Matthew's Testimony : Part 4
'Write this man childless'

Matthew's Testimony : Part 5

...continued from Part 4

Point 7 : Jesus was not the son of Joseph

Many have no doubt wondered why there was any necessity that Jesus not be born of Joseph. Well, wonder no more...if Jesus were Joseph's son, the promises made to Mary by the angel Gabriel (recorded by Luke) would have been nullified.

The opening chapter of John's gospel provides confirmation that none of the disciples found it necessary for Jesus to be born of any other than human parentage.

John the Baptist identified Jesus to his own disciples by saying:

"Behold the Lamb of God...I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven...and I have borne witness that this is the Son of God" (John 1:29-34).

Subsequently, two of the disciples who heard John the Baptist's words were in a group which identified Jesus as the son of Joseph (John 1:45).

Another member of this group, Nathanael, who had never met Jesus before, and knew him only by Philip's identification of him as the son of Joseph (John 1:45-48) nevertheless called Jesus the Son of God, seeing no contradiction between the terms.

These exchanges provide ample evidence that none of the disciples mentioned found the doctrine of 'virgin birth' a prerequisite to belief in Jesus as the Son of God. What these men did not know at the time was that Joseph's lineage from David had been specifically debarred from kingship. If they had known, they could never have identified Jesus as the 'King of Israel' (John 1:49).

With the credibility of the Christian churches at stake, theologians profess not to know this fact! If they truly are ignorant...after so many preachings and so many centuries...it beggars belief.

Comments

TomK

The early church "Fathers" were totally aware of the significance of the name Jechoniah in Joseph's genealogy (Matt 1:11,12).

What does "beggar belief" is the manner in which it was treated by that colossus theologian Augustine of Hippo.
His writings can be accessed on newadvent.org under "Fathers".

St. Augustine of Hippo
Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament
SERMON I.
[LI. BENEDICTINE EDITION.]
OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE EVANGELISTS MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE GENERATIONS OF THE LORD.

15. The carrying away into Babylon took place of old by Jechonias, who was not permitted to reign in the nation of the Jews, as a type of Christ, whom the Jews would not have reign over them. Israel passed over unto the Gentiles, that is, the preachers of the Gospel passed over unto the people of the Gentiles. What marvel then, that Jechonias is reckoned twice? for if he were a figure of Christ passing over from the Jews unto the Gentiles, consider only what Christ is between the Jews and Gentiles.

"beggar belief" is truly an understatement!

TomK.

= = = = = = = = = =

JohnO

Most scholars don't see how either Matthew or Luke's geaneologies are the literal traces of Jesus' ancestors. Raymond Brown tackles both of these subjects (The Birth of the Messiah) and doesn't find either record compelling to establish his davidic record. Yet Brown does believe Jesus is a Davidid - because of earlier records than the gospels - the Apostle Paul.

vynette

John, at least I agree with your scholar about the following:

"concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh..."

The very next verse is where we discover just when Jesus was declared to be the Son of God.

"...who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom 1:3-4)

More on Jesus' descent from David:

" Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." (Acts 13:23)

"Hath not the scripture said that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" (John 7:42)

"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel." (2 Tim 2:8)

Only through artificial contrivance and theological sophistry have scholars and ecclesiastics been able to justify ignoring the clear intent of these passages. In the face of clear evidence to the contrary, they continue to assert that Jesus owes his descent from David through Mary.

The comments to this entry are closed.