The Physical Connection

GR Gaudreau

According to biblical literalists, Jesus is really and truly David's son "according to the flesh" and thus heir to his throne. He is, as they claim, a physical (genetic) descendant of king David of old. Is this true? Well, you couldn't tell that from reading the New testament (NT). In the gospels, as in other NT documents, claims are made that Jesus was the son of David; but claims are one thing and proof quite another.

What proof do NT authors offer that Jesus was David's son? The genealogies, as found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, are the only "proof," outside of outright assertions, offered to show davidic sonship. But how good are they? In my humble opinion, they fail miserably as proof that Jesus was a physical descendant of king David, but literalists are forever insisting, as is their wont, that the genealogies prove Jesus' physical association with David.

Let's take a look at the evidence, but before we do, some preliminaries: in  the Old Testament (OT) a promise was allegedly made to king David by the prophet Samuel, claiming to speak on behalf of the biblegod, that David would have a son who would inherit his throne and that he would reign on it forever. The NT alludes to this promise through the apostle Peter, in Acts chapter 2, verse 30:
"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins , according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."
It is Peter's claim in the above passage that Jesus was a direct physical descendant of David, according to the promise of God made to king David, through Samuel. That specific prophecy in the OT is found in the following passage:
2Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
Could there be any other conclusion to be drawn than that Peter, alluding to 2Sam 7:12, means to claim that Jesus is that particular physical offspring of David? I think not. Paul makes the same claim in the epistle to the Romans:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
This physical connection, by the way, cannot not be established by any means but through Solomon, David's son who reigned in Judah after him. Anyone claiming to be Israel's Messiah had to descend not only from David, but from Solomon as well, through whom God had also promised David's kingdom would be established forever.
1Chron 28:4 Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel:
5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.
judgments, as at this day.
8 Now therefore in the sight of all Israel the congregation of the LORD, and in the audience of our God, keep and seek for all the commandments of the LORD your God: that ye may possess this good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your children after you for ever.
Matthew tells us that Joseph had, as one of his ancestors, Solomon, so the right physical connection to David is made; but unfortunately Joseph is not Jesus' father and so the physical connection is non-existent as far as Jesus is concerned. Jesus, according to both Matthew and Luke, was conceived of the Holy Ghost and thus was not Joseph's son and could therefore not be David's son through Joseph.

The virginal conception precludes his being connected to David in any way through Joseph, thus invalidating Matthew's claim that Jesus was the son of David through Joseph. This leads me to wonder why an omniscient god would inspire a gospel author to write a genealogy which was, for all intents and purposes, useless in connecting Jesus to David physcally. Remember that according to the promise made to David, Jesus had to be his descendant according to the flesh! That's what the Bible actually states.

Joseph, even if he was a direct physical descendant of David, cannot count as an accomplishment of the promise, since the promise is connected to a physical and not an adopted son, if indeed Joseph ever adopted Jesus. There is no evidence in the NT that Joseph ever adopted Jesus as his son. Peter and Paul's claim that Jesus was the son of David according to the flesh is thus invalidated by the virgin birth story as told by Matthew and Luke. (Matt 1:18-23; Luke 1:30-34)

If Jesus was conceived by the "Holy Ghost," then he cannot be Israel's Messiah, since he has no physical ties to David through an earthly father who was a direct physical descendant of David through Solomon. If we use the genealogies to prove that Jesus was the son of David, then we have to deny his miraculous virginal conception. 

The gospels of Matthew and Luke, through their story of the virgin birth, have bumped Jesus right off the list of candidates eligible to sit on David's throne. Too bad, so sad, bye bye! If Jesus is the son of Joseph then he is not divinely conceived and thus Christians has made an enormous blunder in teaching the virgin birth of Jesus. But, we are told, that Mary had never known a man and that Jesus was strictly the work of the Holy Ghost; therefore, he cannot be David's son. Christians are caught in the horns of a dilemma: Damned if they do, damned if the don't, so to speak.

"Ah, you say, but you forget about Mary! She was Jesus' physical parent and was connected to David." No, I didn't forget about Mary; and you'd be hard-pressed to show that Mary was a daughter of David by reading the gospels, because nowhere is it shown that she is.

A physical connection could be made through Mary, if it could be shown that she was the subject of Luke's genealogy and a physical descendant of David. Unfortunately for Christians, Luke's genealogy isn't based on Mary, but on Joseph; and the neither of the four gospels (nor the rest of the NT) say anything about Mary's parentage which could lead us to believe she was of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.

In fact, it seems that Mary could have been a Levite, though we can't be absolutely certain. The only information we have about her parentage is through a statement from Luke that she was the cousin of Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah and mother of John the Baptist, who was "a daughter of Aaron" the Levite (Luke 1:5,36). Now there's a bit of a sticky wicket, eh?

And even if a connection to David could be made through Mary, which I deny Luke's genealogy does, then the problems persist because Luke's genealogy goes through Nathan (Luke 1:31) who was never a king in Judah. As mentioned above, the promise of a kingdom was through Solomon; ergo, Luke's genealogy, even if it is based on Mary, which it isn't, destroys the claim that Jesus was the rightful heir to the throne of David, because it ignores the royal line of descent through Solomon.

Literalists are forever trying to patch these holes up, but the problem is that the dam is broken in so many places that the more holes they try to patch, the more holes they create. The whole thing is absurd when taken literally, but this doesn't prevent literalists from trying to salvage what they can of their teetering faith. Sadly, intellectual honesty don't seem to be an option for them.

Conclusion
It cannot be shown that Jesus is a physical (genetic) descendant of king David. Attempts were made by NT authors, but they failed miserably. Amazingly, despite the lack of evidence, the errors and contradictions, and the infantile story of the virgin birth, Christians still believe Jesus was David's son and Isreal's long-awaited Messiah. Go figure!

Note: for further information on the genealogies of Jesus, please go back to the front page and click on "The Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew " and  The Genealogy of Jesus in Luke."

-- BACK --