How was Christ descended from David?

[Caesar]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Joseph was a descendant of King David, yet he, of course, was not the father of Christ, merely the step-father. Why then do we sometimes refer to our Lord as a descendant of David?

 

[Cari]

I’ll have to find sources for this one, but when I posed the same question to my priest, he told me that most likely Our Lady was of the same descent as Joseph, and so Christ’s Davidic ineage, though recorded through Joseph, actually came from His mother.

This is more in keeping with what I understand the accounting of Jewish lineage to be, anyway.

I’ll see if I can find sources.

C

p.s. jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/07/descended_from_.html

 

[Eileen_T]

Because the Messiah was to be born of David’s line, and many of David’s line had been killed (by Nebuchadnezzar?! ) those remaining were carefully intermarried to keep the bloodlines pure.

Therefore Mary would have also have been of David’s line, although I believe she was also a descendant of Aaron’s line.

 

[NotWorthy]

In Jewish Law, the adopted son of a man was granted full familial rights, no less so than if he was the natural son of a man.

Mary’s lineage had no bearing on whether Jesus descended from David or not.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Joseph was a descendant of King David, yet he, of course, was not the father of Christ, merely the step-father. Why then do we sometimes refer to our Lord as a descendant of David?

I also ask this question to a priest, and he and I both concluded that Mary’s bloodline must also be from the David’s line.

I’ll do some research if this bear any fruit. Regardless, I do believe Jesus is the Son of David.

 

[thistle]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Joseph was a descendant of King David, yet he, of course, was not the father of Christ, merely the step-father. Why then do we sometimes refer to our Lord as a descendant of David?

rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Joseph was a descendant of King David, yet he, of course, was not the father of Christ, merely the step-father. Why then do we sometimes refer to our Lord as a descendant of David?

Joseph was descended from the line of David, yes. But Mary, too, was descended from the House of David, and from the tribe of Levi. There are two genealogies in the New Testament, one is for Joseph (Matthew) and one is for Mary (Luke).

 

[Verisimilitude]

I have a question. I found this while studying Islam. Islam makes many claims about Jesus (and everything else) that are provably false by simple research. This was one I have had some issue with:

The Genealogy of Christ lists Jechonias as a decendant in the line of David to Christ.
newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

Reading this in Jeremiah 22:20-30:

24 As I live, saith the Lord, if Jechonias the son of Joakim the king of Juda were a ring on my right hand, I would pluck him thence. 25 And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, and into the hand of Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 And I will send thee, and thy mother that bore thee, into a strange country, in which you were not born, and there you shall die: 27 And they shall not return into the land, whereunto they lift up their mind to return thither. 28 Is this man Jechonias an earthen and a broken vessel? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? why are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. 30 Thus saith the Lord: Write this man barren, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David, and have power any more in Juda.

I have some thought as to a response, but does anyone else have one?

Mine is, Jesus never actually sat on the throne of David. He was killed before He could sit on the earthly throne.

 

[porthos11]

Jesus is descended from David through St. Joseph. Both genealogies in Matthew and Luke attest to this.

The rights to the Davidic throne is a matter of sonship, which can be conferred in other ways than biology. Jesus, as the adopted son of St. Joseph (which is why St. Joseph was not a “foster” father; he was Jesus’ father in a most real sense) had the full rights and privileges of the Davidic line.

Our Lady may well have been Davidic too, but it doesn’t matter even if she wasn’t. What matters is St. Joseph’s line.

 

[porthos11]

Hello,

Joseph was descended from the line of David, yes. But Mary, too, was descended from the House of David, and from the tribe of Levi. There are two genealogies in the New Testament, one is for Joseph (Matthew) and one is for Mary (Luke).

This is a common misconception but is not true. Both genealogies are of St. Joseph. Nothing in the text supports a Marian genealogy in Luke.

 

[Caesar]

Jesus is descended from David through St. Joseph. Both genealogies in Matthew and Luke attest to this.

The rights to the Davidic throne is a matter of sonship, which can be conferred in other ways than biology. Jesus, as the adopted son of St. Joseph (which is why St. Joseph was not a “foster” father; he was Jesus’ father in a most real sense) had the full rights and privileges of the Davidic line.

Our Lady may well have been Davidic too, but it doesn’t matter even if she wasn’t. What matters is St. Joseph’s line.

Ok, thanks

 

[porthos11]

I have a question. I found this while studying Islam. Islam makes many claims about Jesus (and everything else) that are provably false by simple research. This was one I have had some issue with:

The Genealogy of Christ lists Jechonias as a decendant in the line of David to Christ.
newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

Reading this in Jeremiah 22:20-30:

I have some thought as to a response, but does anyone else have one?

Mine is, Jesus never actually sat on the throne of David. He was killed before He could sit on the earthly throne.

And indeed he never did. The real Davidic Kingdom is now and to come. His kingdom was not of this world.

(as an aside. I hate that rendering “Nabuchodonosor”).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

This is a common misconception but is not true. Both genealogies are of St. Joseph. Nothing in the text supports a Marian genealogy in Luke.

I have seen cases made for both sides. I go with the one that places the genealogy of Luke for that of Mary.

 

[Spirithound]

Mine is, Jesus never actually sat on the throne of David. He was killed before He could sit on the earthly throne.

Jesus never intended to sit on an earthly throne. Remember, His kingdom is not of this world. If it was, His followers would have fought against having Him handed over to the authorities.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Jesus never intended to sit on an earthly throne. Remember, His kingdom is not of this world. If it was, His followers would have fought against having Him handed over to the authorities.

I agree. I was making a point specifically about Islamic Apologists that look to the “discrepancy” in the lineage. Islam says that since Jechonias was:

for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David, and have power any more in Juda.

that proves Jesus was no more than a messenger, like Mohammed. They use it as a way to refute divinity.

It stumped me for a while until I came to the same conclusion as you.

Islam make many such claims to support their faith and deny mine. They deny He was crucified because an imposter was on the cross, not Christ.

They say Abraham took Ishmael, not Isaac to be sacrificed in an effort to bolster their Abrhamic claim. Just as the say Abraham dug the well in Mecca, built the first kaaba, and placed the “black stone” (meteorite) in it. In fact Abraham is never said to have gone that far south into Arabia.

The fact that the built the mosque in Jerusalem over the Temple Mount ruins, (where Abraham took Isaac for sacrifice) and unbelievably has held it since the mid 600’s. They do not allow Jews or Christians to visit it. It is the holiest site for Jews, and significant for Christians as well, but when Muhammed changed the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mekka, it was reduced from most important to Islam, to 3rd most important- and only because Muhammed is believed to have made his Night Journey to heaven from there.

Maybe you knew all of that, but I cannot help but take offense sometimes.

 

[Oliviad]

I have a question. I found this while studying Islam. Islam makes many claims about Jesus (and everything else) that are provably false by simple research. This was one I have had some issue with:

The Genealogy of Christ lists Jechonias as a decendant in the line of David to Christ.
newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

Reading this in Jeremiah 22:20-30:

I have some thought as to a response, but does anyone else have one?

Mine is, Jesus never actually sat on the throne of David. He was killed before He could sit on the earthly throne.

JESUS didn’t truly descend from Joseph, and no bodily issue of Joseph ever sat on the throne.

But Joseph being righteous, got to be the legal father of ONE descended from David through the Woman.

GOD cursed Jechoniah, but released his descendant Zerubbabel, who was righteous. But on the Messianic throne, David’s Dynasty would only sit in JESUS.

But as for two genealogies of Joseph, see this link, quoting the ancient Christian historian, Julius Sextus Africanus:

bennieblount.org/Online/ECF/ANF/ANF-06/anf06-48.htm

As for Nathan, in light of the statements of Africanus that one genealogy was a natural one for Joseph, and finally says that from Joseph’s wife JESUS was brought forth, while the other was a legal one, mentioning often people that had died childless, and whose younger brothers named their lineage legally in honor of their older, deceased, childless brothers, and says even that Joseph was only supposed (legally) to be JESUS’ father, and in light of the fact that Solomon had an older brother by the same mother, that died an infant, and that it was the Prophet Nathan that had rebuked David at the time, it makes sense to see this older brother of Solomon, who, dying an infant, died childless, as being Nathan, and Solomon having borne his own children in the name of his brother.

 

[123rock]

This is a common misconception but is not true. Both genealogies are of St. Joseph. Nothing in the text supports a Marian genealogy in Luke.

On the contrary,

The Jewish follower that gave these to me, also pointed out that Jews did not trace heritage by women, only men. I’m sorry if these are all wrong, like I said, I put them up to see what others would think of them, and the response seems rather obvious to me. I don’t have the time to check them all out for myself, so thanks for pointing out any of these contradictions that you see as absolutely wrong.

This is true and also the reason why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies as opposed to Mary in Luke and Joseph in Matthew. The father’s trade was also passed down to the son, and the mother taught the daughter to do “woman work.” This would account for the two different genealogies. Matthew, who deals with Joseph, gives Joseph’s, and Luke who describes the Annunciation, Mary’s, so that Jesus could be shown to be Abraham and David’s descendant both legally and genetically. It is interesting to note that if Joseph is Jesus’ physical father (i.e. God artificially inseminated Mary), then Jesus had a cursed lineage due to Jeconiah. If Jesus has no biological relationship with Joseph, then it’s entertaining to wonder how He is a man.

Linguistic proof for Luke being Mary’s genealogy is the terminology of Luke before each name using the article tou for all except Joseph. A Greek audience would immediately realize that the equivalent to son of Joseph in Luke would be “Jesus being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli” with the understanding that Jesus was the grandson of Heli through Mary.
In addition to this, genealogies were kept in the Temple which was destroyed in 70 AD, so a pre-70 AD author would not have had the pleasure of fabrication, yet on the contrary a later one wouldn’t have had evidence against him.

 

[Spirithound]

This is a common misconception but is not true. Both genealogies are of St. Joseph. Nothing in the text supports a Marian genealogy in Luke.

I agree…doesn’t tradition say Mary’s parents were Sts. Joaquin and Anne?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I agree…doesn’t tradition say Mary’s parents were Sts. Joaquin and Anne?

I believe that Heli is a derivative of Joachim.

 

[Talmida]

The genealogies in Matthew are not complete. They are a literary device. The author of the Gospel left out a few names (Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah) in order to make each section add up to 14 generations.

This was important because of Hebrew numerology. The number 14 is the total of the letters in the Hebrew name David (dalet (4) + vav (6) + dalet (4) = 14).

Matthew’s Gospel was written particularly for a Jewish audience. Since the OT prophesies said that the messiah would be a descendent of David, it was important to prove that Jesus was of David’s house.

His lineage is through Joseph.