I want to look at a different question from these passages -- "Is the claim that Jesus came from the promised lineage a valid claim?" The answer is a resounding, "No." The reasons are simple: i) Jesus was listed as via Nathan in one genealogy; ii) Jesus was listed as via Jeconiah in [at least] one genealogy. These two things disqualify one from claiming the royal lineage.
The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, just in case you didn't know that. The reasons are multiple (see Messiahtruth.com for more), and typically rely upon the view that Christians misinterpret the Old Testament in order to make Jesus fit all these supposed "proof texts" that make him fit the supposed profile of the Messiah. One of the most obvious examples of an out-of-context prophecy, the Jews believe, is in Isaiah 7:14 -- the "prophecy of the virgin birth". The long and short of it is that the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah on the grounds that he didn't fit the profile (both then and now).
One other objection that has plagued accepting Jesus as the Messiah is the issue of a problematic lineage. I do not mean by this the simple contradictions between Matt 1 and Luke 3. Rather, I mean by this that the Messiah would have to be a physical descendent of Solomon, and of the royal lineage.
I recently had an extended email discussion with campus preacher Joey Johnsen about this issue, and so I have a lot of Scriptures to quote and points to make. The two genealogical passages of interest are given in this link -- Matt 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38
It is obvious from a glance that these two genealogies have significant differences. Both Matthew and Luke purport to describe Joseph's lineage. However, the traditional Christian defense of this problem is that Matthew describes Joseph while Luke describes Mary. It should be noted that there is no real support for this contention, and thus it is more of an ad hoc hypothesis than a plausible alternative. The Jews (everywhere in Scripture) referred to themselves as "the house of" their father, not their mother. Luke names Joseph, not Mary. Therefore, the liklihood of this defense being accurate doesn't seem very high. In the same sense, Levirate marriages are sometimes cited to solve the problem, but again, the support for these concerning the characters in the genealogies is nil, it is purely an ad hoc speculation.
Therefore, there may be some "solution" to remove a blatant logical contradiction, but the solution is unevidenced and contrived in order to solve an obvious problem. It is not apparent, it is not supported within the Bible itself.
I will first quote the relevant portion of Matt 1:
Now Luke 3:30-31
You can read more about this curse, and if you agree with me that God doesn't lie, then you have plenty of reason to agree that the promises that God made about the throne of David do not apply to the lineage of Jeconiah. See Jer 22:24-30, 37:1.
It is explicitly stated in 1 Chr 3:15-16 that the royal lineage goes through Zedekiah:
Some thinking Christians admit this is a serious issue. They propose solutions, like "Shealtiel, the son of Neri, must have in some way been adopted by Jeconiah when he was released from prison (Jer 52:31-34)". They believe this would get "around" the problem of the curse of Jeconiah's physical children (Jeremiah 22:24-30) while allowing the legal inheritance to go on through adoption. Then, they propose, when Shealtiel and Zerubbabel end up back in Israel, as governors (remember the Babylonians, then Persians, then Alexander, then Ptolemy...kept rule, Judah was never again sovereign), God "restores" their "royal" lineage [never mind that they are not kings, nor is Judah sovereign]. Is there evidence of this? No. A rich overview of the history of this period -- captivity and exile, can be found at the Jewish History Resource Center.
The question of whether God somehow "restored" this branch is a good one, indeed. If yes, then the passage in Jeremiah 22:24-30 is clearly false. That is unsettling, because if that is false, you are forcing yourself to admit that the Bible has false prophecies from Jeremiah in it. If no, then Jeremiah 22:24-30 is clearly true, and Jesus is part of a "cursed branch". Sometimes Haggai 2:20-23 is cited in support of the idea that the curse was somehow revoked (but somehow, some way, God didn't lie?). In this passage, supposedly Zerubbabel becomes heir to the Davidic throne again. However, Zerubbabel is never identified as king, only as "governor". The throne itself is no more. How could he be king when Judah was no more? [and this, by the way, contradicts other failed promises in Ezk 26, 29-30 about the fall of Egypt and Babylon and Judah's restoration] Of course, even if he was somehow restored as king, the question of how this could be true, in light of Jer 24, remains. One further difficulty here is that the lineage of Zerubbabel himself is a bit confused.
So if one is to ad hoc hypothesize/postulate (as some have) that God restored Jeconiah because he repented while in Babylon, and that somehow, he "adopted" a kid (Neri or Shealtiel) there is still the interesting fact that this is not mentioned; though in Manasseh's case, a curse was given and lifted, and it was mentioned (2 Chr 33); and given that Zedekiah's line is given the royal inheritance, as evidenced by the royal progression recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles above.
Lots of problems, plenty of speculative hopes to fix them, but no real evidence, no true answers.
Ergo Jeconiah's lineage is a "cursed branch" like that mentioned in Isa 14:19-20. Interestingly, the Hebrew used in Isaiah is "ke-natsar nith'av", which is the basis for "Nazar", and the basis for Matt 2:23.
That is even if I grant you that the verse 27 of Luke is somehow compatible with the idea that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel weren't the same two people that are found in Matthew as being Jeconiah's son, even though they are the same father-son relationship, around the same time period, etc. If this was true (that Jeconiah was in both lineages), then you have a bigger problem:
That is even if I grant you that the two accounts are of Mary and Joseph, again something you fail to prove, but only assume. No evidence from history or the Jewish tradition of genealogies supports going through the mother's house instead of the fathers. See, for example, in Numbers when the census was done. The Hebrews always went through the father's house. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that both Luke and Matthew, although very different, were trying to describe Joseph's lineage, not Joseph and Mary's.
So the real question is, why is it more reasonable to believe that Jesus is indeed of royal lineage, and if so, what basis do you have to believe it? From either account, one way or another, you are still stuck with the problem of Jesus' lineage not continuing the royal lineage. Looking back at those promises to David, whose kingdom do these Scriptures refer to? Solomon's? If so, then it is clear that the house and throne of Solomon were chosen, and not that of Nathan.
If Jesus, from Jeconiah, is in the lineage of Solomon (and son and grandson), then you are stuck with the "cursed branch" from Solomon -- an offshoot of his line that was cut off from the throne, and a throne (Judah) that was, for all intents and purposes, destroyed by Babylon forever with the end of Zedekiah. The rebuilding of the second temple, and the governorships of Judah that followed, can hardly be called "re-establishing the nation". Judah was gone. Her throne was no more, and the last legal claimant to the throne was Zedekiah.
Both accounts have problems. And although, as I admitted from the start, ad hoc hypotheses can be proposed, there is no evidence to support them, no good reason to believe them. Why would God not make it a simple matter of using the same genealogy in Matt 1 and Luke 3, and bypassing "cursed branches", and using Solomon and not Nathan? These questions remain vexing. Speculative Levirate marriages give us no substance, only obvious ad hoc hypotheses.
Perhaps these problems were noted by the early Christians, and that is why 1 Tim 1:3-4 says:
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion
One other objection that has plagued accepting Jesus as the Messiah is the issue of a problematic lineage. I do not mean by this the simple contradictions between Matt 1 and Luke 3. Rather, I mean by this that the Messiah would have to be a physical descendent of Solomon, and of the royal lineage.
I recently had an extended email discussion with campus preacher Joey Johnsen about this issue, and so I have a lot of Scriptures to quote and points to make. The two genealogical passages of interest are given in this link -- Matt 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38
It is obvious from a glance that these two genealogies have significant differences. Both Matthew and Luke purport to describe Joseph's lineage. However, the traditional Christian defense of this problem is that Matthew describes Joseph while Luke describes Mary. It should be noted that there is no real support for this contention, and thus it is more of an ad hoc hypothesis than a plausible alternative. The Jews (everywhere in Scripture) referred to themselves as "the house of" their father, not their mother. Luke names Joseph, not Mary. Therefore, the liklihood of this defense being accurate doesn't seem very high. In the same sense, Levirate marriages are sometimes cited to solve the problem, but again, the support for these concerning the characters in the genealogies is nil, it is purely an ad hoc speculation.
Therefore, there may be some "solution" to remove a blatant logical contradiction, but the solution is unevidenced and contrived in order to solve an obvious problem. It is not apparent, it is not supported within the Bible itself.
I will first quote the relevant portion of Matt 1:
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,Note the clear mention of Jeconiah, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, as grandfather, father and son.
Now Luke 3:30-31
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,Note the clear mention of Nathan, not Solomon, as the son of David through whom the lineage continued. As a side note, v27 of the Luke account also mentions Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, as father and son, but it doesn't mention Jeconiah.
- First, let's look at Matthew and the Jeconiah issue (ii) in the intro
24 "As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "even if you, Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, I would still pull you off. 25 I will hand you over to those who seek your life, those you fear—to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and to the Babylonians. 26 I will hurl you and the mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you was born, and there you both will die. 27 You will never come back to the land you long to return to." 28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? 29 O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! 30 This is what the LORD says: "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah."Jeremiah 36:30-31
30 Therefore, this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night. 31 I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.'How will Christians fix the issue of the royal lineage being broken through Jeconiah? We see in 2 Chr 36:5-14 (and elsewhere) that the lineage is transferred from Jeconiah, Johoiakim's son, to Zedekiah, Johoiakim's brother. Royal lineages always follow the children of that branch. If Joseph (in Matt 1) is descended from Zedekiah, even via the ad hoc Levirate marriage, he would be listed as from Zedekiah! There is no transfer from one branch to another unless the children of the other branch all die off (which is not the case here).
9 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD. 10 In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the LORD, and he made Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem.[note: there are some variant spellings of the name Jeconiah and Johoiakim, between Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but in the verses I refer to, the people are the same]
You can read more about this curse, and if you agree with me that God doesn't lie, then you have plenty of reason to agree that the promises that God made about the throne of David do not apply to the lineage of Jeconiah. See Jer 22:24-30, 37:1.
It is explicitly stated in 1 Chr 3:15-16 that the royal lineage goes through Zedekiah:
15 The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, Jehoiakim the second son, Zedekiah the third, Shallum the fourth. 16 The successors of Jehoiakim: Jehoiachin his son, and Zedekiah. The Royal Line After the ExileThis story is confirmed in Esther 2:5-6:
5 Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, 6 who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah.Another place that we see the story confirmed is in 2 Kin 24:17:
17 He made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in his place and changed his name to Zedekiah.Zedekiah is blinded. He watches his own children be killed by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah (2 Kings 25:1-7; 2 Chronicles 36:12; Jeremiah 32:4,5; 34:2, 3; 39:1-7; 52:4-11; Ezekiel 12:12). No physical ties back to the Davidic throne can thus be established. This clearly contradicts 2 Sam 7:12-16, wherein David is promised that the throne would be established forever from his own body! From here, the kingdom of Judah is no longer ruled by kings. See here for more.
Some thinking Christians admit this is a serious issue. They propose solutions, like "Shealtiel, the son of Neri, must have in some way been adopted by Jeconiah when he was released from prison (Jer 52:31-34)". They believe this would get "around" the problem of the curse of Jeconiah's physical children (Jeremiah 22:24-30) while allowing the legal inheritance to go on through adoption. Then, they propose, when Shealtiel and Zerubbabel end up back in Israel, as governors (remember the Babylonians, then Persians, then Alexander, then Ptolemy...kept rule, Judah was never again sovereign), God "restores" their "royal" lineage [never mind that they are not kings, nor is Judah sovereign]. Is there evidence of this? No. A rich overview of the history of this period -- captivity and exile, can be found at the Jewish History Resource Center.
The question of whether God somehow "restored" this branch is a good one, indeed. If yes, then the passage in Jeremiah 22:24-30 is clearly false. That is unsettling, because if that is false, you are forcing yourself to admit that the Bible has false prophecies from Jeremiah in it. If no, then Jeremiah 22:24-30 is clearly true, and Jesus is part of a "cursed branch". Sometimes Haggai 2:20-23 is cited in support of the idea that the curse was somehow revoked (but somehow, some way, God didn't lie?). In this passage, supposedly Zerubbabel becomes heir to the Davidic throne again. However, Zerubbabel is never identified as king, only as "governor". The throne itself is no more. How could he be king when Judah was no more? [and this, by the way, contradicts other failed promises in Ezk 26, 29-30 about the fall of Egypt and Babylon and Judah's restoration] Of course, even if he was somehow restored as king, the question of how this could be true, in light of Jer 24, remains. One further difficulty here is that the lineage of Zerubbabel himself is a bit confused.
So if one is to ad hoc hypothesize/postulate (as some have) that God restored Jeconiah because he repented while in Babylon, and that somehow, he "adopted" a kid (Neri or Shealtiel) there is still the interesting fact that this is not mentioned; though in Manasseh's case, a curse was given and lifted, and it was mentioned (2 Chr 33); and given that Zedekiah's line is given the royal inheritance, as evidenced by the royal progression recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles above.
Lots of problems, plenty of speculative hopes to fix them, but no real evidence, no true answers.
Ergo Jeconiah's lineage is a "cursed branch" like that mentioned in Isa 14:19-20. Interestingly, the Hebrew used in Isaiah is "ke-natsar nith'av", which is the basis for "Nazar", and the basis for Matt 2:23.
19 But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch; you are covered with the slain, with those pierced by the sword, those who descend to the stones of the pit. Like a corpse trampled underfoot, 20 you will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land and killed your people. The offspring of the wicked will never be mentioned again.The offspring of the wicked will never be mentioned again...
- So if Matthew describes the lineage of Joseph, then Jesus had no legal claim to the throne of David, because Jesus is not from Zedekiah, but via Jeconiah, the wicked, the cursed.
- Did Jesus have a legal claim to the throne of David through Mary, in Luke 3? Part (i) of the disqualification in the intro.
"12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me [b] ; your throne will be established forever.' "Here Nathan (the prophet) was talking directly about Solomon. You can also see 1st Chr 17:11-14, so let's look at that parallel passage:
11And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever. 13I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: 14But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.Here we have the same promises, plus one extra thing (v14):
14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.Another reiteration of this can be found in 1st Chr 22:7-10:
7 David said to Solomon: "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. 8 But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. 9 But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. 10 He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'God here specifies that it isn't just David's throne that will extend forever, but specifically Solomon's! That means that one cannot ignore Solomon's lineage in favor of another son of David -- Nathan. In the Lucan account, it is clear that Joseph (or Mary, either way -- thus Jesus) descended from Nathan, not Solomon.
- Jesus is therefore not an heir to the throne of David -- being either from Jeconiah or through Nathan disqualifies that.
That is even if I grant you that the verse 27 of Luke is somehow compatible with the idea that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel weren't the same two people that are found in Matthew as being Jeconiah's son, even though they are the same father-son relationship, around the same time period, etc. If this was true (that Jeconiah was in both lineages), then you have a bigger problem:
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,Remember that generations were indeed skipped in these accounts, after all. It seems reasonable to believe that both Luke and Matthew were describing the same people here, but I will allow you this, just to keep the argument alive.
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri (Luke 3:27)
That is even if I grant you that the two accounts are of Mary and Joseph, again something you fail to prove, but only assume. No evidence from history or the Jewish tradition of genealogies supports going through the mother's house instead of the fathers. See, for example, in Numbers when the census was done. The Hebrews always went through the father's house. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that both Luke and Matthew, although very different, were trying to describe Joseph's lineage, not Joseph and Mary's.
So the real question is, why is it more reasonable to believe that Jesus is indeed of royal lineage, and if so, what basis do you have to believe it? From either account, one way or another, you are still stuck with the problem of Jesus' lineage not continuing the royal lineage. Looking back at those promises to David, whose kingdom do these Scriptures refer to? Solomon's? If so, then it is clear that the house and throne of Solomon were chosen, and not that of Nathan.
If Jesus, from Jeconiah, is in the lineage of Solomon (and son and grandson), then you are stuck with the "cursed branch" from Solomon -- an offshoot of his line that was cut off from the throne, and a throne (Judah) that was, for all intents and purposes, destroyed by Babylon forever with the end of Zedekiah. The rebuilding of the second temple, and the governorships of Judah that followed, can hardly be called "re-establishing the nation". Judah was gone. Her throne was no more, and the last legal claimant to the throne was Zedekiah.
Both accounts have problems. And although, as I admitted from the start, ad hoc hypotheses can be proposed, there is no evidence to support them, no good reason to believe them. Why would God not make it a simple matter of using the same genealogy in Matt 1 and Luke 3, and bypassing "cursed branches", and using Solomon and not Nathan? These questions remain vexing. Speculative Levirate marriages give us no substance, only obvious ad hoc hypotheses.
Perhaps these problems were noted by the early Christians, and that is why 1 Tim 1:3-4 says:
3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith.What sorts of controversies, I have to wonder? I bet it's the controversy of whether or not Jesus is the Messiah due to the very discrepancies I'm pointing out above. The Jews were quite big on details regarding lineage, after all. And this is why it's one important objection they have to the claim that Jesus was the Messiah.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion
No comments:
Post a Comment