One of the things that has come to mind when it comes to the geneologies of Jesus are the arguments that are often raised by Rabbinic Jews regarding this particular issue.
It is often asserted that Solomon as well as David is required in order for Jesus to be the Messiah. For arguments sake in this video, let's grant that.
There are two interesting problems that can be raised regarding this issue that is often overlooked when looking at the geneologies.
I know there are some that make the argument that tribal lineage comes through the mother but this issue I would need to think about much more carefully.
But here are two possiblities which should be considered by those who raise the argument of Solomon.
A. If both genealogies on the NT are Josephs, the two lines merged in one through Zerubabbel himself and seperated into two again.
B. If one genealogy is of Mary and one of Joseph, Zerubabbel is where the two lines meet and they seperate into two again.
Now one response was provided regarding this issue by saying this:
"condition A is the most supported by the NT narrative, and if we assume a virgin birth, Joseph's line would be irrelevant for obvious reasons. mary was most likely a Levite, if we take in to consideration the fact that her cousin elizabeth was mentioned as being a Levite. But either way, if condition A is true (which is most supported by the text of the NT) then all this demonstrates is that the NT writers contradict each other and that they have no competent understanding of how tribal heritage is passed down, that's the gist of the argument presented."
I fail to see how the New Testament writers would of had no competent understanding of tribal heritage regarding Joseph, Matthew himself was a Jewish author who knew the OT. Although Elizabeth was a Levite, Mary is told that she would bare a child who would inherit the throne of David. I would think that seeing both geneologies as Joseph's wouldn't present a problem, after all, isn't it the Rabbinic contention that tribal lineage is through the MALE?
Also, how does dismissing the NT writers as incompetent DEAL with my point?
Also, regarding the issue of the virgin birth, Why is this even raised as an objection in the first place? Even in Church history, most objections brought against Jesus is the issue of whether Isaiah 7:14 means virgin or young woman, rather than whether or not the virgin birth invalidates him.
Is it possible that a Jew could inherit the blessings of his adoptive father including the throne of David? If not, why not? I have searched the Torah and have not found an answer. I have read Psalm 89 and 132 regarding the subject of David's sons sitting on the throne if they are obedient provided to me by another Jewish person, but this doesn't answer WHY adoption is not a plausible option. An objection has been presented to me which I hope to address in the future if the Lord Wills
Furthermore, If a Jewish Person uses the Jeconiah's curse to deny Jesus' messianic credentials. This implodes on the Rabbis for a number of reasons. Not all Jews use the argument of the curse because they have ceased doing so, but some still use it to this day. Anyway carrying on.
Firstly, There is a video on youtube done by NathanH83 where he disputes whether Jesus had the cursed Jeconiah in his family line and proposes there are 2 Jeconiahs, 2 Sheatiels and 2 Zerubabbels. I would encourage people to watch that video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4v1UEZb3Z0). Even if Nathan's premise is wrong, the curse of Jeconiah argument still doesn't fly for several reasons.
The video by Nathan proposes that the Zerubabbel that sat on the throne is not part of a cursed line and is a different Zerubabbel altogether, however for argument's sake, let's say it's the same line.
Although he didn't sit as King, Zerubabbel nevertheless has been made a signet ring by God, thus the messianic promise is renewed through him. What is the conclusion though not made explicit? Jeconiah repented, God accepted the repentance and forgave it and thus reversed the curse. More importantly, the curse is damaging to the Rabbinic position more than the Christian one. If the curse still applies today, then there can be NO Messiah at all. Let's recap now the three options before us.
1. If Nathan's view is correct that there are 2 of Jeconiah, Sheatiel and Zerubabbel, then Jesus is not in the cursed line, because the Zerubabbel that sits on the throne is not the same Zerubabbel in the cursed line. Thus the objection of the curse brought by many is moot.
2. If Nathan is incorrect but the curse was not reversed, there can be no Messiah at all because the curse not being reversed and Jesus not being the Messiah due to the curse is a double edged sword or a suicide bomb that destroys not only Christianity, but Rabbinic Judaism as well.
3. If Nathan is incorrect but the curse IS reversed by Jeconiah's repentance and Zerubabbel was made a signet ring, Then Jesus is eligible for the claims to the Davidic Throne. Thus again the curse is a MOOT point.
Now of course Rabbinic Jews will often say that since inheritance passed on through the father and since Joseph was not his father, he can't claim those Messianic privelages. I have asked Jews if adoption was possible but their response was a resounding no. Again I ask for the life of me, Why can't a person be adopted by normal means into a Jewish Family and inherit the blessing as a result?
Is this an argument for the sake of arguing? or is there a valid law in the Torah that prevents such from happening? Once again, I cannot find even implicitly such a thing in the Torah itself. Even if the geneology is through the Father only, Wouldn't Jesus inherit the throne by adoption? If not, Why not?
You can't use the curse argument to bolster your case because that gives Christians leverage.
If Joseph carries the curse, then his adoption of Jesus would be valid because Jeconiah's curse assumes that Jesus is part of the lineage and also the curse is reversed according to Haggai 2:23. If the curse is not reversed, there cannot be a Messiah at all. Plus you have Nathan's video which suggests Jesus had a different individual also called Jeconiah in his family tree, thus he would have no cursed lineage. This is what I call, Rabbinic Dilemma 101.
Note: Ezra 2:62 was the objection presented regarding the Levites not being able to participate in the service thus adoption was not possible because their geneologies could not be found.. That was the claim presented. This objection may be addressed in the future Lord Willing.