genealogies

ralliann said:

The royal line through Judah is because of his promise to king David. The law only says a King must be from among your brethren, not a foreigner. Just as Saul was not from Judah. As for Melchizedek there is no genealogy required, for either his order of Priesthood or royalty. I thought I made that clear?

Click to expand...

As clear as mud. First you state it matters then you say it doesn't. When you state 'the royal line through Judah IS because of his promise to King David', you said it in present tense and as a positive affirmation. So you affirm here that the royal line (of the Messiah) IS through Judah because of...

Then you go on to identify Melchizedek, who is a pattern of Messiah and state 'there is no genealogy required'.

And you also conflated the requirements of a King of Israel with The Messiah King. One was a pattern/image of the other. Only The Messiah has the prophetic call to be of the genealogy of Judah.

ralliann said:

I thought I made that clear?

Click to expand...

Perhaps I was not clear. The royal line had to be thru Judah following the coronation of David. So the Messiah/King had to be a physical (or adopted) male heir of David. It had to come from father to son, father to son.

Dave-W said:

Perhaps I was not clear. The royal line had to be thru Judah following the coronation of David. So the Messiah/King had to be a physical (or adopted) male heir of David. It had to come from father to son, father to son.

Click to expand...

Maybe it doesn't have to "come from father to son, father to son" - couldn't it be God's choice?

Act 2:29-30 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. (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;

[According to Vincent's Word Studies:
Acts 2:30
"According to the flesh, he would raise up Christ"
The best texts omit. Render as Rev., he would set one upon his throne.}

chunkofcoal said:

Maybe it doesn't have to "come from father to son, father to son" - couldn't it be God's choice?

Click to expand...

And how exactly were the jewish people to recognize "God's choice?" Especially after it was prophesied over and over "Son of David."

Dave-W said:

And how exactly were the jewish people to recognize "God's choice?" Especially after it was prophesied over and over "Son of David."

Click to expand...

Yeshua is the Son of David. David had a lot of sons.

chunkofcoal said:

Yeshua is the Son of David. David had a lot of sons.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The town of Nazareth (meaning "branch") was full of families from David's lines.

TreWalker said:

As clear as mud. First you state it matters then you say it doesn't. When you state 'the royal line through Judah IS because of his promise to King David', you said it in present tense and as a positive affirmation. So you affirm here that the royal line (of the Messiah) IS through Judah because of...

Then you go on to identify Melchizedek, who is a pattern of Messiah and state 'there is no genealogy required'.

And you also conflated the requirements of a King of Israel with The Messiah King. One was a pattern/image of the other. Only The Messiah has the prophetic call to be of the genealogy of Judah.

Click to expand...

The eternal nature of the promise to David is distinct. Messiah or Christ (depending on what language you speak) is an anointed. Kings, priests and prophets are all anointed (christs.
Genealogy is not a requirement for the anointed Melchzedek that I can see. Jesus being eternal as priest and king fulfilled that promise.

Dave-W said:

Mary could not figure into the royal line. It was completely Patrilineal. (had to go thru Joseph)

Besides, as far as we can tell of Mary's lineage, she was from the tribe of Levi.

Click to expand...

Lukes Genealogy is Mary's yes? Royal lineage is recorded there. Where are you getting that Mary was Levite? A priests daughter which marries outside of the tribe of Levi Becomes as a stranger (estranged) and has offspring which are strangers to the things of the Levitical priesthood.
Lev 22:12 If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. {a stranger: Heb. a man a stranger }
13 But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.

Dave-W said:

Mary could not figure into the royal line. It was completely Patrilineal. (had to go thru Joseph)

Click to expand...

This did not apply to the tribe of Judah?
Numbers 36:2 And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters.
3 And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance.

5 ¶ And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well.
6 This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. {marry: Heb. be wives }
7 So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. {keep … : Heb. cleave to the, etc }
8 And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers.
9 Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance.

ralliann said:

Lukes Genealogy is Mary's yes?

Click to expand...

NO. To say it was Mary’s is to conflict with the text itself.

Where do people get these strange ideas? The only thing we know of Mary’s lineage was that she was a very close relative of Elizabeth, who was a “daughter of Aaron.”

Dave-W said:

NO. To say it was Mary’s is to conflict with the text itself.

Click to expand...

Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Dave-W said:

Where do people get these strange ideas?

Click to expand...

Because of the two genealogies.

Dave-W said:

The only thing we know of Mary’s lineage was that she was a very close relative of Elizabeth, who was a “daughter of Aaron.”

Click to expand...

As the genealogies of the priests, we see that the levitical line does not apply to a woman unless she marries a Levite. She becomes a stranger (estranged), and her children are strangers. Like all of the other tribes of Israel are. Elizabeth was a daughter of Aaron because her father was a son of Aaron. That does not mean that Mary had any lineage in that line.

ralliann said:

Because of the two genealogies.

Click to expand...

So why Assume it is Mary’s?

In the ancient world, adoption was common and it changed a person’s lineage. It produced both a physical genealogy and a legal genealogy. Alexander the Great got himself adopted by a descendent of David so he could claim Davidic kingship. That meant his legal genealogy no longer had King Menelaus as his father.

Dave-W said:

So why Assume it is Mary’s?

In the ancient world, adoption was common and it changed a person’s lineage. It produced both a physical genealogy and a legal genealogy. Alexander the Great got himself adopted by a descendent of David so he could claim Davidic kingship. That meant his legal genealogy no longer had King Menelaus as his father.

Click to expand...

If this were so then Joseph's lineage would have been the same in both gospels. It would be not Jesus having two lineages but Joseph himself, and his father, and his father etc. all the generations way back to Nathan. So why assume adoption?

As Mary's husband he would have no need for a "legal", adoption, he was legally his son by marriage to his mother. I believe Mary is listed to ensure his royal lineage without dispute. Joseph "legally adopting" Jesus, would have made a public exposition of her and her son. Something Joseph nor the Lord wanted. It was both genealogical and legal. The gospels are a double testimony to that. Joseph married Mary because the Lord himself told him not to put her away, but to take her for his wife. Jesus would have been listed as his father legally as a biological son.

ralliann said:

If this were so then Joseph's lineage would have been the same in both gospels. It would be not Jesus having two lineages but Joseph himself, and his father, and his father etc. all the generations way back to Nathan. So why assume adoption?

Click to expand...

Why would it have been the same? Their reckoning of things is very different from our own.

C’mon, don’t any preachers teach basic history and the cultural differences of the late 2nd temple period, as to how things were looked at back then?

Yes, Joseph had 2 lineages; one natural (Luke’s) and one legal. (Matthew’s)