One Girl in Christianity

The Messiah, Seed of David

Christians believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament.  Various biblical prophecies exist about the identity of the Messiah, and some pertain to the Messiah's lineage.

In 2 Samuel 7:12-13, for example, the Lord promises King David that the Messiah will be his descendent:

"12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever."

And this is why the book of Matthew, which is thought to have been targeted at the Jews, commences with Jesus's genealogy.  It traces him back to David, boom, right there in Chapter 1.  First order of business.

It was essential for Jesus to be a literal descendent of King David.

Was he?

Matthew v. Luke

There is much evidence to show that he in fact was.  Christians can have peace of mind per the matter, however it does require some research and perhaps even faith to fully resolve the issue.

So, alarm bells go off for those reading the Bible when they compare the genealogy presented in Matthew (1: 1-16) with that presented in Luke (3:23-38).

They're different.

The genealogy in Matthew says that Joseph--Jesus's foster-father--was the son of Jacob, and it traces Jesus back to King David through his son Solomon and ultimately through a descendent named Jechonias.

In contrast, the genealogy in Luke says that Joseph was the son of Helim and it traces Jesus back to King David through his son Nathan.

Is the Bible contradicting itself?

Before I answer that question, I should probably point out why Joseph's genealogy is even interesting.  After all, Jesus was not the physical offspring of Joseph.  In one of Christianity's great mysteries, Jesus was born of Mary, and "fathered" by God.

Jewish custom, however, maintained that if someone raised a child, it was literally their own.  In the Jewish world, an "adopted" or "fostered" child had full claim to the genealogy of their adopted parent.

So, Joseph's genealogy does matter and within the context of Judaism, most certainly applied to Jesus.

Now, as for the Bible contradicting itself.

I'm going to present the most elegant way of resolving the conflict.  Please know, however, that other approaches exist.  I found them to be less convincing and incredibly confusing.  They involve resorting to the concept of "Levirate marriage," a custom whereby a person could be the legal, but not physical offspring of a person.  It gets pretty darn confusing pretty quickly.

So, the simplest answer for now: Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, as it states. Joseph was indeed the son of Jacob, as Matthew maintains.

Luke's genealogy, on the other hand, is that of Mary.  Mary is the daughter of Helim and, by marriage, Joseph was the son of Helim.  In Jewish genealogies, women were not mentioned, and so it would've been customary for the evangelist to state in the genealogy "Joseph, the son of Helim" instead of "Mary, the daughter of Helim."

Simple enough.  And, from what I could tell, there is nothing in the Bible or historical record to challenge that Luke's genealogy is actually Mary's.  (I will do more research to confirm that.  Just not tonight, I'm too tired.)

The Curse of Jechonias

Why then, do two different genealogies exist?

There is something problematic about Joseph's genealogy from the standpoint of Biblical prophecy.

(Enter, "Jechonias, noooooooooo!!")

Notice that the genealogy in Matthew, which we take to be Joseph's, traces Joseph back to David through Jechonias (sometimes shortened to Coniah).

But there's a problem with Jechonias.  He was the black sheep of the family (Jeremiah 22:24):

"Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

At first glance, this appears to invalidate Jesus's claim to the throne of David through Joseph due to Joseph being the descendant of Jechonias.

But!

Notice that biblical prophecy does not invalidate the legal right of Jechonias's seed to rule.  It just says that they won't.

Thankfully . . . 

Jesus was technically not Jechonias's seed because he wasn't the physical descendent of Joseph. 

So!

One could argue that Jesus inherited from Joseph the *legal* right to rule, but not what is sometimes referred to as "The Curse of Jechonias."

Mary's genealogy in Luke, if we trust it as such, clears things up.

Mary is shown to be the descendent of David through Nathan--a completely different line--and thus "The Curse of Jechonias" does not apply to her.

That's significant because Jesus actually was her physical offspring.

So, through Joseph, a legal right to the throne of David is established.  Through Mary, a physical right is established.

Sound good?

The Apostle Paul and Biblical Tradition

Further evidence to support these claims lies in the testimony of the Apostle Paul.  Before converting to Christianity, Paul was a Pharisee.  That meant that he was very learned in the Jewish scriptures and genealogies.  For him to accept Jesus's genealogy as being valid is significant.  In fact, his being vocal about the legitimacy of it was one of the things that almost got him killed time and time again, as documented in The Book of Acts.

The Bible makes no mention of Jewish leaders challenging Jesus's claim to being a valid descendent of David.  And my understanding is that Jesus's genealogy was one of the reasons why Jewish leadership perceived him as a "threat."

What the Jews Think

But of course, exclusively relying on Christian New Testament sources isn't fair.  So, I researched the Jewish perspective a little bit.

On one Jewish website, I skimmed through an article on why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah.  I focused in particular on the section pertaining to lineage.  

While ultimately these matters of course hinge on personal faith and convictions, it was interesting to note that the Jewish objections to Jesus's lineage had nothing to do with Matthew verses Luke.  They instead focused on the fact that Jesus was not born of a physical father and that as a result, prophecies pertaining to lineage through a father could not apply to him.  I read the scriptures they cited however, and was personally not convinced.  None of those scriptures said anything about descent having to come biologically through a father.  Instead, those scriptures just said that the Messiah will be a descendent of David.  Luke's genealogy of Mary shows that Jesus satisfied that requirement.  Further, there's that custom of adopted children becoming entitled to the genealogy of their adoptive parents.  (I'd love to ask a Jewish person: is that custom true?)

Further, the Jews object to the idea of the Messiah being a "man-God."  They say that no biblical (to Christians, no "Old Testament"), grounds for this concept exist.  What they failed to supply, however, were scriptures to back that up.  They cited only "Jewish sources" and were not specific.  Further, they failed to supply scriptures stating that a divine Messiah would NOT be the case.  As far as I'm concerned, I personally will not be convinced by their argument unless I read a scripture that says: "The Messiah will be 100% human."  No such scripture exists.

Now, that's just one Jewish website.  I'm sure there's more information to be had elsewhere, and perhaps I will dig deeper in the future.  If any Jewish person reading this has additional ideas on this topic, I hope they will share them.

For me at least, it was significant that nothing very obvious or glaring challenging Jesus's genealogy materialized, at least as far as "facts" and "historical record" are concerned.  It's not like there's the Bible on the one hand saying Jesus's genealogy is valid, and then a whole body of Jewish literature and historical record saying that it's not.

Okay, Time to Go to Bed

Honestly, I've never given any genealogy so much thought, lol.  In years past, whenever I came across a genealogy in the scriptures I'd just skip over it.  Boring stuff.  But in the case of Jesus, genealogy is crucial.  So crucial in fact, that Matthew cut to the chase and listed Jesus's genealogy before discussing anything else.  Further, in the future whenever I hear Jesus referred to as "the son of David" as he so often is in scripture, it will mean so much more.

Apparently, being the descendent of David is the name of the game!!  

Sources

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html#header_1

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/chronology-conundrums