Jesus' geneaology

[pprimeau1976]

St. Luke’s account does not even mention Mary’s name at all. I have heard it said that it was Mary’s genealogy but whenever I look at the text, I can never see how Mary fits in. From what we know of Mary’s family, we know by tradition that her parents were St. Joachim and St. Anne’s (whose feast day is today, btw.) But, we do not have their lineages. We also know that she had a cousin, Elizabeth who was married to Zachariah, a temple priest. This is probably why Scott Hahn and Jeff Kevins consider Mary of the tribe of Levi.

Either way, it is important to note that Matthew and Luke did not mention Mary at all and only mentioned Joseph. Of anyone who should have been concerned about making Jesus a biological descendant of David, it was them. My belief is that it doesn’t matter if Jesus was not David’s biological descendant.

To the Jews at the time, he was of the line of David because as far as they knew, he was. The only way of knowing that Joseph was not the father was for Joseph to to essentially bring charges against Mary and not marry her, which he did not do. He accepted Jesus as his own son. If the Jewish authorities questioned his Davidic lineage, they should have proven that Jesus was not Joseph’s offspring. They never did this.

Now Jews of today claim that Jesus was not of David’s line. Based on what evidence? Based on our own Gospels! And who do we claim is Jesus’ true father? God! So, people essentially say that he was not the Messiah because our Gospels say he is the Son of God and not of the Davidic line. Wait a minute…God is not in the Davidic line??? Is it me, or is this just plain silly?

 

[fellowChristian]

Heli (Gr. HELEI – Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph’s father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow “shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, “The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.”, i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the “Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ”, thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob’s brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

from:
newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm

 

[paarsurrey]

The promise that the Messiah would be the son of David is fulfilled in two ways:

1. under the Law, since Joseph and Mary were betrothed prior to the Incarnation, Joseph was legally the father of Jesus
2. through the flesh, since Mary was also a descendent of the house of David

Ron

Hi

Yet, Jesus preferred to call himself “Son of Man”. Why?

Thanks

 

[porthos11]

Heli (Gr. HELEI – Luke 3:23) is evidently the same name as the preceding. In Luke he is said to be the father of Joseph, while in Matt., I, 16, Jacob was Joseph’s father. The most probable explanation of this seeming contradiction is afforded by having recourse to the levirate law among the Jews, which prescribes that when a man dies childless his widow “shall not marry to another; but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The child, therefore, of the second marriage is legally the child of the first (Deuteronomy 25:6). Heli having died childless, his widow became the wife of his brother Jacob, and Joseph was the offspring of the marriage, by nature the son of Jacob, but legally the son of Heli. It is likely that Matt. gives the natural, and Luke the legal descent. (Cf. Maas, “The Gosp. acc. to S. Matt.”, i, 16.) Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wrote a learned work on the “Genealogies of Our Lord Jesus Christ”, thinks that Mary was the daughter of Jacob, and Joseph was the son of Jacob’s brother, Heli. Mary and Joseph were therefore first cousins, and both of the house of David. Jacob, the elder, having died without male issue, transmitted his rights and privileges to the male issue of his brother Heli, Joseph, who according to genealogical usage was his descendant.

from:
newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm

Exactly. Under Jewish culture, sonship was reckoned in three ways: natural (i.e. biological), by adoption, and through the law of the levir. Joseph’s two fathers may be due to any of these reasons.

But as for the Lucan genealogy being that of Mary, there is absolutely no textual suuport for that assertion, and to insist on that is to read something into the Bible that isn’t there. Again, both genealogies are of Joseph.

 

[JamesBraganza]

the two genealogies are actually different.

the differences start from david down to joseph/mary

jesus is actually born from the line of nathan, not solomon.

the line of joseph through solomon is recorded in matthew.

the line through mary is recorded in luke.

Thank you for the info.

 

[Afterburned6387]

OMG GUYS DO YOU NOT GET THE SYMBOLISM!!!

Ok, so a little known verse in the old testament reads as such:

This is what the LORD says:
“Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah.”

Jeremiah 22:30

This is written as a curse against Jehoiakim, a man found in the Geaneology of Jesus through Joseph

If this is true, Jesus is ineligible to be King of the Jews, because he is under the curse…but wait! it says “record him as childless…none of his offspring!”

We find that by blood, Jesus is descended through Nathan in Mary, not Jehoiakim, making him exempt from the curse!

By being ADOPTED into the line of the Kings rather than BORN into it, but still being of the line of David through Nathan, Jesus is both

A. Descended from David

B. Heir to his throne by adoption

If you object to this interpretation, I ask, why was Joseph not King of the Jews? or on Jesus’s death, why did none of his brothers claim heirship to the throne?

 

[porthos11]

OMG GUYS DO YOU NOT GET THE SYMBOLISM!!!

Ok, so a little known verse in the old testament reads as such:

This is what the LORD says:
“Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah.”

Jeremiah 22:30

This is written as a curse against Jehoiakim, a man found in the Geaneology of Jesus through Joseph

Jehoiachin, not Jehoiakim.

If this is true, Jesus is ineligible to be King of the Jews, because he is under the curse…but wait! it says “record him as childless…none of his offspring!”

Yet the genealogy records Shealtiel and Zerubabbel.

We find that by blood, Jesus is descended through Nathan in Mary, not Jehoiakim, making him exempt from the curse!

Again, there is absolutely no support in either text that the Lucan genealogy is that of Mary. Both genealogies are of Joseph. To say that the Lucan genealogy is that of Mary is reading into the text something that isn’t there. Clearly, according to Luke, Joseph is descended from BOTH Solomon and Nathan.

By being ADOPTED into the line of the Kings rather than BORN into it, but still being of the line of David through Nathan, Jesus is both

A. Descended from David

B. Heir to his throne by adoption

If you object to this interpretation, I ask, why was Joseph not King of the Jews? or on Jesus’s death, why did none of his brothers claim heirship to the throne?

Because Jesus said to Pilate the day he died, that his kingdom was not of this world.

Jesus is King, but he had no intention of restoring the earthly Davidic kingdom. But it is necessary for the fulfilment of prophecy that the Messiah be descended from the House of David.

 

[Afterburned6387]

Jehoiachin, not Jehoiakim.

Read your footnotes in Matthew, they are the same man!

Yet the genealogy records Shealtiel and Zerubabbel.

Read a commentary, not an issue, this is probably an adoption, or envoking old testament laws about a brother marrying his brother’s widow

Jesus is King, but he had no intention of restoring the earthly Davidic kingdom. But it is necessary for the fulfilment of prophecy that the Messiah be descended from the House of David.

Think again! He IS restoring the kingdom of David, just not on that trip. Look at Luke 4:17-19

“The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

If you go back to where it referenced, Isaiah 61:1-2, and read on, it goes on to talk about the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom. Why did he stop reading here? This was all he came this first time to do. It began the church age, from the first, to the second coming. When he comes again, he’ll be doing some serious earthly kingdom-building. (Look up “Dispensationalism” for further discussion of this idea)

 

[porthos11]

Read your footnotes in Matthew, they are the same man!

And re-read Kings and Chronicles, and you will see that they aren’t. Jehoiachin was Jehoiakim’s son. But the prophecy was indeed true; Jehoiachin wasn’t succeeded by his son. It was another son of Josiah, Mattaniah, who was installed as a puppet king as Zedekiah.

The genealogy of Matthew intentionally skips Jehoiakim.

Read a commentary, not an issue, this is probably an adoption, or envoking old testament laws about a brother marrying his brother’s widow

You will receive no argument from me here. As I said, adoption or a levirate application are the more likely explanations that trying to make a Marian genealogy in Luke.

Think again! He IS restoring the kingdom of David, just not on that trip. Look at Luke 4:17-19

Exactly. And on that basis, the curse of Jeremiah doesn’t apply, since that has already been fulfilled in the Babylonian Exile. It can’t mean that the entire Davidic dynasty is cursed because that would mean God going back on his promise to David that his dynasty would last forever despite the sins of his kingly descendants, 2 Samuel 7. The dynasty was through Solomon.

Besides, even the Lucan genealogy places Jesus under the curse. He is also descended from both Shealtiel and Zerubabbel, the son and grandson of the same accursed Jehoiachin, although here, in a manner similar to Joseph, are indicated as descending through Neri rather than Jehoiachin.

But these two genealogies one way or another do not keep Jehoiachin out of the picture.

There are several plausible explanations for these discrepancies, but reading Mary into these genealogies isn’t one of them.

(Look up “Dispensationalism” for further discussion of this idea)

We are not dispensionalists. We believe the Kingdom is here and now.