Does the Messiah Have to Be a Son
of Solomon? By Michael Bugg
I received an email the other
day asking some questions about the implications of the Virgin Birth of Yeshua.
In particular, the following question, raising a common objection made by
anti-missionaries, seemed suitable to be answered on this website:
However, within this same thread someone
brought up the issue of the ‘necessity’ of paternal descent from both
David and Solomon for Jesus to be the Messiah. He states,
“For Jesus to be a descendant of David
and thus the King and Messiah, His20Y-DNA would have had to come from
King David. The genealogies of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matthew 1 don't bare
this out. He must be a descendant of David through King Solomon (not
Nathan as per Luke 3) to be the Jewish Messiah. Clearly this is what the
Gospel writers tried to show, but they didn't know about the male Y-DNA.
A Kingship must be descendant from bloodline – not adoption. An adopted
son can inherit possessions, but not a Throne. Mary may well be a
descendant of David, but she can’t pass David’s Y-DNA to Jesus. Women
don’t possess the male Y-DNA. David's Y-DNA is passed only to the male
line. Joseph, of course, did not pass his Y-DNA on to Jesus. How can
Jesus inherit the Throne of David and Solomon if he doesn't carry their
Y-DNA which is passed from father to son (Agnatic succession)?”
When asked for Scriptural evidence for
the necessity of a patrilineal descent from King David (and Solomon), he
states the according to the Old Testament, the Messiah will be descended
from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:8-10, 2
Chronicles 7:18). For further proof he cites the book "Mashiach" by
Jacob Immanuel Schochet, pg 37: "The only qualification of his origin
is that he is a descendant of King David through the lineage of his son
Sol omon."
Someone later addresses this person claims by mentioning that Joseph
was the foster or adoptive father of Jesus, therefore Jesus would
inherit Joseph’s genealogy, to which this person later responds, “An
adoptee is not a “descendant”. He only inherits property–not a bloodline
of a Throne.”
Also, in regards to halakhic law, this person cites a book
called "DNA and Tradition", pg. 41 which states: "The Torah based
tradition is that the Jewish nationality is determined by the mother's
status and that tribal membership follows the father's lineage."
When someone mentioned the case of the two daughters of a
Zelophehad who were going to lose their inheritance and appealed to
Moses, another person, a Jew, responded:
"Moses opened a exception to those sisters but only with regards to
assets to be inherited. The genealogical trait was not included.
Once they married out into another tribe they would remain
genealogically from their original Tribe. Besides, genealogy is the
only inheritance in Judaism that's not an inheritance. And this
inheritance cannot be transmitted through the mother nor through
adoption."
I find
this issue keeps reoccurring and that a lot of people bring up this
allegation in an attempt to try and disprove the eligibility of Jesus to the
Messianic throne of David. Many apologetics sites do not cover this claim
for some reason and I feel that this is an important issue that should be
addressed by all apologists because the Messiahship of Jesus rests a great
deal on his genealogy and descent from David. Basically, my question is :
could you please disprove these allegations made against the Messiahship of
Jesus?
There are two
separate issues involved here: One of legal inheritance, and the second of
genetic descent.
In the matter of the legal inheritance, Joseph of Nazareth was the proper, legal
heir of David's throne through the royal line of Solomon. He adopted Yeshua as
his firstborn, making Yeshua the legal heir of the throne. It is not necessary
to appeal to the matter of the daughters of Zelophehad (though that does add an
interesting element); there are three other arguments one can use to prove that
an adopted son inherits just as a natural one does:
Had Abraham not had a child "of his own
loins," Eliezar of Damascus would have inherited his "kingdom" (mobile
kingdom that it was)--and he had no genetic link.
Jacob
adopted two of Joseph's sons as his own heirs, giving them and their
posterity the same inheritance as Joseph's brothers, including specific
domains in Israel.
The laws of
levirate marriage required a dead man's brother to "give him a son" if he
had no children of his own by marrying his widow. The son would carry the
dead man's name and inherit his property and thus continue his line even
though he would not be the man's genetic son (Deu. 25:5; it was the
refusal to perform this duty that brought about the death of Onan in Gen.
38:8ff).
The statement that
an adoptee "only inherits property–not a bloodline of a Throne," is
simply special pleading. In the ancient world, a kingdom was considered
property--this is why you often see people in the Bible referring to themselves
as a ruler's "slaves," his property. For a king to adopt an heir to his
throne when he either lacked natural children or his own were disqualified for
some reason was nothing unusual.
There is no basis to say that Joseph, aware of the curse on his own bloodline,
would not adopt the son of another descendant of David as his full heir in
everything--especially when God flat out told him through an angel that this
would be the Anointed King of Israel. One might as well argue that the Messiah
must come through Esau's line since he was Isaac's firstborn. Obviously, God
chose whom He wanted to inherit Abraham's Covenant and made the matter clear.
He did the same in the case of Yeshua inheriting David's throne, as we will see.
The Eternal One gave a promise to David that his line would continue forever.
Let's look at the promise in question. I will quote from the Complete Jewish
Bible here, since it uses with few amendments the Jewish Publication Society
translation, which is not a Christian source.
"Moreover,
ADONAI tells you that ADONAI will make you a house. When your days come to
an end and you sleep with your ancestors, I will establish one of your
descendants to succeed you, one of your own flesh and blood; and I will set
up his rulership. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish
his royal throne forever. I will be a father for him, and he will be a son
for me. If he does something wrong, I will punish him with a rod and blows,
just as everyone gets punished; nevertheless, my grace will not leave him,
as I took it away from Sha'ul, whom I removed from before you. Thus your
house and your kingdom will be made secure forever before you; your throne
will be set up forever.'" (2 Samuel 7:11-16)
Note that like the covenant with Abraham in Genesis
15, this promise to David is unconditional. There are no "if" statements
to indicate that David's descendants could lose this promise by unfaithfulness
and sin. Now let's look at the two passages from Chronicles and see if they are
similarly unconditional:
"My son," said David to Shlomo, "my heart
was set on building a house for the name of ADONAI my God. But a message
from ADONAI came to me, 'You have shed much blood and fought great wars. You
are not to build a house for my name, because you have shed so much blood on
the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of rest.
I will give him rest from all his enemies that surround him; for his name is
to be Shlomo, and during his reign I will give peace [Hebrew: shalom] and
quiet to Isra'el. It is he 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 Isra'el forever.'
"Now, my son, may ADONAI be with you and give you success as you build the
house of ADONAI your God, in keeping with what he said about you. May
ADONAI give you common sense and understanding, and may he give you his
orders concerning Isra'el, so that you will observe the Torah of ADONAI your
God. Then you will succeed, if you take care to obey the laws and
rulings that ADONAI ordered Moshe concerning Isra'el. Be strong, be
bold; don't be afraid or become discouraged!" (1 Chronicles 22:7-13)
Note that David does not give Solomon an exact rendition of the original
covenant God gave him, but rather combines that promise with the expression of
the Holy One's favor given through Nathan in 2Sa. 12:24f and David's own promise
that Solomon would be his heir. Thus, we see in David's statement his hope that
his beloved son would be the fulfillment of God covenant with him--tempered,
however, by the statement that Solomon would only succeed if he
took care to obey the Holy One.
Later, Solomon would have his own revelation, expressed during the dedication of
the Temple:
"As for you,
if you will live in my presence, as did David your father,
doing everything I have ordered you to do, and keeping my laws and rulings;
then I will establish the throne of your rulership, as I
covenanted with David your father when I said, 'You will never lack a man to
be ruler in Isra'el.' But ifyou turn away and abandon
my regulations and mitzvot which I have set before you, and go and serve
other gods, worshipping them; then I will pull them up by the roots out of
the land I have given them. This house, which I consecrated for my name, I
will eject from my sight; and I will make it an example to avoid and an
object of scorn among all peoples." (2 Chronicles 7:17-20)
Notice the
"if-then" statement: Solomon's throne would only be established if he
was as faithful to the God of his fathers as David was. As Michael L. Brown
notes,
The divine
threat here is so emphatic that Hebrew scholar Ziony Zevit claims that God
actually refused Solomon's request in 1 Kings 8:25-26 for an unconditional
guarantee. . . . Here the Lord says to him that there are
conditions, and the breaking of those conditions could actually result in
the exile of the people and the destruction of the Temple. Thankfully, God
was determined to keep his long-term promises to David, but nothing was
guarunteed to Solomon or his posterity. Such a pledge simply does not exist
anywhere in the Bible. (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.
IV, pp. 92f)
Did Solomon
follow-through on his end of this covenant? Absolutely not. Solomon filled the
very Temple that he himself had built with idols, and as a result, God stripped
away more than half the kingdom from his son. The only reason God didn't strip
it away from Solomon or strip the whole kingdom from his son was his promise to
David, expressed in the 1 Chronicles passage, that Solomon's reign would be one
of peace--but even then, God afflicted the late portion of Solomon's reign with
war.
Moreover, as Brown points out, even rabbinic sources admit that Solomon was not
the promised king whose throne would be established forever:
There are even
soem Rabbinic traditions which claim that Solomon was banished from the
throne during his lifetime; see y. Sanh 2:6; cf. also b. Meg 11b: "Is
there not Solomon?--He did not retain his kingdom [till his death],"
explained by Rashi to mean, "He did not complete his kingship, for he was
expelled," with reference to his comments at b. Gittin 68b, where he states
that Solomon did not return to his throne. How then can the
anti-missionaries claim that Solomon's throne was established forever when,
in reality, some Rabbinic traditions claim that he did not even finish out
his rule on that throne? To the contrary, it is the throne of David that
remains established forever. (ibid., p. 91)
In addition, it
should be noted that there was at least one occassion recorded in Scripture
where the line of Solomon was all but destroyed:
Now when
Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she rose and
destroyed all the royal offspring of the house of Judah. But Jehoshabeath
the king's daughter took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among
the king's sons who were being put to death, and placed him and his nurse in
the bedroom. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram, the wife of
Jehoiada the priest (for she was the sister of Ahaziah), hid him from
Athaliah so that she would not put him to death. He was hidden with them in
the house of God six years while Athaliah reigned over the land. (2
Chronicles 22:10-12)
While it isn't
completely provable, the text seems to indicate that Joash was not the
firstborn, the proper heir, to the throne, or else Athaliah would certainly have
noticed that he wasn't among the dead. In all likelihood, he was a younger son
of Ahaziah--would this mean that the Word of God failed, since the heir-apparant
was replaced by a younger sibling? If not, then how would we think it a
disqualification that Yeshua would be the blood-descendent of a younger son of
David rather than Solomon, provided that He had the necessary legal claim?
Moreover, the promise of the Davidic King, Messiah, could not be realized
through Solomon's line because it was afflicted with worse and worse idolatry
(Hezekiah and Josiah being exceptions to the rule), until at last God pronounced
this curse on the royal line:
Is this man
Koniyahu a despised, broken pot, an instrument nobody wants? Why are they
being thrown out? Why are he and his offspring thrown out into a country
they do not know? Oh, land, land, land! Hear the word of ADONAI! This what
ADONAI says: "List this man as childless; he is a lifetime failure - none of
his offspring will succeed, none will sit on David's throne or rule again in
Y'hudah." (Jeremiah 22:28-30)
The word
"offspring" is the Hebrew word zerah, translated "seed" in most
versions. It is not restricted to a single generation, but refers to all of
one's progeny down through the generations. For example, the same word is used
in the promise of the Woman's "seed" who would crush the head of the Serpent in
Genesis 3:15; whether one understands that passage to refer to Messiah (as we
do) or all of Humankind (as it can be taken to mean), we're still looking at
thousands of years of "seed."
Therefore, there is no reason to restrict God's curse on Jeconiah to a single
generation, or even to the third and fourth. Rather, it forces a very peculiar
set of qualifications on the Messiah:
He must be
of David's genetic line
He must be
the legal heir of the royal line
Yet He
cannot be the genetic progeny of the royal line due to the curse on Jeconiah
This peculiar riddle is solved by the Virgin
Birth. Not only did the Virgin Birth continue the pattern of marking out many
of Israel's leaders by a miraculous conception (e.g., Isaac, Jacob, Joseph,
Samson, Samuel, John the Baptist) at the same time mark Yeshua out by a very
unique sign, but it also enabled a scion of the House of David to legally
inherit the right to his throne without lifting Jeconiah's Curse.
Miriam was a descendant of King David through his son Nathan. We do not have
any indication that that line had somehow changed tribes; the genealogy lists
all male members, concluding with Joseph, most likely because Eli had no male
children, so he adopted Joseph as his own heir when Joseph married his daughter
(this is where the matter of the daughters of Zelophehad comes into play; not in
regard to Joseph's own heritage).
Over and over again, Scripture refers to the throne of Israel as the Throne of
David--not once does it refer to it as the Throne of Solomon, and for good
reason. All through Jewish literature and liturgy, we find reference to "the
Davidic King" as a reference to the Messiah, never to "the Solomonic King."
There's a reason for that.
The offspring of Thy servant David,
Quickly cause to flourish,
And lift up his power by Thy deliverance (Heb. y'shuati);
For Thy deliverance do we constantly hope
(And look forward to deliverance (y'shuah)).
Blessed art Thou, Lord, who makes the glory of deliverance (y'shuah)
to flourish.
--The Amidah, 15th Benediction