-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question
- Thread starter chuck2336
- Start date
Well, first the church does not say that Jesus was from the line of David, the Bible does. That's the first (and more important reason) that it is true.
Why does the Bible give us Jesus' lineage through his eartly father? Simply because in Jewish tradition an adopted son inheritied his adopted father's lineage.
Why does the Bible give us Jesus' lineage through his eartly father? Simply because in Jewish tradition an adopted son inheritied his adopted father's lineage.
That's an easy one. Although genetic lineage in Jewish tradition is traced through the mother, tribal lineage is traced only through a person's father. This is clearly stated in Numbers 1:18. In secular tradition, adopting a person, especially a male, makes him a member of your house. By Joseph adopting Jesus, Jesus is indeed of the house and lineage of David.
Some folks get hung up in trying to establish a genetic link between Jesus and David, but this was completely unnecessary in 1st century Jewish tradition.
Some folks get hung up in trying to establish a genetic link between Jesus and David, but this was completely unnecessary in 1st century Jewish tradition.
Last edited by a moderator:
Look at the two genealogies. Matthew 1:16 says Joseph's father was named Jacob. However, Luke 3:23 names Joseph's father as Eli. It has been suggested that this discrepancy is because the Luke genealogy is really Mary's genealogy and that Eli was Joseph's father in law. If that is the case, we do have scriptural proof that Jesus really is the son of David through Mary.
It is by no means a concensus on the claim that Luke's geneology is actually Mary's. I personally don't concur.
Both genealogies are clearly through Joseph. One traces the lineage back through Joseph's father, and that the other traces back through Joseph's mother. However, the maternal genealogy drops the name of Joseph's mother, and instead skips back to her father. I believe that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph's father. I believe the one in Matthew is through Joseph's maternal grandfather.
Matthew skip Joseph's mother in the genealogical listing, but this is not unusual. Matthew skips a number of people in his genealogy. For instance, in Matt 1:8 he writes: "Joram the father of Uzziah". But when his statement is compared with 1 Chr 3:10-12, the reader sees that three people have been left out of Matthew's genealogy: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.
Again, it was not necessary in Jewish custom to rely on a person's genetic lineage to be of a person's "house". Tribal lineage is traced only through a person's father, not mother (see Numbers 1:18), and secular Jewish tradition held that an adopted person, especially a male, is a member of the house into whom that person is adopted. By Joseph adopting Jesus, Jesus is indeed of the house and lineage of David in full force. Joseph was in every way Jesus' earthly father. Note that in John 6:62, the people even ask "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" Jesus' tribe status was never an issue to the 1st century Jews.
Both genealogies are clearly through Joseph. One traces the lineage back through Joseph's father, and that the other traces back through Joseph's mother. However, the maternal genealogy drops the name of Joseph's mother, and instead skips back to her father. I believe that the genealogy in Luke is through Joseph's father. I believe the one in Matthew is through Joseph's maternal grandfather.
Matthew skip Joseph's mother in the genealogical listing, but this is not unusual. Matthew skips a number of people in his genealogy. For instance, in Matt 1:8 he writes: "Joram the father of Uzziah". But when his statement is compared with 1 Chr 3:10-12, the reader sees that three people have been left out of Matthew's genealogy: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.
Again, it was not necessary in Jewish custom to rely on a person's genetic lineage to be of a person's "house". Tribal lineage is traced only through a person's father, not mother (see Numbers 1:18), and secular Jewish tradition held that an adopted person, especially a male, is a member of the house into whom that person is adopted. By Joseph adopting Jesus, Jesus is indeed of the house and lineage of David in full force. Joseph was in every way Jesus' earthly father. Note that in John 6:62, the people even ask "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" Jesus' tribe status was never an issue to the 1st century Jews.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
That's a common understanding, but it is probably not right.
In biblical genealogies, the authors often omitted certain people and it was common to say someone (grandfather) begat someone else (grandson) completely omitting the grandson's father. It's weird to us, but it's common to the biblical authors.
So, it could be said that Jesse (David's father) begat Solomon and it could be said that David begat Solomon and both would be correct.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
But I think that Matthew is speaking primarily to a Jewish Audience and is using Gamatria to re-enforce his claim to Jesus Messiah-ship. The number of David or Dalet+Vav+Dalet = 14. Thus the Davidic messianic number as related to his geneology. Thus 14 generations from Abraham to David 14 generations from David to the Exile and 14 generations from exile to Jesus. a set of 3, 14's. Jesus is completely Messiah. Joseph and Mary because of similiar heretage should be mostly overlapped.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I believe I have the answer. All those people in the Gospels who went around calling Jesus Christ the Son of David were simply misinformed and Jesus Christ was just too tender hearted to correct them.
The Apostle Paul was, therefore, incorrect when he wrote in Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And all these years I thought the Bible was inerrant in its original autographs!:BangHead::BangHead::laugh::laugh:
The Apostle Paul was, therefore, incorrect when he wrote in Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
And all these years I thought the Bible was inerrant in its original autographs!:BangHead::BangHead::laugh::laugh: