|Descendant of King David?|
I think the above passages from the Hebrew Bible clearly demonstrate that the Messiah must be a descendant of David and Solomon. So the final question is, Could Jesus be the messiah based on his mother’s descent from these two men?
In my fifteen minute google search, I did not find a Bible passage that says that the Messiah must be descended through his father’s male ancestry to David and Solomon. So if that is what has Mike all worked up, let’s make Mike’s day: I was wrong! I was wrong! I was wrong!
However, what I did find out is that prior to Ezra and the Babylonian captivity, Jewishness was determined patrilineally and not matrilineally—if the father was a Jew, the child was a Jew. Many of the men mentioned in the first few books of the OT married non-Jews, but their children were always considered Jews/Israelites. So inheritance from the father was what mattered. Does that prove that Mary’s lineage could not be used? No.
However, if you look at the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, do we see ANY women mentioned in the genealogies? Answer: only as a side note regarding who their husband was, such as with Ruth and Boaz. The ancestry is traced from son to father, son to father, son to father, never son to mother, son to mother, etc. Is Mary mentioned in these genealogies? Answer: no. In fact, both genealogies state very clearly that the genealogy being listed is that of David, and in Luke, the author mentions at least twice in other passages in his gospel that Joseph WAS a descendant of David. He never ONCE mentions that Mary was a descendant of David.
1. So could Mary have been a descendant of David and Solomon? Sure. It’s also possible that I am a descendant from King Arthur of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Anything is possible, but we have no evidence to support this claim, so why jump to silly conclusions?
2. Could the messianic requirement for the messiah to be a descendant of David and Solomon allow for ancestry going through one’s mother? It seems no Bible verse precludes it, so yes, it is possible. But again, it flies in the face of all the evidence.
So once again, we are left with another of Christianity’s major tenets held together by the flimsiest of assumptions: that a genealogy that says it is of a man named Joseph is really of the man’s wife’s father.
One preposterous claim, upon another, upon another, etc…and if you don’t believe it all as the absolute TRUTH…God’s gonna get ya for that! Come on people. Wake up! How much more silliness must we wade through before you see this tall tale for what it is: an ancient fable.