by
Damien F. Mackey
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!’
Matthew 16:16
Once I had a lively encounter with a Moslem at a bus stop in Earlwood (Sydney, Australia). Our discussion, generally friendly, sometimes a bit noisy, attracted the attention of bystanders who listened, smiled or laughed, and even occasionally joined in. The question that this man seemed most eager to ask, and for which he dearly wanted an answer, was this:
‘What do you think of Muhammad?’
Whatever an individual Christian may think of Muhammad, or Mohammed, the real question that should most preoccupy his or her mind is that burning question that Jesus himself was most desirous of asking, and for which He awaited an answer:
‘Who do men say that I am?’
This question is posed in all three Synoptic Gospels.
The fact is that Jesus’ contemporaries were not really sure who he was. ‘Elijah’, said some. ‘John the Baptist’, said others. ‘One of the prophets returned from the dead’. Or, perhaps, ‘Jeremiah’. Some great man, for sure, but not one utterly unique.
It was the Apostle Peter who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave the right answer when the question was personalised by Jesus to: ‘Who do you say that I am?’; though Peter still had very much to learn about the significance of what he had proclaimed, for he would soon be rebuked by Jesus as a ‘Satan’ (Mark 8:33).
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has marvellously discussed the whole question of Jesus’ identity - and the contrast between opinions of, and belief in, Him - in Chapter 9 of his book, Jesus of Nazareth, beginning with (pp. 287-288):
Peter’s Confession
All three Synoptic Gospels present Jesus’ question to the disciples about who the people think he is and who they themselves consider him to be – (Mk 8:27-30; Mt 16:13-20; Lk 9:18-21) as an important milestone on his way. In all three Gospels, Peter answers in the name of the Twelve with a confession that is markedly different from the opinion of the “people”. …. In all three Gospels, however, he also interprets this “following” on the way of the Cross from an essentially anthropological standpoint: It is the indispensable way for man to “lose his life”, without which it is impossible to find it (Mk 8:31-9:1; Mt 16:21-28; Lk 9:22-27).
And finally, in all three Gospels there follows the account of the Transfiguration of Jesus, which once again interprets Peter’s confession and takes it deeper, while at the same time connecting it with the mystery of Jesus’ death and Resurrection (Mk 9:2-13; Mt 17:1-13; Lk 9:28-36).
Only Matthew immediately follows Peter’s confession with the bestowal upon Peter of the power of the keys – of the power to bind and loose – and this is connected with Jesus’ promise to build his Church upon Peter as on a rock. Parallel passages concerning this commission and this promise are found in Luke 22:31f. in the context of the Last Supper and in John 21:15-19 after Jesus’ Resurrection.
It should be pointed out that John, too, places a similar confession on Peter’s lips, which once again is presented as a decisive milestone on Jesus’ way, giving the circle of the Twelve its full weight and profile for the first time (Jn 6:68f.) ….
[End of quote]
So, what was the answer that Peter gave, that so pleased Jesus?
Peter had replied (Matthew 16:16):
‘Thou art the Christ [or the Messiah], the Son of the living God!’
To which Jesus responded: ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven’ (v. 17).
Clearly there were now two basic views abroad about the identity of Jesus: the one, his “unique filial being”, as the Pope puts it - as Peter was inspired to utter (“Peter’s confession”) - and the other, the common one of the people. Pope Benedict goes on to tell how the former view, the correct one, crystallised in the disciples who were now “on the way”, distinguishing them from the people (op. cit., pp. 290-291):
The great period of preaching in Galilee is at an end and we are at a decisive milestone: Jesus is setting out on the journey to the Cross and issuing a call to decision that now clearly distinguishes the group of disciples from the people who merely listen, without accompanying him on his way – a decision that clearly shapes the disciples into the beginning of Jesus’ new family, the future Church. It is characteristic of this community to be “on the way” with Jesus – what that way involves is about to be made clear. It is also characteristic that this community’s decision to accompany Jesus rests upon a realization – on a “knowledge” of Jesus that at the same time gives them a new insight into God, the one God in whom they believe as children of Israel.
In Luke – and this is entirely in keeping with his portrait of the figure of Jesus – Peter’s confession is connected with a prayer event. Luke begins his account of the story with a deliberate paradox: “As he was praying alone, the disciples were with him” (Lk 9:18). The disciples are drawn into his solitude, his communion with the Father that is reserved to him alone. They are privileged to see him as the one who – as we reflected at the beginning of this book – speaks face-to-face with the Father, person to person. ….
[End of quote]
This ‘speaking face-to-face with the Father’ will become a most important consideration when, further on, we consider a challenge by another Moslem, Islamic missionary Ahmed Deedat of Indian-South African descent (now deceased), that Jesus Christ could not have been the one foretold to Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee …”, but that Mohammed was that one. We are going to find that, whilst Deedat’s Christian opponent, a dominee (or minister) of the Dutch Reformed Church, was not really able adequately to counter the Moslem’s forceful argument, pope Benedict XVI has, in his book, provided the perfect answer to an argument such as Deedat’s. Whether the many will respond to it, though, and enter upon “the way”, or just the few as in the case of the disciples, remains to be seen. For those who do make the leap in faith, then the privileges are untold and unique. Thus the Pope continues (pp. 291-292):
[The Twelve] are privileged to see him in his utterly unique filial being – at the point from which all his words, his deeds, and his powers issue. They are privileged to see what the “people” do not see, and this seeing gives rise to a recognition that goes beyond the “opinion” of the people. This seeing is the wellspring of their faith, their confession; it provides the foundation for the Church.
Here we may identify the interior location of Jesus’ two-fold question. His inquiry about the opinion of the people and the conviction of the disciples presupposes two things. On the one hand, there is an external knowledge of Jesus that, while not necessarily false, is inadequate. On the other hand, there is a deeper knowledge that is linked to discipleship, to participation in Jesus’ way, and such knowledge can grow only in that context. All three Synoptics agree in recounting the opinion of the people that Jesus is John the Baptist, or Elijah, or some other of the Prophets returned from the dead; Luke has just told us that Herod, having heard about such accounts of Jesus’ person and activity, felt a wish to see him. Matthew adds an additional variation: the opinion of some that Jesus is Jeremiah.
The common element in all these ideas is that Jesus is classified in the category “prophet”, an interpretative key drawn from the tradition of Israel. All the names that are mentioned as interpretations of the figure of Jesus have an eschatological ring to them, the expectation of a radical turn of events that can be associated both with hope and with fear. While Elijah personifies hope for the restoration of Israel, Jeremiah is a figure of the Passion, who proclaims the failure of the current form of the Covenant and of the Temple that, so to speak, serves as its guarantee. Of course, he is also the bearer of the promise of a New Covenant that is destined to rise from the ashes.
By his suffering, by his immersion in the darkness of contradiction, Jeremiah bears this twofold destiny of downfall and renewal in his own life.
These various opinions are not simply mistaken; they are greater or lesser approximations to the mystery of Jesus, and they can certainly set us on the path towards Jesus’ real identity. But they do not arrive at Jesus’ identity, at his newness. They interpret him in terms of the past, in terms of the predictable and the possible, not in terms of himself, his uniqueness, which cannot be assigned to any other category. Today, too, similar opinions are clearly held by the “people” who have somehow or other come to know Christ, who have perhaps even made a scholarly study of him, but have not encountered Jesus himself in his utter uniqueness and otherness. Karl Jaspers spoke of Jesus alongside Socrates, the Buddha, and Confucius as one of the four paradigmatic individuals. He thus acknowledged that Jesus is of fundamental significance in the search for the right way to be human. Yet for all that, Jesus remains one among others grouped within a common category, in terms of which they can be explained and also delimited.
[End of quote]
Pope Benedict XVI accounts for the utter uniqueness of Jesus Christ, as opposed to a “common” view of him - an old but also a contemporary view - as just one amongst a group of history’s most enlightened individuals. But we are also going to introduce into this discussion, Mohammed, to whom the Pope did not refer.
Pope Benedict XVI continues his critical account of the typical view of Jesus Christ, whereby “man, the individual subject … ends up being himself the measure”.
See also on this subject my multi-part series, beginning with:
The Futile Aspiration to Make ‘Man the Measure of All Things’
Thus Benedict XVI writes (op. cit., p. 293):
Today it is fashionable to regard Jesus as one of the great religious founders who were granted a profound experience of God. They can thus speak of God to other people who have been denied this “religious disposition”, as it were, drawing them into their own experience of God. However, we are still dealing here with a human experience of God that reflects his infinite reality in the finitude and limitation of a human spirit: It can therefore never amount to more than a partial, not to mention time- and space-bound, translation of the divine. The word experience thus indicates on one hand a real contact with the divine, while also acknowledging the limitation of the receiving subject. Every human subject can capture only a particular fragment of the reality that is there to be perceived, and this fragment then requires further interpretation. Someone who holds this opinion can certainly love Jesus; he can even choose him as a guide for his own life. Ultimately, though, this notion of Jesus’ “experience of God” remains purely relative and needs to be supplemented by the fragments of reality perceived by other great men. It is man, the individual subject, who ends up being himself the measure: The individual decides what he is going to accept from the various “experiences”, what he finds helpful and what he finds alien. There is no definitive commitment here.
[End of quote]
This really sums up the Moslem view, too, of Jesus as a great prophet, “peace be upon him”, though lesser than Mohammed himself. In fact it also sums up the Moslem God, Allah, as one derived from man’s being the measure, not God. Though it does not mean that a Moslem cannot love and serve God (as according to the Pope’s explanation regarding “love” of Jesus Christ even without full knowledge of him), and that he cannot “choose him as a guide for his own life”.
However, there is also that true saying that ‘one cannot love what one does not know’, which, in our context, could be re-stated as ‘one’s capacity for loving Jesus Christ must be greatly enlarged by one’s having a proper concept of who He is, according to the Pope’s explanation’.
Similarly, a God of whom Jesus Christ is not the perfect image and reflection is not God in his true actuality. He cannot therefore be loved as a St. Augustine, for instance, loved God, Christo-centrically. It is only through Jesus Christ that God can truly be known.
‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9).
Why Islam thinks that Mohammed, not Jesus,
was foretold by Moses
We are now going to conclude by looking at Ahmed Deedat’s argument (much edited) against the South African Christian dominee. Deedat’s argument might throw many a Christian, as it apparently gave trouble to the dominee. But it would not throw the Pope, who has authoritatively shown how Jesus Christ, and He alone, was the fulfilment of the One whom Moses had foretold.
Islamic lecturer, Ahmed Deedat, tells of an interview he once had with a dominee of the Dutch Reformed Church in Transvaal, van Heerden, on the question: "What does the Bible say about Muhummed?" Deedat had in mind the Qur'an [Koran] verse 46:10, according to which "a witness among the children of Israel bore witness of one like him…".
This was in turn a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18's "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The Moslems of course interpret the "Prophet … like unto [Moses]" as being Mohammed himself.
Faced with the dominee's emphatic response that the Bible has "nothing" to say about Mohammed - and that the Deuteronomic prophecy ultimately pertained to Jesus Christ, as did "thousands" of other prophecies - Deedat set out to prove him wrong. Firstly he asked the dominee: Out of the 'thousands' of prophecies referred to, can you please give me just one single prophecy where Jesus is mentioned by name? The term 'Messiah', translated as 'Christ', is not a name but a title. Is there a single Prophecy where it says that the name of the Messiah will be JESUS, and that his mother's name will be MARY, that his supposed father will be JOSEPH THE CARPENTER; that he will be born in the reign of HEROD THE KING, etc. etc.? No! There are no such details! Then how can you conclude that those 'thousand' Prophecies refer to Jesus (Peace be upon him)?
To which the dominee replied: "You see, prophecies are word-pictures of something that is going to happen in the future. When that thing actually comes to pass, we see vividly in these prophecies the fulfilment of what had been predicted in the past". Deedat responded: "What you actually do is that you deduce, you reason, you put two and two together." He said: "Yes".
Deedat said: "If this is what you have to do with a 'thousand' prophecies to justify your claim with regards to the genuineness of Jesus, why should we not adopt the very same system for Muhummed?"
The dominee agreed that it was a fair proposition, a reasonable way of dealing with the problem. He argued that the key phrase in the Deuteronomic prophecy was "like unto thee" - LIKE YOU - like Moses, and Jesus is like Moses".
Deedat questioned: "In which way is Jesus like Moses?"
The answer was: "In the first place Moses was a JEW and Jesus was also a JEW; secondly, Moses was a PROPHET and Jesus was also a PROPHET - therefore Jesus is like Moses and that is exactly what God had foretold Moses - "SOOS JY IS" [in Afrikaans]".
Whilst the dominee’s reply here is basically true (though Moses was strictly speaking not a Jew, but a Hebrew or Israelite – ‘all Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews’) - he probably gets off on the wrong foot straightaway by attributing to Jesus what could be attributed to any number of Jewish prophets. In other words, he does not begin with what makes Jesus unique, and with - in the context of Moses - what makes Him “like” the latter, but unique nevertheless, as explained by the Pope. Now, whether someone will listen attentively to the argument is another matter. I, for instance, fresh from reading Pope Benedict XVI, had used his main point in my discussion with the Moslem. But it seemed not in any way to have been absorbed. However, the important thing is that we know what the answer is, and can enunciate it. And, hopefully, there will be some who will be able to comprehend it. It is greatly to be hoped that the Pope’s book will be read, studied and absorbed by many.
Deedat quickly realizes that his opponent has not attributed to Jesus anything singular. "Can you think of any other similarities between Moses and Jesus?" Deedat asked.
The dominee said that he could not think of any.
Deedat replied: "If these are the only two criteria for discovering a candidate for this prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18, then in that case the criteria could fit any one of the following Biblical personages after Moses: - Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist etc., because they were also ALL Jews as well as Prophets.
Why should we not apply this prophecy to any one of these prophets, and why only to Jesus? Why should we make fish of one and fowl of another?"
[Or why, one might ask, does Islam not say that the prophecy was in fact referring to one of these above-mentioned sages of Israel?].
The dominee had no reply.
Deedat continued: "You see, my conclusions are that Jesus is most unlike Moses, and if I am wrong I would like you to correct me".
So saying, Deedat reasoned with him: "In the FIRST place Jesus is not like Moses, because, according to you - 'JESUS IS A GOD', but Moses is not God. Is this true?"
He said: "Yes".
Deedat said: "Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses!
SECONDLY, according to you - 'JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD', but Moses did not have to die for the sins of the world. Is this true?"
He again said: Yes".
Deedat said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses! THIRDLY, according to you - 'JESUS WENT TO HELL FOR THREE DAYS', but Moses did not have to go there. Is this true?"
He answered meekly: "Y-e-s".
Deedat concluded: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!" "But dominee", Deedat continued: "these are not hard facts, solid facts, they are mere matters of belief over which the little ones can stumble and fall. Let us discuss something very simple, very easy that if your little ones are called in to hear the discussion, would have no difficulty in following it, shall we?"
The dominee was quite happy at the suggestion. Deedat will now proceed to list a whole lot of biographical points according to which Moses and Mohammed - human persons who were married and had children - were alike, but were quite unlike Jesus. This is to prove his point that Mohammed, not Jesus, was ‘like unto Moses’, and that Mohammed, therefore, and not Jesus, was the one who fulfilled the Deuteronomic prophecy.
We shall take only a few of these cases from Deedat’s long-winded and well-rehearsed spiel:
Father and Mother
"Moses had a father and a mother. Muhummed also had a father and a mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human father. Is this true?" He said: "Yes". Deedat said: "DAAROM IS JESUS NIE SOOS MOSES NIE, MAAR MUHUMMED IS SOOS MOSES!" Meaning: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses!"
Miraculous Birth
"Moses and Muhummed were born in the normal, natural course, i.e. the physical association of man and woman; but Jesus was created by a special miracle. You will recall that we are told in the Gospel of St. Matthew 1:18: '.....BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, (Joseph the Carpenter and Mary) SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD BY THE HOLY GHOST'. And Dr. Luke tells us that when the good news of the birth of a holy son was announced to her, Mary reasoned: '.......HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? AND THE ANGEL ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HER, THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE, AND THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE:......' (Luke 1:35).
In short, Deedat said to the dominee: "Is it true that Jesus was born miraculously as against the natural birth of Moses and Muhummed?" He replied proudly: "Yes!" Deedat said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses. And God says to Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:18 "LIKE UNTO THEE" (Like You, Like Moses) and Muhummed is like Moses".
Marriage Ties
"Moses and Muhummed married and begat children, but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life. Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes". Deedat said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses".
Jesus Rejected by his People
"Moses and Muhummed were accepted as prophets by their people in their very lifetime. No doubt the Jews gave endless trouble to Moses and they murmured in the wilderness, but as a nation, they acknowledged that Moses was a Messenger of God sent to them. The Arabs too made Muhummed's life impossible. He suffered very badly at their hands. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, he had to emigrate from the city of his birth. But before his demise, the Arab nation as a whole accepted him as the Messenger of Allah. But according to the Bible: 'He (Jesus) CAME UNTO HIS OWN, BUT HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT'. (John 1:11). And even today, after two thousand years, his people - the Jews, as a whole, have rejected him. Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes". Deedat said: "THEREFORE JESUS IS NOT LIKE MOSES, BUT MUHUMMED IS LIKE MOSES". …
How they Departed
"Both Moses and Muhummed died natural deaths, but according to Christianity, Jesus was violently killed on the cross. Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes". Deedat averred: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses".
And so it goes on, with Deedat, like an eager prize fighter, landing virtually all of the punches, and becoming ever more emboldened and aggressive.
‘What do you think of Muhammad?’, the similarly keen and feisty Moslem in Earlwood had been so keen to ask me.
My answer to this today would be: “There was no historical prophet Mohammed!”
Above, I had queried, in the context of Deedat’s argument: “… why, one might ask, does Islam not say that the [Deuteronomic] prophecy was in fact referring to one of these above-mentioned [by Deedat] sages of Israel?”
Let me explain what I am getting at. The Koran (Qur’an) is, broadly speaking, so much like the Old Testament in many places that one could argue that it is simply the latter mixed with a lot of Arabic folklore and mythology, and derived from much unreliable oral tradition. In the Koran we meet again with all of the familiar Hebrew patriarchal and prophetical characters and sages of the Old Testament.
There are also the serious problems of chronology and geography.
To give just one series of examples of these, see my multi-part series beginning with:
There are chronological problems, not only with the supposed life of Mohammed himself, and the writings, but also with the early history of Islam.
Books have been written ‘In Search of the Historical Mohammed’, who can be something of a conundrum. There are even certain aspects associated with Mohammed that I think seem to parallel Jesus Christ; mainly the spiritual or miraculous, since Deedat is quite right in arguing that there can be no worthwhile comparison between the details of the lives of Jesus and Mohammed.
‘Mohammed’ seems to be, at least in part, something of a composite biblical character.
He is quite un-historical as regards the C7th AD.
Part Two:
Jesus a son of King David
“When Joseph adopted Jesus as his legal son, Jesus became both David's direct descendent through David's son Nathan (Mary's side), and David's legal royal heir through Solomon (Joseph's side)”.
abideinchrist
According to this website:
Jesus Christ is:
The Only Possible Legitimate Messiah
Matthew, who is the most Jewish of the Gospels, begins with the words, “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
Is Jesus Christ the legitimate heir to the throne of King David? How can we be sure that He is the only possible legal, and the royal Messiah of Israel?
The Scriptures declare that Jesus Christ “was a descendent of David.” Therefore His Jewish ancestry is very important to establish His legitimacy as the Jewish messiah.
Two Lineages of the Son of David
God “promised beforehand through the prophets in the holy scriptures” things concerning the coming of the son of David. Those things related to the place, nature of His birth, life, death and resurrection. His Jewish background would demand that He be born of the line of David if He would be eligible to sit on the great king’s throne and reign forever as the true king of Israel.
The prophet Jeremiah was specific when he wrote in 23:5-6 of the coming of the royal son of David:
“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.
“In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
‘The Lord our righteousness.’”
The Jewish writer Matthew uses the genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth to prove that Jesus had descended from King David and therefore qualified to be Israel’s Messiah (2 Samuel 7:13-16). The promise had been given to King David, “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before Me” (2 Samuel 7:16).
Matthew uses at least forty formal quotations from the Old Testament, and at least sixteen times he uses the formula, “all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying . . .” Matthew traces the origins of Jesus to King David and to the Jewish patriarch Abraham.
Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham and moves forward through fourteen generations in history to David, and then his descendents through fourteen generations to the Babylonian exile, and another fourteen generations to “Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matt. 1:16).
Another genealogy is given by Luke, which moves in the opposite direction. He begins with Joseph and goes back to David, Abraham and Adam (Luke 3:31, 34, 38). He is giving evidence to show that Jesus “will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (1:32-33).
Both of the genealogies are dealing with the same person, Jesus the Messiah. Both trace the lineage of Jesus through His adopted father Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.
Legal and Royal Rights to the Throne of David
The difficulty we encounter when we look at the two genealogies is quite interesting. They are the lines of two brothers and the children are cousins. Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob who descended from David through David’s son and successor King Solomon (1:6). However, Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli who had descended from David through Nathan (Luke 3:31), who was also David’s son and a brother of Solomon (v. 32).
Bernhard Weiss and James Orr carefully note that we are looking at two lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively, each who are descendents of King David. “Nathan’s line ran on through the years and ultimately produced the Virgin Mary. Solomon’s line ran on through the years and ultimately produced Joseph.” But Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He was the husband of Mary, the adoptive father of Jesus (Matt. 1:16). The distinction between these two lines of descent from David is between the “royal” line of those who actually sat on the throne and the “legal” line of descent from one oldest son to the next, even though these descendents never actually reigned as kings of Israel.
It is important to keep in mind these two lines of descendents from King David.
Nathan was the older brother of Solomon, but the younger brother took the throne. Solomon was the king God chose to reign after David’s death. Normally, however, that would have fallen to the elder son, Nathan, who would have been king if God had not given it to Solomon. Of course, none of Nathan’s descendents ever claimed the throne.
There were no reigning kings in his line of descendents, even though they had the legal right to the throne. When Joseph adopted Jesus as his legal son, Jesus became both David's direct descendent through David's son Nathan (Mary's side), and David's legal royal heir through Solomon (Joseph's side).
The line of Solomon continued down through the centuries until it eventually produced Joseph, who was betrothed to the virgin Mary who would eventually become her husband after she had given birth to Jesus. However, note very carefully that Jesus was not a descendent of Joseph. However, when Joseph took Mary under his protection and thus became the adoptive father of her divine child, he passed the right of royalty to Jesus.
A Divine Curse
Moreover, Jeremiah 22:30 tells us that if Jesus had been the physical descended from Joseph a divine curse would have been on Him if He succeeded to the Davidic throne. Jeremiah tells us a terrible curse was pronounced on king Jehoiachin (Jechonias, whom Jeremiah abbreviates to Coniah), the last of the actual reigning kings who descended from King Solomon.
“Thus says the Lord,
‘Write this man down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David
Or ruling again in Judah.’ ”
Because of God’s curse on Jehoiachin, no king who ever descended in that line could be a legitimate king. "Thus says the Lord, �Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah ... (NET). Though Jehoiachin did have children, he was considered childless because none of his descendents were allowed by God to sit on the throne of David and rule Judah (1 Chron. 3:17). Judah's lat king was his uncle, Zedekiah. the line of rulership passed through Jeconiah's sons though none of them ever occupied the throne.
If Joseph had been the physical father of Jesus, Jesus could not have been the Messiah. Jesus is the son of Mary, not the son of Joseph and Mary. If Jesus had been a physical descendent of Joseph and not virgin-born, He would have been disqualified because of this divine curse.
But wait. What about Joseph and his descendents? Remember, Jesus was not a physical descendent of Joseph. Joseph was Jesus’ step-father. Joseph, a descendent of Solomon, with Jesus' legal father, therefore, His right to the throne came through His legal father.
Each of his half brothers, who were the only other possible candidates for the Messiah had the curse of Jehoiachin on them and would have passed it on to their children if they had become king.
A Royal Heir
Because Jesus was a divine child his adoptive father handed the reign over to Him. Therefore, Jesus was a legitimate royal heir to the throne.
Many bible scholars follow this same line of thought. Donald Grey Barnhouse gives an excellent summary. The line that had no curse upon it produced Heli and his daughter the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus Christ. He is therefore eligible by the line of Nathan and exhausts that line. The line that had a curse on it produced Joseph and exhausts the line of Solomon, for Joseph’s other children now have an elder brother who, legally, by adoption, is the royal heir.
How can the title be free in any case? A curse on one line and the lack of reigning royalty in the other.
But when God the Holy Spirit begat the Lord Jesus Christ in the womb of the virgin without any use of a human father, the child that was born was the seed of David according to the flesh. And when Joseph married Mary and took the unborn child under his protecting care, giving him the title that had come down to him through his ancestor Solomon, the Lord Jesus became the legal Messiah, the royal messiah, the uncursed messiah, the true Messiah, the only possible messiah. The lines are exhausted. Any man that ever comes into this world professing to fulfill the conditions will be a liar and the child of the devil (Man’s Ruin: Exposition of Bible Doctrines, Taking the Epistle to the Romans as a Point of Departure, vol. 1, Romans 1:1-32. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, p. 45-47).
A Legal Heir
Moreover, because Jesus descended from Mary, who also was a descendent of King David through the lineage of Nathan, He had a legal claim to the throne. The two lines of David focused on the Messiah. No one else could ever bring a legitimate claim to the throne of David.
Luke presented the physical line of Jesus through His mother who descended from David through the line of Nathan (Luke 3:31). in this way Jesus escaped the curse of Jehoiachin.
Donald Barnhouse concludes, “If Jesus is not the Messiah who has descended from David according to the Old Testament prophecies, there will never be a Messiah.
For Jesus had no human children, and each of his brothers (who are the only other possibilities through whom another messiah might descend) had the curse on him and would have passed it on to his children” and Jeremiah’s prophecy would thus be fulfilled.
Jesus Christ is the legitimate descendent from two lines of King David. He is the King announced in the Jewish prophecies. He is the King Messiah who was also the Son of God. He is the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” No one else can make that claim. He is the only possible legitimate Messiah. There can absolutely be no other.
How significant that the great prophecy that the Messiah King would come through the line of David was given just a few verses after the great words of judgment on the descendents of Jehoiachin. C. C. Ryrie notes, “If Jesus had been born only in the line of Joseph (and thus of Jechoniah, Heb. Coniah), He would not have been qualified to reign on the throne of David in the Millennium.” He also writes, “Had our Lord been the natural son of Joseph, He could not have been successful on the throne of David because of this curse. But since He came through Mary’s lineage, He was not affected by this curse.” There was no curse on Nathan's line.
Though Jechoniah’s sons never occupied the throne, the line of rulership passed through them. If Jesus had been a physical descendent of Jechoniah, He would not have been able to occupy David’s throne. Luke’s genealogy makes it clear that Jesus was a legal descendant of David through his son Nathan (Lk. 3:31). Joseph, a descendent of Solomon, was Jesus’ legal adoptive father, so Jesus traced His royal rights to the throne through Joseph.
Jesus Christ is the only legitimate legal Jewish Messiah. Let us bow and worship Him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. ....
