-
According to Jesus' genealogy in Luke's gospel, he was one of David's
biological descendants; which is good.
Bs"d
If you just bother to read that genealogy you'll see that it gives the genealogy of Joseph, who is not his real father.
So that does NOT prove that he is a biological descendant of David.
However, the line of Davidic royalty
passes down through David's son Solomon. That's not so good.
Not so good? You think God made a mistake??
The problem is, Jesus was not one of Solomon's biological descendants.
Out he goes. He cannot be the messiah, because he must be in male line a descendant of King David.
Well; we have Jacob to thank for resolving this dilemma centuries before
Jesus was born; actually, quite a while before David was even born.
At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his own two grandsons Manasseh and
Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and power to
his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional children to
Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid Bilhah--
Dan, and Naphtali.
Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for his
deceased wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which
subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own.
Ephraim and Manasseh bring Rachel's total up to six: two of her own, two by
her maid Bilhah, and two by Joseph's wife Asenath.
Ephraim and Menashe were in male line biological descendants of Jacob, which is in no way the case with your messiah and king David.
So the cases are totally not comparable.
Bottom line: Heirs to David's throne have to be his biological progeny-- that
much is irrevocable. However, they don't have to be Solomon's biological
progeny. All that matters is that they be in his line lawfully.
No, spiritual heritage, like being a priest, of being in the line of kings, can only be transferred through the biological male line.
And of course, the line of Joseph was not lawfully, on the contrary:
Some people call the genealogy in Matthew the 'legal line', but I am afraid that the words 'illegal line' would be more appropriate here. As most people propably don't know, a Jewish mariage is made up of two stages; kiddushin and nissu'in. With kiddushin the woman is legaly married to the man, and only the death of one of the partners can end the relation, or the man has to give the wife a bill of divorce. However, the marriage has not yet been consumed with intimite relations. This is the first stage. But already in this first stage, the woman belongs exclusively to her husband. If she would have sexual relations with another man, then that would be punished with death, see Deuteronomy 22:23-24; "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed (the King James here calls the first stage of marriage 'betrothed') unto an husband, and a man find her in the city and lay with her, then you shall bring them both out
unto the gate of that city and ye shall stone them with stones that they die."
The second stage of marriage, nissu'in, is the consuming of the marriage through sexual relations. These days kiddushin and nissu'in are done on the same day, but in earlier days there was one year between kiddushin and nissu'in.
Josef and Mary did kiddushin, but not yet nissu'in. Read Matthew 1:18; "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Mary was married to Joseph, (kiddushin, here called 'espoused') but the marriage was not yet consumed
("before they came together"). If in this stage the woman becomes pregnant from somebody else than the husband, than she has to be stoned to death, and when a child is born from that relation then it is an illegitimate child, and it is NOT the legal child of the one 'espoused' to the woman.
So the words 'legal line' are grotesque wrong here.
"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever.".
Micah 4:5
