Jesus' flesh made of the seed of David?

[jcrichton]

The curse of Jehoiachin is not sufficient basis to read a Marian genealogy in Luke, as nothing in the text supports it as Mary’s ancestry. Both genealogies are that of Joseph, through whom Jesus gets his Davidic lineage. The logic of “Joseph’s line is cursed, so the genealogy of Luke MUST be that of Mary” is a non sequitur, and does violence to the text of Luke.

As for “disqualifying” Jesus, I don’t see how this is any important matter. For one thing, Jesus never sat on the throne of Judah. He himself said that his kingdom is not of this world, so the curse of Jehoiachin should be a moot point.

Besides that, the Lukan genealogy shows that St. Joseph also had another ancestry separate from the Solomonic line, which is indeed plausible due to Levirate and adoptive reckoning. So even if Joseph were “disqualified” in the Solomonic line, no obstacle lies in the Nathanaic line. But even without the Nathanaic line, I see no reason why the Jehoiachin curse should even matter.

I cannot recall the exact passage, but did I not read where this curse was lifted?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Another thing probably worth mentioning is that curses can be rescinded, and in Haggai, we see God blessing Jehoiachin’s grandson Zerubabbel, calling him a signet (Haggai 2:3).

Hi, porthos!

I think that this is the exact passage that I was thinking about; does Yahweh God blessing of Zerubabbel not rescind the previous curse?

…much of the argument against Jesus’ ancestry relies on Salomon being the direct ancestor; yet was there not a curse placed on Salomon? …does not Scriptures cite David as the bearer of the Promise and of whom the Seed will Arise?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Xenos8]

The explanation is simple. St. Joseph had two fathers.

Even without our genetic knowledge the idea of 2 biological fathers is silly. Don’t you think? Haggai 2:23 doesn’t rescind the curse. Jer 22:30 Thus says the LORD: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man [who] shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.’ " I don’t see any room for exceptions in the above verse.

 

[porthos11]

Even without our genetic knowledge the idea of 2 biological fathers is silly. Don’t you think? Haggai 2:23 doesn’t rescind the curse. Jer 22:30 Thus says the LORD: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man [who] shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.’ " I don’t see any room for exceptions in the above verse.

Who said anything about 2 biological fathers? I said two fathers, one biological, the other legal. That Heli was St. Joseph’s legal father, probably by virtue of the levirate law is a much sounder proposition than forcing a Marian genealogy into Luke, which has nothing in the text to support the idea anyway. Jesus is descended from David through St. Joseph, and through two lines. Even if we were to admit the curse, St. Joseph is still descended through the line of Nathan as well, so what’s the problem? The immediate context of the curse spells the end of the Davidic line in Judah, and it has indeed ended, and no Davidic monarch has ever sat on the Judahaite throne. Jesus never sat on the Judahite throne; he is King in his own right, and no curse can ever take that away.

Moreover, the Church has never even considered the curse of Jehoiachin as ever having impeded Jesus’ right to the Davidic throne. A simple reasoning is that Jesus, as God, cannot be touched by a curse he himself imposed, otherwise, how could he be God?

So I insist on the interpretation that both genealogies are that of St. Joseph, not of Mary, and that Jesus gets his Davidic heritage through St. Joseph and no one else.

 

[jcrichton]

Even without our genetic knowledge the idea of 2 biological fathers is silly. Don’t you think? Haggai 2:23 doesn’t rescind the curse. Jer 22:30 Thus says the LORD: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man [who] shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.’ " I don’t see any room for exceptions in the above verse.

Is Zerubbabel a direct descendant of David?

Is Shealtiel not his father?

Who is Neri?

What is the relationship between Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri and Jehoiachin?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[porthos11]

Is Zerubbabel a direct descendant of David?

Is Shealtiel not his father?

The question is, who is Shealtiel’s father?

Who is Neri?

that would be Shealtiel’s father, in the line of Nathan. It’s very possible that Neri may actually have been Shealtiel’s biological father.

What is the relationship between Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri and Jehoiachin?

Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel, who in turn is the son of Neri. It’s possible, and indeed noted by some commentators that Shealtiel was born to Neri and adopted into the family of Jehoiachin, making him Jehoiachin’s adopted son, therefore inducting him into the line of Solomon.

 

[jcrichton]

The question is, who is Shealtiel’s father?

that would be Shealtiel’s father, in the line of Nathan. It’s very possible that Neri may actually have been Shealtiel’s biological father.

Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel, who in turn is the son of Neri. It’s possible, and indeed noted by some commentators that Shealtiel was born to Neri and adopted into the family of Jehoiachin, making him Jehoiachin’s adopted son, therefore inducting him into the line of Solomon.

Hi, porthos!

…the point I was attempting to make is that Zerubbabel is addressed by Yahweh God in Haggai 2:20-22; Yahweh tells him that he is His servant whom He has appointed to rule in His Name and that he is the one chosen by Him.

The only way that Jehoiachin’s curse can be held as valid against Jesus is if we completely ignore God’s own Word (the curse, several generations removed, precedes the Blessing).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Xenos8]

The immediate context of the curse spells the end of the Davidic line in Judah, and it has indeed ended,

-No, just Jehoiachin’s line.

and no Davidic monarch has ever sat on the Judahaite throne. Jesus never sat on the Judahite throne; he is King in his own right, and no curse can ever take that away.

No curse can take it away because Mary is from Nathan. Read Micah 5:2 again, Jesus hasn’t yet, but He will.

The only way that Jehoiachin’s curse can be held as valid against Jesus is if we completely ignore God’s own Word

It isn’t valid because Mary is from Nathan. Jesus’s descent from Joseph is only in the legal sense. He came from Mary’s womb, therefore one of the the genealogies HAS to be Mary’s otherwise how could anyone know if He’s actually descended from David? Which is, of course, a prime prerequisite to being the Messiah. Ask any knowledgeable Jew.

 

[porthos11]

-No, just Jehoiachin’s line.

No curse can take it away because Mary is from Nathan. Read Micah 5:2 again, Jesus hasn’t yet, but He will.

Again you’re reading something that isn’t in the text whatsoever. Nothing in Luke even hints that it is Mary’s genealogy.

It isn’t valid because Mary is from Nathan. Jesus’s descent from Joseph is only in the legal sense.

Again, something that’s not supported by the text. Jesus’ legal descent from Joseph is the only thing that matters.

He came from Mary’s womb, therefore one of the the genealogies HAS to be Mary’s otherwise how could anyone know if He’s actually descended from David? Which is, of course, a prime prerequisite to being the Messiah. Ask any knowledgeable Jew.

Non sequitur and not supported by the text. Luke says plainly: Jesus was the son of, as people supposed, of Joseph, the son of Heli…etc. Son-In-law-ship did not count to the reckoning of descent, but adoption and levirate marriage did. Now YOU ask any knowledgeable Jew.

A much better explanation, while admitting the curse, is simply that Shealtiel was of the line of Nathan, who was adopted into the line of Jehoiachin. But since his original descent was from the uncursed line, Zerubabbel and his descendants should have no problem inheriting the throne. Moreover, there is early Christian tradition that Heli and Joseph were brothers. Heli died without children, and Jacob fulfilled the levirate law and fathered St. Joseph with Heli’s widow (cf. Eusebius).

That’s a much sounder explanation than simply saying the “Luke’s genealogy of that of Mary”, which has no textual support or basis whatsoever

 

[jcrichton]

It isn’t valid because Mary is from Nathan. Jesus’s descent from Joseph is only in the legal sense. He came from Mary’s womb, therefore one of the the genealogies HAS to be Mary’s otherwise how could anyone know if He’s actually descended from David? Which is, of course, a prime prerequisite to being the Messiah. Ask any knowledgeable Jew.

Yet, the contention is Joseph’s genealogy since the Promise is passed/held by the first-born son of the male parent…

During Jesus’ temporal life He was known as the Son of Joseph–it was only years after His Ascension that the Gospels would reveal His True Origins; hence, for all legal and technical purposes Jesus was the Son of Joseph.

Further, I can recall only one particular exception to the birth-right legalism and this happened early, at the time of the distribution of the land… there were three unmarried daughters that were the only representatives of their deceased father’s house; the matter was resolved by allowing these three females to own the land since they had no male kin that could claim their portion.

Maran atha!

Angel