ArchAngel

Just curious as to why a big deal is made of tracing Jesus' lineage back to David through Joseph. I thought God was his father?

Dragar

The writers of those particular Gospels were rather keen on proving that JC fulfilled the criteria to be a Messiah.

They got rather carried away in proving it, though, which resulted in the interesting contradiction between the two lineages.

Dragar

Amaleq13

IIDB member, Rick Sumner, has suggested that this apparent contradiction can be resolved if we assume the author believed Jesus could qualify for Davidic lineage though adoption by Josephus. I do not know if this concept has precedence in either the Hebrew Bible or Jewish tradition.

Rick Sumner

I don't know if it does or not either. Luke states explicitly that because "it was believed" (3.23) Jesus was the son of Joseph, he cuts the mustard. Matthew implies as much by his choice of wording--distingusihing between everybody else who was "the father of . . ." and Joseph, who was only the husband of Mary.

Matthew's intention can be compounded still further. It was quite odd to name women in genealogies. Matthew names five--Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba and Mary. In order (discounting Mary, for the moment), we have an incestuous prostitute, who gained her child through treachoury. A gentile harlot, who betrayed her own people (I'd suggest there's more to that story, but that it simply hasn't survived--it's an odd connection for Matthew to draw, and we don't have any account of Rahab in the Davidic line to my knowledge). A gentile who--oddly--was accepted with open arms by Jews. And, finally, an adultress whose son nonetheless became king, and founded the house of god.

This series of anomalies, and seeming violations of the Law that were seen as being in God's own interest serve to foreshadow the final anomalous "violation." A child born out of wedlock was accepted into the royal dynasty by adoption, despite the breach of the Law, just as these forerunners were accepted when the Law said they were born in sin.

Matthew took pains to convey the adequacy of the Davidic adoption--he did what he could to provide scriptural backing for it.

I'd be interested in knowing, as an aside, if anyone is aware of anything surviving regarding Rahab and the Davidic line.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

P.S.
Jesus certainly wasn't adopted by Josephus :P

Magus55

Both Mary and Joseph were descendents of David. Jesus was born of david biologically through Mary, and legally through Joseph.

Infidelettante

It is called the Davidic Covenant. The scriptural basis is found in II Samuel 7:12, 16 which reads: 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.... 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever.

The Angel of the annunciation tells Mary that her child will be given the throne of David in Luke I:32 and echos II Sam. in verse 33, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Luke 2:11 is the famed unto you a child is born announcement to the shepherds which comes from Isaiah 9:6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

The Davidic Covenant was Gods promise to Israel that it would have a legitimate ruler chosen by God forever. As the messiah would be the last of the earthly rulers of Israel he must be of Davidic ancestry. For Jesus to be the messiah he had to be a descendant of David. Of course it seems not to occur to Christians that perhaps God has not fulfilled his promise as there has been for the last two thousand years neither a descendant of David on the throne nor even a throne to occupy if one could be found.

JT

Amaleq13

The bottom line is, then, that they believed it was legitimate. Right?

LOL! Whoops.

Some Christian apologists would disagree, though.

Amaleq13

It seems to me more credible to suggest that they were willing to believe in the legitimacy of an adopted Davidic lineage than the relatively more radical notion of tracing it through Mary.

Rick Sumner

That would appear to be the case, yep. Matthew follows an almost (though not quite) Pharisaic attempt at defending it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner