What is the Catholic interpretation of the genealogy of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pattylt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pattylt

Guest
What is the explanation of the reason for the geneologies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew? The following lists are some of the issues with them:

Both specifically state they are the genealogy of Joseph
They are not able to be reconciled with each other
They proclaim the virginity of Mary

My question then is why are they there? Jesus is not from the bloodline of Joseph if Mary is a virgin. Jesus is not shown to be from Davids bloodline by them. So, was there another function they were supposed to show and what is it? One of them must be wrong so which is considered correct.

Than you for any answers you can provide. Appreciate it!
 
Last edited:
I’ve heard one is the lineage of His through David (His “Messianic lineage”) and another is his “priestly” lineage (His “Levitical lineage”). Joseph did have two parents after all!
 
Last edited:
But the problem is that Jesus has none of Josephs bloodline? It would show Josephs lineage, not that of Jesus.
 
I’d think that Jesus “joined” the bloodline when Joseph adopted Him. He would have legally become a Judahite anyways upon His adoption.
 
Pattylt said:
But the problem is that Jesus has none of Josephs bloodline? It would show Josephs lineage, not that of Jesus.
Click to expand...
From the Catena Aurea on Luke:
“[AUGUSTINE]. It is most probable that Luke took the origin by adoption, as not being willing to say that Joseph, was begotten by him whose son he related him to be. For more easily is a man said to be his son by whom he was adopted, than to be begotten by him from whose flesh he was not born. But Matthew saying, “Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob,” and continuing in the word “begat,” until at last he says, but “Jacob begat Joseph,” has sufficiently expressed that he has carried through the succession of the fathers, to that father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten. Although even supposing that Luke should say that Joseph was begotten by Eli, neither ought that word to perplex us. For it is not absurd to say that a man has begotten not in the flesh but in love the Son whom he has adopted. But rightly has Luke taken the origin by adoption, for by adoption are we made the sons of God, by believing on the Son of God, but by His birth in the flesh, the Son of God has rather for our sakes become the Son of man.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So I’m still confused (a normal state for me) as to why it was listed. There is no evidence, I think, that anything was mentioned of Jesus being officially adopted by Joseph. Joseph is barely mentioned as being of any importance other than raising Jesus as his earthly father. It “seems” as though it is to establish his lineage as coming from David via Nathan in Luke and Solomon in Matthew. What I’m questioning is why it seems to be trying to establish a David connection by Joseph if Jesus is not blood related to Joseph. That’s why I wonder if there was another reason lying behind it? Perhaps a theological one?
 
An adopted son still inherits all the rights and privileges, so even just through Joseph Jesus is of David’s house.
 
This might help answer some of your questions; Byzantine Lectionary Reflection for the Sunday of the Genealogy from the Institute of Catholic Culture:


Hope this is helpful.

ZP
 
Pattylt said:
So I’m still confused (a normal state for me) as to why it was listed. There is no evidence, I think, that anything was mentioned of Jesus being officially adopted by Joseph. Joseph is barely mentioned as being of any importance other than raising Jesus as his earthly father. It “seems” as though it is to establish his lineage as coming from David via Nathan in Luke and Solomon in Matthew. What I’m questioning is why it seems to be trying to establish a David connection by Joseph if Jesus is not blood related to Joseph. That’s why I wonder if there was another reason lying behind it? Perhaps a theological one?
Click to expand...
The gospels record that Jesus is often referred to as the son of Joseph, so He was in fact legally recognized as Joseph’s son (see John 6:42). When someone was adopted by a Jewish tribe, he would be ascribed to a bloodline. Caleb, for example, was adopted by Judah and ascribed to the line of Hezron because his father wasn’t an Israelite. Joseph was an Israelite, however (just not His biological father), and so Jesus was ascribed to his bloodline.
 
First to everyone responding, You guys are fast!

I read the link and it seems it is a difficulty with several possible answers. One question I thought of is… Did anyone in those days know that the woman contributed to conception? I thought that in those days the father alone was considered the seed and the woman was just the vessel or “soil” so that her lineage matters only in matters of whether the child was Jewish. She contributed nothing to the question of legality of the priesthood whether she was related to David or not.

Thank you for the link. It was interesting, especially concerning Leverite marriages to harmonize the lists. I’m not sure it convinces me that the lists work and I understand the reluctance to just say one of them is wrong. It would be a much simpler solution. These were from oral traditions and sometimes things get misunderstood.

I’m still curious if there is any attempt to find a theological interpretation that recognizes the lists are different due to one or both giving a theological reasoning rather than a strictly literal one?

Thanks for the further information!
 
Further explanation of the genealogies can be found in the writings of Andrew of Crete. He points out that Heli and Jacob were half brothers. Jacob begot issue for Heli after his death, a Jewish Biblical tradiiton. Thus, Jospeh was “son” to both! And he also argues Mary is of the same tribe as well.

A book containing his writings on this can be obtained from the link.

https://www.svspress.com/wider-than-heaven-eighth-century-homilies-on-the-mother-of-god/
 
I may very well be wrong here but I think that adoption didn’t matter for the priestly lines. It would in legal matters and inheritance but only blood lines mattered for the Jewish priesthood. If I’m wrong, I accept it but if I’m right then no matter what the genealogies state, if Jesus is not an issue from Joseph, it doesn’t matter. This wouldn’t show David lineage. However, being as it is about 1000 years after David, almost everyone probably had some bloodline to David just as almost all Asians have some blood from Genghis Kahn!

So, my final question is still whether anyone has heard of a theological interpretation that eliminates the problem of different lists…my research will continue.

Thank you for all your contributions. I’m still checking the links provided and will return if any further questions come up! Merry Christmas!
 
Pattylt said:
My question then is why are they there? Jesus is not from the bloodline of Joseph if Mary is a virgin.
Click to expand...
The ancient Jewish prophets foretold that the Messiah would be of the House of David. God the Father fulfilled this prophecy by having Jesus “adopted” by Joseph (because Joseph and Mary were married, the child was legally presumed his so no formal adoption was necessary).

Luke’s Gospel establishes Joseph’s place in the Davidic lineage by documenting his trip to Bethlehem. The other two Gospels establish it by tracing Joseph’s ancestry directly. There are several theories that reconcile the lists, but the faithful are not required to believe any particular theory. The important point of doctrine is simply Jesus being a legal descendant of King David!
 
runningdude said:
The important point of doctrine is simply Jesus being a legal descendant of King David!
Click to expand...
The problem is though is that he really isn’t. Joseph isn’t his father. Adoption seems to rule out being a Davidic heir, you must be blood related and Mary’s line doesn’t count either.

I think it is just unresolvable. Many possibilities can be brought up but they are just suppositions or not very probable. Thanks for trying, though. It was interesting to discuss.
 
Pattylt said:
I think it is just unresolvable. Many possibilities can be brought up but they are just suppositions or not very probable. Thanks for trying, though. It was interesting to discuss
Click to expand...
The official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus belongs to the House of David through Joseph. I really don’t know what more to tell you…
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 437:

To the shepherds, the angel announced the birth of Jesus as the Messiah promised to Israel: "To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord."32 From the beginning he was “the one whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world”, conceived as “holy” in Mary’s virginal womb.33 God called Joseph to “take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, so that Jesus, “who is called Christ”, should be born of Joseph’s spouse into the messianic lineage of David.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
So, was there another function they were supposed to show
Click to expand...
You’re looking at the genealogies from a twenty first century perspective. The Gospel writers were not filling in a family tree. Biblical genealogies are rarely concerned with mere biological descent. The purpose of these genealogies is to introduce the Gospel by showing how Jesus fits into and completes the plan of God’s saving history which came before him. For Jewish Christians, Matthew’s genealogy shows them that the whole history of their people has been planned by God to move toward the Messiah. For gentile Christians, Luke’s genealogy shows that they cannot fully know Jesus Christ unless they know his ancestors in the scriptures of Judaism.
 
Pattylt said:
40.png
runningdude:
The important point of doctrine is simply Jesus being a legal descendant of King David!
Click to expand...
The problem is though is that he really isn’t. Joseph isn’t his father. Adoption seems to rule out being a Davidic heir, you must be blood related and Mary’s line doesn’t count either.

I think it is just unresolvable. Many possibilities can be brought up but they are just suppositions or not very probable. Thanks for trying, though. It was interesting to discuss.
Click to expand...
This isn’t necessarily the view of Jews in Biblical times. As I mentioned earlier, it was enough for Jesus to be ascribed to Joseph’s bloodline through adoption just as Caleb was to Hezron’s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top