is, that they were not able to object to his Messiahship on the score of his descent, and that he really was the Son of David.

But probably it was an oversight of the Pharisees and Sadducees? Perhaps they did not think of the objection themselves at the time, and their attention was not drawn to it by others? That it could have been an oversight of these wise and powerful heads of the nation is incredible, when it is considered how frequently they met in deep consultations respecting Christ, and were at very great pains to discover some plausible ground for effecting his condemnation and destruction. Nor were the people less alive to the subject. They were accustomed to connect the name of Messiah with the Son of David, and frequently addressed Christ as the Son of David; yea, on one occasion, when there was a dispute among the people, and according to John vii. 40, many of the people said, "Of a truth this is the Prophet," and others, "This is the Christ," we find that some (who knew of Jesus coming from Nazareth and Galilee, his usual place of residence, but not that he was born at Bethlehem) said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David

66

was? But notwithstanding these frequent allusions to this subject, which show that both the rulers and the people were quite alive to its importance, they never took advantage of it, which they would have done, had they been able.

Again, had Jesus not been the Son of David, he himself would have been afraid to hear the subject mentioned, and would certainly never have alluded to it himself, for fear that it might be used as a powerful objection to his claims as the Messiah. However, there is not a trace of any fear or apprehension on his part. On the contrary, to show how fearless he was on that point, we find that according to Matt. xxii. 41-46, he himself draws the attention of the Rabbies to the subject; for "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

66

Although, by referring to the 110th Psalm, the object of Christ was to point out in the Messiah, as being both David's Son and David's Lord, his two natures, the human and the divine ; yet, had he not been the Son of David, it would have been dangerous ground to touch upon. Claiming to be the Messiah, and to possess a human and divine nature, he would have exposed himself to his opponents not only as an impostor, but also as a blasphemer; but inasmuch as no man was able to answer him a word," it shows that none of them could dispute his descent from David, else they would have done it on that occasion; and inasmuch as "not any man durst from that day forth ask him any more questions," it shows, not only that with all their ingenious questions they could not succeed in their object of catching him, but that his astonishing and clear answers pointed him out as the true Messiah, and themselves as insidious and insincere characters. They preferred to leave his questions unanswered, when the truth appeared too striking, and also to be silent with regard to his lineal descent from David, because it was not in their power to advance an objection to that clear matter of fact, which the public records and genealogies, so carefully preserved at that time, would not

A further proof

allow to be called in question. of the commonly acknowledged fact that Jesus is the Son of David, appears also from this circumstance, that after the promulgation of the books of the New Testament, in which, as will be shown afterwards, Jesus of Nazareth is frequently declared to be the Son of David, there appears nothing in the Talmud, or any other books written by either Jews or Gentiles during the first three centuries expressive of any objection to Jesus as the Son of David. On the contrary, the Talmud confirms the claim of Jesus to be a descendant of David, in a passage that is to be found in Sanhedrin, folio 43, where he is spoken

66

that is akin to * דקרוב למלכות הוא of as one

the kingdom," i.e., related to the house of David.

Now, since there is a total absence of all opposition upon this momentous question, during the time of Christ, or even for several centuries after him, and no objection, that Jesus cannot be proved to be the Son of David, has ever been raised by either Jews or Gentiles, when such an objection, if well founded, would have been the most effectual means to resist the further spread of Christianity; yea, and since, even the Talmud records its opinion in confirmation of the truth, that Jesus, as "akin to the kingdom," has des

cended from David, we come to a just conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of David.

We call, therefore, upon our Jewish brethren, who differ from us, to state their grounds for believing that Jesus was not the Son of David. Any positive reasons they will not be able to give, but they will say that they differ from us because that the evidence of the New Testament is not sufficiently clear, and that the two Genealogies there recorded, not only contradict themselves, but are only the Genealogies of Joseph, the husband of Mary, who, according to the New Testament, was only the reputed father of Jesus.

By referring to the evidence of the New Testament, it will be seen that the objections are unfounded, and that Jesus of Nazareth is there clearly shown to be the son of David.

It is, therefore, further proved,

II. From the positive evidence of the New Testament.

Many passages may be adduced from the New Testament, which show Christ to be the descendant of David, but only some of the more striking will be selected as sufficient for this