Interesting debate with an orthodox Jew

[greenbaggins]

I spent almost an hour on the phone this morning with an orthodox Jew. He had looked me up, apparently, after hearing my sermon on the virgin conception of Jesus. He wanted to explain why it was that he thought there was a contradiction in Matthew between the genealogy and the virgin birth (I still prefer "virgin conception" as being more accurate a term). He was NOT claiming that there was a contradiction between Matthew's and Luke's genealogy. Rather, he was claiming that a genealogy implied father to son. Therefore (according to him) Jesus is either Joseph's son, in which case he is not God, or he is not the son of David, and therefore cannot be the Davidic Messiah. I would be very interested to hear how anyone on the board would answer this challenge.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It is God who makes adoption a perfectly legitimate category, especially when the major issue in view is kingship. This is absolutely assured by Ps.2, which is an adoption/coronation hymn.

"I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion."
The Lord has said to me:
"You are my son,
Today I have begotten you."​

God adopts the anointed one as his legitimate heir, who should assume his father's throne (in earthly terms, this naturally followed death). God, of course, does not die ever. He keeps doing this act, generation after generation.

Meanwhile, the king's son (whomever he designated, most often his biological son) is ordained "son and heir," and is designated the true representative of his father in great matters. That this became the norm in Judah is evidenced by the rule of succession we find in the prophetic history, where we find repeated co-regencies (and a remarkably peaceful and orderly transition of power over most of the monarchy).

Bottom line, there's more than one way to become a son of David. As it so happens, as I read the two genealogies, regardless of how it is derived Jesus is the son of David--both by adoption and by genetics. I take the view that Matthew's genealogy presents the royal right of succession; and that Luke contains more exactly Jesus' biological pedigree (Mary's, but someone else is free to take the alternative view).

Joseph has the best claim (as least as good as any other man alive at the time) to be heir to the throne of Israel. In adopting his lawful wife's Son, he legitimizes him, and makes him his heir. It is stated frequently in the record of Kings/Chronicles who the heir's mother is. This takes on added significance in the case of the Virgin-born.

And, Jesus is born of the seed of David "according to the flesh," Rom.1:3. So, he is literally David's son, too.

 

[greenbaggins]

Thanks, Bruce. How would you answer the claim that since Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, and is from the tribe of Levi, that therefore Mary must have been from the tribe of Levi, and therefore not a descendant of David?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Since when did women of Israel have to marry within the tribe--except--when there was a case of land-inheritance (see Num.27, daughters of Zelophehad)? It is quite simple for Mary and Elizabeth to have a relatively close, maternal or paternal ancestor of David's heritage. The notion of "cousin" is quite fluid, even for us who have multiple #s and 'removeds' for clarifying these connections.

Elizabeth was considered a "daughter of Aaron," Lk.1:5; and this most likely by birth to a priest (her father; Israelite society was not matrilineal, regardless of the significance today of determining by the mother whether one is "Jewish" or not). But there is no reason necessarily to infer that Elizabeth's mother had to be a Levite, or her whole ancestry had to be Levitical or priestly purebred back to Aaron.

The stipulations for marriage of priests is in Lev.21:13-15, cf. Ezk.44:22: "Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before."

 

[Cymro]

Are not the two genealogies so given as to prove the legal descent of Christ from David and Abraham, as in Matthew; and then his natural descent through Mary who was first cousin to Joseph. Mary's line traces back to Adam to show to show that Christ was the promised seed of the woman in Genesis3. In Luke's account v23 , it states "Jesus ( as was supposed) the son of Joseph." The expression,"as was supposed,"has another meaning from the usual given. It means as written in the record, and shows he was legally recognised. I have read that it is, or maybe was a rule with the Jews, that it is not he that begets but he that brings up the child is recognised as the father. But of course it is the context of the claim in Luke that proves the point, which your Jewish correspondent would not admit. It clearly shows that there was no male involvement in the conception, but only the work of the Holy Spirit. One interesting point I recently came across give an alternative meaning to Luke 3:38, which states "which was the Son of God." I had always took that to refer to Adam, but the the whole context would point it of Christ. His deity proved, and His humanity asserted through Mary. Whether my ramblings are useful or not, it has been profitable for me.

 

[JTB.SDG]

How did the conversation go with the Orthodox Jew? Really interesting that he actually tracked down your sermon and is thinking this deeply about these things.

 

[greenbaggins]

Jon, he calls himself a former Christian, which is why, I think, he focuses his apologetic for Judaism on this particular NT issue. I, too, argued for Joseph's adoption of Jesus as the explanation, but he said that the Messiah had to be blood-related to David. I had always wanted to ask a Jew about the Davidic line, and he said that it is the best-documented bloodline in the world, and that there are many Davidic descendants alive today. There are two main claims to Davidic descent. One of them is rather tenuous (the line through Rabbi Rashi has 33 missing generations), the other goes through the Exilarchs (rulers of Israel during the exile), which do not seem to have any missing names. I have only touched the surface of that debate, however.

 

[SolaScriptura]

he said that the Messiah had to be blood-related to David.

This sounds like a standard created in response to Christianity. At the very least it reflects a standard that is absent from the Scriptures and is contrary to the way adoption works.

As I quickly perused the Gospels, I can't find a single instance of the religious leaders asking for Jesus' ancestry. *If* it was cut and dry that the Messiah would be a blood-descendant of David, and *if* the Davidic line is the "best-documented bloodline in the world," then not only in the case of Jesus, but also in the many cases of self-proclaimed Messiahs that existed in the first half of the first century, it would have been an easy - and culturally agreed upon - way to silence the pretenders.

But as it is, the Gospels evince a clear popular belief that Jesus was the Messiah, coupled with the religious leaders demanding to know if he was, in fact, the Messiah. While many people call Jesus "son of David" they do so without any apparent concern for his ancestry, but surely the religious leaders would have been very quick to want the details... if, in fact, in the time of Jesus it was truly expected that the Messiah be an actual blood-relative of David.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In the days of the Temple, a man's ancestry was open to public investigation. Jesus' family affiliation was never challenged, though possibly there is an oblique affront to the legitimacy of his birth in Jn.8:41.

With the destruction of the Temple and the "sealing up of vision and prophecy," Dan.9:24 (no promise of future divine approval of human claims), the chain of custody is broken for all time, and matters of ancient Israelite inheritance claims are absolutely unverifiable (consider Neh.7:64 as proof of the seriousness of such investigations after the first Temple was destroyed, followed by exile).

And, if (as we believe) the Jews were looking for a miraculous, perhaps even a virgin-birth, for Messiah, then Mary really did need a Davidic ancestor; and having that, all these protests fall to the ground. Once it becomes necessary for Jesus' genetic, "after the flesh" connection to David come from his mother, her heritage is no longer a matter of indifference.

I maintain that Jesus is the true king of Israel, Jn.1:49, by every right one can come up with.

 

[JTB.SDG]

How else could OT prophecy be fulfilled? Maybe there would be another way but I'm at a loss. For the Messiah to be God himself, but also fully man, born of a virgin. Is the main thing he is saying Luke 3 isn't Mary's genealogy?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Machen had some helpful insights and arguments in his book "The Virgin Birth of Christ". He resolved the conflict between Matthew and Luke by arguing that Matthew's genealogy was the line of dynastic succession while Luke's was the biological descent. He also argued that Jesus would be accepted as David's son in semitic culture because "begotton" can refer to legal as well as biological descent. Both levirate marriage and adoption provided prescedents for Jesus to be counted as Josephs, and the virgin birth made Jesus an legitimate son by extrordinary generation rather than ordinary generation, as a gift to the house of David. No one else but Jospeh could claim to be the legal father of Jesus, thus making him a legitimate heir of David. Obviously Machen goes into much more detail.