Is Jesus from the line of David?

Question

I have been reading the New Testament in more depth for the last 3 years and am seeing a lot of discrepancies in the texts. I am feeling a bit deceived that all these years I have been told lies. Hoping my questions will get thoughtful and truthful answers from believers who can help me overcome these doubts I have been having about Christianity. Hope this forum can help restore my faith.

Verse
Matthew 1:16

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Issues I see
• Since Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph is Jesus from the line of David?
• God was clear with Abraham about Isaac that a mighty nation will emerge from him.
• God was clear that David’s throne through Solomon will rule Israel for ever.
• The biological father decides which tribe the son belongs to.
• Technically this would be genealogy of Joseph not Jesus?

What Christian Pastors Teach
• Jesus was adopted by Joseph.
• Joseph was the earthly father of Jesus

Answer 1

You appear to be well researched regarding this issue. And there is a plethora of content online expounding every angle, every viewpoint. I doubt you’ll come across something ‘new’ on this forum - more likely a rehash of what you’ve already encountered - and put aside?

Nevertheless- Let’s highlight some points for consideration. You say “The biological father decides which tribe the son belongs to.”. This isn’t so in Jewish tradition. Although it’s difficult to show why the Rabbis use the maternal line, nevertheless they do. So Miriam’s genealogy is the determining factor in tribal affiliation.

You need to remember that the eligibility of Jesus for being entitled to the throne is a question for the Jews to settle. Not ‘us westerners’. Let’s look at some criteria they expect. Remember that due to the historical split, there are two distinct branches for this nation. Judah, (and Benjamin), and Israel (Northern 10 tribes).

The requirements for sitting on the throne for Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David's throne unless he was a member of the house of David. Now the ‘key point’ here is house of David. Not bloodline.

This is crucial - because there was a curse put onto Davids bloodline. From Jeconiah. (Jeremiah 22 24-30). So Jesus couldn’t be a ‘blood’ descendant of David! That’s why Jesus couldn’t have a ‘blood’ connection to Joseph. But nevertheless had a connection to David through Joseph, as Joseph was ‘legally’ [in Jewish/Mosaic law] Jesus’s father.

So Jesus had a ‘legally accepted’ connection to the house of David through both Joseph, and Mary - and also was not ‘under’ the curse God pronounced on Jeconiah.

Now for the Northern house of Israel - to be King here, came by prophetic sanction or divine appointment. So ‘technically’ Jesus had to be eligible under two sets of requirements.

So, why or how could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. And, He alone received divine appointment to that throne: (“The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.")

These points are for consideration. Both you and I are aware the online world abounds with experts who refute/support various interpretations regarding this issue. But here is the ‘bottom line’. The Jewish community is saturated with experts in the Old Testament. Rabbinic scholars. Absolute masters in Mosaic and Prophetical legalism. They are the ones that need to be, ( and arguably are.) satisfied with the eligibility of Jesus to the throne of David. Because the Bible is a Jewish book.

(Reference: The Genealogy of the Messiah" by Dr Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum)

Answer 2

Direct Evidence
There are two explicit witnesses which state Jesus was of the line of David:

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham
(Matthew 1:1 ESV)

Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli...the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David... (Luke 3:23, 31)

Matthew, who gives the birth account from Joseph's perspective, begins by stating Jesus was the Christ and son of David and Abraham. (Note: Christ is the Greek title given to the Messiah who was to be a Davidic ruler. The title alone is sufficient evidence of ancestry.) Luke, who gives the account from Mary's perspective, traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam through David and Abraham. Both understood Jesus to be a son of David.

Additionally, Luke points to another consideration: Mary's lineage could also connect with David's (cf. Romans 1:3). In that case, Jesus would be a descendant of David biologically through Mary and by adoption through Joseph.¹

John, like Mark, does not give a specific genealogy, but he does give two witnesses which confirm the Jewish people considered Jesus to be Joseph's son:

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” (1:45)

They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’ ?” (6:42)

John also includes compelling evidence Jesus' genealogy to David was not disputed:

³⁰ Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; ³¹ but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20)

John provided other evidence Jesus was the Christ because not only was Jesus' ancestry was not in question, ancestry by itself was not the deciding factor.

Virgin Birth & Maternal Priority
It appears the OP rejects what Scripture states and what the Jewish people of the period accepted on the basis of the virgin birth.²Therefore, since Joseph was not the biological father, the claim to be a descendent of David is invalid. In addition to those Scriptures which state otherwise, there are several reasons why line of reasoning can be rejected.

The virgin birth is a unique event. As such the normal rules governing ancestry cannot be assumed to apply. Rather, just as Moses went to the LORD with a situation involving the daughters of Zelophehad, it will be the LORD's records which will decide the question:

⁵ And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her. ⁶ The LORD records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there.” (Psalm 87)

This Old Testament passage shows the LORD not only maintains the register of births; He determines heritage.

Moreover, if this is the objection, it is unreasonable to deny the ancestry Scripture states on the basis of a miraculous conception, which was necessary to fulfill Scripture.

Additionally, the chosen people are biologically differentiated from those not chosen solely on the basis of a woman. The DNA which separates Abraham's descendants is from the mother. It is Sarah's DNA which separates Isaac from Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. This shows paternal relationship is not the determining factor. DNA testing, which is used to prove paternity, points to another consideration. If God can bring a virgin birth, He can do so with DNA identical to any of David's sons, or even David himself (cf. Psalm 139:13; Isaiah 44:2, 24, 49:5; Jeremiah 1:5)

The Law also provides for a man's name to be continued even if he does not father a child:

⁵ “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. ⁶ And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (Deuteronomy 25)

The Law considers a child who has no biological connection to the deceased husband, to be his son. As with Sarah, what determines ancestry is the woman. In such cases, there is neither a biological connection nor a formal adoption by the husband. Nevertheless, solely on the basis of marriage, the son is considered a descendent of the husband.

If the Law decrees a son born through such a relationship to be the son of a man who had no biological part in the conception of the child, then a son born through a virgin could reasonably be considered in the same light.

---

<sub>1. The issue of ancestry cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of adoption. For example, Jacob claimed Manasseh and Ephraim as his own sons and through them Israel would be named ...and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.” (Genesis 48:16) and “By you Israel will pronounce blessings, saying, ‘God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh.’” (Genesis 48:20) Clearly Jacob believed the adopted sons were no different than those born to him.
2. The Greek translation of Isaiah reads, Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and you shall name him Emmanouel. As this was done 200 years before the birth of Christ, it reflects a pre-Christian understanding of the prophecy, which is also found in the Gospels.</sub>

Answer 3

These are the Biblical facts:

1. Jesus is regularly called the "Son of David" in places such as Matt 1:1, 9:27, 15:22, 20:30, 31, 21:15, Mark 10:47, 48, 12:35, Luke 18:38, 39, etc.
2. Jesus' earthly father, Joseph, is also called, the "Son of David" by the angel in Matt 1:20.
3. While Jesus was clearly conceived by the Holy Spirit as per Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:18, 19, (ie, and not by Joseph) this did not prevent Jesus being "regarded as the son of Joseph" as per Luke 3:23.
4. Matthew's genealogy is placed at the beginning of his gospel to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the fulfilment of the OT prophecies about Messiah, and specifically, being the "Son of David".
5. When Nathaniel was introduced to Jesus, he exclaimed (John 1:49), “Rabbi,” Nathanael answered, “You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Such a remark could only be true if Jesus was the Son of David and thus, heir to the Davidic throne, as Jesus was.
6. God promised there would always be a blood descendant of David on his throne, by an eternal “covenant of salt” (ie very solemn), 2 Chron 13:5, forever, 2 Sam 7:13, 15, 16, Eze 37:26, (2 Sam 23:5). In the NT, Jesus is described specifically as fulfilling these promises. Acts 13:32-37, Heb 1:8. Note especially, what the angel said to Mary before Jesus’ birth in Luke 1:32, 33 –

He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!”

7. Finally, the triumphal entry to Jerusalem recorded in Matt 21:1-11 could only be possible if Jesus was indeed the Son of David and heir to the Davidic throne. The triumphal entry ceremony was the usual practice of ancient kings which Jesus was enacting.

Answer 4

It is a virtual mathematical certainty that Jesus was a biological descendent of David. Let's consider the genealogist's dilemma.

The Math

• Go back one generation--your parents--you have 2^1 (2 to the first power) of them
• Go back 10 generations--your 8th great-grandparents--you have 2^10 of them
• Go back 20 generations--your 18th great-grandparents--you have 2^20 of them (just over a million)

David lived about a millennium before Jesus. If we allow for 25 years to a generation (not unreasonable for the time period), that's 40 generations. 40 generations back are your 38th great-grandparents and you have 2^40 of them. The trouble is, 2^40 is more than 1 trillion--and it's more than the total number of people who have ever lived on the earth.

--

1 trillion ancestors--how does that work?? It turns out if you go back far enough on your family tree you'll see the same names showing up on different branches. Your parents may not be closely related, but they are related--they have common ancestors. Those trillion names on the 40th generation branches of the family tree will be repeats of the same names over and over and over and over again.

This is why genealogists believe, for example, that everyone of western European descent is a descendant of Charlemagne. Not only did he have a lot of kids, but he lived almost 1300 years ago--the number of his descendants has multiplied exponentially, such that there came a point where even the handful of people who weren't his descendants would have an awful hard time finding someone to marry (in Europe) who wasn't a descendant of Charlemagne! I am a descendant of Charlemagne (too bad I didn't inherit his fortune though).

People who share a common regional ancestry are all related within 40 generations--and in a community like the Israelites, who tended to intermarry (see Deut. 7:3-4), it would take a lot less than 40 generations.

So yes, Jesus was a biological descendant of David. And so was every other Jew in Galilee.

--

Aside to guard against counter-arguments

It appears the math I've cited has caused some confusion--I'll briefly elaborate. I use 2^40 to make a point, but:

• The argument will work just fine if we use 2^39 instead (just over 500 billion), since Jesus had only 1 mortal parent.
• The argument will still work even if we use the condensed genealogy from Matthew, listing only 27 generations from David to Jesus: 2^27 is ~134.2 million. (I'm not suggesting Matthew's genealogy doesn't skip generations, just pointing out that using Matthew's genealogy as a counter-argument won't work)
• The argument works yet again if we combine both objections above, using 27 generations from Matthew and subtracting 1 from the exponent because Jesus had only 1 mortal parent: 2^26 is ~67.1 million, more than the total population of Jews in the Roman Empire in Jesus' time.
• Some have suggested a 25-year average generation is too high--that we should use a smaller number because of shorter lifespans. That's fine, it would only strengthen my argument by increasing the exponent.

--

Jesus' more precise claims

So what was significant about Jesus' claims of David descent? At least 2 things:

1. He could actually trace His genealogy back to David. For comparison, everybody on earth is descended from royalty somewhere, but most can't trace their lineage back that far.

2. He had legal, patrilineal claim as an heir of David. As a patrilineal descendant of David, Joseph had a plausible claim on the throne (though admittedly, not entirely without difficulty). As Joseph's adopted son, Jesus had a plausible claim as well (see discussion here). This is why, for example, several of Joseph's descendants were investigated by Emperor Domitian in case they posed a threat of claiming right to rule and thereby threatening Rome's rule over the Jews (see Eusebius, HE 3.19 & 3.20).

As noted in the comments, this means Jesus' brothers could also have claimed to be the Messiah...but the records suggest none of them ever did. Being a descendant of David did not automatically make one the Messiah--it was a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

--

Aside on adoption

Was Joseph Jesus' adopted father? Yes

From his own community we get the following:

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son? (Luke 4:22)

And from Mary herself, after she & Joseph found Jesus (at age 12) in the temple:

thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (Luke 2:48)

What Matthew & Luke make clear is that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.

--

The power of hostile witness

As you've noted, how do we actually know the claim of traceable Davidic descent is true? One of the criteria used to establish historical credibility is the testimony of hostile witnesses. If Jesus' enemies conceded something, that means it was pretty much incontrovertible.

The Gospels record multiple run-ins Jesus had with the religious leaders of His time, and they challenged Him on many points. His trial before the Sanhedrin is multiply attested in detail. And yet amidst their numerous challenges of Jesus' claims, person, and teachings, never do we find anyone challenging His well-known claim to be a descendant of David.

Some have suggested Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah--He does in Matthew 27:64:

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Matthew 27:63-64)

• Note that "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of "Messiah"
• The Greek idiom behind "thou hast said" here has often been garbled in translation. The Greek is Σὺ εἶπας. As explained by Talmage:

This expression "Thou has said" was equivalent to -- I am what thou hast said. (Jesus the Christ pp. 625-626)

--

The Synoptic Problem and the Genealogies

You noted in a comment that Matthew was not the first Gospel written. I respectfully hold a different view. My study of the Synoptic Problem has led me to the conclusion that both Mark and Luke were dependent upon Matthew. For a much more extended argument (if that's of interest), see my work on Matthean Priority here and the reliability of the Gospels here. (Matthean Priority = Matthew was first)

I recognize that most scholars believe in Markan Priority; I also recognize why they do so. For a brief discussion, see this post under the heading It’s the majority view among New Testament scholars: this is unremarkable given the history of the Synoptic Problem; for a more extensive discussion, see my videos here and here.

But this also creates a conundrum. If Luke used Matthew as a source--and I firmly conclude he did--why are the genealogies different?

As demonstrated on this site and many others, a definite answer on the differing genealogies is not universally acknowledged. But if Luke knew Matthew's Gospel and used a different genealogy anyway, that means one of two things:

• Luke thought Matthew was wrong (unlikely since he quoted hundreds of verses from Matthew)
• Luke had access to a different family line

I don't claim to know the answer for certain, but to me the most parsimonious solution is that one evangelist recorded Joseph's genealogy and one recorded Mary's.

--

Conclusion

That Jesus was a descendant of David we can establish on the math alone. That His genealogy could be traced to David is supported by hostile witness, and that His family could credibly claim patrilineal descent from David is attested by the fact that Emperor Domitian--politically the most powerful man in the world at his time--went to the trouble to track the poor family down.

---

Addendum--a personal note

(I'll move this to chat if the moderators don't approve of my having included this)

Hi Yeddu Prasad, welcome to the site, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. We all experience faith and doubt. To paraphrase Shayne Bowen: which one wins? The one that we feed.

If you are interested, there are two links I'll share.

1. A sermon I love by Dieter Uchtdorf: Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith

2. My own epistemological journey, which has led me (much to the chagrin of some on this site) not to be bothered by potential discrepancies in the Bible, is described here.

Answer 5

I expect others have given some of the texts pertaining to the genealogical record, but the Matthew 1 versus Luke 3 "discrepancy" is rarely properly grasped, much less explained. As this is critical to properly understanding the subject, this is where I will focus.

As anyone who has studied this question knows, no genealogy seems to be provided for Mary, and the two genealogies for "Joseph" diverge. Instead of assuming that one is correct and one is incorrect, a proper Biblical scholar must assume that they are both correct when properly interpreted according to the Bible's own explanations.

Let's go back to Genesis.

According to God, when a man and a woman marry, they are "one flesh":

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:28)

Therefore, the first couple, having "one flesh", are ascribed one name: that of the man/husband.

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Genesis 5:1-2)

It should not surprise us, then, that where the woman's name is not specified separately, the name of her husband stands in place of her own in a genealogical record--in much the same manner as surnames (with mister and missus) are often used today. When "Adam had a son," it is obvious to the reader that his wife was involved, too.

So it is with "Joseph." The name "Joseph" includes the man and his wife, by the Biblical standard. It follows, then, that one of those two genealogies given for Joseph is actually that of his wife, Mary. BOTH genealogies show descendence from David. Therefore, Mary, a descendant of David and mother of Jesus, gives to Jesus his Davidic genetic heritage.