You asked me about whether Jesus was a physical or spiritual descendant of David in an email dated Thursday, January 25, 2007 (Was Jesus A Physical Descendant Of David? Part 1), which email, and my response, is posted to the LEM Q & A Page.
“I listened to the recent message on Romans 1. I have a question about it: In the alternate translation, you said something about Jesus being of the physical sperm of David. This confused me because I thought Jesus was a spiritual descendant of David, not a physical descendant. The reason I thought that was that in Matthew 1, it lists the generations of Jesus, but ends up with Joseph the husband of Mary, meaning that there was actually no physical connection from David to Jesus. Could you please explain this to me when you have time? Thank you.”
There is no doubt in my mind that the revelation concerning Joseph being the father of the physical child, Jesus, appeared in my mind so that I could accurately answer your question:
The correct answer, according to the Lord Jesus (that Joseph was the father of the physical child), began to appear in my mind some time in April of 2007, approximately three months after you asked your question. As I prayed about this new thought, I began to recognize the inconsistency of Church Doctrine (the virgin birth) with the Scripture (Messiah will be a physical descendant of David)., which your question challenged me to recognize.
Thank you for noticing that, according to the English translation of the Scripture, there is no genealogical or contextual proof of Jesus’ physical descent from David, which resulted in my recognizing the inconsistency between Church Doctrine (virgin birth) and Scripture (Messiah will be a physical descendant of David).
I do ask you to note, however, that, although you accurately noticed the inconsistency of the English translation of the Scripture (no genealogical or contextual proof that Jesus is the physical seed of David) with Scripture (Messiah will be the physical seed of David),
“. . . .I thought Jesus was a spiritual descendant of David, not a physical descendant [because] Matthew 1, lists the generations of Jesus, but ends up with Joseph the husband of Mary…”
You inaccurately concluded that:
“. . . . there was actually no physical connection from David to Jesus.”
I did not recognize the inconsistency of Church Doctrine (virgin birth) with Scripture (Messiah will be a physical descendant of David) that your question revealed.
I did recognize, however, that your conclusion (no physical connection between Jesus and David) was inconsistent with Scripture (Messiah will be a physical descendant of David), and responded to your incorrect conclusion (no physical connection between David and Jesus), rather than to the inconsistency of Church Doctrine (virgin birth) with Scripture (Messiah will be a physical descendant of David), by incorrectly concluding that the physical seed must have been passed to Jesus through Mary. I, then, incorrectly responded to your question by explaining how Messiah must be of the seed of David through Mary.
After that, I continued to be blinded to the startling Truth that your question reveals (Joseph must be the father of the physical baby Jesus) for about three months.
The thought that the traditional understanding of the virgin birth (no physical male seed) might not be the true meaning of the Scripture appeared as a quiet thought in my mind some time in April of 2007. I must say that I was rather alarmed when I perceived that thought in my mind. It was also the first revelation in years which was initially rejected by my closest associates who usually flow with everything that the Lord reveals to me.
I do not have the words to express how grateful I am to the Lord Jesus for proving what I have been preaching for a long time: that there is no reason for anyone to be upset or challenge me openly over anything that I say, since the Lord Jesus will correct every error that I make when a disciple seeks the Lord for Truth and/or Justice, with a humble heart.
The Lord Jesus is truly the head of LEM and my head, personally, for which I am truly and forever grateful.
Thank you for taking the time to write up and submit your question to me.
God bless you.
Sincerely in Christ,
Sheila R. Vitale,
Pastor, Teacher & Founder
Living Epistles Ministries
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:10 AM
Thank you very much for your email. You know, I have a small testimony regarding this which I meant to share with you but never got down to it (am sorry I didn't). The day before I listened to the message, the Virgin Birth (I had no clue what it was about), I was reading the Alternate Translation again and got to the place where it talks about Jesus being of the physical sperm of David and it still confused me and I prayed that I should understand it, like I did when I got your response to the same question. And lo and behold, I listened to the message on the Virgin Birth the very next day and got my answer!! The truth, the missing bit that would reconcile it all for me i.e. Joseph being the physical father of the man Jesus!!! My spirit just truly witnessed to this truth when I listened to that message. I meant to write you and tell you at the time because I was really excited about my experience, I shared it with my mum.
I see what you said below, that I had drawn an inaccurate conclusion that there was no physical connection from David to Jesus (based on what I had learnt from Church about the virgin birth i.e. no physical relationship between Joseph and Jesus and so even though Joseph was physically related to David, there was no physical link between Jesus and David) and so couldn't reconcile it with the truth which came out in the Alternate Translation.
But I thank the Lord Jesus that, like you say, we can always take any issues that we may not understand or agree with to Him, believing that as we submit to you and your teaching as our Pastor, He will correct any wrong thinking on our part, or give you the necessary revelation to respond to our problems.