Jesus was a descendent of David. He was just a descendent of David through Mary.
There are two terminal flaws in this claim. Firstly, blood doesn't pass through a female line, and secondly (if we ignore the first flaw), Mary isn't even in the messianic bloodline.
The establishment of the Davidic bloodline is outlined in 2 Samuel 7:4-16:
That night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying: "Go and tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling.
Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?" '
"Now then, tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.
" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me ; your throne will be established forever.' "
We can see that God has promised that David's dynasty will reign forever, and that it
HAS to be a direct blood descendant of David's who 'will come from his body'. This is reinforced throughout the Old Testament, for example Psalm 132:11-12:
The LORD swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke: "One of your own descendants I will place on your throne if your sons keep my covenant and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever.
The Old Testament clearly states that the messiah will be a direct descendant of David's, and not an adopted son as many Christians mistakenly claim. Adopting someone does not make them of the same blood and it actually contradicts God's promise to David. God states that the messiah will come from David's own body and as Jesus did not have an earthly father, it is impossible for him to be the messiah. Think about it. By claiming that someone adopted by a descendant of David makes them a messianic candidate negates God's promise that it would be a direct descendant. People who want adopted children to be possible messiahs have actually opened up the possibility that anyone at all could be the messiah, and directly contradict God's word.
With the bloodline through Joseph nullified, the only other possibility that Jesus is descended from David would be through his mother Mary. Again, this is fraught with errors.
It is claimed that Mary's genealogy is outlined in Luke chapter three. However, the New Testament never claims that this is Mary's genealogy, it is quite clearly a different genealogy of Joseph. Look at the beginning of the text:
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli
The text is explicitly claiming that Joseph was the son of Heli, and not his son in law as many people claim.
How on earth can a genealogy of a man be taken through his father in law, unless you marry your sister, which would make your father in law your father as well?
There is no genealogy in the entire Bible, New and Old Testaments, that trace a man's genealogy through his father in law, and this genealogy is no different.
But, Christians still insist that it is Mary's linage that is in Luke, making her a descendant of David and hence giving Jesus a direct link, even though the New Testament never claims that Mary is the daughter of Heli.
The author's of the New Testament never give us any reason to believe that Mary was descended from David, despite some obvious places where one would expect this information to be mentioned. For example, in Luke 1:26-27
In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
It is Joseph's Davidic descent that is mentioned here and not Mary's. Why wouldn't this verse emphasise that Mary was also descended from David? Why not say that Gabriel was 'sent to a virgin, a descendant of David' if her bloodline was to be of any use?
A cold hard fact is that Mary is never referred to anywhere in the New Testament as a descendant of David, while every possible reference to David is through Joseph.
Another example of this is in Luke 2:4-5:
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
They went to Bethlehem because
HE belonged to the house and line of David not because
THEY belonged to the house and line of David!
But still Christians maintain that this is Mary's genealogy.
If we ignore all the evidence and accept that this is Mary's genealogy, then it actually does no good anyway, as Davidic descent passed through David's son Solomon and not Nathan as hoped for by so many.
God makes it clear that it is Solomon's line that will have the promise of eternal kingship.
2 Samuel 7:13
He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
Read in context, this reference clearly informs us that it is relating to one person.
He will build a house,
his kingdom forever. The 'house for my name' is the Temple built by Solomon, and it is Solomon's kingdom that will be established forever. It doesn't mention that 'they will build a house, or I will establish 'their' kingdom forever, it is referring to a single person, and that person is Solomon. So, Nathan's linage is irrelevant as it is not included in God's promise to David.
That it is Solomon who is chosen by God is supported by 1 Chronicles 29:1:
Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen, is young and inexperienced The task is great, because this palatial structure is not for man but for the LORD God.
Solomon was chosen to 'build a house for God's name' not Nathan, and it is through the bloodline of builder of the Temple that the promise was made.
There is no way to link Jesus to David, the author of Matthew's gospel effectively killed that off with his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14.
Put simply, Jesus was no messiah, and his complete failure to fulfill any messianic prophecy just adds support.
Brian.
™ Version 4.2