Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Descendent of David
#1
Hello everyone.

As an orthodox Jew , one of the main reasons I dont believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is that He was not from the house of David and his tribe of Judah.

For instance , according to Jeremiah 23:5-6 ; The Jewish Messiah is going to from the tribe of Judah and the house of king David:

"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will set up of David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign a king and prosper, and he shall perform judgment and righteousness in the land.In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness." Jeremiah 23:5-6

In Judaism , In order to be from a certain tribe ; Your father must be from that tribe and not your mother and it doesn't come through adoption. So If we accept the concept of virgin birth ; Jesus had no earthly father and therefore , he cant possibly be from the tribe of Judah.

Where does it say that tribal affiliation only goes through the father? If you read Numbers , chapter 1 ; you can see that tribal affiliation only goes through the father; Number 1:18 says: " and they assembled all the congregation on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees according to their families according to their fathers' houses; according to the number of names, a head count of every male from twenty years old and upward."

Some Christians say , Jesus is from the house of David through Marry ; which cant be possible because the Messiah must be from the house of David through Solomon ( Samuel 2 7:14; Chronicles 1 , 17:11-14 ). Luke describes Marry's lineage through Nathan , not Solomon : " the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David" . Luke 3:31

I want to know your version of story and how can you believe that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah!
#2
Shalom, Benjamin, and welcome to the Jews for Jesus Forums. God bless you!

In addition to the Forums in our web site, I encourage you to visit sections such as "About" and "Answers," in order to find out what we believe and why.

Concerning Jesus' genealogy, I refer you to an article within this web site entitled "The Genealogy of the Messiah," by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. Here is part of it:

"...From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only men's names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was necessary.

"In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David...

"...Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Y'shua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew's Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke's Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David's throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David's throne. On the other hand, Luke's Gospel gives the real line, showing that Y'shua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David's throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.

Kingship

"To understand the need for these two genealogies, it is important to understand the two requirements for kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. These were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.…

"One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David's throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

"The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria's throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; 11 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14 8-12).

"With the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus' right to the throne of David can be resolved.

Matthew's Genealogy

"In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun "her" in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, "A mother's family is not to be called a family." Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Y'shua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.

"First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah's coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew's main point.

"Matthew's genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The 'Jeconiah link' is significant in Matthew's genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30...

"...On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: 'The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.'

"While Matthew's genealogy showed why Y'shua could not be king if he really were Joseph's son, Luke's genealogy shows why Y'shua could be king. When he returns, he will be king.

"Two things may be noted by way of conclusion. First, many rabbinic objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument goes, 'Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through his father, he cannot be Messiah and King.' But the Messiah was supposed to be different. As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the 'seed of the woman,' although this went contrary to the biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin: 'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.' Whereas all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother. True, this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

"In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles. 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. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King. Could the Messiah be anyone less?"
#3
(06-18-2013, 04:59 AM)MAlan Wrote: Shalom, Benjamin, and welcome to the Jews for Jesus Forums. God bless you!
Thank You.
(06-18-2013, 04:59 AM)MAlan Wrote: "In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David...
If by seed of a woman, you are referring to Marry; As I have mentioned in my first post ; even if we accept that tribal lineage can go through the mother; Marry is not from a legitimate royal lineage. She is connected to David through Nathan, not Solomon. The Jewish Messiah will be the son of David through Solomon.


(06-18-2013, 04:59 AM)MAlan Wrote: "...Why do we need two genealogies, especially since Y'shua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common answer is: Matthew's Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke's Gospel gives the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph was the heir apparent to David's throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David's throne.
This is irrelevant, you can’t be from a certain tribe through adoption. Kohanim could not adopt a son and make them priests; Priests had to be Levites by blood line through their father. Even if David could claim the right to David’s throne ; He was still not considered someone from the tribe of Judah.

(06-18-2013, 04:59 AM)MAlan Wrote: On the other hand, Luke's Gospel gives the real line, showing that Y'shua himself was a descendant of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could claim the right to sit on David's throne through Joseph, the heir apparent. Actually the exact opposite is true.
As I have explained this above, Marry is not even from a legitimate Messianic lineage. She is not a descendant of Solomon.
#4
Hi Benjamin,

I just have one problem with your analysis...you set up a scenario in which you believe in the virgin birth. And then point out that it would make him not a descendent of David from Joseph's line...listen if Yeshua was born of a virgin that would make Yeshua the son of G-d! so your conditions for your question presuppose that Yeshua was the messiah...and makes the rest of your question irrelevant.

David
#5
Benjamin, you are right that Jesus cannot be from the tribe of Judah through his mother's line. His mother's line shows that she gave to Jesus a human body from the tribe of Judah/David. Jesus had to have received his membership in the tribe of Judah and in the royal line through Joseph's line. You say it doesn't come through adoption, but all you have to bolster that opinion is that tribal identity is normally through the actual father. This is a legal statement of the way things work, but it is not a legal statement that adoption doesn't count. Every individual of Israel had a human father that gave him his tribal identity, and I can understand that adoption would not annul that actual human fatherhood. However, since Jesus had no human father, there is no reason to confidently state that adoption means nothing for Jesus. God did not put into the Torah a declaration of that principle, in fact there is even a precedent of a foreigner in Ezekiel 47:22-23 becoming as a native-born Israelite when they take possession of land in Israel. You therefore have no basis for denying that God made His Son a member of the tribe of Judah through adoption.
#6
If adoption could mean anything for Jesus' Messianic eligibility, it would only be able to work to give Jesus the lineage of the adopter, Joseph. So if, without any precedent or source, we accept the idea that an adopted child has the exact same lineage as the father who adopts him, then Jesus is directly related to Jeconiah, a king who was cursed to the tune of none of his descendants being able to sit on David's throne (Jeremiah 22:30), and so, according to the first gospel, Jesus cannot possibly be the Messiah.

Ezekiel 47:22-23 does not speak of converts becoming part of any tribes via adoption, but of converts receiving land among the tribes where they happen to live:

"You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the converts residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe a convert resides, there you are to give them their inheritance, declares the Sovereign L-RD."

They are considered native-born regarding land, not regarding tribal affiliation.
#7
(06-17-2013, 01:36 PM)Benjamin_Mizrahi Wrote: Hello everyone.

As an orthodox Jew ,


Hello,

How much of the below do you keep?
Leviticus 23
23 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.

25 Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

26 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

28 And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God.

29 For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.

30 And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.

31 Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.
#8
Hi, MJ. I see you're still very much involved in your favorite hobby, namely asking Jews why we don't bring sacrifices today. Keep in mind that even though the Torah says the laws are applicable forever (Deut 29 and 30, for example), this does not mean that every single one can be performed at every single moment from Sinai until now. For example, the laws regarding the Sabbath do not apply on Tuesdays. The laws applicable during Pesach have no bearing on my behavior and prayers on Chanuka. Yet these laws are not negated, nor is everything thrown out because it is no longer the first of the month. So, too, when we do not have a Temple, only those laws which apply to the Temple services are temporarily on hold, but the rest is still relevant.

This is exactly what Hosea was speaking about when he said that for many days the Children of Israel would be without a sacrifice or a king, but in the End of Days we will have both again (3:4-5). King Solomon spoke of a time when the Jews would be exiled from the Land and would not have a Temple. Does he say that religion is on hold? Does he say the only solution is to believe in the Messiah? No. He says that if the Jews repent and pray to G-D, that He will hear their prayer, maintain their cause, and forgive their sins (I Kings 8:46-50).

So, to answer your questions, Jews blow a blowing on the first of the seventh month, afflict our souls on the tenth, and refrain from work on both. Sacrifices? Not yet. But soon, with the Third Temple (Ezekiel 43, 44, 45).
#9
(08-13-2013, 09:41 AM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(06-17-2013, 01:36 PM)Benjamin_Mizrahi Wrote: Hello everyone.

As an orthodox Jew ,


Hello,

How much of the below do you keep?
Leviticus 23
23 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.

25 Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

26 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

28 And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God.

29 For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.

30 And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.

31 Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

32 It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

Here we go again...

Hey MJ, why don't you ask this question another 300 times to see if our answers changed? (Go ahead, call me a liar because I said 300 times when really, I shouldn't be sarcastic)

I don't even understand why Benyosef is still humoring you with replies which clearly explain why you're in the wrong...
#10
(07-14-2013, 08:56 PM)David S Wrote: Hi Benjamin,

I just have one problem with your analysis...you set up a scenario in which you believe in the virgin birth. And then point out that it would make him not a descendent of David from Joseph's line...listen if Yeshua was born of a virgin that would make Yeshua the son of G-d! so your conditions for your question presuppose that Yeshua was the messiah...and makes the rest of your question irrelevant.

David

This should settle the matter.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)