BVM A Levite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ted_CharlotteNC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Ted_CharlotteNC

Guest
In the gospel of Luke, Mary is said to be a relative of Elizabeth. Elizabeth and her husband worked in the temple. Only Levites could do so. So I just the question is:

How does that impact on the Mother of Our Lord being a Levite instead of the tribe of Judah? Did the Davidic assent rely on Mary if she was of mixed tribe descent and is that suficient? Or did the Davidic line rely on Joseph whose account is in Matthew and Luke from what I have been told/
 
I don’t know about Elizabeth working in the temple - I didn’t think women would have been allowed to work in the temple :confused:
 
1:5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth.*
Fuit in diebus Herodis regis Iudaeae sacerdos quidam nomine Zaccharias de vice Abia et uxor illi de filiabus Aaron et nomen eius Elisabeth

Daughters of Aaron sounds priestly to me
 
a person has both maternal and paternal family. Mary coulkd ahve been a decendant of levi and David. Also, Joseph definatly was a dcendant of David and he adopted Jesus into teh family.
 
Ted CharlotteNC said:
1:5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth.*
Fuit in diebus Herodis regis Iudaeae sacerdos quidam nomine Zaccharias de vice Abia et uxor illi de filiabus Aaron et nomen eius Elisabeth

Daughters of Aaron sounds priestly to me
Click to expand...

Well, Daughters of Aaron may sound priestly to you but they had no priestly duties to perform. In fact, only the priests, not their wives and families, lived in the Temple precincts during their time of service.

It is perfectly possible for Mary to have been related to Elizabeth and be of the House of Judah. Elizabeth no doubt married into the Tribe of Levi. Only when a daughter was the only child was she to marry within her own tribe, otherwise inter-tribal marriage was quite common.
 
Mary’s mother was the most likely descendant of Aaron as, she had been of David’s line she would have had to marry into the tribe since the Messiah was to come from that tribe.

It makes sense if Mary was also of the line of Aaron, since Jesus was King, Victim and High Priest.
 
You can find the geneologies of Mary and Joseph:

Joseph - Matthew 1: 1-16

Mary - Luke 3:23-38 (It says geneology of Joseph but you will note that from verse 31 with Nathan and on is different from the Matthew one.) Calling it Joseph’s when it’s Mary’s is not a mistake but something to do with how Jews list geneology.
 
Eileen T:
Mary’s mother was the most likely descendant of Aaron as, she had been of David’s line she would have had to marry into the tribe since the Messiah was to come from that tribe.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s all the more reason for believing Anne was of the Tribe of Judah and that Elizabeth married into the tribe of Levi.
It makes sense if Mary was also of the line of Aaron, since Jesus was King, Victim and High Priest.
Click to expand...
You forget that the whole book of Hebrews explains how Jesus can be the High Priest and not be of the Tribe of Levi. His priesthood comes from Melchizedek, not Levi.
 
40.png
Della:
Well, Daughters of Aaron may sound priestly to you but they had no priestly duties to perform. In fact, only the priests, not their wives and families, lived in the Temple precincts during their time of service.

It is perfectly possible for Mary to have been related to Elizabeth and be of the House of Judah. Elizabeth no doubt married into the Tribe of Levi. Only when a daughter was the only child was she to marry within her own tribe, otherwise inter-tribal marriage was quite common.
Click to expand...
Della, thats about the rudest answer i have seen in this forum.
The context of the question was to correct the previous question about Mary’s heritage.
Why is it when a legitament question is asked some of you have to get so defensive?

Whoever said that the geneology in Luke says Joseph but really Mary is using an old Protestent line. This really means that just to fit your purpose.
Every geneology stated in based on the father. Ruth is the only exception I can remember. If anybody deserves to mentioned, the Mother of Our Lord should.

Every assertion made by all of you has no basis of fact,

Eileens answer makes sense. However no answer is based on facts. I asked based on the facts stated that Mary is related to Levites, how could she be Mother of Our Lord? And all I get is conjecture and speculation.

I asked this question to the apologists but they did not see it worthy to answer, leaving it to you. So I get the unworthy answers I should expect. I guess I get what I pay for, my priest didnt have an answer either.
 
Ted CharlotteNC:
Whoever said that the geneology in Luke says Joseph but really Mary is using an old Protestent line. This really means that just to fit your purpose.
Click to expand...
SINCE the two geneologies differ from Solomon, son of David and Nathan, son of David, forward, then how do you explain that? Was Matthew lying? Was Luke?

The explanation is that they were the geneologies of TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

Check it out in your Bible: Joseph came from Solomon, a son of David, and Mary came from Nathan, a son of David. From David’s sons forward the Matthew and Luke geneologies DO NOT MATCH. How do you explain it? Either one was lying or it was two different people’s geneologies.
 
40.png
anawim:
James Akin gives a good explanation:

cin.org/users/james/files/Genealogies_of_Christ.htm
Click to expand...
Whew! I had a hard time following it, but I will certainly bow to this definition :bowdown: since their scholarship is obviously superior to mine–hey, can I help it I was raised protestant? :crying: I hope Ted’s question will be answered by it.

Thanks, Anawim, for submitting this. I’m going to copy it and place it in my Bible as it will surely come up again sometime. I’ve also bookmarked that website–looks like a good one.
 
Elizabeth did not marry into the tribe of Levi; in order for Zechariah’s marriage to be a valid marriage for a priest, the bride also had to be a member of the tribe of Levi, and, more specifically, a descendant of Aaron. She would not have had any Temple duties.

As concerning Mary’s family connection with Elizabeth, this has been dealt with on another thread. The connection would have had to have been through Mary’s mother being from the tribe of Levi. This would not have affected Mary’s genealogy (reckoned through the father), but it would have given Mary (and also Jesus) a blood connection to the priestly line of the tribe of Levi.

DaveBj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top