Is Jesus the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham?

[Bullfighter]

Is Jesus the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham?

I happened to be in Church today and while looking through the missalette I saw the scriputure reading Matthew 1:1-25 for December 25th. It’s an important day so I began reading those verses when suddenly I saw what could only be described as very confusing.

Matthew 1:1 The Book of the geneology of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

I kept reading through to 1:18 and couldn’t believe what I just read. I went back and read it over and over. Matthew 1:1-18. This can’t be right. It describes all the fore fathers of Joseph. But why is it important. How can you call Jesus the son of David, or son of Abraham when He isn’t a blood relation to any of those people? Joseph is not a blood relation to Jesus.

I checked other versions of the bible and they all say something along the same lines. What does it matter who Joseph was related to? The only blood relations that would matter would be on Mary’s side, right? Why take up space in the bible on useless information when what follows is so vital to the Jesus legacy? Did I miss something?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Mary was of the house of David, and was espoused (i.e. married) to Joseph, of the same royal family.

Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary’s Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary’s great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli’s cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli’s levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Promise that the Messiah would be a son of Abraham, and a son of David, is fulfilled in two ways:

1. by the law, through Joseph, who was Jesus’ father under the Law (Jewish religious Law) since he was betrothed to Mary prior to the virgin conception, as Matthew tells us.
2. by the flesh, through Mary, who is descended from Abraham and David, just as Luke tells us. Her father was Heli (Joachim), who was a son of David.

 

[Nita]

Lineage may not seem important to many nowadays, but it was very important to the Israelites (and in some other cultures also). There were 12 tribes that originated with the 12 sons of Jacob. Records were kept to show which tribe one belonged to – the tribe of the father being the tribe of record.

The reason it was important to record Our Lord’s lineage was to show that He fulfilled the promise that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah and specifically, a descendant of David.

 

[bogeydogg]

Is Jesus the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham?

I happened to be in Church today and while looking through the missalette I saw the scriputure reading Matthew 1:1-25 for December 25th. It’s an important day so I began reading those verses when suddenly I saw what could only be described as very confusing.

Matthew 1:1 The Book of the geneology of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

I kept reading through to 1:18 and couldn’t believe what I just read. I went back and read it over and over. Matthew 1:1-18. This can’t be right. It describes all the fore fathers of Joseph. But why is it important. How can you call Jesus the son of David, or son of Abraham when He isn’t a blood relation to any of those people? Joseph is not a blood relation to Jesus.

I checked other versions of the bible and they all say something along the same lines. What does it matter who Joseph was related to? The only blood relations that would matter would be on Mary’s side, right? Why take up space in the bible on useless information when what follows is so vital to the Jesus legacy? Did I miss something?

Jesus was, according to the Law the real actual son of Joseph.

In fact go back before the Law. In Genesis when Jacob comes to Egypt he takes Joseph’s sons on his knees and in doing so adopts them. The importance of this is that in that adoption, even though the children are half egyptian (no small thing among the Jews) they become entitled to the full measure of the inheritance of the people of God.

Joseph, legally according to his lineage, is the rightful king of Israel and the heir to David’s throne. The problem is that line was cursed by God because of it’s sin and idolatry, but God also saw to it that Jesus’ Mother would be also of the line of David but not by the Kingly line. It is interesting also that Mary’s cousin was married to the high priest which would indicate also that, even though she was of the house of Judah, she may also have had a shared lineage to the priestly line, in fact some protestant teachers declare that Mary was of the house of Levi. I don’t think this is the clear teaching of Scripture but there it is. However, since Jesus is both High Priest and King I have always found that interesting.

When Joseph adopts Jesus as his own son he, Jesus, legally inherits the throne of his father David in the fullness of the Law. Therefore He is not only King by right of His own being, but also King by actual birthright.

Does adoption have any other role in Scripture? You bet it does.

When we are accepted into God’s Family by the works of Christ in us we become adopted into Christ and are given, in the same way by the same Law-giver, the fullness of the blessings which the Father has bestowed upon Christ. Namely, salvation, the Holy Spirit, resurrection of the body and the life ever lasting. All because of adoption.

So don’t gloss over Joseph’s lineage. Without that lineage, Jesus could not have legally inherited his father’s throne, God’s promise would have been broken and Jesus’ claim to Messiahship would have been provably false.

God Bless.

 

[porthos11]

Indeed, Jesus had a blood relation to the line of David. He was St. Joseph’s son.

It does not matter that Jesus was not St. Joseph’s biological son. St. Joseph adopted Jesus, and that entitled Jesus to all St. Joseph had, including the royal lineage and the Davidic descent. For the Hebrews, adoption and the law of the levir made a man really and truly someone’s son, not to be distinguished from that someone’s biological sons.

 

[That_one_guy]

spirit-digest.com/Quickhive%20articles/generations.htm

Mary had no brothers, AND the betrothal story in Luke shows that she married within her own tribe, Judah. Thus, if it were not a virgin birth, Jesus Christ could not legally claim the Davidic throne as the blood right of inheritance—He would be required to inherit through the male bloodline (cursed by God). As Dr. Missler points out, Jesus Christ legally and rightfully received a valid claim to the Davidic throne as blood descendant through His Mother, alone. A virgin birth, and only a virgin birth could have maintained the three simultaneous claims of Jesus as Son of God, the Christ (Messiah), and Son of David.