Is Jesus Really from
the Line of David?
Jesus was not only a branch from the royal line but also the priesthood.
According to several prophecies in the Old Testament, the Messiah must be
a descendant of David. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul starts his letter to
the church in Rome: “Jesus the Messiah, our Lord, who was descended from
David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Son of David: In the past, nobody questioned that Jesus was a descendant of
David, neither historians nor the Sages.
This was because the genealogical
scrolls of the people of Israel were accessible in the Temple. If somebody
disagreed he would have speedily pointed out the mistake by referring to those
documents. Everyone knew that Jesus was indeed a descendant of David.
If
Jesus was not from the Davidic line, both the priests and the Rabbis during
Jesus’ time, not to mention the Talmud, would have pointed this out. However,
in the Talmud Jesus is referred to as somebody who was considered a
descendant of David.
Had they known that it was not true they would have used
the opportunity to point this out. However, that never happened. Rather, in the
Talmud, Sanhedrin 43, page 1, it is said that Jesus was “close to the Kingdom.”
The line of a King and the line of a Priest: Indeed, according to the New
Testament documents, Jesus was not only a branch from the royal line but also
the priesthood.
The New Testament says that Jesus was a descendant of David
from both sides of his parents, both in regard to his biological mother’s ancestry
and of his adoptive father, Joseph. In Judaism, an adoptive father was always
considered father in every respect. Based upon this, among the nations as well
the notion of “apotropos” (guardianship) evolved. The following rabbinical
commentary supports this: “On what basis do we relate Aaron’s sons with
Moses? Since he taught them Torah. And it is written about him as if he begot
them. And therefore it is said that on the day that the Lord spoke to Moses at
Sinai: Who made the sons of Aaron be called by Moses?
The Torah that God
spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai. Thus you should teach that whoever teaches his
friend’s son Torah the scriptures say that he has begotten him” (Midrash
Aggada, Numbers 3, A).
Simply put, the commentary states that Moses was the father of Aaron’s sons
only because he taught them Torah. And next to that, the Jewish tradition itself
states that the Messiah should not have a biological father.
In addition, to quote Professor Hananel Mak, Talmud Department University
of Bar Ilan from his work on Rashi’s Rabbi, Rav Moshe HaDarshan: “The
commentary is based on the combination of the human character of the Messiah
who does not have a father of flesh and blood, the prophecy of the suffering and
servile servant of Isaiah 53, which is the section “My servant will act wisely”
and Psalm 110, that describes the relationship of God with the one sitting at his
right and with Melchizedek” (Professor Hananel Mak).
Therefore, Professor Hananel Mak acknowledges that Rabbi Moshe
HaDarshan, admired by Rashi, interpreted from Isaiah 53 that the Messiah
would not have a biological father.
With the destruction of the second temple the genealogical scrolls were also
destroyed. Therefore, in our days, there is no way to know someone’s exact
ancestry. This is a lethal blow to the current rabbinical tradition because it is no
longer possible to know for sure if someone is from the line of David since the
time of the temple destruction some 2,000 years ago.
