Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: More for the Festive Season. Prophecy, Botany, and even a little Brevity.

The OT contains a mass of Messianic prophecies,

which are difficult to synthesise into a coherent picture.

Hence, in the Talmud, the Rabbis puzzle over how the Messiah can arrive...

...both ‘on the clouds of heaven’ and yet ‘in a lowly manner, seated on a donkey’ (b. Sanh. 98a).

In other words, they wonder what the Messiah will ride: the clouds or a horse.

Note: The same passage goes on to envisage the Messiah seated among a group of lepers (יתיב ביני עניי סובלי חלאים), presumably on the basis of Isa. 53 (where the phrase סובלי חלאים resonates with יְדוּעַ חֹלִי and סובל מכאבים, while עניי resonates with מְעֻנֶּה; cp. Sanh. 98b).

A similar tension is reflected in the Gospel of John.

Some people think the Messiah will come from Bethlehem (John 7.42),

while others think he will emerge from obscurity and no-one will know anything about his background (7.27).

The same tension is also evident—and may in fact derive from—Isaiah’s depiction of the Messiah as a Davidic ‘branch’/‘offshoot’.

Isaiah looks forward to a day when YHWH raises up a branch from ‘the root (שרש) of Jesse’ (11.1) and ‘the branch of YHWH’ is glorious (4.2),

yet Isaiah at the same time depicts the Messiah as a root (שרש) which springs up from ‘the parched ground’ with ‘no majesty’ or ‘stately form’ to commend it (53.2), i.e., like the leper described in b. Sanh. 98.

Note: In 11.1, the term שרש appears to refer to the ‘remnant’ of a line (cp. 14.30’s parallelism and 37.31), as גזע = ‘stump’ sometimes does, or possibly to an ‘offshoot/heir’ of some kind (per Ugar. /šrš/, and poss. also Aram. /šrš/):

The tension inherent in Isaiah’s prophecies dovetails neatly with Matthew and Luke’s genealogies,

which I discuss here:

academia.edu/41135348/

To cut a long story short, Matthew record Jesus’ *legal* genealogy, which follows David’s royal line,

while Luke records Jesus’ *biological* genealogy,

which represents a lesser known Davidic line,...

...one which is grafted into the royal line at two important junctures in history, shown below:

As such, Jesus’ lineage combines both royalty *and* obscurity.

Legally, Jesus’ origins lie in Bethlehem along with the rest of David’s line,

yet Jesus’ legal origins are not well known (John 7.41–42), since Joseph resides in Nazareth along with his biological line and continues to name his children after his biological line (cp. John 1.46 w. my academia.edu note above).

As such, Jesus is able to arise both from ‘the remnant of Jesse’ *and* from ‘dry ground’.

And Matthew and Luke’s genealogies reflect precisely the events depicted in Isa. 11.1.

The close of Isa. 10 refers to a time when YHWH humbles the proud and fells (Israel’s?) tall trees (10.33–34).

And, in its aftermath (in Isa. 11.1), YHWH raises up a branch from the remnant of Jesse,

which is exactly what is recorded in Luke’s genealogy.

By means of Jehoiachin’s curse, YHWH ‘breaks off’ David’s royal line in its pride and rebellion,

and, in its place, he ingrafts a different branch (per the imagery of Rom. 11)—Shealtiel’s branch—, a more humble line descended from Jesse’s remnant,

which links back to David through *Nathan* rather than Solomon.

The same logic is inherent to Jer. 22–23.

At the end of Jer. 22, Jehoiachin’s line is broken off,

and, in its aftermath, YHWH raises up a righteous branch ‘on David’s behalf’ (note לדוד rather than מדוד),

who will ‘save’ (ישע) his people (Jer. 23.5–6) from their affliction.

Viewed as such, Matthew and Luke’s genealogies tell a coherent combined story, while their genealogies also fit their respective gospels.

Matthew records Jesus’ *royal* ancestry, since he presents Jesus as the rightful Davidic king,

while Luke records the elevation of Nathan’s branch, since Luke presents Jesus as the one who lifts up the humble and lowly (e.g., Luke 1.48ff., 3.5, 14.11, 18.14, etc.).

THE END.

Credits: Alastair Roberts’ journey through Matthew, linked below:

Oops, couldn’t view it in my browser and pasted in the wrong bit of b. Sanh. 98a above.

Meanwhile, pdf here:

academia.edu/41217181/