The 'fame' of the house of David was perhaps at its lowest ebb, so low in fact to allow a search and slaughter throughout all of Ramah in order to murder its heir. Why was being of the house of David no longer any great honor? It was even to the point that Christ the Messiah suffered because he was of the house of David.

1. The linage of David had been acursed that no descedant of David would again reign in Judah after that days of Jehoachin and Zedekiah. 2. David house was known to be legally and rightfull of the House of Joseph, and many of the high Jews hated it as much if not more than they hated the Samaritans and for the same reasons.

"Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend from the cross, that we may see and believe." ~ Mark 15:31-32 & Matthew 27:42

It is now that this topic can be considered for the basis of it has been laid in various of the previous topics. In the days of Jesus there was very little respect unto the House of David shown by the leaders of the Jews. And this though the prophecies did proclaim that the Messiah would come of that house.

Now there are various reasons for the lack of respect unto the the House of David during this age. Let us begin back in the days of David and King Saul. Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin and of the House of Joseph, not Judah. Thus there was a ready made distaste among the Jews toward King Saul which David would come to rely upon in the days in which David, by the hand of Samuel, had been anointed to be Israel's King and King Saul did cast David out from him and sought to destroy him. David found an ally in the tribe of Judah, the tribe of his bloodline, though David was legally and rightfully an Ephrathite himself. This support of David was likely more based upon Judah's distaste for Saul of the house of Rachel than it was in support of David, also in the Law of Moses of the house of Rachel, though of the bloodline of Judah through Boaz.

This fickled posture of the Jews was to be seen when they would so willingly revolt against the King of Israel, when David became king of all of Israel, and evolved into a more universal representative of all Israel as opposed to being only of Judah. The tribe of Judah supported David's son, Absolom, in an effort to overthrown David's throne. In this it was Israel, under the leadership of Ephraim who came to David's aid to support David against the Jews and Absolom. And this Israel did because David was Legally and Rightfully also of the seed of Joseph according to the Law of God. And Israel had the greater claim in David in this than did Judah.

But when Israel defeated the Jews and Absolom, restoring David to the throne in Jerusalem, like a dog to its vommit, David literally came running back to the Jews of Judah and illogically spurred Israel. And this David did dispite those of Judah having shown their hand that they in fact cared little for David in their attempt to overthrow him. But the opportunist the Jews were, they accepted David again as king, for what other choice had they? They stood defeated and David offered them the kingdom back and with an act of displayed preferrence for Judah over Israel. Now the use of those two words are significant and they are not the same in meaning as many so seem to use them interchangably. For Judah was the Jews only and Israel was all of the house of Israel with the house of Ephraim of the house of Joseph at its head.

Thus in the very days of King David's life, there was an undercurrent among the Jewish leadership who would have done away with David if their revolt would have succeeded under Absolom. And that resentment against David was that he was the 'legal' and 'rightful' King of Israel, being not legally and rightfully of Judah, though of that bloodline. But that David was the greatgrandson and legal seed of the dead first husband of Ruth, Mahlon and therefore of the Ephrathite House of Elimelech and of the promised seed of the covenant by descent from Joseph and his son Ephraim. This is the underlying resentment and lack of respect unto 'David' which the Jews had, though they would fain claim him and compile their records accordingly to made of David a Jew of Boaz, though the Law of God would make him the legal and rightful seed of the house of Elimelech as discussed in full variously in other previous topics herein covered.

But this was but the undercurrent of the distaste for David. On the surface the Jews would claim David dispite all of his sins. But the next blow to the house of David was more precisely given, when in the days of the overthrown of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, the House of David was 'cursed' as to the future of the kingdom until the coming of the Messiah, that there would be no more king of the House of David until the coming of the Messiah after King Jechonias or Jehoachin. This dispite that Zedekiah did reign, though while Jehoachin did live in Babylon, he was still considered the rightful king and that Zedekiah was not. Also, although the grandson of Jehoachin was made governor of Judah returned to Jerusalem, he was not king. And thus the leadership of the Jews looked and expect no more king out of the house of David. And despised the house of David for it, giving little if any honor unto it in Judah.

"Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man [Jehoiachin or Coniah] childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." ~ Jeremiah 22:30

As discussed by Elder Talmage in his book, Jesus the Christ, page 84, Salathiel was not the natural literal son of the 'childless' Jeconiah or Jehoiachin. He was actually descended from Nathan, by the heir of the house of Nathan, and thus 'adopted' in as the nearest of kin into the Royal linage. Remember, all of the sons of Zedekiah were held by the Bible to have also been killed. Luke takes the 'literal' linage of Joseph to be that Salathiel was actually the son of Neri and not Jehoiachin. Interestingly, according to Biblical listings, Nathan may have been an older son to Solomon. And this also takes Soloman out of the parental linage.

But herein lies the second matter the Jewish leadership would hold against any of the house of David rising to the throne of Judah. For Jeremiah had stated the 'curse' upon Jehoiachin, that there would no more be any to rule in Judah of that house. This meaning that there were to be no more Kings over Judah of the house of David until the Messiah should come, which has been the case.

Now the Jews finally seemed to achieve what they wanted all along, a king of their own. The Maccabees were a family of Jewish patriots styled priests of Judah. Whether they were actual Levites of merely Jews made priests is of little importance here. What is important is that they were NOT of the house of David. This gave the Jews a taste of freedom although arguably tainted by Greek influence as suggested by the names of the Hasmonaean family which did rule the people in the name of being Jewish priests.

Whatever influence these rules and kings had was further to be overshadowed by the coming of the Herodians who were not Jewish at all but 'Jewish converts' of the Idumaeans or those of Edom, that is descendants of Esau the brother of Jacob. The relationship between the Jewish people and the Herodians kings was one of disapproval upon the part of the people, but since they were instituted by the Romans there was little to be done. Dispite the 'disapproval', there seemed to be a high degree of cooperation between the Jewish leaders of the Sanhedrin and the Herodians. Perhaps this was a part of the hypocracy of the Jewish leaders, on the surface seen opposing the Herodian kings but in reality close bedfellows with them in the rule of the people. They certainly were on the same page when it came to their joint opposition of Jesus Christ, the King of the Jews.

One makes one consider that the Jewish leaders and the Herodian Kings had an understanding begins back in the days of Herod the Great. This also marks the further consideration of a great disrespect for those of the house of David. It would have been considered an outrage unto rebellion for a subserviant King as Herod the Great was under Roman rule, for that king to murder all the infants of an entire sigment of the population of the common people, that is all those of Bethlehem and of Ramah of Ephraim and the regions about which would house the bulk of the population of the house of David. And this to kill the promised Messiah which signs in the heaven had fortold.

Why did the Jewish leadership not protest such violent actions against the people to the Roman authorities? Why was there only compliance and weeping rather than protest and rebellion? It was Herod's souldiers who were sent forth to slaughter all the male children under the age of 2 years old. Not since Egypt had such a horror been performed against innocent babies.

The truth of the matter was that the Jewish Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees and the others had no great affection for those of the house of David. They saw in them only that threat of a bygone era when King David's descendants ruled and they had to cow-toe to them who were not even officially Jewish under the Law of God, but 'more well said', Samaritians themselves.

This consideration has already been set forth, that the Jewish rulers 'in the know', considered those of the house of David to be but Samaritans themselves, as this was one of the charges levied against Jesus accompanied by an outright statement of blasphemey against God the Father, that His promised Son would be possessed of the Devil. Jesus never did protest the slanderous slight of the first part of the statement of being in truth of 'mixed' linage of the Samaritans who were of Ephraim mixed with other national ancestry, for so was the whole of the house of David, and so looked down upon by certain of the ruling Jews. Yes there were 'token' representatives upon the 'border' so to speak in order to satisfy public appearance for the common man in the streets such as the membership of Joseph of Aramathea, but for the most part the Jewish leadership, the priests and their fellows in bed, the Herodians had no love for those of the house of David. And rather their feeling was that of destain and belittlement of the fallen once great house of the kings of Israel and then of the Jews.

And now to the opening scripture of this topic. When the Pharisees did 'mock' Christ upon the cross, they did not honor him with the title of the King of the Jews, for indeed they were totally appauled by the thought of any of the house of David so being King over Jews again. They in truth would rather accept those of Edom, the Herodians to be their kings than to have another king of David. Thus in their 'mockery' that would say, "He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let Christ the King of Israel descend from the cross, that we may see and believe." And therein laid the rub. They recognized that the Messiah would be King of all of Israel as a descendant of the house of David, and that the house of David was associated with that kingdom of Ephraim, the Kingdom of Israel and not that of Judah, the Jews. Thus they specifically stated it 'King of Israel' even though the sign atop the cross said, 'King of the Jews'. For they did reject him as being their king and would only recognize him as being the king of Ephraim, of the Samaritan Israel.

Many of the Apostles themselves, being but common men would miss this distinction of mockery by the Jews in the face of Christ. Matthew in writing his gospel to the Jews set forth the ancestory of Jesus in a manner in which it could not be denied that Christ was the rightful heir as Elder Talmage so skillfully presents (Jesus the Christ page 85). To the comman Jew it was a matter of interest and consideration. To the Jewish rulers. learned and high in their self pride, position and power, it mattered nothing at all that he was the heir in fact so provable by ancestry, by the many works of the miracles of God, and by the many signs given of him. They dispised the house of David for being legally and rightfully of the house of Joseph and of Christ being the true Messiah of the tribe of Ephraim. It was the weeping of Rachel for the murdered and lost children of the house of David that Matthew showed the fulfilling of the prophecy of Jeremiah in, which meant nothing to those hardened Jews of Judah, for their mother was Leah.

But even the common Jews had some knowledge and understanding of the standing of the house of David being of Israel, meaning that kingdom of Ephraim. And thus was Christ honored as the Son of David (Matthew 21:15) the King of Israel (John 12;13) during the course of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. They did not say Hosanna unto the king of the Jews, but to the King of Israel, the King of Zion, the Son of David; and they do so knowingly.

Even that very apostle Nathanael, to whom Philip annouced him to be "whom Moses in the land, and the prophets, did write, 'Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph'." (John 1:45), Yes that very Nathanael did not call him King of the Jews, but the King of Israel, the kingdom of all Israel under Ephraim (John 1:49). That actual title of 'King of the Jews' seems more of a slight by the Romans, perhaps Pilate himself, against the Jewish Priests, who had cornered him into crucifying in whom he had found no fault. It would certainly have rubbed the Jewish priests and leaders against the grain to have this 'Samaritan' so labeled before the whole world, that he was 'King of Jews', of Israel maybe, for they themselves mocked him as such; but certainly they would NOT have him to be the King of the Jews.