We can become gods?

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Something to consider is that Israelite worship changed extremely from the 1st to 2nd Temple periods.

I don't think it changed as much as you think it did. You will probably cite Barker and I will probably just start citing others.

Each of these places used the ancient temple ritual that reenacted a ceremony, which included a tree of life, the divine council, the wife of God/Wisdom, the Angel of God's Presence/Messiah, etc.

I don't totally disagree. I do think the menorah symbolized the tree of life. I don't think Wisdom was ever viewed as the wife of God, especially since Jesus identified Himself as Wisdom. And I know Wisdom was a female personification, but Jesus still identified Himself as Wisdom. He also compared Himself to a mother hen and that didn't seem to phase Him. Paul also identifies Jesus as Wisdom. The deuterocanon identifies Wisdom with the Angel of YHWH. So while Barker and her readers might think that Widom was Asherah who later became the Virgin Mary, I fail to see any solid connection, just a failed theory. Jeremiah in particular slams the Jews for worshiping a godess, and Jeremiah didn't go into exile in Babylon, He went towards Alexandria. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel were priests who slammed idol worship, which shoots a hole in the theory that non-priests were responsible for the supposed deuteronimist reforms. Micah, a pre-exile farmer, and Amos both blast Israel for worship of Asherah in particluar. So while I do see that Israel worshiped idols, since all of the above mention them doing it, Judges mentions them doing it, I also see that worshiping idols was not what Israel was supposed to do - hence the exile. Judges and the Samuels in particular mention the worship of Ashtaroth and all sorts of gods, it is clear from the same texts that that's not what was intended.

I don't think the messiah was viewed as divine either. Saul was specifically called "anointed one" (mashiach) and he was not considered divine. "Messiah" simply was a title for the king. Cyrus was called "messiah" and was not considered, by Israel at least, to be divine. As far as I can tell from the text, the messiah was not identified with the angel of YHWH until Jesus. There are extrabiblical texts, Enoch in particular, that identify a "son of man" figure to be divine, but he is not identified as the messiah. There are other texts that speculate about Metatron, Michael, Melchizadek, Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, but as far as I can remember they never identify them as divine beings.

These were lost in the 2nd Temple and Deuteronomist reforms. Yahweh's power and presence spread immensely, as he began to be viewed more and more as an international God that transcended boundaries. This is how Yahweh was able to be God of the Jews during the Diaspora in Babylon.

YHWH was always viewed as transcending boundries. The Exodus from Egypt is a prime example. YHWH invaded Egypt, beat up on their gods, rescued Israel and went and conquered the territory of other Gods. From Genesis - the Samuels, Kings, and Chronicles, YHWH was never seen as a deity that was stuck inside a temple. As you rightle pointed out, He dwelt in a Tabernacle, and even then He was not limited to it as seen from the pillar of cloud/fire. When David wanted to build a Temple, YHWH's response was that a house cannot contain Him. The Ark itself was identified with God's chariot throne indicating that God was not limited to His Temple.

Of couse you may always say that Gen - 2 Kings were just riddled with Deuteronimists reforms, but you must presuppose that on the text as far as I can tell. You have to take a rather cynical approach that every instance of YHWH being equated to El is a product of the exile and so earlier writings must therefore be redactions. Every instance in pre-exile lit. that identifies YHWH as a deity on the move and not limited to His territory, must be a redaction. Every pre-exile lit. that identifies YHWH as the only deity Israel was to worship, must be a redaction. While you may not deny this, the scholars who do hold to this theory usually deny that predictive prophecies are possible, so everything that resembles a prophecy is probably a redaction caused by events in the prophets world.

It looks to me like a bag full of assumptions. Heck, Barker even admits she doesn't know what the original text said. Well, please pardon me if I don't jump on that bandwagon, but I jump on the bandwagon of scholars who know a little more about what the text said and says.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

It looks to me like a bag full of assumptions. Heck, Barker even admits she doesn't know what the original text said. Well, please pardon me if I don't jump on that bandwagon, but I jump on the bandwagon of scholars who know a little more about what the text said and says.

Any scholar worth their salt will freely admit that they don't know what the original text said. Honestly. Your bandwagon has no wheels, I'm afraid.


HiJolly

[deseretgov]

Originally Posted by PassionForHisWord

Let me see if I understand the LDS beliefs on this topic correctly:

Human beings were born in heaven as the son or daughter of a god and goddess before they were born physically here on earth.

Being born into this life here on earth is something that we agreed to in heaven. This life serves as a test and a means of obtaining exaltation one day to godhood.

One achieves exaltation by living a life of obedience to Mormon teaching and practices. Those exalted to godhood will inhabit a planet and procreate spirit children.

A supporting quote from Brigham Young would be this: "the Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself...We are created to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.” (Journal of Discourses, 3:93)

Basically correct howevere I would point out that we cannot obtain our potential as God's children by obedience to Mormon Practices and teachings. Adam, Noah and Moses weren't Mormon, but I'm pretty sure they will will recieve exaltation. Jesus wasn't Mormon either. I wouls also prefer the deletion of the part "inhabit a planet."

But as for us becoming gods. It never says that we will become equal with God, or that we will take His place, r that we will rule over His children. God will always be our God no matter what level of progression we reach. Just like a father is still a father even if his son becomes a father.

So, having that all being said (and if I'm wrong, please correct me), how does the Mormon Church interpret Isaiah 43:10?

I interpret it to mean in the context of God's relationship to us. God will always be our God. We will have no other Gods than Him.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

There are other texts that speculate about Metatron, Michael, Melchizadek, Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, but as far as I can remember they never identify them as divine beings.

Correction: Metatron and Michael would be divine beings (but not Messiah's)



I typed that thread up about 5 minutes before I hit the door to leave work. It was a little sloppier than it should have been.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

Hey Ram,

You been reading Bill Dever, or is it Margaret Barker? Both are pretty interesting.


HiJolly

Both, plus several others that are now considering these things. Of course, Kevin Christensen's stuff on Margaret Barker is pretty good, as well.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

I don't think it changed as much as you think it did. You will probably cite Barker and I will probably just start citing others.



I don't totally disagree. I do think the menorah symbolized the tree of life. I don't think Wisdom was ever viewed as the wife of God, especially since Jesus identified Himself as Wisdom. And I know Wisdom was a female personification, but Jesus still identified Himself as Wisdom. He also compared Himself to a mother hen and that didn't seem to phase Him. Paul also identifies Jesus as Wisdom. The deuterocanon identifies Wisdom with the Angel of YHWH. So while Barker and her readers might think that Widom was Asherah who later became the Virgin Mary, I fail to see any solid connection, just a failed theory. Jeremiah in particular slams the Jews for worshiping a godess, and Jeremiah didn't go into exile in Babylon, He went towards Alexandria. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel were priests who slammed idol worship, which shoots a hole in the theory that non-priests were responsible for the supposed deuteronimist reforms. Micah, a pre-exile farmer, and Amos both blast Israel for worship of Asherah in particluar. So while I do see that Israel worshiped idols, since all of the above mention them doing it, Judges mentions them doing it, I also see that worshiping idols was not what Israel was supposed to do - hence the exile. Judges and the Samuels in particular mention the worship of Ashtaroth and all sorts of gods, it is clear from the same texts that that's not what was intended.

Friedman, in his book, Who Wrote the Bible?, stated that there were two groups of priests: those of Aaron and those of Moses, who battled it out for preeminence in David's court and in the future temple. David had two priests, one from each group.

Solomon chose the priest of Aaron to be his counsel, and exiled the priest of Moses to outside of Jerusalem. This caused a major division and continual battle until the Diaspora over who rightfully belonged in the temple.

While Jeremiah condemned Asherah, or the mother in heaven, as that worship had replaced Yahweh rather than supplemented it, he also condemned the priests of the temple. Instead of praising the temple sacrifices, he brought forth the children of Rekhab and proclaimed them as true followers of God. The Rekhabites were desert dwellers, who had left Jerusalem in previous generations to worship God as did the Abraham and the patriarchs, rather than focused on the centralized temple/city worship of Jerusalem. Friedman suggests that Jeremiah was a priest of Moses, standing up to the Aaronic priests in the temple.

Interestingly, Jeremiah's focus falls in line with Lehi and Nephi. Lehi restored the worship on altars in the wilderness/high places. His vision of the Tree of Life restored practices and beliefs lost from the First Temple, prior to the Deuteronomist reforms (Aaronic priests). Lehi's departure into the wilderness made him akin to the Rekhabites in many ways. And the focus of Yahweh's consort, Asherah, was placed back into its proper place in Lehi's dream: as the mother of God.

Please note that Lehi's Christology is different from Nephi's Christology as he describes his 30 years after leaving Jerusalem, having rejected the ways of the Jews. And Lehi's fits in classically with Jeremiah's views and issues.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Friedman, in his book, Who Wrote the Bible?, stated that there were two groups of priests: those of Aaron and those of Moses, who battled it out for preeminence in David's court and in the future temple. David had two priests, one from each group.

Solomon chose the priest of Aaron to be his counsel, and exiled the priest of Moses to outside of Jerusalem. This caused a major division and continual battle until the Diaspora over who rightfully belonged in the temple.

While Jeremiah condemned Asherah, or the mother in heaven, as that worship had replaced Yahweh rather than supplemented it, he also condemned the priests of the temple. Instead of praising the temple sacrifices, he brought forth the children of Rekhab and proclaimed them as true followers of God. The Rekhabites were desert dwellers, who had left Jerusalem in previous generations to worship God as did the Abraham and the patriarchs, rather than focused on the centralized temple/city worship of Jerusalem. Friedman suggests that Jeremiah was a priest of Moses, standing up to the Aaronic priests in the temple.

Interesting. I'll have to check out Friedman. He was already on my list of books to read, as he comes reccommended, but since my list is rather long, he just hasn't landed on my shelf yet.

[rameumptom]

In the Exagoge of Moses (IIRC), Moses ascends into heaven, where God sits on his throne. God stands up and has Moses sit on the throne and receive of the glory. In this instance, Moses also becomes a divine being.
Other ancient texts have Adam as a divine being, whom the angels are to worship. Of course, Enoch becomes Metatron, so he isa divine being.

Many ancient texts show that there may be more than one messiah. The new Qumran Scroll in Stone mentions the Messiah son of Joseph/Ephraim, for example (as do other early texts), who is the suffering servant. This differs from the Messiah, son of David/Judah, who is a royal king that destroys the physical enemies of the people.

Some believe these are two representations of the same being (i.e., Christ), while others consider them separate beings. Interestingly, while the Jews sought a Davidic Messiah, Christ represented his mortal ministry more as the Ephraim/Suffering Messiah.

Margaret Barker states that the Messiah was tied anciently to the Angel of the Presence. This means that the angel that wrestled with Jacob was the Messiah. The angel/Lord that visited with Abraham and discussed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was this same being. And the early Christians viewed the suffering Messiah/Angel of the Presence/Jehovah as being Jesus; who would come in the future as the great Davidic King and Messiah to rule over the earth.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Many ancient texts show that there may be more than one messiah. The new Qumran Scroll in Stone mentions the Messiah son of Joseph/Ephraim, for example (as do other early texts), who is the suffering servant. This differs from the Messiah, son of David/Judah, who is a royal king that destroys the physical enemies of the people.

Of course. Traces of this are also found in the Mishnah and Gemara. Ben Joseph was to be a priestly figure who was to lead his followers to Jerusalem, overcome the evil forces and restablish temple worship, but then there would be a war where he would also suffer and be killed at the hands of his enemies. Then Messiah ben David would come along and resurrect him and lead the final battle against the forces of evil. That is one line of thinking about the messiah, and I'm not sure that all the details found in the Mishnah and Gemara are also found in the DSS, I'll have to check later, I can't remember for sure.

b. Sukkot

What was the mourning for? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ: One holds that it was for the Messiah the son of Joseph, who was killed; and one holds that it was for the evil angel, who was killed. It would be right according to one who holds that it was for the Messiah the son of Joseph, because he explains as supporting him the passage [Zech. xii. 10]: "And they will look up toward me (for every one) whom they have thrust through, and they will lament for him, as one lamenteth for an only son, and weep bitterly for him, as one weepeth bitterly for the firstborn"; but according to one who says that it was for the death of the evil angel, why mourning? must it not be, on the contrary, an enjoyment? Why then weeping? This can be explained as R. Jehudah lectured: In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the evil angel and slaughter him in the presence of both the upright and the wicked. To the former he will look like a high mountain, and to the latter he will look like a thin hair. Both, however, will cry. The upright will cry, saying: How could we overpower such a high mountain? and the wicked will cry, saying: How could we not subdue such a thin hair? And also the Holy One, blessed be He, will join them in wondering, as it is written [Zech. viii. 6]: "Thus hath said the Lord of hosts: If itshould be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in my eyes


The rabbis taught: The Messiah b. David, who (as we hope) will appear in the near future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ask something of me and I will give it to thee, as it is written [Ps. ii. 7-8]: "I will announce the decree . . . Ask it of me, and I will give," etc. But as the Messiah b. David will have seen that the Messiah b. Joseph who preceded him was killed, he will say before the Lord: Lord of the Universe, I will ask nothing of Thee but life. And the Lord will answer: This was prophesied already for thee by thy father David [Ps. xxi. 5]: "Life hath he asked of thee, thou gavest it to him."

Another thought was that Messiah would come and defeat the enemies in battle. The sufferer of Isaiah 53 was thought to be the enemies of the messiah, and the suffering was inflicted by messiah.

Targum Isaiah

CHAPTER LIII.
1 Who hath believed this our report? and
to whom is now the power of the arm of the Lord
revealed?
2 The righteous shall be great before Him,
behold, like branches that bud ; and like a tree
which sends forth its roots by the streams of
water, thus shall the generation of the just
multiply in the land, which hath need of Him.
3 His visage shall not be the visage of a common
person, neither His fear the fear of a plebeian
but a holy brightness shall be His brightness, that
every one who seeth Him shall contemplate Him.
4 Although He shall be in contempt ; yet He
shall cut off the glory of all the wicked, they shall
be weak and wretched. Lo, we are in contempt
and not esteemed, as a man of pain and appointed
to sickness, and as if He had removed the face of
His Shekinah from us.
5 Therefore He shall pray for our sins, and our
iniquities for His sake shall be forgiven us; for
we are considered crushed, smitten of the Lord,
and afflicted.
6 He shall build the house of the sanctuary,
which has been profaned on account of our sins ;
He was delivered over on account of our iniquities,
and through His doctrine peace shall
be multiplied upon us, and through the teaching
of His words our sins shall be forgiven us.
7 All we like sheep have been scattered, every
one of us has turned to his own way ; it pleased
the Lord to forgive the sins of all of us for
His sake.
8 He shall pray and He shall be answered, yea,
before He shall open His mouth, He shall be
heard; He shall deliver over the mighty of the
nations as a lamb to the slaughter, and like a
sheep before her shearers is dumb, none shall in
His presence open his mouth, or speak a word.

Another line was to think that Isaiah 53 applied to Israel, and Israel was the sufferer.

Even more speculation was on how messiah would arrive. If Israel was sinful and unworthy, he would come lowly on a donkey, if they were faithful, he would come as Davidic warrior.

The popular thinking of the Pharisees seems to be that the Messiah would come as a Davidic warrior who would defeat the enemies in battle. Essenes took a 2 messiah approach. Sadducees rejected the prophets. Zealots seemed to take the more Davidic warrior approach.

(see also b. Sanhedrin, 4 Ezra)

Some believe these are two representations of the same being (i.e., Christ), while others consider them separate beings. Interestingly, while the Jews sought a Davidic Messiah, Christ represented his mortal ministry more as the Ephraim/Suffering Messiah.

Of course. I think both Messiah ben Joseph and ben David can both be tied to Jesus in the gospels. And I don't see the concept of Messiah begin to be developed until just before the exile when a few prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah in particular) were aware of the problem with the throne of David. Even then it wasn't developed fully even in the first century as there was no unifed concept of messiah at the time.

Margaret Barker states that the Messiah was tied anciently to the Angel of the Presence. This means that the angel that wrestled with Jacob was the Messiah. The angel/Lord that visited with Abraham and discussed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was this same being. And the early Christians viewed the suffering Messiah/Angel of the Presence/Jehovah as being Jesus; who would come in the future as the great Davidic King and Messiah to rule over the earth.

I tend to agree with Barker on this one, though I don't think the connection between messiah and the angel of YHWH was made until after Jesus' resurrection. I think messiah was just simply a title for the king (eg. Saul and Cyrus were "mashiach", neither of which were tied to the Angel of YHWH). But I do see 2 YHWH's in the OT, following a similiar approach of Heiser. The Angel of YHWH is an extremely interesting theme to chase through the OT and it's interesting to see how NT writers tie this figure to Jesus.

[rameumptom]

More on the Suffering Messiah/Son of Joseph comes from an article at Biblical Archaeological Review, which gives more info on "Gabriel's Revelation" which is the new DSS on stone.

A new inscription, recently published in BAR for the first time in English,a may hold the key to unlocking a new understanding of some of the history of Christian and Jewish messianism.
Written on a stone 3 feet tall, the new text has many of the characteristics of a fragmentary Dead Sea Scroll, including being poorly preserved. Based on the stance and form of the letters, the distinguished decipherers of the inscription (Ada Yardeni and Binyamin Elizur) date it to the late first century B.C.E. or early first century C.E.
Yardeni describes the text as “a literary composition similar to Biblical prophecies.” From a word or a phrase here and there, she notes that the text is apocalyptic in character and comes from a group that believes in a Davidic Messiah. She calls the text “Gabriel’s Revelation,” or Hazon Gabriel in Hebrew.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have, in general, revealed that many of the same religious concepts and beliefs found in Christianity are also found in the scrolls, often appearing first in the scrolls and thereafter surfacing in early Christianity. I believe this is also true of the messianism of “Gabriel’s Revelation.”
As we shall see, “Gabriel’s Revelation” has a great deal to tell us about a different kind of messiah—a Messiah son of Joseph, who is different from the Biblical concept of a Davidic Messiah.
The tradition of the “Messiah son of Joseph” and his death first appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 52a).
The rabbis taught: The Messiah ben David, who (as we hope) will appear in the near future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ask something of me and I will give it to thee, as it is written [Psalm 2:7–8]: “I will announce the decree ... Ask it of me, and I will give,” etc. But as the Messiah ben David will have seen that the Messiah ben Joseph who preceded him was killed, he will say before the Lord: “Lord of the Universe, I will ask nothing of Thee but life.” And the Lord will answer: “This was prophesied already for thee by thy father David [Psalm 21:5]: ‘Life hath he asked of thee, thou gavest it to him.’ ”
According to the seventh-century apocalyptic text known as Sefer Zerubabel, the “Messiah son of Joseph” was killed by the wicked “Armilus” and was further resurrected by the Messiah son of David and the Prophet Elijah.1

These traditions are clearly post-Christian and most scholars regard this Jewish tradition as an impact of Christianity on Judaism. Some evidence, however, indicates that the figure of “Messiah son of Joseph” is much older. In some texts from around the turn of the era, we encounter Joseph as a son of God who atones for the sins of others with his suffering. For example, in Joseph and Aseneth, written between 100 B.C.E. and 115 C.E. Joseph is described as “son of God” (6:3, 5, 13:13). Joseph is also called “God’s firstborn son” (18:11, 21:4, 23:10).
In another book from the Second Temple period, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Benjamin connects Joseph and the figure of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52–53. In this testament, Jacob says to Joseph:
“ ‘In you will be fulfilled the heavenly prophecy, which says that the spotless one will be defiled by lawless men and the sinless one will die for the sake of impious men’ ”2 (emphasis supplied).
These citations suggest that the designation of the suffering Messiah as the “son of Joseph” goes back to sources from the Second Temple period.3

In another late Midrash, Pesikta Rabbati, the Messiah Ephraim (a son of Joseph) is created. As to him, the sins of others “will bend you down under a yoke of iron.” The Holy One, blessed be he, asks him if he is willing to endure this suffering. Messiah Ephraim, son of Joseph, asks how long his suffering will last. Seven years, the Holy One replies. After more dialogue, the Messiah Ephraim says: “Master of the Universe, with joy in my soul and gladness in my heart I take this suffering upon myself, provided not one person in Israel perish; that not only those who are alive be saved in my days, but also those who are dead ...”4
In this passage from the Pesikta Rabbati, the son of Joseph (here Ephraim) also appears as the Messiah identified as the Suffering Servant in Isaiah.

Several scholars have argued that these late passages should be traced to Christian circles.5 A leading rabbinic scholar, Saul Lieberman, has argued otherwise.6 I have agreed with Lieberman.7 I believe “Gabriel’s Revelation,” now published in BAR, supports the view that the tradition of the Messiah son of Joseph who is killed goes back to the late first century B.C.E. or the early first century C.E. Although much of the text of “Gabriel’s Revelation” has not been preserved or is difficult to read, enough is there to make these points.

As Yardeni notes in her BAR article, despite the difficulty in reading the text, it involves “messianic groups.” The characters it mentions are “clearly apocalyptic figures.” Among them are two we have already encountered in this article: David and Ephraim. In “Gabriel’s Revelation,” the Lord addresses David, asking him to request of Ephraim that he place a sign: “My servant David, ask of Ephraim [that he p]lace the sign ...” (Line 16–17). Unfortunately, the nature of the sign is not specified, but it seems to be the sign of salvation. However, the fact that David is sent by God to request Ephraim to place the sign may attest that Ephraim has superior rank. He, and not David, is the key person who is asked to place the sign; David is only the messenger!
The expression “My servant David” of course appears often in the Bible as a term of an eschatological leader (see Ezekiel 34:23, 24, 37:24, 25). And, as we have noted, in the Bible, Ephraim is the son of Joseph. The names “my servant David” and “Ephraim” mentioned in “Gabriel’s Revelation” are apparently parallel, respectively, to the titles “Messiah son of David” and “Messiah son of Joseph” in the Talmud, to which I have already called attention. And “Ephraim” is the name of the Messiah in Pesikta Rabbati, when he is said to suffer in order to atone for Israel. Thus, in this new text on stone, we have the earliest reference to Ephraim as a messianic figure (although in Jeremiah 31:20, the Lord tells Ephraim: “Truly, Ephraim is a dear son to me” [see also Hosea 11:1–8]).
It is also interesting that this new text seems to predict that in three days the evil will be defeated by the righteous. They read as follows: “By three days you shall know that thus said the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the evil has been broken by righteousness” (Lines 19–21).
There is more: Line 80 begins with the phrase “In three days.” This is followed by another word that the editors could not read. Then comes the phrase “I, Gabriel.” I believe that this “illegible” word is actually legible. It is the word ḥayeh, “live” (חאיה). Gabriel the archangel is giving orders to someone to “live”: “In three days, you shall live.” In other words, in three days, you shall return to life (be resurrected).
There follow two additional words that are also difficult to read. The letters are not easy to make out, but I believe the first word begins with a ג ( gimel ) and a ו (vav). The next word is equally difficult. The letter ל (lamed) is quite legible, and the letter before it seems to be an ע (‘ayin). I believe the sentence can be reconstructed as follows: “In three days, live, I, Gabriel, command you.” (Leshloshet yamin ḥayeh, ani Gavriel, gozer alekha.) Ada Yardeni has since agreed with this reading of ḥayeh and with the translation “In three days, live, I, Gabriel ...”

The archangel is ordering someone to rise from the dead within three days.
Gabriel is of course well known from the Book of Daniel, as well as the Gospel of Luke. In Daniel, Gabriel appears to the prophet in an apocalyptic vision (Daniel 8:13–19). In the famous annunciation scene in the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear a son who will be called Son of the Most High:
“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:31–33).
According to the genealogical lists in Matthew 1:1–16 and Luke 3:23–38, Jesus is a descendant of David. It is said explicitly about Joseph, Jesus’ father, that he was “of the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:4; see also 1:27, 32; Matthew 1:20).
Jesus is also referred to as the “Son of David” several times elsewhere in the Gospels (Mark 10:46, 11:10; Matthew 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 21:9; Luke 18:38), and subsequently elsewhere in the New Testament (Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5, 22:16). And the entire Nativity story (Matthew 2:1–18; Luke 2:1–29) is designed to emphasize Jesus as a “Son of David.” According to the Nativity accounts, Jesus, like King David, was born in Bethlehem. However, Jesus himself never refers to the Messiah as the “Son of David,” and he does not mention having any link with the Davidic line.
In “Gabriel’s Revelation,” we see that another messiah—Ephraim, or the “Messiah son of Joseph”—was known already in the late first century B.C.E. The “Ephraim” of “Gabriel’s Revelation” was probably based on Biblical verses depicting him as the suffering Son of God (see Jeremiah 31:17–20; Hosea 11:1–8). And the setting of “Gabriel’s Revelation” reflects elements of death and bloodshed.
The messianic figure of David is traditionally represented as involving bravery, military skill and triumph. The figure of Ephraim, or the Messiah son of Joseph, symbolizes a very different and new kind of messianism. Ephraim is a messiah of suffering and death.
This may shed new light on what has been a puzzling Gospel tradition. In parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospelsb (Mark 12:35–37; Matthew 22:41–46; Luke 20:41–44), Jesus is teaching on the Temple Mount. Surprisingly, he rejects the idea that the Messiah is the son of David: “How can the scribes say,” Jesus asks, “that Christ is the son of David?” (Mark 12:35).
To demonstrate that the Messiah is not the son of David, Jesus quotes Psalm 110, attributed in the Hebrew Bible to David himself. As the text of Mark (12:36) recites, David speaks in the psalm: “David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared ...” Jesus then recites a passage from the psalm:
“The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
till I put thy enemies under thy feet.”
Jesus then uses this passage to prove his point: “David himself calls him [the Messiah] ‘Lord,’ so how is he his son?” That is, David speaks of the Messiah as “my Lord,” rather than as “my son.” The Messiah therefore cannot be a son of David. Using Psalm 110 as his proof text, Jesus here refutes the scribes’ view that Christ, the Messiah, should be a son or descendant of David.
This seems strange in light of the fact that, as I noted earlier, in both Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ lineage is specifically traced to David. I am inclined to regard the passage in which Jesus quotes Psalm 110 as a historically reliable passage in which Jesus rejects the view that the Messiah will be a descendant of David. Not only do versions of this incident appear in all three Synoptic Gospels, but the very fact that it runs counter to the genealogies of Jesus suggests that this contradictory version must be authentic. Otherwise, the authors of the Gospels would not have included something that so blatantly clashes with their frequent reference to Jesus as the Son of David.8
Some scholars have suggested that Jesus wished to claim that the Messiah is not merely a son of David but rather has a superior status—possibly that of the Son of God. However, if this were the case, we would have expected Jesus to anchor his claim in Psalm 2:7, “You are my son, today I have begotten you,” rather than on the first verse of Psalm 110, which makes no explicit reference to the Messiah as the Son of God.
In citing Psalm 110, Jesus may well be seeking to dispel the prevalent expectation of a triumphal messiah, the traditional “son of David.”
His ideal messianic model is different. As with the Messiah Ephraim, son of Joseph, Jesus’ Messiah involves suffering and death.
The new inscription, “Gabriel’s Revelation,” suggests that this different kind of Messiah was evolving at the turn of the era—different from the Messiah son of David. Instead of a militant Messiah, it envisions a Messiah who suffered, died and rose. Jesus also understood the Messiah to be a Son of Joseph.
Like in “Gabriel’s Revelation,” also in the saying of Jesus, David is secondary to the other Messiah. In Nazareth, Jesus was known as the “son of Joseph” (Luke 4:22; John 6:42). Thus it is quite possible that Jesus identified himself as the Messiah “Ephraim,” the son of Joseph who is mentioned in “Gabriel’s Revelation.”9

The link above has the actual translation and a photo of the stone.