Jesus- potential Messiah who didn't make it?

[Scott_Plaid]

@FriarTed

By what authority must Messiah be a patrilinear descendant of David? What Biblical passage mandates that Messiah can not be descended from David via his mother, if she is the only human parent?

First, you take a dash of He-must-be-Jewish

“…you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)

Then, you add too splashes of What-Diogenes-already-said-about-Jews-counting-desent-from-the-father’s-line,

“And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever…” (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)

add a just a drop of Triple Sec for flavor, and bam! You’ve got it. The perfect Long Island Iced Tea.

Or was that a list of requirements for a savior? :smack: I always get the two mixed up when I am trying to make drinks for friends.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@FriarTed

By what authority must Messiah be a patrilinear descendant of David?

By authoroty of Jewish laws of succession.

What Biblical passage mandates that Messiah can not be descended from David via his mother, if she is the only human parent?

There is no such Biblical passage. I’m wouldn’t be surprised if there were Talmudic passages, however.

Any passage that says the Messiah will be heir to the throne of David is an ipso facto declaration that he will be a patriliner descendant because only male-line descendants can inherit the the throne.
Here is some commentary from [url=http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.htmlJews for Judaism:

According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;

I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

[FriarTed]

http://messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/jeconiah.htm

Jeconiah’s curse reversed by God through His blessing on Zerubbabel.

[Rucksinator]

@FriarTed

messianicart.com - This website is for sale! - messianicart Resources and Information.

Jeconiah’s curse reversed by God through His blessing on Zerubbabel.

Instead of pointing out the errors on that link, I’ve got to ask about this website: JEHOIACHIN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

which states the following:

Jehoiachin’s sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii. 30; Pesiḳ., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b); he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140]).

Is this a Jewish publication?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@FriarTed

messianicart.com - This website is for sale! - messianicart Resources and Information.

Jeconiah’s curse reversed by God through His blessing on Zerubbabel.

This is a Messianic Judaism site (i.e., a Christian site, not a Jewish one) and it gets at least some of it’s facts wrong. Putting aside the stuff about Jeconiah’s curse. this statement:

Yeshua is descended from David legally through Yosef, and physically from David, through Miryam,

Is erroneous in all its particulars. Adoption by Joseph does not constitute a legald escendancy from David. The Gospels give no bloodline at all for Miryam/Mary, and it would be legally irrelevant anyway.

[Loopydude]

I guess it’s sort of irrelevant, but it’s interesting to me that patrilineage is the essential condition for messianic ascendancy, yet, without conversion (a dubious practice in some circles) matrilineage is essential to be a Jew at all!

[Captain_Amazing]

Originally, Judaism was patrilineal. It didn’t become matrilineal until later, and some echoes of the earlier belief still exist (A Levite/Kohen has to have a father who’s a Levite/Kohen, and as you’ve pointed out, the future king has to be a descendant of David in the male line).

[Loopydude]

Well, there’s plenty of Biblical precedent for patrilineage; but by the time of Jesus, during the era of the 2nd Temple (the pre-Talmudic phase, I guess), I thought the law on matrilineage was in full force, citing Deuteronomy (can’t remember what passage, something about letting your sons turn away to other gods via the daughters of those gods) as the basis for the law. I guess this law was promulgated to limit intermarriage and dissolution of the race. Maybe I’ve got the dating mixed up, and it was only “official” once the Talmud was fully assembled. It’s certainly a bone of contention among Reform circles these days, so I hear.

[cmkeller]

Captain Amazing:

Originally, Judaism was patrilineal. It didn’t become matrilineal until later

Cite?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

My understanding was that laws of inheritence (including, obviously, royal lines of succession) go through the father but the basic status of “Jewishness” is based on having a Jewish mother simply because historically, it was easier to know for sure who one’s mother was than one’s father. Before genetic testing, there was always a theoretical chance that one’s father wasn’t really one’s father but a very low chance that the woman who gave birth was not the mother. So if your mom was Jewish, you knew for sure that you were Jewish. If only your father was Jewish, then there was a theoretical chance that you were not Jewish…or something like that. It’s not really that children of a Jewish father couldn’t be Jewish but that (in ancient times, at least) it couldn’t be accepted as proof.

[Captain_Amazing]

@cmkeller

Cite?

Check out Dr. Sheye Cohen’s work, most recently his “The Beginnings of Jewishness” where he looks at how Jewishness was defined in the Roman period both by Jews and non-Jews, as well as the controversies during that period over what determined Jewish identity.

[Loopydude]

I think these are the passages I was rying to remember, informing the requirement of matrilineage, from Deut 7

2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

Of course, as the passage long predates the religious law (I think, anyway), it’s not unlikely the explanation Diogenes gives is the practical reason, while the scripural reference puts the “official stamp” on the practice, so to speak.

[flight]

The point was made that the only way to continue a lineage is biologically through the father. This brings up and odd point only tangentially related to the current discussion. Doesn’t Moasiaic law require a brother to marry the widow of his brother who never had in children in order to beget a child on her and the continue his brother’s line. Is the child of this union considered the descendent of his biological father or the dead brother?