The Messiah is David’s son. Jesus is not a descendant of David [Answered]

The Messiah is David’s son. If Jesus were really born of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he is really not a descendant of David, even according to Matthew’s genealogy. And if you claim that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary, Jesus still doesn’t qualify, since the genealogy in Luke goes through David’s son Nathan, whereas the Messianic promises must go through David’s son Solomon. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Obviously, you don’t believe in the virgin birth, otherwise you wouldn’t be raising this objection. Therefore, you believe that the disciples invented the myth of the virgin birth—a myth totally unique in the history of religion (see above, 5.9)—even though you argue that this “myth” completely undercut their claim that Jesus was the son of David. Wouldn’t this be totally self-defeating?

As we demonstrated above (see again, 5.9), no one would make up an account like this, especially when the people in Jesus’ hometown thought he was the son of Joseph (and therefore a descendant of David) while the crowds hailed Jesus as the son of David when he entered Jerusalem. To the contrary, it is the truth of the virgin birth that explains the unique Messianic qualifications of Yeshua—both the son of David and yet greater than David—while his actual, physical descent from David is also taught in the New Testament.

As for the Messiah having to come through Solomon, that is not correct according to the Scriptures or even according to some Rabbinic tradition.

The Jews for Judaism website summarizes the principle objections to the Messianic credentials of Yeshua based on the genealogies in Matthew and Luke:

According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23–24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Matt. 1:18–23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:11–14, 22:9–10, 28:4–6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)¹⁸⁰

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.¹⁸¹

Let’s tackle these points one at a time. As we do, you will see that none of them have any substance and all of them can easily be refuted. (The next answer, 5.12, deals specifically with objections [b] and [d], namely, the issue of descent through “the cursed Jeconiah.”)

The first claim is that “there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption.” Actually, that is not an issue in these genealogies since: (1) A good case can be made for Luke’s genealogy coming through Yeshua’s mother, Miriam, in which case he would be a blood descendant of David (more on that point shortly). (2) A good case can be made for genealogical descent through a woman when there were no male heirs (again, we will return to this point shortly).

(3) The Messiah was both David’s son—and therefore a physical descendant—and yet David’s lord—and therefore more than just a physical descendant.¹⁸² Let’s take this up in a little more depth before returning to the question of genealogical descent through the mother.

In Sanhedrin 98a, the Talmud asks an important question: Will the Messiah, the son of David, come with the clouds of heaven, as indicated in Daniel 7:13–14, or will he come riding on a donkey, as written in Zechariah 9:9? The Talmud says if we are worthy, he will come in the clouds, but if we are unworthy, he will come riding on a donkey.¹⁸³ The problem is that the Hebrew Scriptures do not present these two events as either-or options.

Rather, they are both explicit prophecies that must be fulfilled (see also the discussion in vol. 1, 2.1). How then can these two opposing statements be reconciled? The New Covenant Scriptures provide us with the solution. The virgin birth is the key!

The Gospels make two things perfectly clear: The Messiah is the son of David and the Messiah is greater than David, both earthly and heavenly. These facts are also seen through a careful reading of the Tanakh. First, there are prophecies that are universally recognized as Messianic which indicate that the Messiah was to be “the son of David” (see, e.g., Isa. 11:1–16; sometimes the Messiah is actually called “David”; cf. Ezek. 34:23).

Second, the Tanakh indicates that the Messiah would be highly exalted and greater than David, as recognized also by certain Rabbinic traditions (see vol. 2, 3.22). Daniel 7:13–14, cited above by the Talmud, teaches that the Messiah will be a heavenly figure who will be served and worshiped by all peoples and nations, sitting enthroned in the heavens.

Another important passage is Psalm 110, beginning with the well-known words, “YHWH said to my lord, ‘Sit at My right hand…’ ” (njpsv). Although some Rabbinic commentaries dispute that David wrote this about the Messiah, other Rabbinic sources (e.g., Midrash Tehillim 2:9; 18:29) follow the Messianic interpretation, indicating that they had no trouble with David calling the Messiah “lord” or “master” (this interpretation was so common that it is presupposed by the New Testament; see further vol. 3, 4.29).

There are also Rabbinic traditions that speak of the Messiah’s preexistence and his heavenly dialogues with God, indicating that he was not your everyday, run-of-the-mill, physical descendant of David (see vol. 2, 3.22).¹⁸⁴ Note also the midrash to Isaiah 52:13, which states that the Messiah, who will come forth out of David, will be higher than Abraham, lifted up above Moses, and loftier than the ministering angels (see Yalqut Shim‘oni 2:571).¹⁸⁵

How then could the Messiah be David’s son and yet in some sense be preexistent and greater than David? It is only through his virgin birth. His earthly father Joseph was a descendant of David and in the royal line, while it appears from the New Testament record that his mother, Miriam (Mary), was also a descendant of David.¹⁸⁶ As Keener observes,

There is little doubt that Jesus’ family historically stemmed from Davidic lineage: all clear early Christian sources attest it (e.g., Rom 1:3); Hegesippus reports a Palestinian tradition in which Roman authorities interrogated Jesus’ brother’s grandsons for Davidic descent (Euseb. H.E. 3.20); Julius Africanus attests Jesus’ relatives claiming Davidic descent (Letter to Aristides); and, probably more significantly, non-Christian Jewish polemicists never bothered to try to refute it (Jeremias 1969: 291).¹⁸⁷

The same authors who speak clearly of the virgin birth of Yeshua speak just as clearly of his being a son of David (cf., e.g., Matt. 1:1, 17–25; 9:27, 21:9, etc.; note that Matthew breaks his genealogy down to three groups of fourteen, which is also the numeric equivalent of the name David in Hebrew).¹⁸⁸ They found no contradiction here. And this leads to an important question for consideration: Given the unique nature of the Messiah—the son of David and yet greater than David—could you present a more scriptural scenario than the one offered in the Gospels?

His mother’s husband—they were espoused before Jesus was conceived—and the man who in all respects outside of literal begetting functioned as his earthly father, was in the line of legal heirs to the throne, going back to David. His mother Miriam, whose bloodline he continued, was a descendant of David. Once you see God’s hand in all this, it becomes awe-inspiring, the kind of thing the human mind would never invent.

The Messiah is David’s son and David’s lord, descended from the earthly king and yet descended from the heavenly throne, earthly and yet transcendent, able to fully identify with us in our humanity and weakness yet bearing the divine nature and able to save us fully from our sins.

Thus, after Yeshua’s immersion in water, Luke 3:22b records that a voice came from heaven saying, “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased,” while the very next verse states, “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). The Messiah, then, was the Son of God and the son of man.

This whole argument, of course, is greatly weakened if the Messiah’s descent cannot be traced through Miriam and if she is not, in fact, in the legitimate Messianic line from David.¹⁸⁹ Thus Jews for Judaism claims that, “There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.” This is simply not true, and there is evidence for this being Miriam’s (Mary’s) genealogy, although a healthy scholarly debate exists on the subject.

First, there is no sign of any debate about the Davidic lineage of Yeshua in any of the early sources, suggesting that Miriam’s Davidic background was well known. Second, Luke 1:32, recounting Gabriel’s words to Miriam, makes good sense if she was a descendant of David, since she is being informed that the son to be conceived within her as a virgin will inherit the throne of his father David: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.

The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.” Third, the fact that the New Testament preserves two different genealogies lends support to the view that one is Joseph’s and the other is Miriam’s. Why preserve and supply two seemingly contradictory genealogies? Fourth, the Greek construction of Luke 3:23 certainly allows for the genealogy to be that of Miriam, stating, in effect, that Yeshua was thought to be the son of Joseph but was actually the (grand)son of Heli.¹⁹⁰

This would be in harmony with some of the genealogical evidence from the Tanakh, as seen immediately below. Fifth, there is no evidence that proves that the genealogy is not Miriam’s. In light of all the arguments that can be mustered to support Luke’s genealogy as coming through Miriam, unless conclusive evidence can be raised to the contrary, then the case for Davidic descent through Miriam must be considered as a strong possibility, if not probability.

As noted above, however, Jews for Judaism has an answer for this as well: “Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.”¹⁹¹ Once more, this statement only tells part of the story, since the Hebrew Bible actually provides us with two examples that offer relevant parallels to the Messiah’s bloodline being traced through his mother.

First, in terms of inheritance, the Torah teaches that if a man dies, leaving no sons but only daughters, the inheritance is passed on through the daughters and their husbands, provided that they marry within the tribe (see Num. 27:1–11; 36:1–12).¹⁹² Thus, the daughter’s inheritance is joined with her husband’s. While this does not deal with genealogy, it does deal with the passing on of family inheritance through a daughter, certainly a related concept.¹⁹³

This is further confirmed by Ezra 2:61 (= Neh. 7:63), which makes reference to “Barzillai (a man who had married a daughter of Barzillai the Gileadite and was called by that name).”¹⁹⁴

In the case of Jesus, Miriam also married within the same tribal family, since Joseph was a Judahite and, more specifically, a descendant of David. In fact, according to U. Holzmeister,¹⁹⁵ this is how Luke’s genealogy should actually be understood as that of Miriam, but in connection with Joseph. As explained by John Nolland, who favors this proposal,

Holzmeister argues that Mary was an heiress (i.e., had no brothers) whose father Eli, in line with a biblical tradition concerned with the maintenance of the family line in cases where there was no male heir (Ezra 2:61 = Neh 7:63; Num 32:41 cf. 1 Chr 2:21–22, 34–35; Num 27:3–8), on the marriage of his daughter to Joseph, adopted Joseph as his own son. Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth, Luke that by adoption.¹⁹⁶

Regardless of whether this proposal is accepted, it is clear that Luke’s genealogy through Yeshua’s mother, Miriam, is of direct relevance to the objection at hand.

Second, 1 Chronicles 2:34–36 states, “Sheshan had no sons—only daughters. He had an Egyptian servant named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai. Attai was the father of Nathan, Nathan the father of Zabad …” Do you see it? Sheshan’s genealogy continues through his daughter’s children, all of whom bear good Israelite names rather than Egyptian names, despite Jarha’s Egyptian background.¹⁹⁷

The genealogy continues through the daughter’s children! Both of these examples—inheritance and genealogy—are helpful here, since Miriam and Joseph’s pedigrees together provide Jesus with a legitimate line to the throne, without, however, making him a mere descendant of David.

It is also interesting to note the genealogical record found in 1 Chronicles 2:13–16:

Jesse was the father of Eliab his firstborn; the second son was Abinadab, the third Shimea, the fourth Nethanel, the fifth Raddai, the sixth Ozem and the seventh David. Their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. Zeruiah’s three sons were Abishai, Joab and Asahel.

Why no mention of Zeruiah’s husband, the father of Abishai, Joab, and Asahel? Or did these brothers have different fathers, perhaps through their mother’s widowhood and remarriage? Scripture gives us no indication.

What is clear, however, is that in this genealogy as well as throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, they are only known as the “sons of Zeruiah.” Notice these phrases: “Joab son of Zeruiah” (2 Sam. 2:13, plus twelve more times); “Abishai son of Zeruiah” (1 Sam. 26:6, plus five more times); “The three sons of Zeruiah were there: Joab, Abishai and Asahel” (2 Sam. 2:18); “these sons of Zeruiah” (2 Sam. 3:39); “you sons of Zeruiah” (2 Sam. 16:10; 19:22).

It seems clear that Zeruiah’s importance as the mother of these mighty men in David’s army was well known. But, for our purposes, it is more important to notice that she, and not the father, is cited in the genealogical record.

Even these answers, however, do not satisfy the anti-missionaries. They raise one further objection, one that is intended to be the coup de grace: “Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family.

According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:11–14, 22:9–10, 28:4–6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31).” Of all the objections raised, this is actually the easiest to refute, on the basis of both Scripture and even Rabbinic tradition. (Is this the reason that Jews for Judaism did not say, “According to the Bible and Rabbinic tradition”?)

Let’s review each of the passages cited, beginning with 2 Samuel 7:14 in its larger context. Here, Nathan the prophet is giving David a promise from the Lord:

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. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 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.

But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.

2 Samuel 7:12–16

First Chronicles 17:11–14 is a parallel passage to the verses we just read in 2 Samuel 7. Note carefully the language used about Solomon: “I will establish his kingdom.… I will establish his throne forever.… I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever” (1 Chron. 17:11b, 12b, 14).

What glorious promises! This is repeated once more in 1 Chronicles 22:10b, “And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.” There was, however, a divine condition clearly laid out: “I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time” (1 Chron. 28:7). Was Solomon unswerving in carrying out God’s commands and laws? Hardly! The scriptural record is very clear:

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.

On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.

1 Kings 11:1–8

There were serious consequences to Solomon’s ugly sin:

The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command. So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.

Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”

1 Kings 11:9–13

Solomon did not meet God’s conditions, and his throne was not established forever. The Word of God states this clearly. There are even some 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 he did not even finish out his rule on that throne? To the contrary, it is the throne of David that remains established forever.

Gerald Sigal, writing for Jews for Judaism, is either unaware of these biblical truths or fails to recognize the weight of them, arguing that the kingship was not taken from Solomon the way it was taken from Saul:

How did God take the kingdom from Saul? The right to the kingship terminated with Saul’s death. No son of Saul ever sat on or had a right to the throne. But Solomon’s descendants, with the exception of one branch of the family, would never lose their right to the throne. The punishment for disobedience would be chastening at the hands of men but not the termination of the monarchical right.

It is God’s unconditional promise that the posterity of David, specifically that of Solomon, will possess the kingship forever. God assures that there will always be a male of paternal Solomonic descent with the right to reign upon David’s throne.¹⁹⁸

Sigal, however, completely misses the point, looking primarily at the promise of divine chastisement laid out in 2 Samuel 7:14 while overlooking the statement in 1 Chronicles 28:7 that Solomon’s throne would only be established forever if he followed God’s commands unswervingly, which he certainly did not.

The fact is, Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s throne was! And while it is true that descendants of Solomon continued to sit on David’s throne—it was only logical that the son of a king would be the next king—this was because of the unconditional promises given to David (in contrast with Saul), not the conditional promises given to Solomon, which he violated.

And, following the exile of the Davidic monarchy in 586 b.c.e., there was not a hint that future kings would have to trace their lineage through Solomon. He flagrantly sinned against the requirements of the Lord!

I find it interesting that the anti-missionaries not only fail to deal with 1 Chronicles 28:7, they virtually always ignore the categorical statement found in 1 Kings 9:4–9 where God speaks directly to Solomon, warning him plainly:

As for you, if you walk before me in integrity of heart and uprightness, as David your father did, and do all I command and observe my decrees and laws, I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father when I said, “You shall never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.”

But if you or your sons turn away from me and do not observe the commands and decrees I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land I have given them and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples.

And though this temple is now imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, “Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?” People will answer, “Because they have forsaken the Lord their God, who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why the Lord brought all this disaster on them.”

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. In that passage Solomon prayed this very promise back to the Lord—namely, that David would never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.

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.¹⁹⁹ Thankfully, God was determined to keep his long-term promises to David, but nothing was guaranteed to Solomon or his posterity. Such a pledge simply does not exist anywhere in the Bible.²⁰⁰

The Hebrew Scriptures are absolutely clear on this. Thus, there is not one single reference in the Bible to “the throne of Solomon” but many references to “the throne of David.” See 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 2:12, 24, 45; Isaiah 9:7[6], in a decidedly Messianic context; Jeremiah 17:25; 22:2, 30; 29:16; 36:30. Why?

Because Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s was! All subsequent Judean kings sat on David’s throne, not Solomon’s. Similarly, there is not a single biblical reference to a future king who will be from the line of Solomon or will be called a son of Solomon or come from the seed of Solomon, while there are important references to a future king who will be from the line of David or called a son of David or come from the seed of David.²⁰¹ Why?

Because Solomon’s throne was not established forever, David’s was! Quite simply, there are no unconditional promises to Solomon to raise up royal heirs from his lineage, nor was there a requirement that the Messiah had to trace his lineage through Solomon. The Messianic line was promised to David, not Solomon. See also the promises given to David in the Psalms:²⁰²

You said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one,

I have sworn to David my servant,

‘I will establish your line forever

and make your throne firm through all generations.’ ”

Psalm 89:3–4

Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness—

and I will not lie to David—

that his line will continue forever

and his throne endure before me like the sun;

it will be established forever like the moon,

the faithful witness in the sky.

Psalm 89:35–37

The Lord swore an oath to David,

a sure oath that he will not revoke:

“One of your own descendants

I will place on your throne—

if your sons keep my covenant

and the statutes I teach them,

then their sons will sit

on your throne for ever and ever.”

Psalm 132:11–12

God made no such promises to Solomon. That’s why God spoke through the prophets about David and about his throne and his line, but never—not once!—about Solomon:

For this is what the Lord says: “David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel.” …

… This is what the Lord says: “If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne.”

Jeremiah 33:17, 20–21

But if you are careful to obey me, declares the Lord, and bring no load through the gates of this city on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy by not doing any work on it, then kings who sit on David’s throne will come through the gates of this city with their officials. They and their officials will come riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by the men of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, and this city will be inhabited forever.

Jeremiah 17:24–25

Notice again the wording of this passage: Kings will “sit on David’s throne”—not Solomon’s throne. In similar fashion, a godless Judean king was told that “none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David [not Solomon!] or rule anymore in Judah” (Jer. 22:30, discussed below, 5.12; see also Jer. 36:30). David’s heirs sat on the throne of David, not the throne of Solomon, and whatever glorious intentions the Lord had for his servant Solomon, they were virtually wiped out through his gross idolatry and disobedience.²⁰³

To whom much is given, much is required! It remained for Yeshua the Messiah to fulfill the promises given to David: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”²⁰⁴ To this day, his kingdom is growing and expanding, and it will continue forever without interruption or abatement.

To reiterate, the witness of the Scriptures is absolutely clear on this point: The throne of David, not Solomon, was established forever, and the Messiah had to be a descendant of David, not Solomon. As the nineteenth-century-commentator Malbim explained, the unconditional promises did not continue through the offspring of David’s grandchildren (meaning, the sons of Solomon); those were only conditional.²⁰⁵

You ask, “But haven’t the rabbis always taught what Jews for Judaism states, namely, that, ‘According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendant of David through his son Solomon’?” Absolutely not. Such a statement is not found in the Talmud or Law Codes—not once!—and there is not the slightest evidence that, for example, when Rabbi Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the Messiah in 132 c.e., he claimed that he was a descendant of Solomon. Why?

It was simply not an issue. In the same way, in the early 1990s when the followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson, claimed that he was the Messiah, they did not major on an (alleged) claim that he was a descendant of Solomon. Being an alleged descendant of David was sufficient in their eyes. Why? Because in most Rabbinic thought, descent through Solomon was not considered a requirement for the Messiah.²⁰⁶

Throughout Rabbinic literature, the only time the phrase ben shʾlomo (son of Solomon) occurs is with reference to Rehoboam, his immediate offspring (see, e.g., Numbers Rabbah 23:13; b. Megillah 31b; b. Nedarim 40a). Outside of this, in the whole of Talmudic literature, the phrase “son of Solomon” does not occur a single time. Why? Because it had no significance at all, whereas the phrase “son of David” became synonymous with the Messiah.

(This is very common in Rabbinic literature; see, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 97; Exodus Rabbah 25:12; b. Yoma 10a; b. Sukkah 52 a–b; b. Sanhedrin 97a–98b; this usage is reflected in the New Testament as well; see Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; 22:42; with parallels in Mark and Luke.) The Messiah was to be the son of David, not necessarily the son of Solomon, because David’s throne was established forever, not Solomon’s.

It is therefore highly significant for a traditional Jew that Moses Maimonides, one of the leading voices in Rabbinic Judaism, omitted any reference to the Messiah’s supposed need to be of Solomonic descent in his authoritative law code called the Mishneh Torah, speaking of it in his Book of Commandments, which is less authoritative than his Mishneh Torah.²⁰⁷ In his oft-quoted section dealing with the Messiah, he simply stated, “If a king will arise from the House of David…” (Hilchot Melachim 11:4).

As one ultra-Orthodox rabbi pointed out to me, “The fact that he did not mention Solomonic descent in his law code meant that it was not that important a concept to him.” This statement, which is in keeping with the scriptural evidence (which is really enough in itself), is reinforced by the fact that the Talmud refers to the Messiah as the son of David but never the son of Solomon, while not a single authoritative statement in traditional Judaism makes the claim that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon.

It is therefore not surprising that such an argument was not raised in the sharp medieval polemics between Judaism and Christianity, nor was it raised in the classic anti-Christian work known as Hizzuk Emunah, “Faith Strengthened,” considered the granddaddy of anti-missionary works.²⁰⁸

And yet there is one more objection that is raised, namely 2 Kings 11:1 (see 2 Chron. 22:10) where we read that, “When Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she proceeded to destroy the whole royal family,” her goal being to take over the throne by eliminating any potential heirs, yet she killed only the male members of the royal family, not the female members.

From this the anti-missionaries argue that legitimate Davidic descent can only come through a male, otherwise Athaliah would have sought to kill the Davidic women as well. But that is to read more into this event than is warranted, since Athaliah was only trying to wipe out immediate, potential heirs to the throne, meaning either sons or siblings of the king. This is the most likely meaning of the “whole royal family.” In this way, she could proclaim herself queen.

So, her goal was not to try to thwart all future promises to the house of David—why would she be thinking about that?—but to secure the throne for herself, since the normal pattern was for the son or sibling of a king to become the next king. That direct line of royal succession, however, was broken more than 2,500 years ago.²⁰⁹

As to the notion that, theoretically, she should have killed David’s female descendants as well (or, at least, Solomon’s), that would imply that she thought through all the issues of genealogy and inheritance involving descent through women (discussed above), which is a ludicrous and baseless assumption. Moreover, it fails to address the fact that there was a specific reason that the Messiah had to be virgin born, namely, so he could be both the son of David and the Son of God, David’s descendant and David’s lord, as explained above.

This too would have had no relevance at all to Athaliah’s murderous deeds, deeds which had only one goal, and that was to secure the throne for herself at that moment. Having stated this, however, we should note that the New Testament does put emphasis on the fact that Yeshua’s earthly, adoptive father was also a son of David, thereby placing Yeshua in the royal line through Joseph as well, since in all respects aside from conception—in the one, unique time in human history that such a thing took place—Joseph, a descendant of the ancient royal line of David, was the father of Yeshua.²¹⁰

The bottom line is this: If, in fact, Jesus was supernaturally conceived by the will and power of God—as we believe without hesitation or doubt—making the Lord his heavenly Father, then technical, pseudo-legal objections to his lineage are dubious. God brought the Messiah into the world—in one sense David’s son, in another sense David’s lord—and this alone fulfills the promise of the Tanakh and answers the “either-or” problem raised in the Talmud.

It would be the height of absurdity to say, “Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he was supernaturally conceived by the Spirit and God is his real Father.” With “objections” like this, who needs proofs?

¹⁸⁰Cf. the similar claim of Uri Yosef on the Messiah Truth website: “Thus, the Jewish Messiah may emerge from ANY royal branch that leads to Solomon” (his emphasis); “Genealogical Scams and Flimflams,” Messiah Truth Project, http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogy.html.

¹⁸¹“Jewish Belief in Messiah: The Jewish Concept of Messiah and the Jewish Response to Christian Claims,” Jews for Judaism, http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.html.

¹⁸²Keener also notes that, “… Matthew probably believes this to be Jesus’ legal rather than blood line (1:18–25), but such an observation in no way detracts from the importance of that line; Matthew lived in a world where adoption lines were significant and frequently qualified sons for royalty (e.g., Augustus with Tiberius, Suet. Tib. 23).” Matthew, 80.

¹⁸³According to Rashi, the phrase “with the clouds of heaven” means “swiftly” (bimhirut). But that is certainly not what the phrase means in Daniel 7:13–14, and we cannot be certain that such a meaning was intended by the Talmudic rabbi (named Alexandri) who raised the point in the text under discussion in Sanhedrin.

¹⁸⁴It is possible, of course, that some of these Rabbinic passages are merely figurative, while others point to the Messiah’s spiritual preexistence. On the other hand, it is fair to ask: Where are such references to a preexistent David in the Rabbinic literature? This is not to say for a moment that these Rabbinic traditions about the Messiah point to his divinity. But they do point to his greatness, to say the least, and possibly, to some aspects of his transcendence.

¹⁸⁵For further details, see vol. 2, 3.22.

¹⁸⁶Gerald Sigal bluntly states, “There is no verse in the Gospel of Luke that makes the claim that Mary is a descendant of King David. In fact, there is no New Testament verse that makes this claim.” See Jews for Judaism, http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq003.html.

¹⁸⁷Keener, Matthew, 75.

¹⁸⁸As is often noted, Matthew’s grouping of 14s is meant to be general, primarily for mnemonic purposes, although there may be some theological significance as well.; see Keener, IVPNT, 46–47.

¹⁸⁹There are many New Testament scholars who believe that both Matthew and Luke give genealogies of Joseph, not finding this to be contradictory to the concept of Davidic descent (see, e.g., the discussion in Carson, “Matthew,” EBC, 8:60–65).

I am not convinced, however, that Yeshua’s Davidic descent can be maintained without Miriam herself also descending from that line, and so, if both Matthew and Luke record genealogies of Joseph, then we would have to look for other evidence for Miriam’s lineage, either in other New Testament books or outside sources. If that evidence exists, I am not aware of it.

¹⁹⁰David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1995), 112, notes: “A literal translation of the Greek text starting at v. 23 would be: ‘And Yeshua himself was beginning about thirty years, being son, as was supposed, of Yosef, of the Eli, of the Mattat, of the L’vi,’ etc.” Understanding that “Luke gives the genealogy of Yeshua through his mother Miryam, the daughter of Eli,” then, “Yeshua is ‘of the Eli’ in the sense of being his grandson; while Yeshua’s relationship with Yosef is portrayed in the words, ‘son, as supposed’—implying not actually.…” (This work is henceforth cited as JNTC.)

¹⁹¹See above, n. 181.

¹⁹²For ancient Near Eastern parallels, cf. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 416, who notes, “Ancient Sumerian law ordains that an unmarried daughter may inherit when there are no sons, and so also do decrees of Gudea (ca. 2150 B.C.E.), ruler of Lagash. Thus, the concession made by the Bible to Zelophehad’s daughters was anticipated in Mesopotamia by a millennium.

It is also clear from documents of Nuzi and Ugarit (i.e., in places as far apart as the Tigris River and the Mediterranean coast during the middle and second half of the second millennium) that daughters inherited in the absence of sons.” See ibid., 416–418, for discussion of the application of this principle in Rabbinic law (m. B. B. 8:1–2).

¹⁹³Sigal notes that, “Biblically, the right of lineal privilege, that is, kingship and priesthood, are exclusively passed on through the male line. The incident regarding the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers, chapters 27 and 36) does not apply here since it concerns the transference of physical property and not privileges of lineage.” See Jews for Judaism, http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq013.html.

Of course, he fails to observe that these two concepts are related—in fact, there is a principle to be deduced from this legislation regarding inheritance—and he does not deal at all with the genealogical evidence of 1 Chronicles 2:34–35 which we also discuss here.

¹⁹⁴Some would argue that 1 Chronicles 2:21-22 is also relevant, where it is stated that “Hezron lay with the daughter of Makir the father of Gilead (he had married her when he was sixty years old), and she bore him Segub. Segub was the father of Jair, who controlled twenty-three towns in Gilead.” So, the association with Gilead comes through the mother, identified only as “the daughter of Makir the father of Gilead.”

¹⁹⁵U. Holzmeister, “Ein Erklärungversuch der Lk-Geneaologie (3,23–38),” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 47 (1923): 184–218.

¹⁹⁶Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 170.

¹⁹⁷Some scholars argue that this points to the adoption of Jarha by Sheshan (who, presumably, became a worshiper of Yahweh), rather than pointing to the genealogy being traced through the daughter. As noted in the Jewish Encyclopedia, “The Adoption of the slave as son and heir, as indicated in the Bible in the words of Abraham, ‘One born in my house is mine heir’ (Gen. 15:3), was probably practised frequently in the manner described in 1 Chron 2:34 et seq., where Sheshan is mentioned as having given his daughter as wife to his servant and adopted their sons as his own” (“Adoption,” 1:208).

Either way, however, it supports the validity of the New Testament genealogies of Jesus: If Sheshan’s genealogy continues through his daughter, this would serve as a direct parallel to the Messiah’s genealogy coming through his mother; if Sheshan adopted Jarha into his line of descent, this would be parallel to Joseph adopting Jesus into his line. Rabbinic commentaries point to 2:31, speaking of Sheshan’s son Ahlai, stating that he became sick and died without children.

Wouldn’t this underscore the fact that Jarha was given to Sheshan’s daughter to continue his line? Note Rashi to 2:35: “From here they derived that if your daughter has matured, free your slave and give him to her (Pes. 113a), and from here the Sages derived in the Palestinian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth (source unknown): ‘Do not trust a proselyte until fifteen generations, and fifteen generations are from Ittai the Egyptian until Ishmael, and some say sixteen generations, including Jarha.’

The midrash states the following: ‘Is it possible that he was of the royal descent (mizzeraʿ hamelukah) [as in Jeremiah 41:1]? Now was not Ishmael of the seed of Jerahmeel and not from Ram? But rather it means that he passed his seed to the molech.’ ” (See also Malbim to 1 Chron 2:34; he claims that Sheshan’s son was born after he gave Jarha to his daughter.)

¹⁹⁸Gerald Sigal, Jews for Judaism, http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq030.html.

¹⁹⁹Jewish Study Bible, 694, to 1 Kings 9:4–9. Ziony Zevit writes there, “Reaffirming the conditionality of the promise to David and his dynasty, God denies Solomon’s request of 8:25–26 for a guarantee. For emphasis, God states also that the existence of the Temple itself depends on the proper behavior of Israel.”

²⁰⁰David Rothstein, ibid., 1746, to 1 Chronicles 17:13, raises the larger issue of the conditional or unconditional nature of the promises to David, noting different scholarly views on the subject. For further discussion, cf. the standard commentaries to 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel.

²⁰¹See, e.g., 1 Kings 11:39, with reference to God punishing David’s seed, not Solomon’s; Jeremiah 33:22, a promise to multiply David’s seed; note also 2 Chronicles 23:3b, “Jehoiada said to them, ‘The king’s son shall reign, as the Lord promised concerning the descendants of David’ ”—not the descendants of Solomon; cf. also the reference to the “Root of Jesse” in Isaiah 11:10. This, of course, is just a sampling.

²⁰²See further Greg Herrick, “Conceptions of Davidic Hope in Psalms 89, 110, and 132,” Bible.org, http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1573.

²⁰³Commenting on 2 Samuel 7:14, Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 3:891, notes: “The formula ‘provides both the judicial basis for the gift of the eternal dynasty (compare Pss 2:7–8; 89) and the qualification that disloyal sons will lose YHWH’s protection (compare 1 Kings 6:12–13; 9:4, 6–7)’ (Waltke, ‘The Phenomenon of Conditionality,’ p. 131; cf. Weinfeld, ‘The Covenant of Grant,’ p. 190).”

²⁰⁴According to J. Barton Payne, “1, 2 Chronicles,” EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 4:436, commenting on 1 Chron. 28:6–7, “That is, the fulfillment of true sonship to God the ‘Father’ was not achieved by Solomon (cf. comment on [1 Chron.] 22:10); it was ‘an ideal that actualized only in Christ’ (Payne, Prophecy, p. 226).”

²⁰⁵See Malbim’s commentary to 1 Chronicles 28:7 and Psalm 132:11–12.

²⁰⁶There is now an organization seeking to reunite all descendants of David. According to the Davidic Dynasty website, “Descent from David Hamelech is more than just a shared strand of DNA; it is an inheritance of responsibility for the welfare of the Jewish people. At this crucial juncture in our people’s history we face as grave a danger from within as from without. Our enemies still seek to destroy us physically and spiritually.

The perils from within, assimilation, intermarriage and those who wish to forfeit their Jewish identity and our birthright, are also threatening our very existence.” Once again, the emphasis is simply on Davidic descent, not Davidic descent through Solomon. See http://www.davidicdynasty.org.

²⁰⁷See Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments, 362.

²⁰⁸There are some Rabbinic traditions that argue for Solomonic descent; see, e.g., the comments in the Schottenstein Talmud to b. Sanh 95b (95b¹), n. 12, with reference to 2 Kings 11:1: “Yad David points out that not all descendants of David were in Asaliah’s [i.e., Queen Athaliah’s] reach. Rather, the verse means that she killed all the descendants of Solomon, for they alone were heirs to the throne, and they were thus the ones affected by the punishment due David’s heirs.

See also Margaliyos HaYam §6.” The fact, however, that it is even a subject of discussion indicates that Solomonic descent may not have been foremost in the minds of the Talmudic commentators; it does not seem to be Rashi’s opinion either, as seen in his comments to 2 Chron. 22:10: “for David foresaw with the holy spirit that in the eighth generation [of his dynasty] all his descendants would be slain by Athaliah, for there are eight generations from Solomon till here.”

More importantly, the alleged requirement of Solomonic descent for the Messiah was not an issue in the Scriptures.

²⁰⁹A corollary objection that could be raised would be that Athaliah only tried to kill the descendants of Solomon, who were considered the legitimate heirs to the throne and not all descendants of David; cf. immediately above, n. 208.

This argument, however, carries little weight since: (1) The text does not state explicitly that she only tried to kill the sons of Solomon, simply “the whole royal family,” which, if it did not refer to the descendants of David in general referred specifically to the sons and siblings of Ahaziah, rather than to all descendants of Solomon, as suggested in the previous note by some Talmudic commentators.

(2) Even if she did only kill Solomon’s sons—which is highly unlikely—her purposes were entirely pragmatic, as stated, seeking to eliminate any sons or siblings of the king.

(3) What if she had succeeded in destroying every descendant of Solomon, thereby wiping out the “royal” line? Do you think for a moment that another son of David would not have been produced as the next possible successor? Do you think that the children of Israel would have then considered all the promises to David null and void even if other descendants of David were alive? Hardly! This, of course, is just theoretical, since Athaliah did not kill one of the king’s sons; but the point remains clear.

²¹⁰For the claim that Talmudic laws regarding inheritance rights for adopted sons are relevant here, cf. Stern, JNTC, 8.

Brown, M. L. (2007). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 4: New Testament objections. (83). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Baker Books.