. Jeconiah was cursed from having a descendant sit on the throne FOREVER. YHWH SAID…It’'s the same Jeconiah. Check out his father and grandfather.

Jesus can’t be the Son of David, nor Moshiach Ben David.
OK, I know about the curse, but I can’t find it. Can you point me to it?
 
Jerimiah 22:18-30 is Jeconiahs curse. YHWH doesn’t lie. He knows the future as well as the past. He can’t deceive or be deceived.

What about Isaiah 53: The Suffering servant will l"ive a long life and live to see his descendants". Jesus doens’t fit this either.
 
It wasn’t Jesus who was CURSED. It was JECONIAH.

Don’t wast time trying to show that the curse was lifed somehow. YHWH’s word is final. Don’t wast time trying to show that its a dfferent Jeconiah. It isn’t. Check the Genealogiyof Jesus verse Jer 22:18.

The Gospel writers choose the wrong line trying to show that Jesus was the Messiah by lineage. Christians say that Jesus wasn’t a descendant of Joseph -He’s suppposedly God and has no ancestors. Therefore, by definnition, Jesus could NOT be Ben David.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top