What is the Catholic interpretation of the genealogy of Jesus

[c1949]

As far as theological interpretation goes, there is the footnote in my old NAB on Mt 1:17 about three chains of fourteen generations. The note points out that some kings have been skipped, so that the numbers are somewhat “massaged.”

So, anyway, that would be 7 generations, 7 generations,7 generations, 7 generations, 7 generations, and 7 generations, WHERE Jesus’s birth would be a new age, the beginning of the 7th generation of generations. I seem to recall that Dr. Scott Hahn has also remarked on that as of special importance of covenantal significance. I think I heard him speak of this on TV. I have a few of his books. I’ll have to check if he has recorded his remarks in any of these few books that I have. But, I seem to recall him describe these genealogies as having significance.

I know I’ve also heard that the genealogies give information not available elsewhere about genealogies during and after the Babylonian captivity.

I couldn’t what I was looking for by Hahn, but there is an interesting theological insight attributed only to an anonymous early church father: The first 14 generations had the Jews under the leadership of judges, in the second under kings, and in the third, under high priests. When Jesus arrives, he holds all the offices of judge, king, and high priest. That unknown author describes each of these as a change in the “human situation.” (from, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)

 

[Pattylt]

Thank you. That’s interesting and I’ll try to look into that view further!

 

[Pattylt]

Thanks! I do know that the number 7 was very significant in Judaism. One of its meanings was “completeness”. I knew Matthew fudged the names a bit as his Gospel was very concerned with fulfilling prophecy. I believe his also introduces the problem of having Jeconiah (sp?) in there and Jeconiah is cursed. I believe he also has four women listed all of whom were disgraced in some way which I find interesting but perhaps not important?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Think as a first century Jew, not a 21st century westerner

 

[Francis]

As Joseph was from David linage (His “Messianic lineage”) and another is his “priestly” lineage His “Levitical lineage” which is from he Virgin Mother ,as her cousin Elizabeth too.one must remember St Joseph was a relative of Virgin Mary too.

the purpose of the genealogy is to show that Jesus took the form of human nature,and as in Phil 2:1-11

 

[Vico]

Thanks! I do know that the number 7 was very significant in Judaism. One of its meanings was “completeness”. I knew Matthew fudged the names a bit as his Gospel was very concerned with fulfilling prophecy. I believe his also introduces the problem of having Jeconiah (sp?) in there and Jeconiah is cursed. I believe he also has four women listed all of whom were disgraced in some way which I find interesting but perhaps not important?

There were prostitutes in the list of women which includes five women Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the widow of Uriah, and Mary. I was taught that the purpose of including them is that they were known to be good or have great faith and some were gentiles. Christ came for both Jew and gentile.

 

[Gorgias]

So, anyway, that would be 7 generations, 7 generations,7 generations, 7 generations, 7 generations, and 7 generations

In other words, “14, 14, 14”. That’s the numeric value of the name “David.” So, the evangelist is answering the question “Who is Jesus the son of?” with the answer “David, David, David!!!”

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.

Patty,

You seem to keep bouncing between a 21st-century Western view and a 1st-century Jewish view – when an answer according to one context is given, you respond “but that can’t be, because…” of some aspect of the other view.

In the context of 1st century Judaism, Jesus is Joseph’s son because He was born to Joseph’s wife during the marriage. Period. (If Jesus hadn’t been Joseph’s son, then that would mean that Mary was an adulteress, and Jesus a mamzer.) When Jews started making that exact accusation, claiming that Mary had a paramour (one of the claims was that she took up with a Roman centurian!), Christians responded with two answers: Mary was perpetually virgin (and therefore, not an adulteress), and the conception had a divine origin. However, they didn’t have to prove Joseph was the father, since that was established by the marriage.

You make the claim that a Davidic king must be the natural (rather than legal) son of someone in the line. I’m just wondering where you’re getting that claim from…?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Joseph is barely mentioned as being of any importance other than raising Jesus as his earthly father.

You talk about this like it’s just a minor blip. It’s actually a major deal.

Joseph protected Mary from harm when she was pregnant, by taking her into his home as his wife. If not for this action of Joseph, Mary and her unborn child would have ended up at best disgraced and at worst, stoned to death.

Joseph saved Jesus’ life by taking him and Mary to Egypt to escape Herod. Mary couldn’t have just traveled safely on her own with a small child

Joseph supported, cared for, and taught Jesus, and did all the things for him that a loving human father does. This is not a small thing, especially considering that Jesus was not Joseph’s biological child.

The explanation of the genealogy through Joseph is to connect Jesus to Israel via the David’s line, fulfilling the OT prophecies. Because Jesus was connected through Joseph’s adoption of him, he was able to achieve this connection without also having the burden of the many sins of David’s descendants (discussed in the book of Kings, et al) transfer to him through blood.

The Knights of Columbus have published a pretty extensive pamphlet on Joseph that covers all this and more and explains the importance of Joseph. I’ll see if I can find it online and post a link as it is really very good and not too long.

Edited to add, here’s a link to the PDF of the booklet on St. Joseph at the KofC site.

https://www.kofc.org/en/resources/cis/cis328.pdf

 

[Pattylt]

You seem to keep bouncing between a 21st-century Western view and a 1st-century Jewish view – when an answer according to one context is given, you respond “but that can’t be, because…” of some aspect of the other view.

Yes, I do. It’s hard not to. You bring up a good point. I’ll try to shed my 21st century mind when thinking through these things.

I’m just wondering where you’re getting that claim from…?

From reading Jewish law about these questions and from my Rabbi who was very knowledgeable. He, of course, could have been in error.

You talk about this like it’s just a minor blip. It’s actually a major deal.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make it sound trivial. As someone who’s father was a strong influence in my life, I know this personally! I merely meant that he seems to fade into the background in the Gospels.

Thanks for the link. I will read it today if I can find time. I really appreciate you taking time to help me work through the answers.

Merry Christmas to All!

 

[Dan_Defender]

Joseph protected Mary from harm when she was pregnant, by taking her into his home as his wife. If not for this action of Joseph, Mary and her unborn child would have ended up at best disgraced and at worst, stoned to death.

Amen. Hail Joseph, son of David, the just and the chaste!

 

[Gorgias]

From reading Jewish law about these questions and from my Rabbi who was very knowledgeable. He, of course, could have been in error.

OK. I’d never come across that claim before.

Let me ask a question, though: the Jews of Jesus’ day weren’t slouches. They knew their Law and understood the Scriptures thoroughly. If it weren’t possible for Jesus to have been claimed to be the Messiah and Son of David… why would they have stood for it? I mean, in the Bible you see Nicodemus following Jesus – if he, given his position, wasn’t saying “well, you’re a nice guy, but you can’t be a Davidic king”, then why should we assume that this was a restriction that was in play at the time?

 

[Pattylt]

I actually asked the question of the blood requirement of a PhD in NT yesterday and got a response today. I asked if it was required to be a blood relations for Preistly succession and for kingly decent or would adoption be accepted. His response was that for Kingly or Davidic, adoption was accepted. For Preists, it was not. So, I stand corrected on the Davidic succession. Adoption would definitely be accepted!

It’s very hard to state what requirements would or would not have been accepted by Jews regarding Messianic claims in those days as there were many different views on what the Messiah would or would not be. Almost all expected him to be some type of ruler or conquer but even now there appears to be evidence that some were expecting a humiliated Messiah. Those most likely did become Christian. The others, not so much.

Thanks for making me delve deeper into my questions. I learned quite a bit and I guess I will abandon my quest for a separate theological reason for the geneologies.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We are adopted children of Abraham by our belief in Jesus and the Trinity. So that answer makes a lot of sense.

We could tag Meltzer boy and ask what his view would be.

In the late BC and first century AD the Jewish culture was an apolyptic one. Everyone expected the Messiah would come and defeat the Romans by war and bloodshed, and then reinstate the Jewish Tribes and the Kingdom of God.

Jesus was not accepted by many as the Messiah because He preached a bloodless peaceful institution of the Kingdom of God on earth and in heaven.

 

[Crocus]

Thank you so much for this valuable link, @Tis_Bearself. There is much to contemplate, especially at this time.

Our local Kof C, and I understand, chapters around the world are encouraging prayer and consecration to the Holy Family on the feast day this coming Sunday.

I found the following from link a good answer to the OP (bolding mine).

The Messiah is the Son of David neither by the will nor the action of man nor by genealogy; but he enters into the genealogy by virtue of an assent of faith which Joseph, Son of David, gives to what is revealed to him as worked by God in Mary.
The Messiah is the Son of God neither by the will nor the action of man, but by virtue of an assent of faith, which Mary gives to the working of the Spirit in her.
In order that the Messiah, Son of God and Son of David should come into the world and in order that he should enter into the Davidic descendence, there were required two assents of faith: that of Mary and that of Joseph. Both assents establish the true Israel, the true descendance of Abraham, which is born, is propagated and is perpetuated, not by human generation but by faith.

 

[Kaninchen]

Just to say that the Jewish Encyclopedia is often a good source on technical stuff from biblical times, here they are on blood-relationships.

 

[lilypadrees]

The genealogy in Matthew shows Joseph’s lineage. The genealogy shown in Luke 3:23-38 is Mary’s.

Mary’s father was Heli (another name for Joachim). Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne both through Mary and through adoption by Joseph., His foster father.