Delve Into Jesus : Questions : Question Regarding Christ's Genealogy

Comments

Dylan,

Welcome, and thanks very much for your question. I have to admit that this is deeper than most questions we respond to, so we're going to need a little time to try and get to the bottom of this one for you.

My gut feeling is that this has to be a red herring (but I cannot back that up just yet). The reason I think so is that people have been studying the Bible for 2,000 years and this issue has never been serious enough to dissuade people in the past, or make enough waves to cause controversy. Whenever someone comes along and announces what they claim is a "new" problem with the identity of Jesus as the Messiah, I have to be dubious and wonder, "After 2,000 years of diligent study, you think you've found something no one else ever has?"

But, that's just conjecture. I will see what I can find out on my own and failing that, I will tap into some of the resources in the Gospel.com community. Let me see what I can find out for you, and I will get back to you in a few days.

4/15/2008 10:32:42 AM - arsindelve, Executive Director, Delve Christian Ministries

Dylan,

I have spent a few days thinking about this, and while I don't personally have the necessary background in Jewish history to tackle this head on, there are some logical problems that jump right out at me.

It was necessary for Jesus to be sinless in order to be a perfect sin offering. Jesus was able to escape the original sin imputed to all through Adam by being born of the Holy Spirit and not of a man. Had he an earthly father, He would not be able to save us.

The argument you posted rejects his ancestry through Joseph since He was adopted, but at the same time, rejects the ancestry through Mary since she is a woman. Thus, this argument would reject anyone born of an earthly father. Yet such a man would have imputed original sin and could not save us! It's a contradictory argument.

For me, the bigger point is that people for 2,000 years have been ignoring the forest for the trees when they don't want to accept the message of the Gospel. In this example, they take one or two small, insignificant points in obscure Jewish history and declare, "Aha! He can't be the Messiah!". This completely ignores the overwhelming evidence that says he was. When you have overwhelming evidence on one hand and one small, easily misunderstood problem on the other, you can't "throw out the baby with the bathwater."

In any case, that's the best I can do with my meager historical education. If you want to go deeper into this issue, let me know and I'll call in some favors from my highly educated peers and see what I can do for you.

4/20/2008 7:13:19 PM - arsindelve, Executive Director, Delve Christian Ministries

Thank you, I would really appreciate it if you could could contact some other people who may have a better knowledge about this particular subject.

4/21/2008 2:21:41 AM - anonymous

I have sent out a request. I'll let you know what comes back.

4/21/2008 7:01:43 AM - arsindelve, Executive Director, Delve Christian Ministries

I have heard back from about half a dozen people who have been able to give some legal basis why, based on Hebrew law, genealogy though the mother and through the adopted father are both perfectly acceptable. It's a lot of material to go through, so give a few days to sift through it all. I will try to condense and summarize it, but will give you links for further reading. I'll have this done by Sunday for you.

4/24/2008 6:56:43 AM - arsindelve, Executive Director, Delve Christian Ministries

Thanks, I really appreciate it. Specifically, I'm looking for answers on these points:

1. Do the verses that were cited (2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:7-10, 28:4-6; 2 Chronicles 7:18) say the Messiah must be biologically descended from Solomon?

2. Would someone from the line of Nathan be just as legitimate for the title as someone from the line of Solomon?

3. Is there a Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption? Would Jesus legally inherit Joseph's genealogy?

Thanks again.

4/25/2008 1:01:53 AM - Dylan, Member of Delve into Jesus since 4/14/2008

Dylan,

I really appreciate your patience, and I apologize that this has taken longer than we first thought. This is the most complicated question we've ever been asked on Delve Into Jesus, but after two weeks of research, I'm personally satisfied that we have the answer for you.

In Luke's Gospel, we are given a genealogy of Jesus through Mary's ancestors, while in Matthew we are given the genealogy through Joseph. The genealogy in Luke (whose audience was primarily gentiles and Greeks) was not intended to show Jesus as the heir to the throne of David, but rather to show his continuity with humanity. The genealogy in Matthew is the more important of the two as far as showing that Jesus was of the line of David (through Solomon) and thus fulfilled all the necessary ancestral requirements of the Messiah.

"Matthew writes for Christians of Jewish descent and they (especially those who could not yet understand the fact of the virgin birth) would have liked to know whether the man who was known as the father of Jesus was really of Davidic descent. With a view to the ministering to unbelieving Jews who before their conversion would naturally not attach any credence to Jesus' conception by the Holy Ghost, it was particularly necessary that Matthew should draw attention to the fact that Joseph, Jesus' legal father, was himself of Davidic descent.... But since Luke writes for Romans and Greeks with whom the Davidic origin of Jesus was no matter of topical interest, it was unnecessary for him to reproduce the genealogical table of Joseph." Geldenhuys, Luke, NICNT

The fact that Joseph is not Jesus' biological child in no way invalidated His claim to the throne of David. Joshua Moss writes,

"Some have raised the question: "If, as the New Testament declares, Y'shua was born of Mary while she was still a virgin, how could he inherit the Davidic line from Joseph, who was not his physical father?" The answer is that in every legal sense of Jewish life, Joseph was Y'shua's father. Kiddushin 4:1 states that a man and wife who live together are presumed to produce legitimate children without the necessity of proof of parentage. Since Joseph and Mary were legally married at the time of Y'shua's birth (and since Joseph had not brought charges of adultery against Mary because of her pregnancy), Y'shua was presumed to be Joseph's legitimate sonnot his adopted son." - http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/1985_12/08_Genealogy_Messiah

Chad Smith writes,

"To the Jewish culture at the time, adoption was more of a permanently binding relationship than physical birth. That's why "the adoption of sons" is just a widely used theme in the New Testament. The fact that Christians are adopted sons of God illustrates our security in Christ. Once a child is adopted - they cannot be disinherited or disowned by the father. It is a legally binding arrangement for life. Jesus would be viewed legally as Joseph's oldest son, even though He was adopted. He would then receive the double-portion, and would be the one to take the throne in His earthly father's death. Notice, Joseph was not alive at the time of Jesus' death. Otherwise, he would have been there - and Jesus would not have needed to ask John to take care of His mother. Legally, Jesus was heir to the throne of David."

Do the verses in 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Chronicles make it necessary for the Messiah to come from Solomon? There is no widespread agreement. Some feel that it's important, but one commentator in particular notes that,

"(a) God provided an 'escape clause' in 1 Chron 28:5-7 and 2 Chron 7.17ff) and more importantly, (b) the dynasty is always referred to as "of David" and never "of Solomon" in the prophetic books."
- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

In any case, the genealogy through Joseph is the important one as far as the Davidic line is concerned, so this issue is irrelevant.

One problem that has been raised with the genealogy in Matthew is the inclusion of Jeconiah, of whom Jeremiah writes, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

There are several reasons that the "Jeconiah curse" would not apply to Jesus. First, the wording highly suggests the curse applies only to his immediate descendants. Glenn M Miller explains:

"1. The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"- yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future; 2. the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context; 3. the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam. 4. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate/non-physical descendants of Jeconiah?)."
- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Next, there are Biblical and Jewish extra-biblical sources which tell us the curse was rescinded.

"Jehoiachin's name appears in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus Christ (1:11, 12), and some contend this contradicts Jeremiah's oracle of judgment against the king's descendants (Jer 22:30). Yet it is possible to understand Haggai's blessing of Zerubabbel (2:2024) as the rescission of Jeremiah's curse and the reinstatement of Jehoiachin's line on the Davidic (and ultimately Messianic) throne (cf. Is 56:35)." Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible..

"for no man of his seed shall prosper -In this, too, no man of his seed shall prosper, namely that no one will occupy the throne of David nor rule in Judah. Although we find that Zerubbabel, his great grandson, did rule over Judah upon the return of the exiles, the Rabbis (Pesikta /'Rav Kahana p. 163a) state that this : 'was because Jehoiachin repented in prison. They state further: Repentance is great, for it nullifies a person's sentence, as it is stated: inscribe this man childless.' But since he repented, his sentence was revoked and turned to the good, and he said to him, "I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you a signet" (Haggai 2:23). They state further: Said Rabbi Johanan: Exile expiates all sins, as it is said: Inscribe this man childless," and after he was exiled, it IS written: '(I Chron. 3:17) And the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Shealtiel his son--Redak" Judaica Books of the Prophets, in loc

See http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah for more sources.

For a complete overview of this issue, see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Finally, for further reading, I recommend Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, ISBN 0801064236

Thanks again for giving us an opportunity to explore this subject with you. I hope you're satisfied with this explanation, but if you have any other questions, please let us know and we'll gladly do what we can.

5/3/2008 8:54:17 PM - arsindelve, Executive Director, Delve Christian Ministries

Thank you so much for your help with this! I really appreciate it. If I have any other questions about this I will be sure to ask you again.

Thanks and God bless,
Dylan.

5/12/2008 12:50:21 AM - Dylan, Member of Delve into Jesus since 4/14/2008

If you have an answer or some information to contribute, or you would simply like to say something to the author of this question, please feel free to leave a comment below. Don't forget that our forum is also open if you want to join or start a discussion.