Pages

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Is Jesus David's heir?

A Jewish objection to the messiahship of Jesus is that he wasn't a genealogical heir of David. The stock Christian response is that he was a Davidic descendent via his mother and a legal heir via his stepfather. Jews have counterarguments. For a defense of the standard explanation, cf. M. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Baker 2007), 4:84-97.

However, I'd like to take a different approach. David wasn't the founder of the Davidic monarchy. David was himself an heir. In 2 Sam 7, Yahweh is the king of Israel, while David is his vicegerent. It parallels the relationship between a royal father and a royal son by adoption, or a king and the crown prince. 

So David isn't actually the founder of the dynasty. Rather, he's a stand-in for Yahweh.

If Jesus is Yahweh Incarnate, then the kingship reverts to the true king (Yahweh) who temporarily delegated kingship to David and his successors. The divine messiah isn't David's successor, but the very God who raised David to the throne in the first place. Now Yahweh reclaims the crown in the person of the incarnate Son. It was ultimately his all along. Messiah isn't David's heir; rather, David was messiah's heir. The relation is teleological rather than chronological.  

41 comments:

  1. Never thought about it, but it’s true the adoption language of David by Yahweh was already very strong in Jewish thinking.

    This makes a lot of sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting that you made this observation since I am actually writing a series on this very theme, namely, Yahweh is Israel's true king but, because of his people's sinfulness who wanted a human king in order to be like the other nations, he accommodated them. So what I see taking place is Yahweh taking back the throne while also giving his people a human king, a physical descendant of David. Yahweh does this by becoming that physical descendant of David, in which he rules once again as Israel's sole King but does so as a human being, thereby satisfying all parties in the process.

    BTW, it's me Sam Shamoun using ben malik's account.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My standard reply when confronted with them is to ask them what the rules for inheritance and lineage in the event of a virgin birth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tribal affiliation is passed down through the father. Since Jesus allegedly had no earthly father, he had no tribal affiliation. Therefore, he was not of the tribe of Judah, therefore, he could not be the promised messiah who Scriptures promised would be of the tribe of Judah.

    Jesus was a failed messiah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the way, if anyone argues that Jesus was "adopted" into the tribe of Judah when Joseph adopted him, I would like to see evidence that:

      -Joseph adopted Jesus.
      -there was a mechanism in ancient Judaism to pass on tribal affiliation to an adopted child.

      Here is a quote from the Jewish Virtual Library:

      "Adoption is not known as a legal institution in Jewish law. According to halakhah the personal status of parent and child is based on the natural family relationship only and there is no recognized way of creating this status artificially by a legal act or fiction."

      In addition, how exactly did Joseph announce to the authorities of his day that he was adopting Jesus? Did he say, "Your Honor, this child's father is a (holy) ghost. I would like to adopt him as my son."

      Hardly. Such an act would point to Mary as having committed fornication, a sin whose punishment was stoning. Jesus would have been immediately branded a bastard.

      Jesus may have performed miracles. God may have even raised him from the dead. But he could not have been the messiah because he was not of the tribe of Judah. Jesus was a failed messiah pretender.

      Delete
    2. I reference Brown's detailed discussion. If you wish to engage the traditional explanation, that's a good frame of reference.

      Delete
    3. I do not have access to that book.

      Could you summarize Brown's research on the issue of adoption in first century Judaism?

      Delete
    4. No, I'm not going to summarize pages of detailed analysis. If you think your objection is sufficiently important to raise, then it's sufficiently important for you to read the other side of the argument.

      Delete
  5. Source for above quote: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adoption

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If Jesus is Yahweh Incarnate, then the kingship reverts to the true king (Yahweh) who temporarily delegated kingship to David and his successors. The divine messiah isn't David's successor, but the very God who raised David to the throne in the first place. Now Yahweh reclaims the crown in the person of the incarnate Son. It was ultimately his all along. Messiah isn't David's heir; rather, David was messiah's heir. The relation is teleological rather than chronological."

    This is nothing but revisionism. The Hebrew Scriptures specifically state that the messiah will be of the tribe of Judah. Yahweh was not a member of the tribe of Judah. If your claim is correct, there was no need for the prophet's prophesy that the messiah would be of the tribe of Judah. Either the prophesy is false or your revisionist interpretation is false. It is as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it's an argument, which you make no attempt to refute directly.

      Delete
    2. Here is another Jewish source:

      "G-d arranged tribal affiliation however to work in the opposite manner. That is, just as the father has no significance to a person being Jewish, a mother has no significance to a person’s tribal affiliation. ALSO, just as a Jewish female may be adopted into a Jewish tribe, a Jewish male may NEVER be ADOPTED into a Jewish tribe.

      A Jewish man is born for life into his tribe, a Jewish woman only remains in her tribe until she marries. When she marries she changes to the tribe of her husband, and if she remarries, she assumes the tribe of her new husband. A convert to Judaism who is female, will likewise become part of her husband’s tribe when she marries. A convert to Judaism who is male however, will NEVER have a tribe.

      A Jew may be adopted into a Jewish family, but a male convert can NEVER be adopted into ANY Jewish tribe. If a male does not have a tribe from his father at birth, in Judaism, he will never have a tribe. This was the problem with the rebellious son spoken of in the Torah – Leviticus 24:10. His mother was raped by an Egyptian. The mother’s husband was from the tribe of Dan, but the son, while Jewish through the mother, would never have a tribal affiliation because his biological father was an Egyptian. This loss of tribal place is credited with causing much or perhaps all of the serious problems with this boy."

      Delete
    3. Source: http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-2049/dealing-with-missionaries/

      Delete
    4. Again I must ask: What procedure did Joseph fulfill to "adopt" Jesus, giving him his tribal affiliation? If Joseph did nothing other than pretend that Jesus was his son (he therefore lied, which is a sin), did that qualify as an "adoption" under Jewish law?

      Delete
    5. The procedure was to wed Mary. To take a comparison, if I marry a woman who already has kids, I become their legal stepfather. Adoption isn't always a separate procedure. Sometimes marriage entails adoption.

      Delete
    6. You also need to distinguish between biblical requirements and Talmudic customs.

      Delete
    7. So you are saying that Joseph married Mary after Jesus was born? If so, would the Jewish authorities performing the marriage have required knowing the name and tribe of Jesus' birth father?

      Delete
    8. No, and that's irrelevant. I used a comparison. If the woman he marries is already pregnant, he automatically adopts her child by virtue of marriage. The husband becomes the stepfather.

      Delete
    9. Josephus in his autobiography reckons his claim to royal blood through his mother. There's a first century source right there. That’s irrelevant however. Take the Deborah event in Judges. When Deborah prophesies that Sisera will be handed over to a woman in 4:9 the reader’s expectation is the woman will be Deborah. It’s not. It’s the same with Mary, God did exactly what he said he would, just not the way they thought.

      God can do whatever he wants with regard to anyone’s genealogy, especially with the incarnation in view.

      Delete
  7. "No, and that's irrelevant. I used a comparison. If the woman he marries is already pregnant, he automatically adopts her child by virtue of marriage. The husband becomes the stepfather."

    Ok. So, Mary gave birth to a child before she was married. Don't you think that the Jewish religious authorities would have wanted to know who the father of this child was? Are Christians really suggesting that no one bothered to ask Mary during her nine months of pregnancy why she was pregnant without having a husband? If the Gospel of Luke accurately records the birth of Jesus, Mary had to have been close to her due date when she and Joseph set off for Bethlehem. Who was the father of her child???

    If Joseph was claiming (lying) to be the father of the child, why did he wait until after the child was born to marry Mary? Are we really to believe that Mary sat around Nazareth (and/or Bethany) with a bulging belly for NINE months and neither her parents nor the rabbis insisted that if Joseph was responsible for the pregnancy he had to marry her IMMEDIATELY?

    So if we are to believe that Joseph convinced everyone that he was the father, the following issues remain: Would the Jewish authorities have allowed a pregnant woman's impregnator to put off marrying the woman until after the child is born? I highly doubt it.

    Second, if this ad hoc story is true, it means that Christianity started off with a lie. A BIG Lie. If Jesus had the chutzpah to traipse up and down Judea and Galilee proclaiming to be God the Creator Himself, as the author of the Gospel of John states (and most Trinitarian Christians believe), why couldn't he and his family admit that his mother was impregnated by a (holy) ghost???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary

      "Ok. So, Mary gave birth to a child before she was married."

      What makes you think that? Here's Mt 1:16, 24-25: "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ...When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

      "Don't you think that the Jewish religious authorities would have wanted to know who the father of this child was? Are Christians really suggesting that no one bothered to ask Mary during her nine months of pregnancy why she was pregnant without having a husband?"

      You claim you used to be a former Christian. How are you so ignorant about what the Bible itself says? Plenty of Jewish religious authorities kept alleging Jesus was "born of sexual immorality" (John 8:41). His hometown of Nazareth didn't believe him (e.g. Mark 6).

      Not to mention the Talmud itself contains allusions to Jesus' illegitimate birth.

      These rumors started when Mary was with child.

      The rest of what you say builds on your initial error.

      Delete
    2. "Ok. So, Mary gave birth to a child before she was married."

      I don't know when the wedding took place, but I imagine it happened before Jesus was born. In any case, that's a red herring.

      "Don't you think that the Jewish religious authorities would have wanted to know who the father of this child was?"

      Another red herring. Joseph isn't asking the religious authorities for permission.

      "Are Christians really suggesting that no one bothered to ask Mary during her nine months of pregnancy why she was pregnant without having a husband?"

      Other than Joseph, how's that relevant?

      "Who was the father of her child???"

      That was disclosed to her fiancé in a revelatory dream.

      "If Joseph was claiming (lying) to be the father of the child, why did he wait until after the child was born to marry Mary?"

      Second clause makes unverifiable assumption. As for first clause, Joseph doesn't need to claim to be the biological father of the baby to marry her.

      "So if we are to believe that Joseph convinced everyone that he was the father..."

      False premise.

      "Would the Jewish authorities have allowed a pregnant woman's impregnator to put off marrying the woman until after the child is born?"

      Another false premise. And you keep imagining the religious authorities were somehow involved in this transaction.

      "If Jesus had the chutzpah to traipse up and down Judea and Galilee proclaiming to be God the Creator Himself, as the author of the Gospel of John states (and most Trinitarian Christians believe), why couldn't he and his family admit that his mother was impregnated by a (holy) ghost???"

      They were happy to admit that to Matthew and Luke.

      Delete
    3. “(and most Trinitarian Christians believe),”

      You think only most Trinitarians believe Jesus is God? You’re very confused.

      Delete
    4. Is the point Gary trying to make in his laborious, circuitous way that Mary would be executed unless Joseph claimed the child as his own? If so:

      i) Under Roman occupation, Jews didn't have the legal authority to execute anyone. While didn't prevent lynch mobs, they'd have to consider whether it was worth antagonizing their Roman overlords.

      ii) Except for first-degree murder, capital punishment is a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty. For instance, the Mosaic law mentions many cases where a capital offense can be commuted.

      iii) Suppose, for argument's sake, that Joseph lied to protect his betrothed. So what? Lying is justified to protect innocent life.

      iv) And it's not as if God lacks the wherewithal to protect Mary, if her life was in danger.

      Delete
    5. BTW, notice that Gary changed the subject. Having lost the original argument, he shifts ground.

      Delete
  8. In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 All went to their own towns to be registered. 4 Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. 5 He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

    --Luke 2

    Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not married when Jesus was born, according to Luke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary

      "Joseph and Mary were betrothed but not married when Jesus was born, according to Luke."

      First century Jewish betrothal was a binding contract which required "divorce" to break it. That's why Mt 1:19 records: "And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly."

      If their bethrothal wasn't binding, why would Joseph need to "divorce her quietly"?

      Delete
    2. Moreover, this suggests a public divorce could've been in the cards. It's just that Joseph didn't want to "shame" Mary. So he "resolved to divorce her quietly". He was a compassionate man.

      Delete
    3. No, Lk 2 doesn't say or imply that they weren't married when Jesus was born. Rather, they weren't married at the time they traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem. But it doesn't say how long they were in Bethlehem before Jesus was born.

      Perhaps the betrothal had a deadline for marriage, and they timed the trip to Bethlehem to coincide with a marriage ceremony upon their arrival. Or maybe they preferred to get married in Joseph's hometown rather than Nazareth. Maybe his relatives were less disapproving.

      In any case, the timing of the marriage and birth is irrelevant to the factuality of the virginal conception.

      Delete
    4. "He went to [Bethlehem to] be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child."

      So Mary was "expecting" (pregnant) prior to leaving Nazareth and prior to being officially married. No matter what rules were involved with being "engaged", the point is that they were not yet married when they left Nazareth. True, we do not know where and when they were married. But at some point they were legally married and that would involve religious authorities. The religious authorities would have been aware, whether in the little town of Nazareth or the little town of Bethlehem, the odd circumstances of the couples' engagement. Joseph would have had to declare himself as the birth father of the child or Mary would have been stoned.

      Why did Joseph wait to marry Mary? Why didn't he marry her before leaving Nazareth? Are we really to believe that Joseph left Nazareth, unmarried, and went to Bethlehem to get married, and then stayed there nine months until the baby's birth?

      Bottom line, Christianity is built on one big lie. A lie is a lie. Lying is a sin. Please show me a passage in the Bible that says that "good" lies are not sins. If Jesus could claim to be Yahweh, why did he and his family continue to lie about the true status of Joseph even during Jesus' ministry?

      Answer: It is a suspicious tale with a lot of loose strings. Christians have had two thousands years to cobble together ad hoc "harmonizations" but when all the spin is stripped away we are still left with the fact that Christianity began as a lie: Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus as Jesus and his family claimed.

      ...or was he?

      Delete
    5. "But at some point they were legally married and that would involve religious authorities."

      What's your evidence for that assumption?

      "The religious authorities would have been aware, whether in the little town of Nazareth or the little town of Bethlehem, the odd circumstances of the couples' engagement."

      Since Joseph and Mary were nobodies, why would anyone other their relatives or close friends be aware of that?

      "Joseph would have had to declare himself as the birth father of the child or Mary would have been stoned."

      I've given several reasons for why that's fallacious. You haven't begun to refute my arguments to the contrary.

      "Why did Joseph wait to marry Mary? Why didn't he marry her before leaving Nazareth?"

      Perhaps because there's a stipulated period between betrothal and marriage.

      "Are we really to believe that Joseph left Nazareth, unmarried, and went to Bethlehem to get married, and then stayed there nine months until the baby's birth?"

      I never suggested a 9-month interval.

      And what you believe is of no concern to me.

      "Lying is a sin. Please show me a passage in the Bible that says that 'good' lies are not sins."

      I've discussed that on multiple occasions. You're way behind the curve. Try raising an objection I haven't refuted at one time or another.

      "If Jesus could claim to be Yahweh, why did he and his family continue to lie about the true status of Joseph even during Jesus' ministry?"

      He can't give a false answer to a question he was never asked.

      "It is a suspicious tale with a lot of loose strings."

      If they wanted to make up a story, why make up that story? Why not make up a story in which Jesus was naturally conceived by married parents? The Incarnation doesn't require a virginal conception.

      Why not make up a story in which Jesus has an explicit royal linage? Your conspiratorial claim makes no sense.

      "Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus as Jesus and his family claimed."

      A stepfather is a perfectly legitimate status.

      You're looking for a pretext to excuse your apostasy. You're a dime-a-dozen apostate. The "fundamentalist" who measures Christianity by his Sunday school theology.

      Delete
    6. Gary

      "No matter what rules were involved with being "engaged""

      Nice how you try to dodge an important point I made. Not to mention a point that refuted what you originally claimed.

      "Joseph would have had to declare himself as the birth father of the child or Mary would have been stoned."

      Nice how you also dodged Steve's point above (e.g. how capital punishment is a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty; how the Romans governed Israel and the Jews would've had to receive Roman permission for capital punishment,
      which by the way, also was the case at Jesus' own kangaroo court of a trial, otherwise the Jewish leaders wouldn't have needed to involve Pontius Pilate).

      "Why did Joseph wait to marry Mary? Why didn't he marry her before leaving Nazareth? Are we really to believe that Joseph left Nazareth, unmarried, and went to Bethlehem to get married, and then stayed there nine months until the baby's birth?"

      You are making a lot of debatable assumptions to say the least.

      "Bottom line, Christianity is built on one big lie."

      Only if we accept your highly prejudicial and biblically illiterate interpretations.

      Also, you're "one big liar" since you claim to be an open minded truth seeker, but it's obvious you are a militant atheist. That's your real agenda. You're duplicitous.

      "A lie is a lie. Lying is a sin. Please show me a passage in the Bible that says that "good" lies are not sins."

      Try Exodus 1:15f as an example.

      "If Jesus could claim to be Yahweh, why did he and his family continue to lie about the true status of Joseph even during Jesus' ministry? Answer: It is a suspicious tale with a lot of loose strings. Christians have had two thousands years to cobble together ad hoc "harmonizations" but when all the spin is stripped away we are still left with the fact that Christianity began as a lie: Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus as Jesus and his family claimed."

      All this is based on what? Dan Brown? Richard Carrier?

      Delete
  9. We don't need evidence that Jesus and his family lied, we only need the absence of evidence that they told the "truth". If Jesus and his family had been claiming that he was the birth product of the mating of a human virgin and a (holy) ghost, this accusation would surely have been mentioned by his enemies. It never is. He was accused of claiming to be the messiah; of claiming to be the son of God; of claiming to be the King of the Jews. But he is never, ever accused of claiming to be virgin-born. Ever.

    The cumulative evidence strongly indicates that the Virgin Birth story is a tall tale that neither Jesus, his family, Paul of Tarsus, nor the author of Mark had never heard of. It was a later invention by Christians who were forced to cook up an explanation for their preposterous claim that a human being could be God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary

      "We don't need evidence that Jesus and his family lied"

      Moving the goalposts again, I see! :)

      "we only need the absence of evidence that they told the "truth"."

      So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence for you?

      "If Jesus and his family had been claiming that he was the birth product of the mating of a human virgin and a (holy) ghost, this accusation would surely have been mentioned by his enemies. It never is. He was accused of claiming to be the messiah; of claiming to be the son of God; of claiming to be the King of the Jews. But he is never, ever accused of claiming to be virgin-born. Ever."

      1. Even if (arguendo) Jesus' enemies didn't mention Jesus was born of a virgin, why would they? Many of Jesus' enemies didn't believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Rather, they thought Jesus was "born of sexual immorality" (Jn 8:41). The fact that Jesus' enemies mention Jesus was "born of sexual immorality" means they thought he was not born of a virgin!

      2. Indeed, the allegation that Jesus was "born of sexual immorality" suggests it's a response to Christians arguing Jesus was born of a virgin!

      3. However, you're wrong, because there are people who have "accused" Jesus of being born of a virgin (even though they obviously thought it was untrue). For example, here's Celsus, who even claimed Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Panthern (some have even argued that "Panthern" may be a play on the Greek word for virgin (parthenos):

      "He portrays the Jew having a conversation with Jesus himself, refuting him on many charges. First, he fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who made her living by spinning. He says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, when she was convicted of adultery. Then he says that after she had been driven out by her husband and while she was wandering disgracefully, she secretly bore Jesus. He says that because (Jesus) was poor he hired himself out as a laborer in Egypt, and there learned certain magical powers which the Egyptians are proud to have. He returned full of pride in these powers, and gave himself the title of God...Let us return, however, to the words put in the mouth of the Jew. The mother of Jesus is described as being turned out by the carpenter who was engaged to her, because she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a soldier named Panthern...Was the mother of Jesus beautiful? Did God have sexual intercourse with her because she was beautiful, although by his nature he cannot love a mortal body? It is unlikely that God would have fallen in love with her, since she was neither wealthy nor of royal birth. Indeed, she was not known even to her neighbors. He only ridicules when he says, When the carpenter hated her and expelled her, neither divine power nor the gift of persuasion could save her. Thus he says that these things have nothing to do with the kingdom of God." (Against Celsus 1.28, 32, 39)

      Delete
    2. The above is Origen's summary of Celsus' allegations.

      Delete
    3. i) We have two independent accounts of the virgin birth.

      ii) Paul didn't write a biography of Jesus.

      iii) Mark doesn't write about the childhood of Jesus, period.

      iv) It's not as if you'd believe if Mark wrote about it.

      v) As I already noted, they didn't need to concoct a story of the virgin birth to explain the Incarnation inasmuch as a virgin birth is not a metaphysical requirement for a divine incarnation.

      vi) The Holy Spirit is not "a (holy) ghost".

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. Yes, your case can rest in peace (RIP). See what I wrote above.

      Delete
  11. You don’t rest anything you strange, strange person.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lulz at resting your case on a logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For anybody who's interested in the early history of belief in the virgin birth and a correction of Gary's many errors, here's a series I wrote on the virgin birth a few years ago. You can find a lot of other material on the subject in our archives.

    ReplyDelete