INTRODUCTION
The question is often raised that: “Because Yeshua (Jesus)
was not the real son of Joseph but only the son of Mary,
does He have the right to sit on David's throne?” Also,
related to this issue are the two genealogies found in
Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23- 38. If Jesus were only the son
of Mary and not Joseph, why was it necessary to give
Joseph's genealogy? How do we know that Luke's genealogy is
that of Mary, as she is not named in it, but 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.
I. THE PURPOSE
OF THE GENEALOGIES
Introductory to the entire theme of this question, we set
forth that the purpose of Joseph's genealogy in Matthew is
to show that if Jesus really were the son of Joseph, He
could not be king. The purpose of the genealogy of Mary in
Luke shows why He could claim the throne of David.
Of the four Gospels, only two give us a genealogy, the same
two that deal with the 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 Jesus, they tell the story from two different
perspectives; Matthew tells the story from Joseph's
perspective, while Luke tells the story from Mary's
perspective. In Matthew, we are told 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
appeared to Joseph, but there is no record of angels
appearing to Mary. On the other hand, when we go to Luke's
gospel, we see this same story told from Mary's perspective.
In the Gospel of Luke, it is Mary 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 Gospels only, it should be very evident that since
Matthew tells the story from Joseph's perspective, we have
the genealogy of Joseph; whereas when Luke tells the story
from Mary's perspective, we have the genealogy of Mary
instead.
II. THE NEED FOR
THE GENEALOGIES
The question still arises: “Why do we need these two
genealogies, especially because Yeshua was not the real son
of Joseph?” A very popular and common answer is this: In
Matthew's Gospel, we have the “royal” line; whereas, in
Luke's Gospel we have the “real” line. From that statement,
another one is developed. According to some teachers, Joseph
was the heir-apparent to David's throne as seen in Matthew
1. Since Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, He could have
claimed the right to sit on David's throne because of His
adoption by Joseph. On the other hand, in Luke's Gospel we
are given the “real” 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's throne
through Joseph because He was the heir-apparent. However, we
will show in this study that, actually, the exact opposite
is true.
Matthew breaks with 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 four
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 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 two ways, Luke, however, follows strict Jewish law,
procedure and custom; he does not skip names, and he does
not mention any women's names.
III. THE OLD TESTAMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR KINGSHIP
With this background, we could ask; “Why do we have
Matthew's genealogy of Joseph at all?” Again, everyone
agrees that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus.
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 was applicable to the throne of
Israel in Samaria.
A. JUDAH
The requirement for the throne of Judah was that of Davidic
descendancy; no one was allowed to sit on David's throne
unless he was a member of the House of David. For that
reason, any conspiracy to do away with the House of David
was doomed to failure (Is. 7).
B. ISRAEL
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's throne unless he had divine appointment
through prophetic sanction. Anyone who attempted to rule
without prophetic sanction was assassinated (I Kg. 11:26-39;
15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; II Kg. 9:6-10; 10:29-31;
15:8-12).
C. THE QUESTION
RESOLVED
With the background of these two Old Testament requirements
for kingship and what is stated in the two genealogies, the
question of the Messiah's right to the Throne of David can
be resolved.
1. Davidic Descendancy
a. The
Line of Joseph in Matthew's Genealogy
Matthew's genealogy traces the line of Joseph, the
stepfather of the Messiah. The line is traced from Abraham
(v. 2), and continues down to David and Solomon (v. 6), and
then to King Jechoniah (v. 11), 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 because of the special curse pronounced on him in
Jeremiah 22:24-30:
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 you 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 ye die. But to the land
whereunto their soul longs to return, thither
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. 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. |
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 Jechoniah would have
any right to the Throne of David (v. 30).
In the Matthew genealogy, it should be noted that Joseph was
a direct descendant of Jechoniah (v. 16). This means, then,
that Joseph, having the blood of Jechoniah in his veins, was
not qualified to sit on David's 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 disqualified Him from sitting upon
David's throne.
The point of Matthew's genealogy, then, is to show why Jesus
could not be king if He were really Joseph's son. For this
reason, Matthew starts out with the genealogy, and then
proceeds with the account of the Virgin Birth, which from
Matthew's viewpoint, is the way out of the Jechoniah
problem. In essence, Matthew's point is this: if Jesus were
really Joseph's son, He could not claim to sit on David's
throne because of Jechoniah's curse. Then Matthew proceeds
to show that Yeshua was not truly Joseph's son, for He was
born of the virgin Mary (Mat. 1:18-25).
If, by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be
mentioned in a genealogy, but you wished to trace a woman's
line, how would you go about doing so? The answer is that
you would use the name of her husband. However, if the
husband's 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's
name that was used?
The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English
language, which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew
language. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word
“the” 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 quite permissible in both
Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Luke's genealogy
is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text,
every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the
definite article “the,” with one exception, and that is the
name of Joseph; his name does not have the definite article
“the” in front of it. What that would mean to someone
reading the original is this: when he saw the definite
article missing from Joseph's name while it was present in
all the other names, it would mean that this was not really
Joseph's genealogy; rather, it is Mary's genealogy. So, in
keeping with Jewish law, it was the husband's name that was
used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament:
Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.
b. The
Line of Mary in Luke's Genealogy
Luke's 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's, going from the
present back into the past. The line is traced until it
returns to the family of David (vv. 31-32). 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's son He, too, was a member of the House of
David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah.
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.
2. Divine Appointment
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 David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniah's
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.
We read in Luke 1:30-33:
And the angel said
unto her, Fear not, Mary: for you have found
favor with God. And behold, you 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
there shall be no end. |
On what grounds, then, could Jesus claim the Throne of
David? First, He was a member of the House of David apart
from Jechoniah; and secondly, He alone received divine
appointment to that throne.
So while Matthew's genealogy showed why Yeshua could not be
king if He really were Joseph's son, Luke's 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 problem.
The final question is: “On what grounds can it be said that
Luke's account is actually Mary's genealogy?” While there is
much evidence to support this, it will be necessary to limit
it to only three lines of argument.
First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of
Heli. It is obvious, then, that in longstanding Jewish
tradition, Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as
mentioned in Luke 3:23.
Secondly, although most versions translate Luke 3:23 as
follows: being the son (as was
supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.
That same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a
different way. While all of the names in Luke's genealogy
are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of
Joseph is not. Because of this grammatical point, that same
verse could be translated:
being the son (as was supposed
of Joseph) the son of Heli. In other words, the final
parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that
although Jesus was supposed
or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the
descendant of Heli. The absence of Mary's name is quite in
keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not
unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wife's
genealogy.
The third argument is the obvious viewpoint of the two
genealogies. Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint
of Joseph. Mary plays a very passive role in Matthew's
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's soldiers arrived for the slaughter. In the
context of Matthew's Gospel, it is Joseph who is emphasized,
and the genealogy gives Joseph's line.
Luke, however, is obviously 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 angelic 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 giving Mary's lineage, because his whole
perspective is focused on Mary.
In conclusion, then, both from the Talmudic reckoning and
from the reckoning of biblical theology, Jesus indeed has
the right to sit on David's throne.
In these genealogies, we are given four specific titles of
Yeshua. In Matthew 1:1, He is called the
son of David, and the
son of Abraham. In Luke
3:38, He is called the son of Adam, and the
son of God.
These four titles give us the fourfold portrait of the
Messianic Person.
First, by saying Yeshua is the son
of David, this means He is a king through Mary.
Secondly, by calling Jesus the son
of Abraham, this means He is a Jew.
Thirdly, by giving Yeshua the title, the
son of Adam, this means
that He is a man.
And fourthly, by giving Him the title, the
son of God, this means
Jesus is God.
These genealogies give us the fourfold portrait of the
Messianic King; Yeshua is the Jewish God-Man King.
All scriptures are in the
American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
*
RECOMMENDED READING
If you
enjoyed this Bible study, Dr. Fruchtenbaum
recommends the following messianic Bible studies
(mbs):
mbs 003: The Basis of the Second Coming of Messiah
mbs 007: Jews, Gentiles and
Christians
mbs 011: The Suffering Messiah of
Isaiah 53
mbs 012: The Messiah of the Old
Testament
mbs 013: What the New Testament
Says About Jesus
mbs 016: Nicodemus, A Rabbi's
Quest
mbs 026: Zionism: What It Is and
What It Is Not
mbs 087: The Book of Romans and
the Jews
Also the Ariel series on Christology by Dr. Fruchtenbaum