The Right to the Throne, or to the "Tomb of the Unknown"?

 

 

I.            Introduction

 

Christian apologists and missionaries claim that Jesus has a valid claim and, therefore, the legal right to sit on the throne of King David as King/Messiah.  This claim is based on the teachings of the New Testament, and on misinterpretations and misapplications of the teachings of the Hebrew Bible (the "Old Testament" in Christian Bibles, though quite different from the Hebrew Bible in reality).

 

In this essay, the validity of this Christian apologetic and missionary claim is tested by contrasting various arguments being used to support it against the true teachings of the Hebrew Bible concerning the qualifications of the rightful next occupant of the throne of King David, the  (mashi'ah), the promised Jewish Messiah.

 

II.            Eligibility to the Throne of King David

 

The Torah describes the status of various officers of the Hebrew commonwealth, and the following passage defines the selection process, qualifications, and duties of the king:

 

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 – (14) When you come to the land the L-rd, your G-d, is giving you, and you possess it and live therein, and you say, "I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me," (15) you shall set a king over you, one whom the L-rd, your G-d, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother. (16) Only, he may not acquire many horses for himself, so that he will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, for the L-rd said to you, "You shall not return that way any more." (17) And he shall not take many wives for himself, and his heart must not turn away, and he shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself. (18) And it will be, when he sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah on a scroll from [that Torah which is] before the Levitical priests. (19) And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the L-rd, his G-d, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to perform them, (20) so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers, and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, in order that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel.

 

Consequently, the specifications for a legitimate king of Israel are:

 

Y      He must be a native Israelite (v. 15)

Y      He must be selected by G-d [through a true prophet of the generation] (v. 15)

Y      He must not have a standing cavalry to keep his people in subjection (v. 16)

Y      He must not establish a harem (v. 17)

Y      He must govern the monarchy according to Torah and to study it himself and obey its precepts (vs. 18-20)

 

The first constitutional monarchy of Israel was created when Saul, the son of Kish, from the Tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam 9:1-10:27), was anointed as king by the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam 10:1).  Saul reigned for a period of approximately two years before he was removed for abrogating his responsibilities by not obeying the command to eradicate Amalek (1 Sam 15).  Samuel was instructed to find David, the son of Jesse, from the Tribe of Judah, and anoint him as King of Israel while Saul was still the reigning monarch.  Samuel anointed David (1 Sam 16:13), who reigned in Hebron for 7-1/2 years and then moved to Jerusalem, where he continued as King of Israel for 33 years.

 

Because King David was a righteous king, he received the following promise by G-d via the Prophet Nathan:

 

2 Samuel 7:12-16 – (12) When your days are fulfilled, and you shall lie with your forefathers, then I will raise up your seed that shall issue from your body after you, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with afflictions of human beings. (15) And My mercy shall not depart from him; in the manner in which I withdrew it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. (16) And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you; your throne shall be established forever.

 

This promise includes the following elements:

 

Y      An everlasting dynasty, the Davidic dynasty, is established with King David.

Y      King David's heir to the throne, through whom this dynasty shall pass, will be one of his natural (biological) sons.

Y      The son who inherits the throne from King David is the one who will build the Temple in Jerusalem.

Y      The Davidic dynasty will propagate through King David's seed ( [zera]), i.e., via his direct descendants.

Y      Every future king who sits upon the throne of King David will be a mortal man.

Y      Every future king who sits upon the throne of King David will have a special "father-son" relationship with G-d, so that when he sins, he will be duly punished.

Y      Even when future kings (in King David's seat) commit iniquity, G-d will keep the Davidic dynasty intact, and not terminate it as He did with Saul's kingship.

 

The establishment of this everlasting Davidic dynasty is significant, since from it is expected to emerge the  (mashi'ah), as was already alluded to in Jacob's blessing to Judah:

 

Genesis 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff, until Shiloh come, and to him shall gather the nations.

 

Elements from the promise to King David combine to establish the nominal Requirement that a candidate with a claim to the Davidic throne must satisfy:

 

Y      Requirement:  A claimant to the throne of King David must be a mortal human male, who is a direct descendant of King David, and whose lineage (a blood-right) must pass through King Solomon.

 

Each of the Kings of Judah who occupied the throne of King David after the schism that followed King Solomon's reign, satisfied this Requirement.  Of course, the Hebrew Bible teaches that, as a king, the  (mashi'ah) will have to satisfy this Requirement as well, as is evident from prophetic statements such as the following:

 

Jeremiah 23:5 - Behold, days are coming, says the L-rd, when I will set up of David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and he shall perform judgment and righteousness in the land.

 

Psalms 132:11 - The L-rd has sworn to David in truth, from which He will never turn back, "Of the fruit of your body I shall seat upon your throne".

 

These passage, among others, unambiguously reflects the Requirement as stated.  This Requirement is a necessary condition[1] without the satisfaction of which a claimant cannot sit on King David's throne.  Moreover, even if a claimant meets this Requirement, it does not automatically guarantee that he will be the reigning king.  This is evident from the fact that, while there were normally a number of individuals in the Kingdom of Judah who were from the royal seed and who met this Requirement, only one of them sat on the throne as King of Judah.

 

III.            What Does the New Testament Say?

 

According to Christian theology, Jesus was (and is) the Messiah.  Therefore, it is important to be familiar with the "evidence" offered by the authors of the New Testament in support of this doctrine:

 

U       The authors of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to Jesus as the son of David:

 

Matthew 1:1(KJV) – The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. [See also Mt 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30,31, 21:9,15, 22:42; Mk 10:47,48; Lk 18:38,39]

 

U       The author of the Gospel of John and Paul, the author of Romans and 2^nd Timothy, refer to Jesus as the being of the seed of David:

 

Romans 1:3(KJV) - Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; [See also Jo 7:42; 2 Ti 2:8]

 

Thus, according to the New Testament, Jesus appears to have met a stipulation in the Hebrew Bible, that the Messiah had to be a direct descendant of King David.

 

IV.            Common Missionary Rationalizations of the Claim and Their Refutation

 

Armed with the information from the New Testament, which appears to support the notion that Jesus met some portions of the Requirement on claimants to the throne of King David, Christian apologists and missionaries have fashioned many scenarios to rationalize this claim.  The question is: Do these schemes survive under scrutiny?

 

Many Christian apologetic and missionary scenarios use the two genealogies recorded in the New Testament.  These two genealogies and the genealogy in 1^st Chronicles 3 are shown in Table IV-1.  For brevity and simplicity, only generations from King David and going forward are shown, and the names in the genealogy from the Hebrew Bible are the anglicized rather than phonetic Hebrew renditions.

 

Table IV-1 – Comparing Genealogies: Hebrew Bible vs. New Testament

 

* Bold names indicate names of special interest.  Underlined names indicate intermediate

  points of convergence for the two New Testament genealogies.

 

1. Rationalization:  The claim is valid according to the genealogy in Matthew

 

U      Christian apologists and missionaries point to the genealogy with which the New Testament opens, in the first chapter in the Gospel of Matthew, where the lineage of Jesus leads to King David through King Solomon.

 

Y      Jewish counter-arguments

 

1.      Concerning the Credibility of the Matthew genealogy

 

Ø      The Matthew genealogy, going forward from King David to Zerubbabel, does not match the corresponding genealogy recorded in 1^st Chronicles, Chapter 3, of the Hebrew Bible.  It appears that, in order to create a genealogy that would suit his purpose, the author of the Gospel of Matthew had to do the following:

 

¤      Leave out the generations that correspond to Kings Ahazia, Joash, Amaziah, and Eliakim/Jehoiakim.

 

¤      Leave out the generation that corresponds to Pedaiah, the son of Shealtiel.

 

¤      Create new names for the generations going forward from Zerubbabel, none of which match the names that appear for the corresponding generations in the 1^st Chronicles 3 genealogy.

 

¤      Leave out the generations that correspond to Neariah, the son of Shemaiah, and Elioenai, the son of Neariah.

 

So, given the choice of sources for this genealogy – the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament or 1^st Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible – which source would you accept as the one to trust for its accuracy?

 

U      A common rebuttal by Christian apologists and missionaries is that the author of the Gospel of Matthew used sources no longer available today, since these records were lost when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 C.E.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this rebuttal is that, aside from the fact that Jewish genealogical records were not kept in the Temple[2], the Hebrew Bible is the "proof text" here.  The genealogies recorded in 1^st Chronicles were compiled during the fifth century B.C.E. by Ezra and Nehemiah.  Both leaders undoubtedly had access to accurate data on the generations.

 

2.      Concerning Specific "Show Stoppers" within the Matthew Genealogy

 

Ø      The Matthew genealogy shows the lineage of Jesus going through King Jeconiah.  King Jehoiachin of Judah [ (y^ehoyachin), who is also known by the names Jeconiah,  (y^echan'yah) and Coniah,  (con'yahu)], was an evil king (2 Chron 36:9).  Chapter 22 in the Book of Jeremiah enumerates a series of judgments upon several evil kings of Judah.  The last passage in that chapter, Jeremiah 22:24-30 is a proclamation concerning Coniah, commonly known as the Curse on Jeconiah.  The last verse in this passage appears to terminate the royal branch that led from King David to Jeconiah:

 

Jeremiah 22:30 – Thus says the L-rd: "Inscribe this man [Coniah] childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah."

 

In other words, even though Jeconiah had fathered children prior to this curse, he is considered as if he were childless, since none of his descendants would be eligible to sit on the throne of King David.  The entire royal branch that emerged from Jeconiah, including him, was a cursed branch.  Therefore, even if the Matthew genealogy were accepted as valid, neither Joseph nor any of his sons were eligible candidates to sit on the throne of King David, since the lineage of Joseph, the "father" of Jesus, leads to Jeconiah,.

 

U      A common Christian apologetic and missionary rebuttal is that, according to the Talmud,  (a) Jeconiah repented and was forgiven, and (b) notwithstanding (a), exile atones for sin, and therefore the curse was lifted.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this rebuttal is that, if this were the case, then it proves that blood is not required for the remission of sins, which is contrary to Christian doctrine.  This would mean that the death of Jesus on the cross did not have a purpose.  Moreover, why would Christian apologists and missionaries quote the Talmud, which they do not accept as an authoritative source?  The Talmudic Sages never professed any support for Christian theology.  Quite to the contrary, they rejected it.  Yet, the Talmud Is often cited when passages, which are always taken out of context, appear to support their theology, even though they reject the authority of the Talmud and of the Sages.  They cannot have it both ways!

 

Ø      In the Matthew genealogy, Joseph is listed as the father of Jesus.  All genealogies listed in the Hebrew Bible show the natural father-to-son(s) progressions of the generations, i.e., from the biological father to his biological son(s).  Applying this standard to the Matthew genealogy, and temporarily setting aside the issue of the Curse on Jeconiah, it would mean that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, and this would contradict Christian doctrine, according to which Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit by his mother Mary.

 

U      A common Christian apologetic and missionary rebuttal is that Joseph, husband of Mary, was not the biological father of Jesus.  Rather, Joseph was the adoptive father of the divine Jesus, whose real father was the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, by virtue of his being adopted by Joseph, a descendant of King David, Jesus inherited a legitimate claim to the throne of King David.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this rebuttal is that the argument given is defeated on at least the following two grounds.  First, although adoption of children is allowed according to Judaism, the only rights of inheritance that accrue to an adopted child are those pertaining to tangible assets, such as property.  On the other hand, blood-rights, of which tribal pedigree and Levitical priesthood are two examples, can only be transmitted from the biological father to his natural sons, inclusive of any special blessings and curses that are in force.  If adoption into the royal line were possible, one would have to wonder why Athaliah took such drastic measures following the death of her sons at the hands of Jehu and his men:

 

2 Kings 11:1 – And Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, saw that her son was dead, and she rose and destroyed all those of royal descent.

 

Had adoption been a viable solution to the problem of an heir, Athaliah would have been able to pursue that route (see 2 Kgs 9:27, 10:13-14).

 

Second, if Jesus were able to inherit royal lineage through adoption, along with this blood-right also came the Curse of Jeconiah, which had become part of the characteristics of that particular royal branch.

 

U      A common Christian apologetic and missionary response to this problem of adoption is that Jesus gets his royal lineage through his mother Mary, whose genealogy, which appears in the Gospel of Luke, leads to King David.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this response is found below, in the discussion of Luke's genealogy.

 

2. Rationalization:  The claim is valid according to the genealogy in Luke

 

U      Christian apologists and missionaries point to the genealogy listed for Jesus in the third chapter in the Gospel of Luke as validating his claim to the throne of King David

 

Y      Jewish counter-arguments

 

1.      Concerning the Credibility of the Luke genealogy

 

Ø      The Luke genealogy, going forward from King David to Zerubbabel, does not match the corresponding genealogy recorded in 1^st Chronicles, Chapter 3, of the Hebrew Bible.  It appears that, in order to create a genealogy that would suit his purpose, the author of the Gospel of Luke had to do the following:

 

¤      Come up with a set of new names except for Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.

 

¤      Decrease the average generational span to ~25 years relative to the average generational span of ~38 years in the Matthew genealogy, a reduction of ~13 years or ~34%, which is significant.

 

So, given the choice of sources for this genealogy – the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament or 1^st Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible – which source would you accept as the one to trust for its accuracy?

 

U      A common Christian apologist's and missionary's rebuttal is that the author of the Gospel of Luke used sources no longer available today, since these records were lost when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 C.E.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this rebuttal is the same as given in response to the claim about the sources of the Matthew genealogy.

 

Ø      Christians agree that the Matthew genealogy is that of Jesus through Joseph.  However, Christians do not agree on whose genealogy is listed in the Gospel of Luke.  Some say it is Mary's genealogy - even though her name does not appear anywhere in it - while others say that it is the genealogy of Jesus by Law, and the Matthew genealogy is his lineage by Nature.  This issue will be explained in more detail in the next section.  Suffice it to say here that, since Christians cannot agree on whose genealogy the author of the Gospel of Luke listed, a serious problem is created concerning its validity and usefulness in promoting the claim.

 

2.      Concerning Specific "Show Stoppers" within the Luke Genealogy

 

Ø      As stated above, some Christians say the Luke genealogy is Mary's lineage - even though her name does not appear anywhere in it - while others say that it is the genealogy of Jesus by Law, and the Matthew genealogy is his lineage by Nature.

 

U      One common Christian apologetic and missionary claim is that the Luke genealogy is that of Mary and, since it leads to King David, it accords Jesus the required lineage and validates his claim to the throne of King David.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this claim is that it suffers from two serious and insurmountable problems.  First, the Requirement states that the line to King David must pass through King Solomon.  As the Luke genealogy shows, the line leads to King David through Nathan, King Solomon's brother.  This violates the Requirement. 

 

Second, and more important, is the fact that the claim violates Torah, which is part of the Hebrew Bible, the Scriptures in force at the time Jesus was born.  According to the Torah, pedigree is determined exclusively by the biological (natural) father.  Female genealogies are irrelevant to bloodline and, in general, are not listed in the Hebrew Bible.  This is evident every time a census was taken among the Israelites.  In every census males were counted, each "… according to the house of his father …" (e.g., Num 1:18).

 

U      The other common Christian apologetic and missionary claim is that the Luke genealogy is the lineage of Jesus by Law, while that in Matthew is his genealogy by Nature and, therefore, they are in harmony, and his claim to the throne of King David is valid.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this claim is that it, too, suffers from serious and insurmountable problems.  First, as was previously noted, if the natural father of Jesus was the Holy Spirit, then Jesus cannot be the natural son of Joseph; and, since tribal lineage is a blood-right, the claim to King David's throne cannot be passed from Joseph to Jesus through adoption.  Moreover, the Holy Spirit cannot pass down to Jesus the required tribal lineage since the Holy Spirit has no tribal affiliation, nor is it a natural descendant of King David.  In other words, since the Holy Spirit itself does not fulfill the Requirement, how can it's "begotten son" fulfill it?

 

The alternative is also not an attractive option for Christian apologists and missionaries.  If Joseph was the natural father of Jesus, then not only does this make Jesus fully mortal, but the Curse of Jeconiah passed from Joseph to him along with the tribal lineage and any other blood-rights that may have accrued to him.

 

Ø      In the Hebrew Bible, genealogies are always listed according to the natural father-to-son(s) generational progression, of which 1^st Chronicles 3 is a good example.  Except for King David, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel, the Luke genealogy does not have any names in common with the genealogy in 1^st Chronicles 3 and, starting with King David as a common point, not even the remaining two shared names have corresponding generation numbers.

 

Even more astounding is the fact that the two genealogies recorded in the New Testament, the Luke and Matthew genealogies, share only two additional names in all the generations from King David to Jesus, namely, Joseph and Jesus.  Moreover, the generation numbers, once again, do not line up for these two genealogies in the New Testament.

 

U      A common Christian apologetic and missionary argument offered as an explanation for this rather complicated, perhaps even impossible, scheme in which the two New Testament genealogies converge at Zorobabel, Salathiel, and Joseph and end at Jesus, uses the notion of a Levirate Marriage taking place at various points along the way.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this rebuttal is based on the Biblical definition of a valid Levirate Marriage, which requires the brothers to be paternal brothers (having a common father)[3].  An examination of the generations in the Luke genealogy reveals that the last such possible marital union, which resulted in the birth of Joseph, was not a valid Levirate Marriage.  If Jacob married Heli’s childless widow, then it follows that, since Heli and Jacob did not share the same biological father (see Luke genealogy), Joseph was an illegitimate child, the product of a prohibited union between a man and a woman (Lev 18:16).  This disqualifies Joseph from being a legitimate heir of any blood-rights that would have otherwise accrued to him.  Therefore, this problem would also apply to Jesus.

 

U      Another Christian apologetic and missionary argument is a "variation on the theme" of the Levirate Marriage idea.  Here, a Levirate Marriage that takes place in the last phase of the Luke genealogy, of which Joseph was the product, is combined with the contention that the Zorobabel and Salathiel listed in the Matthew genealogy were different persons from the Zorobabel and Salathiel in the Luke genealogy.

 

Y      The Jewish challenge to this argument is twofold.  First, the notion of a Levirate Marriage of which the product was Joseph has already been demonstrated to be false.  Second, considering the rarity of the names Zerubbabel and Shealtiel in the Hebrew Bible, names which belong to only a single pair of individuals, it is rather unlikely that they represent persons in the Luke genealogy who are different from those bearing the same names in both the Matthew and 1^st Chronicles 3 genealogies.

 

3. The "icing on the cake": Paul's views on genealogies and their study

 

Paul's position on genealogies, as expressed in the New Testament, is both interesting and curious.  Perhaps recognizing the severity of the problems that plagued the two hopelessly irreconcilable genealogies, Paul writes:

 

1 Timothy 1:4(KJV) - Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

Titus 3:9(KJV) - But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

 

Paul, to whom many Christian missionaries (erroneously) refer as "Rabbi Shaul", teaches Christians that certain parts of the Bible – genealogies, which would include those of Jesus – are akin to fables and foolish questions and, thus, must not be given heed and should be avoided, since they raise questions and have no value.[4]  Yet, in spite of Paul's strong admonitions, Christian apologists and missionaries persist with their genealogical games.

 

V.            Summary

 

Does Jesus have the right to claim King David's throne?  Recognizing that the claims of Christian apologists and missionaries are contradictory to the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, and are even at odds with the New Testament, the answer to this question depends on whether one accepts that which the Hebrew Bible requires of a claimant to fulfill, the Requirement developed in Section II.

 

According to the Hebrew Bible, the Scripture in force at the time, Jesus did not have a valid claim to the throne of King David.  Yet, there are those who choose to ignore the Requirement derived from the Hebrew Bible and the problems that plague the two New Testament genealogies.  They prefer to accept anything told to them that will legitimize Jesus as a claimant to the throne of King David, and they will not allow themselves to be confused by the facts.