{"id":105,"date":"2017-10-31T08:14:31","date_gmt":"2017-10-31T07:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=105"},"modified":"2017-10-31T08:14:31","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T07:14:31","slug":"jesus-right-to-davids-throne","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/10\/31\/jesus-right-to-davids-throne\/","title":{"rendered":"Jesus\u2019 Right to David\u2019s Throne"},"content":{"rendered":"

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.<\/em><\/p>\n

Luke 1:32<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question is often raised that: \u201cBecause<\/span> Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph but only the son of Mary, does He have the right to sit on David\u2019s throne?\u201d Also, related to this issue are the two genealogies found in Matthew 1:1\u201317<\/a> a<\/span>nd Luke 3:23\u201338<\/a>. If Jesus were only the son of Mary and not Joseph, why was it necessary to give Joseph\u2019s genealogy? How do we know that Luke\u2019s genealogy is that of Mary, as she is not named in it, bu<\/span>t Joseph is? These are questions that need to be answered satisfactorily in order to provide a basis for the understanding of why Yeshua could claim the throne of David.<\/p>\n

I. The Purpose of the Genealogies<\/p>\n

Introductory to the entire theme of this question, we set forth that the purpose of Joseph\u2019s genealogy in Matthew is to show that if Jesus really were the son of Jose<\/span>ph, He could not be king. The purpose of the genealogy of Mary in Luke shows why He could claim the throne of David.<\/p>\n

Of the four Gospels, only two give us a genealogy, the same two that deal with the <\/span>birth and early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John do not deal with the birth of Yeshua or His early life. Matthew and Luke do record those events, so it is natural that only these two would bother recording a genealogy. While both Matthew and Luke give us the story of the birth of J<\/span>esus, they tell the story from two different perspectives; Matthew tells the story from Joseph\u2019s perspective, while Luke tells the story from Mary\u2019s perspective. In Matthew, we are told <\/span>what Joseph is thinking, what is going on in his mind; but we are told nothing of what Mary is thinking. We read of how angels appe<\/span>ared to Joseph, but there is no record of angels appearing to Mary.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, when we go to Luke\u2019s gospel, we see this same story told from Mary\u2019s perspective. In the Gospel of Luke, it is Ma<\/span>ry who plays the active role while Joseph plays the passive role. We find the angels appearing to Mary, but no angels appearing to Joseph. We are told several times what goes on in the mind of Mary but we are never told anything about what Joseph is thinking. From this context, when we have these two genealogies and these two Gosp<\/span>els only, it should be very evident that since Matthew tells the story from Joseph\u2019s perspective, we have the genealogy of Joseph; whereas when Luke tells the story from Mary\u2019s perspective, we have the genealogy of Mary instead.<\/p>\n

II. The Need for the Genealogies<\/p>\n

The question still arises: \u201cWhy do we need these two genealogies, especially because Yeshua was not the real son of Joseph?\u201d A very popular and common answer is this: <\/span>In Matthew\u2019s Gospel, we have the \u201croyal\u201d line; whereas, in Luke\u2019s Gospel we have the \u201creal\u201d line. From that statement, another one is developed. According to some teachers, Joseph was the heir-apparent to David\u2019s throne as seen in <\/span>Matthew 1<\/a>. Since Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, He could have claimed the right to sit on David\u2019s throne because of His adoption by Joseph. On the other hand, in L<\/span>uke\u2019s Gospel we are given the \u201creal\u201d line so that we could know that Jesus Himself was a descendant of David. Therefore, these teachers conclude that: through Mary, He was a member of the House of David, but He claims the right to sit on David\u2019s throne through Joseph because He was the heir-apparent. However, we will show in this study that, actually, the ex<\/span>act opposite is true.<\/p>\n

Matthew breaks wit<\/span>h Jewish tradition in two ways: he skips names, and he mentions names of women. Matthew mentions four different women in his genealogy: Tamar, the wife of Judah; Rahab; Ruth and Bathsheba. Why does he mention these fou<\/span>r when there are so many other prominent Jewish women whom he could have mentioned in the genealogy of Yeshua? One thing that the four women had in common was that they were all Gentile. What Matthew was doing by naming these four women and no others is to point out that one of the purposes of the coming of Yeshua was not only to save the lost sheep of the House of Israel, but also that Gentiles would benefit from <\/span>His coming. Three of these women were guilty of specific sexual sins: one was guilty of adultery; one was guilty of prostitution; and one was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew begins hinting at a point he makes quite clear later; that the purpose of the coming of the Messiah was to save sinners. While Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition in these <\/span><\/span>two ways, Luke, <\/span>however, follows strict Jewish law, procedure and custom; he does not skip names, and he does not mention any women\u2019s names.<\/p>\n

III. The Old Testament Requirements for Kingship<\/p>\n

With this background, we could ask; \u201cWhy do we have Matthew\u2019s genealogy of Joseph at all?\u201d Again, everyone agrees that Joseph was not the real father o<\/span>f Jesus.<\/p>\n

After the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon, there were two basic requirements for kingship, one requirement was applicable to the throne of Judah in Jerusalem, while the other <\/span>was applicable to the throne of Israel in Samaria.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

A. Judah<\/p>\n

The requirement for the throne of Judah was that of Davidic descendency; no one was allowed to sit on David\u2019s throne unless he was a member of the House of David. For that reason, any conspir<\/span>acy to do away with the House of David was doomed to failure (Is. 7<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>B. Israel<\/p>\n

The requirement to sit upon the throne of Israel was one of prophetic sanction or divine appointment; no one was able to sit on Samaria\u2019s throne unless he had divine appointment through prop<\/span>hetic sanction. Anyone who attempted to rule without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kg. 11:26\u201339<\/a>; 15:28\u201330<\/a>; 16:1\u20134<\/a>, 11\u201315<\/a>; 21:21\u201329<\/a>; 2 Kg. 9:6\u201310<\/a>; 10:29\u201331<\/a>; 15:8\u201312<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

C. The Question Resolved<\/p>\n

With the background of these two Old Testament requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two genealogies, the question of the Messiah\u2019s right to the Throne of David can be resolved.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1. Davidic Descendency<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>a. The Line of Joseph in Matthew\u2019s Genealogy<\/p>\n

Matthew\u2019s genealogy traces the line of Joseph, the stepfather of the Messiah. The line is traced from Abraham (v. 2<\/a>), and continues down to David and Solom<\/span>on (v. 6<\/a>), and then to King Jechoniah (v. 11<\/a>), who was one of the last kings before the Babylonian Captivity. It is the person of Jechoniah that is significant in dealing with the genealogy of Matthew<\/span> because of the special curse pronounced on him in Jeremiah 22:24\u201330<\/a>: As I live, says Jehovah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck yo<\/em><\/span>u thence; and I will give you into the hand of them that seek your life, and into the hand of them of whom you are afraid, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast you out, and your mother that bore you, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall<\/em><\/span> ye die. But to the <\/em>land whereunto their soul longs to return, thither<\/em><\/span> shall they not return. Is this man Coniah a despised broken vessel? is he a vessel wherein none delights? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into the land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Jehovah. <\/em><\/span>Thus says Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Because of the kind of man Jechoniah was, God, through the Prophet Jeremiah, pronounced a curse upon him. The content of this curse was that no descendant of Je<\/span>choniah would have any right to the Throne of David (v. 30<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In the Matthew genealogy, it should be noted that Joseph was a direct descendant of Jechoniah (v. 16<\/a>). This means, then, that Joseph, havin<\/span>g the blood of Jechoniah in his veins, was not qualified to sit on David\u2019s throne. This would also mean that no son of Joseph would have the right to claim the Throne of David. So, if Yeshua were really the son of Joseph, this would have d<\/span>isqualified Him from sitting upon David\u2019s throne.<\/p>\n

The point of Matthew\u2019s genealogy, then, is to show why Jesus could not be king if He were really Joseph\u2019s son. <\/span>For this reason, Matthew starts out with the genealogy, and then proceeds with the account of the Virgin Birth, which from Matthew\u2019s viewpoint, is the way out of the Jechoniah problem. In essence, Matthew\u2019s point is this: if Jesus were really Joseph\u2019s son, He could not claim to sit on David\u2019s throne because of<\/span> Jechoniah\u2019s curse. Then Matthew proceeds to show that Yeshua was not truly Joseph\u2019s son, for He was born of the virgin Mary (<\/span>Mat. 1:18\u201325<\/a>).<\/p>\n

If, by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be mentioned in a genealogy, but you wished to trace a woman\u2019s line, how would you go about doing s<\/span>o? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband. However, if the husband\u2019s name were used, that raises a second question. Suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read, how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife because, in either case, it would be the husband\u2019s name that was used?<\/span><\/p>\n

The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English lan<\/span>guage, which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew language. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word \u201cthe\u201d before a proper name. We do not use a definite article before a proper name; such as, the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John; however, it is <\/span>quite permissible in both Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Luke\u2019s genealogy is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text, every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the definite article \u201cthe,\u201d with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph; his name does not have the definite article \u201cthe\u201d in front of it. What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: when he saw the <\/span><\/span>definite article missing from Joseph\u2019s name while it was present in all the other names, it would mean that this<\/span> was not really Joseph\u2019s genealogy; rather, it is Mary\u2019s genealogy. So, in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husband\u2019s name that was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra 2:6<\/span>1<\/a> and Nehemiah 7:63<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

b. The Line of Mary in Luke\u2019s Genealogy<\/p>\n

Luke\u2019s genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. Luke begins his genealogy in the reverse order of Matthew\u2019s, going from the present back into the past. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (vv. 31\u201332<\/a>). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah. Since Jesus was Mary\u2019s son He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah.<\/p>\n

One Old Testament requirement for kingship was that of being a member of the House of David. In the days of Jeremiah, there was the added requirement that one had to be a member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. Zedekiah, who reigned after Jechoniah, was not the son of Jechoniah. In the case of Yeshua, through Mary, He was a member of the House of David, totally apart from Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

2. Divine Appointment<\/p>\n

However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of<\/span> David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniah\u2019s blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.<\/span><\/p>\n

We read in Luke 1:30\u201333<\/a>: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for you have found favor with God. And behold, yo<\/em><\/span>u shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom the<\/em><\/span>re shall be no end.<\/em><\/p>\n

On what grounds, then, could Jesus claim the Throne of David? First, He was a member o<\/span>f the House of David apart from Jechoniah; and secondly, He alone received divine appointment to that throne.<\/p>\n

So while Matthew\u2019s genealogy showed why Yeshua could not be king if He really were Joseph\u2019<\/span>s son, Luke\u2019s genealogy shows why Yeshua could be king. Luke, in contrast to Matthew, does not begin with the account of the Virgin Birth. Only later does he record the genealogy, for he does not need, like Matthew, to get around the Jechoniah <\/span>problem.<\/p>\n

The final question is: \u201cOn what grounds can it be said that Luke\u2019s account is actually Mary\u2019s genealogy?\u201d While there is much evidence to support t<\/span>his, it will be necessary to limit it to only three lines of argument.<\/p>\n

First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. It is obvious, then, that in longstanding Jewish tradition, Mary<\/span> was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke 3:23<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Secondly, although most versions translate Luke 3:23<\/a> as follows: being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.<\/em><\/p>\n

That <\/span>same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a different way. While all of the names in Luke\u2019s genealogy are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of Joseph is not. Because of this grammati<\/span>cal point, that same verse could be translated: \u201cbeing the son (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli.\u201d In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was <\/span>supposed<\/em> or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. The absence of Mary\u2019s name is quite in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it <\/span>was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wife\u2019s genealogy.<\/p>\n

The third argument is the obvious viewpoint of the two genealogies. Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint of Joseph. Mary<\/span> plays a very passive role in Matthew\u2019s account. Matthew records only the angelic annunciation to Joseph concerning the coming birth, and only Matthew records the warning of the angel to Joseph to flee from Bethlehem before Herod\u2019s soldiers arrived for the slaughter. In the context of Matthew\u2019s Gospel, it is Joseph who is empha<\/span>sized, and the genealogy gives Joseph\u2019s line.<\/p>\n

Luke, however, is obvious<\/span>ly writing from the viewpoint of Mary. In Luke, Joseph is the one who plays the passive role. Luke alone records the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist, whose parents were related to Mary. Luke alone records the an<\/span>gelic annunciation to Mary and ignores the one to Joseph. Luke also is the one who records the innermost thoughts of Mary as she ponders things that are said to her by shepherds and prophets. Even when Yeshua is twelve years old, only Luke records the words of Mary to Yeshua and not those of Joseph. Mary is the active player, while Joseph is the passive player. So from the context alone, it would appear that Luke is givin<\/span>g Mary\u2019s lineage, because his whole perspective is focused on Mary.<\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion, then, both from the Talmudic reckoning and from the reckoning of bi<\/span>blical theology, Jesus indeed has the right to sit on David\u2019s throne.<\/p>\n

In these genealogies, we are given four specific titles of Yeshua. In Matthew 1:1<\/a>, He is called the son of David<\/em>, and the son of A<\/em><\/span>braham<\/em>. In Luke 3:38<\/a>, He is called the son of Adam, and the son of God. These four titles give us the fourfold portrait of the Messianic Person.<\/p>\n

First, by saying Yeshua is the son of David<\/em>, this means<\/span> He is a king through Mary.<\/p>\n

Secondly, by calling Jesus the son of Abraham<\/em>, this means He is a Jew.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, by giving Yeshua the title, the son of Adam<\/em>, this means that He is a man.<\/p>\n

And fourthly, by g<\/span>iving Him the title, the son of God<\/em>, this means Jesus is God.<\/p>\n

These genealogies give us the fourfold portrait of the Messianic King; Yeshua is the Jewish God-Man King.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Luke 1:32 Introduction The question is often raised that: \u201cBecause Yeshua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph but only the son of Mary, does He … <\/p>\n

\u201eJesus\u2019 Right to David\u2019s Throne\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":106,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105\/revisions\/106"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}