The Son of David According to the Flesh or According to a Spirit of Adoption?

[belantos]

The Son of David According to the Flesh or According to a Spirit of Adoption?
by Shmuel Playfair
[edited for easier reading]

Paul clearly stated, "....concerning God's son, Yeshua the Messiah, our Master, the one who comes from the [patrilineal] seed of David according to the flesh and the one who was designated son of God in power according to the spirit of Holiness by reason of a resurrection from the dead...." [Romans 1:1-4]
Unfortunately, many believe and teach the opposite of what Paul wrote here in Romans. Their other "Christ" comes not from the biological seed of David through Joseph, but from the fabricated seed of God through Mary; and they declare him to be a son of David according to a spirit of a legal adoption instead of according to the flesh. Any "Messiah" who does *not* descend from the patrilineal line of David "according to the flesh" may never be considered as being the real Messiah. God's promise to King David that He would raise up David's seed after him "who will issue from [his male] loins" was always understood by Jews as a patrilineal descent and never as a matrilineal one. [cf. 2 Shmuel 7:11-17] The two divergent, patrilineal genealogies of Yeshua found in Matthew and Luke both testify that the first Jewish disciples considered the promise given to King David as being fulfilled through Yeshua's father, Joseph, rather than through his mother.

 

[aspen]

Jewish genealogies followed the male line. Joseph, being Mary’s husband, was the legal father of Jesus. The legal father is on par with the real father as regards rights and duties . . . Since it was quite usual for people to marry within their clan, it can be concluded that Mary belonged to the house of David. Several early Fathers of the Church testify to this—for example, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and Tertullian, who base their testimony on an unbroken tradition.

There is also other evidence that Jesus was David’s descendant. For example, Paul tells us that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

 

[belantos]

Jewish genealogies followed the male line. Joseph, being Mary’s husband, was the legal father of Jesus. The legal father is on par with the real father as regards rights and duties . . . Since it was quite usual for people to marry within their clan, it can be concluded that Mary belonged to the house of David. Several early Fathers of the Church testify to this—for example, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and Tertullian, who base their testimony on an unbroken tradition.

There is also other evidence that Jesus was David’s descendant. For example, Paul tells us that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3).

1. What proof do we have that Mary was of the line of David other than thinking what was usual or unusual? If it was unusual, how was she and Elizabeth cousins when Elizabeth was the daughter of Aaron.

2. While a legal father has the same duties towards his adopted son as a natural father, tribal membership can only be inherited from the natural father. If Joseph was not Jesus' natural father, Jesus doesn't belong to the tribe of Judah, and he is not the son of David either.

3. The "unbroken tradition" that St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and Tertullian base their testimonies on originated in the late 2nd century and was very strongly protested by the Ebionites, who, according to the tradition of the early church fathers, were the Jewish disciples that escaped the Jerusalem destruction and were led by Jesus' brothers. The protest of these Jewish believers against the virgin birth doctrine testifies about an even earlier tradition, that Jesus was born of natural descent in the lineage of David. Shall I trust the testimony of these Jewish disciples who were led by Jesus' brothers, or those Greeks who knew not Jesus' family and fabricated the virgin birth story to fit their own Pagan religious culture, so as to make their religion more marketable?