Why is Jesus as descendent of David?

[rev_kevin]

No, but once your stepfather adopts you, regardless of your different ethnicities, you don’t become Mexican: you become his son and are entitled to whatever inheritance under the law just as if you were his biological son. Apples and oranges. Ethnicity and sonship are two different things.

Davidic royal succession was not reckoned through mothers.

Again, biology and science has nothing to do with it. What matters is law and reckoning. Mary clearly called St. Joseph Jesus’ father (not foster, not step), clearly showing that St. Joseph had adopted Jesus legally. Jesus is therefore as much a son of St. Joseph as would any biological son. It’s this sonship that entitles Jesus to the Davidic line

And just to show that is not the only factor in the reckoning of sonship, levirate law required (under pain of shunning) a childless dead man’s brother to have children by his widow, reckoning them as the dead man’s children and giving the dead man descendants even though the dead man never sired any biological children.

Whether or not Mary was Davidic is of no relevance; the Gospels don’t even care to establish her ancestry (and no, St. Luke’s genealogy is that of Joseph as well, no Mary’s), while taking pains to ensure that St. Joseph’s Davidic lineage is established clearly.

Did Joseph adopt Jesus. The Bible don’t say. So unless Joseph adopted Jesus he can’t claim anything of Josephs. Now Scripture don’t mention Jesus claiming anything from Joseph.
My step daughter calls me her dad and I call her my daughter and my wife calls me her father that don’t mean I adopted her.
I am familiar with the Levirate law which really makes not sense. One no matter what anyone says the dead brother can not be the biological child of the living brother. Its impossible.

In Matthew1:16 it says that Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, but in Luke3:23 is says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Now it should be understood that it means the son-in-law of Heli. So Matthew’s is Joseph’s and Luke’s is Marys. Actually the word “son” is not in the original. Now its clear that in both Matthew and Luke both are descendents of David.

 

[porthos11]

Did Joseph adopt Jesus. The Bible don’t say. So unless Joseph adopted Jesus he can’t claim anything of Josephs. Now Scripture don’t mention Jesus claiming anything from Joseph.
My step daughter calls me her dad and I call her my daughter and my wife calls me her father that don’t mean I adopted her.

Which means that she is just your stepdaughter, but not your daughter. Once you adopt her, she will be.

Jesus, however, was recognized as Joseph’s son not only by his mother, but by the people of Nazareth. In fact, they rejected him partially because of his lineage (he was a carpenter like his dad).

I am familiar with the Levirate law which really makes not sense. One no matter what anyone says the dead brother can not be the biological child of the living brother. Its impossible.

And yet once the law is executed, such children will henceforth be forever known as the descendants of the dead man.

The problem with your reasoning is that you consider blood the end-all of sonship, but a study of Israelite family law had very strong provisions for the reckoning of descent beyond blood.

In Matthew1:16 it says that Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, but in Luke3:23 is says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Now it should be understood that it means the son-in-law of Heli.

Nothing in either text supports that assertion. Sonship was not legally reckoned by marriage.

So Matthew’s is Joseph’s and Luke’s is Marys. Actually the word “son” is not in the original. Now its clear that in both Matthew and Luke both are descendents of David.

Without the support of the first premise, this conclusion cannot be solidly drawn.

The only other reasonable explanation of the two is that St. Joseph had two fathers. Which, by the way, given what we know of Jewish family law, is entirely plausible.

 

[jrose90]

First in General: Thank you for your answers!

Now to you revkevin:
Are you sure Mary was a descendent of David?
Could you please give sources?

In Christ,
Esdra

I always just thought that since Mary and Joseph were involved in an arranged marriage, they’d probably be from the same House. I don’t have any kind of back up or proof, just an idea.

 

[rev_kevin]

Which means that she is just your stepdaughter, but not your daughter. Once you adopt her, she will be.

Jesus, however, was recognized as Joseph’s son not only by his mother, but by the people of Nazareth. In fact, they rejected him partially because of his lineage (he was a carpenter like his dad).

And yet once the law is executed, such children will henceforth be forever known as the descendants of the dead man.

The problem with your reasoning is that you consider blood the end-all of sonship, but a study of Israelite family law had very strong provisions for the reckoning of descent beyond blood.

Nothing in either text supports that assertion. Sonship was not legally reckoned by marriage.

Without the support of the first premise, this conclusion cannot be solidly drawn.

The only other reasonable explanation of the two is that St. Joseph had two fathers. Which, by the way, given what we know of Jewish family law, is entirely plausible.

Ok you say that Mary called Joseph his father not step father so that means he is his adopte son. See thats my point my step daughter claims me as her father and her mother says to everyone this is her father. So with your logic she would be my adopted daughter.

He was recognized as Josephs son because who would believe that he was the son of God and not Josephs. Where do you see that he was rejected because he was like Joseph a carpenter? I never heard that one.

Yes they will be called the dead brothers son but that don’t mean he is biologicaly true. I don’t think they knew about DNA back then. Even if he is called his dead brothers son that don’t make it true because its impossible. If it were possible back then do you think that they would have frozen the dead brothers sperm so he could have a offspring that was really his?

Depends what you mean by end of all sonship.

And because sonship was not legally recognized by marriage messed thing up. The blood line really are not true blood lines.

Without support of your statement that Joseph must have had 2 fathers means you can only go by the first fathers linage and not the second. So it would stand to reason that Luke was talking about Mary’s.

 

[agent_grey]

David is easily the worst rodant human of all recorded history. I can’t think of a more dispicable human in recorded history. David is worse than Hitler, worse than stalin. He is the lowest of the low. David is the single most dispicable creature that ever took a lung of air. That is why Jesus absolutley has to be a descendant of David.

 

[rev_kevin]

David is easily the worst rodant human of all recorded history. I can’t think of a more dispicable human in recorded history. David is worse than Hitler, worse than stalin. He is the lowest of the low. David is the single most dispicable creature that ever took a lung of air. That is why Jesus absolutley has to be a descendant of David.

WHAT?