St. Joseph - The King of Israel

[Crumpy]

Does any disagree that the geneology in Matthew Chap One shows that Joseph was the King of Israel?

Of course, he was not recognized as such, but the geneology indicates that he was.

And, then, in fact, Jesus becomes the King of Israel after Joseph dies, a date and incident not recorded in the gospels. One might reason that Jesus’ public ministry does not begin until He, in fact, becomes the actual King by His lineage and inheritance from David.

 

[Crumpy]

Scott Hahn comments on the geneology in St. Matthew’s gospel by pointing out that the immediate predecessors of Jesus as King of Israel would have been unknown to the Jews of Jesus’ day, generally. The lineage was upset by the Assyrian and Bablyonian captitivities.

The lineage proves, as Hahn points out, that God was faithful to the most important prophecy in scripture, that an heir to the kingdom would come who would sit on the throne forever.

 

[That_one_guy]

Does any disagree that the geneology in Matthew Chap One shows that Joseph was the King of Israel?

Of course, he was not recognized as such, but the geneology indicates that he was.

And, then, in fact, Jesus becomes the King of Israel after Joseph dies, a date and incident not recorded in the gospels. One might reason that Jesus’ public ministry does not begin until He, in fact, becomes the actual King by His lineage and inheritance from David.

I agree.This is what the Jews were worried about.If King Jesus were to be crowned they would lose what little authority the romans allowed them to have.
And Rome would’ve had a serious “insurrection” on their hands instead of a “resurrection”.

 

[LilyM]

Does any disagree that the geneology in Matthew Chap One shows that Joseph was the King of Israel?

Of course, he was not recognized as such, but the geneology indicates that he was.

And, then, in fact, Jesus becomes the King of Israel after Joseph dies, a date and incident not recorded in the gospels. One might reason that Jesus’ public ministry does not begin until He, in fact, becomes the actual King by His lineage and inheritance from David.

I absolutely disagree. The genealogies indicate that Joseph and Jesus (by adoption, or possibly through Mary) were both descended from David, nothing more.

Doesn’t mean they had any right to the throne - there would’ve been many others besides themselves who were similarly descended from David, we just don’t know who had seniority of descent and thus the right to the throne.

Remember everyone descended from David would’ve gone to the ancestral town of Bethlehem for the census at the time of Jesus’ birth. And there were so many of the house of David that the whole town was full to the brim (hence Jesus being born in a stable).

Besides which, Jesus’ Kingdom was not of this world. He was rightful King of the Jews because He was GOD incarnate, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, not because He was of David’s lineage.

 

[Crumpy]

Dear LilyM,

Strange comments. From your line of reasoning, sure, there may have been others who were similarly descended. But, scripture records only one person, the Lord Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the prophecies of scripture.

There’s a lot of people in my home town, but very few of my family name. Then, of course, there’s only one “me.”

Jesus was born of a virgin in fulfillment of the scripture. There, again, totally unique.

Given all that, Joseph comes out as the predecessor of Jesus in the geneology, hence the right to the royal claim stated here.

Jesus had “senority of descent” by his Divine nature.

There is no other who could occupy the throne “forever” as could Jesus. Of course, the political throne has morphed into a spiritual throne, but that’s what the scripture foretold.

Disagree, if you wish. You stop short of telling me to tear the first chapter of Matthew out of the Bible, but that’s what you imply.

 

[juliamajor]

Talk about reading something into a scripture! You are making Christ into a political King/ Messiah, which the Jews of the time were looking for. Surprise, surprise- what they got was Jesus riding on a foal.The reason Jesus rides on a donkey or foal is to show that he is not a king of this world(political) if he was a king of political nature scripture would have him ride on a horse.Horse was symbolic of military, war , what a king of this world would be expected to ride.As Lilym said His kingdom is not of this world.Why you would find Lilym’s remarks “strange” is beyond me.Apparently disagreeing with Crumpy is like disagreeing with Magisterium ! Besides proof of descent from David was not the only purpose of the geneology.

 

[LilyM]

Dear LilyM,

Strange comments. From your line of reasoning, sure, there may have been others who were similarly descended. But, scripture records only one person, the Lord Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the prophecies of scripture.

There’s a lot of people in my home town, but very few of my family name. Then, of course, there’s only one “me.”

Jesus was born of a virgin in fulfillment of the scripture. There, again, totally unique.

Given all that, Joseph comes out as the predecessor of Jesus in the geneology, hence the right to the royal claim stated here.

Jesus had “senority of descent” by his Divine nature.

There is no other who could occupy the throne “forever” as could Jesus. Of course, the political throne has morphed into a spiritual throne, but that’s what the scripture foretold.

Disagree, if you wish. You stop short of telling me to tear the first chapter of Matthew out of the Bible, but that’s what you imply.

I’m not disagreeing with you that JESUS was the prophesied candidate born of the virgin and descended from David, who was to be King of the Jews.

What I’m disagreeing with was that Joseph was King (or had right to be King) before Him. As you rightly point out, Jesus being son of God took precedence over every other descendant of David whosoever - and of whatever generation. Which includes precedence over Joseph, by the way.

Jesus was King from the moment of His birth, by virtue of being Son of God and Son of David. No-one takes precedence over the Son of God for an instant, except the Heavenly Father. Certainly no earthly father, and not Joseph. Remember Jesus acknowledged no father but God when He was found in the Temple?

The fact that Jesus was born King is shown in that the wise men gave the gift of gold (symbolising kingship) to JESUS, not Joseph. Which they wouldn’t have done if Joseph had been a living King or kingly candidate, and if as you suggst the kingship would only pass to Jesus upon his death.

Joseph had no such divinity, no such virginal birth in accord with prophecy, to give HIM automatic precedence over the other descendants of David of his time.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Crumpy,

I have worked in genealogy, and I have some good news for you. You are most probably a direct descendant of Charlemagne and even more probably from Xerxes I. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-great-grand-parents, and this doubles every generation. These people have sons and daughters and they have sons and daughters and so son and so on. As we go back in time the population of the world diminishes and the number of our ancestors increases, so that at a certain point we are all related. So in Jesus’ time there were thousands of descendants of David, not only in Palestine but in many surrounding and even far-off countries.

Verbum

 

[That_one_guy]

23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,

26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,

28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,

30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,

32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,

36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[LilyM]

23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,

26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,

28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,

30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,

36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,

38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

This is an interesting genealogy - doesn’t even give His descent as being from SOLOMON, who (and whose sons and grandsons) were Kings after David. Clearly ITS purpose then isn’t to establish that Joseph was in direct line for the kingship.

 

[AltarServer09]

Well, it’s entirely unnecessary to label Jesus “King of Isreal”, since he’s already King of All Nations.

 

[LilyM]

Well, it’s entirely unnecessary to label Jesus “King of Isreal”, since he’s already King of All Nations.

The question isn’t about Jesus, it’s really about Joseph and whether HE was king, uncrowned obviously but the rightful inheritor of the throne, before Jesus was born and in fact passed the kingship of Israel on to Him.

 

[AltarServer09]

The question isn’t about Jesus, it’s really about Joseph and whether HE was king, uncrowned obviously but the rightful inheritor of the throne, before Jesus was born and in fact passed the kingship of Israel on to Him.

Ah, what an idiot I am!

Must read more carefully next time.

 

[LilyM]

Ah, what an idiot I am!

Must read more carefully next time.

S’ok, it’s certainly an easy enough mistake to make. I’ve done it myself, probably more than once.

 

[That_one_guy]

This is an interesting genealogy - doesn’t even give His descent as being from SOLOMON, who (and whose sons and grandsons) were Kings after David. Clearly ITS purpose then isn’t to establish that Joseph was in direct line for the kingship.

:bighanky:
shucks

 

[That_one_guy]

This is an interesting genealogy - doesn’t even give His descent as being from SOLOMON, who (and whose sons and grandsons) were Kings after David. Clearly ITS purpose then isn’t to establish that Joseph was in direct line for the kingship.

ok.
how about an interesting link?
isv.org/catacombs/genealogies.htm
did i get it this time?

 

[LilyM]

ok.
how about an interesting link?
isv.org/catacombs/genealogies.htm
did i get it this time?

Uggh, needed to wade through that a few times to understand it. But Joseph would never have claimed a right to the throne through his mother in any event.

Just like today in Britain, the male line took precedence of the female, and surely there’d have been more than enough men of the line of David through Nathan’s sons, grandsons and males of ALL of the succeeding generations, that there’s no way Joseph would’ve had the seniority.

Jesus, of course is an entirely different matter, what with being son of God and all

 

[That_one_guy]

Uggh, needed to wade through that a few times to understand it. But Joseph would never have claimed a right to the throne through his mother in any event.

Just like today in Britain, the male line took precedence of the female, and surely there’d have been more than enough men of the line of David through Nathan’s sons, grandsons and males of ALL of the succeeding generations, that there’s no way Joseph would’ve had the seniority.

Jesus, of course is an entirely different matter, what with being son of God and all

I’m not Jewish,obviously.But,my understanding is that if your mother is Jewish, then you are Jewish.But, if your father is Jewish and your mother isn’t,then you’re not Jewish.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not Jewish,obviously.But,my understanding is that if your mother is Jewish, then you are Jewish.But, if your father is Jewish and your mother isn’t,then you’re not Jewish.

That may well be, but property and inheritance rights nonetheless passed on through the male line, not the female, just the same as they did in all Middle Eastern societies of the period.

Joseph would NOT have inherited a right to the throne if there were any descendants of Nathan (or other children of David, he may have had more) whose descent was purely in a male line and not through their mothers.

 

[That_one_guy]

That may well be, but property and inheritance rights nonetheless passed on through the male line, not the female, just the same as they did in all Middle Eastern societies of the period.

Joseph would NOT have inherited a right to the throne if there were any descendants of Nathan (or other children of David, he may have had more) whose descent was purely in a male line and not through their mothers.

Well, what is the answer?
This is almost as disturbing as the news awhile back that someone had thought they discovered Jesus’ corpse/remains…