What does it mean that Jesus is the son of David?

But a king must be able to trace his descent in the royal line, and this is placed before us at the very outset. He is the Son of "David the King," and thus the Heir to David's throne. He is the "Son of Abraham," and thus Heir to, as well as Fulfiller of, all the Promises. Matthew carries down the line of kingly succession from Solomon. Luke traces that of Nathan to Mary, and, however widely they may have diverged during the thousand years that lay between, both meet again and are completed in "JESUS who is called CHRIST."

Jesus is at once presented in a two-fold way. He is Son of David, and hence the royal crown that God originally bestowed on David belongs to Him. He is also Son of Abraham, hence He has the title to the land and all the promised blessing is vested in Him. Having stated this, we are given His genealogy, from Abraham, through Joseph the husband of Mary. This would be His official genealogy, according to Jewish reckoning. The list given is remarkable for its omissions, since three kings, closely connected with the infamous Athaliah, are omitted in verse 8; and the summary as to the "fourteen generations," given in verse 17, shows that it is not an accidental omission, but that God disowns and refuses to reckon the kings that sprang more immediately from this devotee of Baal-worship.

The Old Testament is full of promises which speak of the coming, not alone of a deliverer, a sinbearer, but of the coming of a King, King Messiah as He is still called by orthodox Jews. This King was eagerly expected, hoped for and prayed for by the pious in Israel . It is still so with many Jews in our days. The Gospel of Matthew proves that our Lord Jesus Christ is truly the promised King Messiah. In it we see Him as King of the Jews, everything shows that He is in truth the royal person, of whom Seers and Prophets, as well as inspired Psalmists, wrote and sang. First it would be necessary to prove that He is legally the King. This is seen in the first chapter, where a genealogy is given which proves His royal descent. The beginning is, "Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham."* It goes back to Abraham and there it stops, while in Luke the genealogy reaches up to Adam. In the Gospel of Matthew He is seen as Son of David, His royal descent; Son of Abraham, according to the flesh from the seed of Abraham.

The genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1: 1-17 establishes indisputably the fact that He is the true Son of David. There are many interesting and solemn features connected with the genealogy, but its main interest for our study is that it shows the descent from David the king (v. 6), to Joseph the son of David (vv. 16 and 20), and thence to Jesus Christ. The King has arrived as a little Babe and the Spirit of God in accurate and legal precision shows that the Babe is none other than the promised Seed of David (Isa. 9: 6-7 and Isa. 11: 1-10). Long centuries have elapsed since God made a covenant with David, a covenant which could not possibly be fulfilled in a mortal failing man, but the One has arrived in whom God's purposes and covenant with David will eventually be fulfilled (2 Sam. 7). David is long since dead but his name is to be perpetuated in Jesus Christ, the Son of David. Note how the oft repeated term "begat" is dropped in verse 16 and is substituted with "of whom." The change is to show that Jesus was not born of human generation. He was conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Spirit of God (vv. 18-23).

The genealogy of Matthew 1 traces the lineage of Jesus to king David, for He “was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), and although refused the throne that was His by right, receiving instead from the leaders of Israel a malefactor’s cross, yet it has been decreed that “the Lord God shall give to Him the throne of His father David” (Luke 1:32). Although rejected by Israel as the rightful king, there were those who acknowledged Him to be so, for Nathaniel said, “Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel; and a poor blind beggar could cry, “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me” (Luke 18:38).

Consequently we begin quite naturally with the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. Jesus is viewed as the Heir of the promises, as the Son of David. We find ourselves in the atmosphere of the thoughts and the hopes of Israel, but of Israel's thoughts and hopes according to God. The genealogy is traced in the line of Joseph, from whom He inherited royalty according to the law. But His birth really of Mary presents facts evidently still more important, being close to His person as far as manifested on the earth. Save to draw the attention of the reader to them, these facts, all-important though they be, are so well known and so simply related that I have hardly need to enlarge on them. His human nature (conceived in the womb of the Virgin, without spot or stain, by the power of the Holy Spirit) is a thing perfectly holy; also it is, according to the flesh, born of God whilst being the Seed of the woman, true man in this world. And not this only. He was to be named Jesus (Joshua, or Jehoshea), Jehovah the Saviour, for He should save His people from their sins. As He was Jehovah, the people was His people.

Therefore "Joseph also went up from Galilee,46 out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to David's city, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and family of David), to be enrolled with Mary47 his betrothed wife,47a she being great with child." From the time that a woman among the Jews was espoused, she was considered legally the wife of him to whom she was betrothed. Thus the Lord, while really Son of His mother Mary, was legally of Joseph; and both Joseph and Mary were of the royal line. The Lord Jesus, therefore, represented David on both sides; but as the law required, He was the descendant of Solomon on the legal side. For no matter how unquestionably He might have been the Son of Mary, descended from the Nathan stem, He could not have been according to law the Messiah as long as there was a living representative of the Solomon branch. But the Lord, being the legally-reputed Son of Joseph as well as Mary's child, was precisely so descended as to be in every required respect "David's Son," the Messiah. I say this quite independently of His Divine glory, which was demanded for other and far deeper reasons. "Wife": so AΔ and later uncials, nearly all cursives (including 33, 69) and Amiat. — Edd. omit, after ℵBCpm DL, etc. Syrsin simply "wife" (Mrs. Lewis in Expositor: "under full legal protection of Joseph").

Our Lord, according to the flesh, through His mother, traced His descent from David. Though born of a virgin, begotten of the Holy Ghost by Divine power, He was Joseph’s legal heir by virtue of the marriage of His mother to Joseph, the lawful heir to David’s throne. His miraculous birth marked Him out as the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy seven hundred years before.

The genealogy shows the ruin hopeless but to God, in that Joseph, the last of the line here before Christ, is shown by it to be Jeconiah's son; and against Jeconiah prophecy had denounced (Jer. 22:30) that he should be (as to the throne) "childless, … for no man of his seed should prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." The consequence was pressed, as far back as Irenaeus, that here the direct line of descent is smitten with a curse, while yet it was not deprived of the legal title: it could hand on to another, therefore, that which could be of no advantage to itself. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was, in the wisdom of God, the means of accomplishing this. The Lord's birth from Mary made Him the real Son of David (Luke 1:32) while the marriage of His mother made Him David's legal heir.*

The fact of Christ's being in every sense Son of David, is rested, in the gospels, on proofs of quite a different character. On the other hand, His legal title to sit on the throne of David is given in a way which was conclusive to the Jews. The fact of His natural birth of Mary would not have proved it, Joseph being alive; nor if there were other relations of Joseph, unless He was his legal heir. Even if there were not, the legal title through Eli by Mary might be important to give also, as it was allowed He was not naturally Joseph's son. Thus every way He was heir, and the two genealogies had their just place.