Who was Virgin Mary's Father?

[mawst]

Is referring to Mary’s father as Joachim, a tradition easily disproved by reading the genealogies of Jesus in *Matthew 1 *and Luke 3.?

This question was posed to me and I have no idea how to answer it.

The assertion is that we are putting tradition above scripture.

 

[Trishie]

The genealogy is of Joseph’s family. When Joseph accepted Jesus as son by marrying Mary instead of abandoning her, even though He wasn’t Joseph’s biological son, he became his son in Jewish law. The mother’s genealogy wasn’t considered important, so no mention is made of her parents in scripture.

 

[Godfollower]

Trishie has it right. A plain reading of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 makes it absolutely clear that the genealogies are those of Jesus’ (adopted) paternal line through Joseph, not his (actual) maternal line through Mary. Whoever you were talking to didn’t even read the Gospels before making this argument.

As for “putting tradition above Scripture,” another point needs to be made. First, there are two kinds of tradition: the stuff that matters (often referred to colloquially as big-T Tradition), and the kind that doesn’t (often called little-T tradition). The Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is big-T Tradition: it’s part of the Deposit of Faith and is required. The idea of wearing purple during Lent is little-T tradition: it’s just something we do, that has reasons, but isn’t required and isn’t part of the Deposit of Faith.

The “traditional” name of Mary’s father, the “traditional” stories of Joseph’s age, and so forth are all little-T traditions that have nothing to do with our Faith.

Second, we never put either kind of tradition above Scripture.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Trishie has it right. A plain reading of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 makes it absolutely clear that the genealogies are those of Jesus’ (adopted) paternal line through Joseph, not his (actual) maternal line through Mary. Whoever you were talking to didn’t even read the Gospels before making this argument.

As for “putting tradition above Scripture,” another point needs to be made. First, there are two kinds of tradition: the stuff that matters (often referred to colloquially as big-T Tradition), and the kind that doesn’t (often called little-T tradition). The Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is big-T Tradition: it’s part of the Deposit of Faith and is required. The idea of wearing purple during Lent is little-T tradition: it’s just something we do, that has reasons, but isn’t required and isn’t part of the Deposit of Faith.

The “traditional” name of Mary’s father, the “traditional” stories of Joseph’s age, and so forth are all little-T traditions that have nothing to do with our Faith.

Second, we never put either kind of tradition above Scripture.

Another point would be to consider Revelation from God to be Directly from his Son Jesus Christ the Head of the Church. He passed this on directly to his Apostles in His great commission to go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Revelation of God continues to unfold from the mouth of the Holy Catholic Church, through what we call Tradition and Scripture. But ultimately it is the Church’s teachings that come first, as the Scripture themselves originated from the Church in the process of her teaching.

But I agree that the name of Mary’s father being Joachim is not taught as anything more than a pious yet ancient tradition.

 

[Malachi_18]

Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary…

Luke 3:23 - Jesus…being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Joseph is the son of Jacob (who “begat” him), but is the son-in-law of Heli (who would be the person who “begat” Mary).

You don’t just marry your spouse, you marry your spouse’s entire family as well. Thus, Joseph can be called the son of Heli, even though Heli did not beget Joseph.

The genealogy in Matthew is the line of Joseph, the line of legal inheritance, because the legal reckoning is through the males. The sons are the ones who inherit their father’s land and property and business, and the firstborn gets a double share. The daughters marry into the families of their husbands and are no longer the direct responsibility of their fathers or their brothers and share in the inheritance of their husbands. (Leaving and cleaving.) (See Numbers 30 to see that the father and the husband have the final word over the decisions of the wife or daughter.) (See also Ephesians 5:22 “Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”)

This line is traced back only to Abraham, because he was the Father of Many Nations, but most importantly he was the father of Nation of Israel.

The genealogy in Luke is the genealogy of Mary. It is traced back all the way to Adam. But you will notice that she is also a direct decendant of David, though not through the Kingly line of Solomon, as is Joseph. Why? – Jeremiah 22:30: [The LORD, speaking of Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim (verse 24), the last king of Israel before the deportation by Nebuchadnezzar.] “Thus saith the LORD: Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”

Joseph, therefore (Matthew 1:11), is a descendant of Soloman and Jechonias (AKA Coniah) and therefore a son of his (Joseph’s) seed could not be sitting on the throne of David. But Jesus is his “adopted” son, the firstborn, the one who is entitled to the inheritance. Not just the first in time, the first in importance. Therefore, Jesus legally is a descendant of David, through Solomon, and even Coniah, and is entitled to sit on the throne of David, but He is not a direct blood (DNA) descendant of Coniah, because no descendant of Coniah is allowed to sit on the throne of David.

Mary, however, is a descendant of Nathan (Luke 3:31), Solomon’s brother. Therefore Jesus is a direct boodline (DNA) descendant of David and as such is entitled to sit on the throne of David. Mary’s genealogy goes back all the way to Adam to establish Jesus’ claim to be the “son of man,” in addition to being the Son of God.

 

[agangbern]

Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary…

Luke 3:23 - Jesus…being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Joseph is the son of Jacob (who “begat” him), but is the son-in-law of Heli (who would be the person who “begat” Mary).

You don’t just marry your spouse, you marry your spouse’s entire family as well. Thus, Joseph can be called the son of Heli, even though Heli did not beget Joseph.

The genealogy in Matthew is the line of Joseph, the line of legal inheritance, because the legal reckoning is through the males. The sons are the ones who inherit their father’s land and property and business, and the firstborn gets a double share. The daughters marry into the families of their husbands and are no longer the direct responsibility of their fathers or their brothers and share in the inheritance of their husbands. (Leaving and cleaving.) (See Numbers 30 to see that the father and the husband have the final word over the decisions of the wife or daughter.) (See also Ephesians 5:22 “Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”)

This line is traced back only to Abraham, because he was the Father of Many Nations, but most importantly he was the father of Nation of Israel.

The genealogy in Luke is the genealogy of Mary. It is traced back all the way to Adam. But you will notice that she is also a direct decendant of David, though not through the Kingly line of Solomon, as is Joseph. Why? – Jeremiah 22:30: [The LORD, speaking of Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim (verse 24), the last king of Israel before the deportation by Nebuchadnezzar.] “Thus saith the LORD: Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”

Joseph, therefore (Matthew 1:11), is a descendant of Soloman and Jechonias (AKA Coniah) and therefore a son of his (Joseph’s) seed could not be sitting on the throne of David. But Jesus is his “adopted” son, the firstborn, the one who is entitled to the inheritance. Not just the first in time, the first in importance. Therefore, Jesus legally is a descendant of David, through Solomon, and even Coniah, and is entitled to sit on the throne of David, but He is not a direct blood (DNA) descendant of Coniah, because no descendant of Coniah is allowed to sit on the throne of David.

Mary, however, is a descendant of Nathan (Luke 3:31), Solomon’s brother. Therefore Jesus is a direct boodline (DNA) descendant of David and as such is entitled to sit on the throne of David. Mary’s genealogy goes back all the way to Adam to establish Jesus’ claim to be the “son of man,” in addition to being the Son of God.

That’s great information. I like it…Thank you.

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

Aye, I’ve always agreed with the tradition of seeing the geneology in Luke as being Mary’s. There is just too many differences between the two for them to be both Joseph’s, and I’m sure Matthew and Luke wouldn’t have botched something like this being they knew each other.

 

[thistle]

Aye, I’ve always agreed with the tradition of seeing the geneology in Luke as being Mary’s. There is just too many differences between the two for them to be both Joseph’s, and I’m sure Matthew and Luke wouldn’t have botched something like this being they knew each other.

Both are the geneology of Jesus through Joseph. Neither is Mary’s line.
Do a forum search. There are several threads which contain excellent explanations on the geneologies.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Is referring to Mary’s father as Joachim, a tradition easily disproved by reading the genealogies of Jesus in *Matthew 1 *and Luke 3.?

This question was posed to me and I have no idea how to answer it.

The assertion is that we are putting tradition above scripture.

Here is the answer to so-called Bible contradictions where I explained the 2 geneologies, this will answer the question…

St. Matthew traces Christ’s descent through His father Joseph, St. Luke through His mother, the Blessed Virgin; both lines are united in David. Jacob was the father of Joseph, but Heli, which is also the name for Joachim (Eliachim-Jeho-achim), was the father-in-law of Joseph, not the father. In the translation above it reads “the son of Heli,” but “son” is not in the original Greek text, it has a genitive article (του) called “genitive of relationship,” which can be translated as “son of” but not always and it is not required. Some translators, not all, have added “son” due to the rest of Luke’s geneology has the same thing and assuming that “son of Heli” fits the context, but I beg to differ. The “who” used by Luke may refer to Joseph, thus—Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli/Joachim, because he married his daughter, the Blessed Virgin. And again the pronoun “who” may in the Greek clearly be taken with “Jesus”—Jesus was the son, i.e., the grandson of Heli/Joachim, because He was his offspring, as from a grandfather, through the Blessed Virgin. For having premised that Joseph was not the real, but only the supposed, father of Christ, there was no reason why St. Luke should immediately subjoin the genealogy of Joseph. But rather St. Luke, as well as St. Matthew, means to describe the descent of the Blessed Virgin and Christ according to the flesh, and this is the end and aim of each genealogy—so says S. Augustine (Quæst. veteris et novi Testament, bk. i. q. lvi., and bk. ii. q. vi).

Found here

litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Answers+to+the+so-called+%22Bible+contradictions%22

 

[brazenarticle]

Is referring to Mary’s father as Joachim, a tradition easily disproved by reading the genealogies of Jesus in *Matthew 1 *and Luke 3.?

This question was posed to me and I have no idea how to answer it.

The assertion is that we are putting tradition above scripture.

I don’t know the answer as to her father or mother, but I have a few Protestant acquaintences that suggest she was a bastard. For some reason they have bee in their bonnet about the Blessed Virgin Mother? I don’t know why. We’ve had her come to us in this past century and the one through the litte children cannot be denied.

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

I don’t know the answer as to her father or mother, but I have a few Protestant acquaintences that suggest she was a bastard. For some reason they have bee in their bonnet about the Blessed Virgin Mother? I don’t know why. We’ve had her come to us in this past century and the one through the litte children cannot be denied.

They shouldn’t say such things about Mary.

 

[brazenarticle]

Well, we don’t know her or ever will as to family. The women’s family tree did not matter really in those days I suppose once she left and gave birth. I’ve read about St Mary Magdaglen (sp?) I’ve seen it spelled several ways in readings. Jesus was sweet on her some say.

 

[Dicerning]

Jesus was sweet on her some say.

who is the “some” you are referring to ? Dan Brown?

There are other sources of historical fact outside of pop culture…you should check it out sometime.

 

[Malachi_18]

More than just sweet.

The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all ways just as we are. The difference is He did not respond in the same manner we do. We lust and sin; He loves and does not sin.

Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

Can you imagine the extent of this temptation? We always think of Jesus as the cute little baby in the manger or the great teacher and holy man, but we neglect the fact that He is also a man. This passage in Hebrews tells us that the reason He can be our intercessor is because He is completely familiar with the things we do. Not just because He is God and knows all things, but because He became one of us and directly experienced the very things that we experience. And He managed to live His entire life without responding in sin, like we do.

Remember when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness? After 40 days He had to have been hungry and was probably sorely tempted to turn the rock into bread so He could have something to eat. What would I (you) have done? Probably would have given in to the temptation just because we needed something to eat.

How about when Satan offered Jesus all the worldly power in the world? We give in to that temptation every time we feel ourselves better than the next guy. I do it all the time. Jesus passed the test with flying colors, quoting scripture.

Satan’s third temptation was that Jesus would show off by jumping from the highest pinnacle of the temple. The temptation to show off, to say “looky what I can do,” is one we give in to every day.

Mary Magdalene was probably just as much a temptation, if not more. She was there every day and Jesus is also a man. I am sure He noticed her and if it was you or me we would have (and already have) given in to the temptation to give up His mission for the physical pleasure of the moment with her, to marry her.

In and of itself, marrying her would not have been sin, but to do so He would have had to have rejected His Father’s (and His) will for His life; and that would have been sin. But I am sure He loved her.

And yet, Jesus did not sin. Amazing!