Why is Jesus as descendent of David?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Esdra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Esdra

Guest
Hi all,

A question for you:

In Mt 1:16 it says: „Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.”

And in Mt 1:20: „But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

And again in Mt 1:25: „ …] but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Luke writes in his Gospel in Chapter 1 Verses 34+35:
„Mary said to the angel, **“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” **
The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”

And finally Lk 2:4: „Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, **because he was of the house and family of David, **…]“

Now my question.
** „Why is Jesus a descendent of David,**
as it says in His genealogy in Mt 1:1-16, if His stepfather Joseph (as Jesus’ father’s God in Heaven; cf. Lk 2:49) is a descendent of David? (But not His mother Mary, as I assume.)
According to Jewish Tradition one only were a descendent of someone by one’s father, and not one’s mother. {Like in Ezra 7:1-6: “Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, there went up Ezra son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth, …]”}
{All quotes are from the New American Standard Bible}

I am looking forward to your answers! 🙂

Yours, in Christ,
Esdra
 
Oh, I forgot to mention

Lk 3:23-28
“When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai,
the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,
the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” [NASB]

This raises the question even more, as this genaology differs from the one in Mt 1:1-16, if Jesus was really a descendent of David!

Although I find it interesting that Luke explicetly writes (see bold writing) that Jesus was supposed to be Joseph’s son.

Esdra
 
Joseph, was Jesus’ father/stepfather, and he was a descendent of David.

Jesus is a God/Man for Luke’s gentile reader - different than the Jewish Messiah - in Matthew. Luke is a Greek writer, an apostle of St. Paul, writes for a pagan audience or non Jews (the gentiles). He repeats the name “son” and “son of” in his geneological reading to incorporate gentiles into the family of God.

Unlike the Greeks, ancient Jews did not distinguish ancestory in multiple words as we do today (cousin, first cousin, etc.) they simply called people within their blood relation “brothers”. As you wrote, Jewish ancestory and land & monetary rights are patriarchal. The Romans used the Jewish patriarchal system for their census.

Matthew writes for a Jewish audience. At the time of Jesus, there were two worshiping tribes around Jerusalem. The Southern tribe controlling the Temple Mount around Jerusalem consisted of two tribes: Benjamin and Judah. King Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin and King David came from the line of Judah. David was from the city of Bethlehem.

From USCCB:

"5 [17] Matthew is concerned with fourteen generations, probably because fourteen is the numerical value of the Hebrew letters forming the name of David.

In the second section of the genealogy (Matthew 1:6b-11), three kings of Judah, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, have been omitted (see 1 Chron 3:11-12), so that there are fourteen generations in that section.

Yet the third (Matthew 1:12-16) apparently has only thirteen. Since Matthew here emphasizes that each section has fourteen, it is unlikely that the thirteen of the last was due to his oversight.

Some scholars suggest that Jesus who is called the Messiah (Matthew 1:16b) doubles the final member of the chain: Jesus, born within the family of David, opens up the new age as Messiah, so that in fact there are fourteen generations in the third section. This is perhaps too subtle, and the hypothesis of a slip not on the part of Matthew but of a later scribe seems likely. On Messiah, see the note on Luke 2:11."

christiananswers.net/dictionary/bethlehem.html

"Bethlehem (Beth-lehem) Meaning: house of bread

The name of two biblical cities…

1.A city in the “hill country” of Judah

It was originally called Ephrath (Genesis 35:16, 19; 48:7; Ruth 4:11). It was also called Beth-lehem Ephratah (Micah 5:2), Beth-lehem-judah (1 Sam. 17:12), and “the city of David” (Luke 2:4).

Shepherds’ fields outside of modern Bethlehem - Modern Bethlehem’s Manger Square and Church of the Nativity -The Shrine of the Nativity which is supposed to mark the place of Jesus Christ’s birth in Bethlehem

It is first noticed in Scripture as the place where Rachel died and was buried “by the wayside,” directly to the north of the city (Gen. 48:7).

The valley to the east was the scene of the story of Ruth the Moabitess. There are the fields in which she gleaned, and the path by which she and Naomi returned to the town.

Here was David’s birthplace, and here also, in after years, he was anointed as king by Samuel (1 Sam. 16:4-13); and it was from the well of Bethlehem that three of his heroes brought water for him at the risk of their lives when he was in the cave of Adullam (2 Sam. 23:13-17).

But Bethlehem was distinguished above every other city as the birthplace of “Him whose goings forth have been of old” (Matt. 2:6; compare Micah 5:2).

Afterwards Herod, “when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,” sent and slew “all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under” (Matt. 2:16,18; Jer. 31:15).

Bethlehem still bears its name today. It is also known as Beit-Lahm, i.e., “house of flesh.” It is about 5 miles south of Jerusalem, standing at an elevation of about 2,550 feet above the sea, thus 100 feet higher than Jerusalem.

There is a church still existing, built by Constantine the Great (A.D. 330), called the “Church of the Nativity,” over a grotto or cave called the “holy crypt,” and said to be the “stable” in which Jesus was born. This is perhaps the oldest existing Christian church in the world. Close to it is another grotto, where Jerome the Latin father is said to have spent thirty years of his life in translating the Scriptures into Latin. (See VERSION.)

Rachel’s supposed tomb is also marked in the modern city of Bethlehem. It is revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims as the wife of Jacob and mother of Joseph and Benjamin.

The modern city has many small shops on very narrow, winding streets. The city is built on a hill, and many houses are built in front of old caves."
 
Ancient Jews regarded children as paternal property.
If they accepted a child it was theirs and of their House, but if they rejected a newborn, even their own child, it wasn’t considered their child.
In Jewish custom, Joseph accepted Jesus as his child, therefore legally He was of Joseph’s House.
 
Mary was a descendent of David, so that would make Jesus a decendent of David on his mothers side. Now on his real fathers side he would be the direct decendent of God. And his step father, Joseph was also a descendent of David.
So the question is:
Is he a descendent of David?
or
Is he a descendent of God?
 
rev_kevin said:
Mary was a descendent of David, so that would make Jesus a decendent of David on his mothers side. Now on his real fathers side he would be the direct decendent of God. And his step father, Joseph was also a descendent of David.
So the question is:
Is he a descendent of David?
or
Is he a descendent of God?
Click to expand...
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 found this doing a computer search.

Dr. Morris, (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young earth creationist and Christian apologist. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research.

[Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

He writes:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heli”] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.”

Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph.

Actually, the word “son” is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son” or “son-in-law” in this context.

Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record.

As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David—Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin”
 
However, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent it is explained differently:

newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm

Heli the father of Joseph

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 Matthew 1:16, 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."
 
Interesting. I wasn’t Biblically aware of the relation to Mary either Kev.

To me I always read into this as Trishie mentions above.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Interesting. I wasn’t Biblically aware of the relation to Mary either Kev.

To me I always read into this as Trishie mentions above.
Click to expand...
Mary’s Davidic Ancestry from the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Blessed Virgin Mary.

St. Luke (2:4) say that Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be enrolled, “bcause he was of the house of David.” As if to exclude all doubt concerning the Davidic Decent of Mary, the Evangelist (1:32.69) states that the child born of Mary without the intervention of man shal be given “the throne of David his Father,” and that the Lord God has “raised up a horn of salvation to us in the house of David his servent” St. Paul too testifies that Jesus Christ “was made of him (God) o fthe seed of David, according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3) If Mary were not of Davidic desent, her son conceived by the Holy Ghost could not be said to be “of the seed of David.” Hence, commentators tell us that in the text "in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God…to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. (Luke 1:26-27); that last clause “of the house of David” does not refer to Joseph, but to the virgin who is the principle person in the marrative. Thus we have a direct inspired testomony to Mary’s Davidic descent.
 
Whether or not Mary is descended from David is irrelevant.

Jesus is a descendant of David through his (adoptive) father, St. Joseph.
 
porthos11 said:
Whether or not Mary is descended from David is irrelevant.

Jesus is a descendant of David through his (adoptive) father, St. Joseph.
Click to expand...
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia and just about every web site you go to.
 
rev_kevin said:
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia and just about every web site you go to.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Encyclopedia, while useful, is not the end-all of doctrinal pronouncements. However, an understanding of the Jewish reckoning of descent is sufficient to establish Jesus’ Davidic descent through St. Joseph alone. Moreover, it also provides a plausible reconciliation between the Matthean and Lucan genealogies (which are both St. Joseph’s by the way) without forcing Mary into the texts.

Descent was reckoned through the father.
 
porthos11 said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia, while useful, is not the end-all of doctrinal pronouncements. However, an understanding of the Jewish reckoning of descent is sufficient to establish Jesus’ Davidic descent through St. Joseph alone. Moreover, it also provides a plausible reconciliation between the Matthean and Lucan genealogies (which are both St. Joseph’s by the way) without forcing Mary into the texts.

Descent was reckoned through the father.
Click to expand...
Joseph was not his father and I have pointed that out a few posts ago.
 
porthos11 said:
Yes, he was. Biology has nothing to do with it; Jesus was and is the son of Joseph, and therefore a descendant of David.
Click to expand...
Biology has everything to do with it. Lets say I am born a white male, both of my parents are white. Then my biological father dies. Now my mother remarries a Mexican. Does that make me a Mexican because my step father is one?
Or if my mother had me and she was not married and both of the are white. My father is not in my life so my mother marries a Black man. Does that make me a African?

The answer is no to both of these because of biological make up.

Joseph was the step father of Jesus. Jesus has no bioloical blood from Joseph, therefore it stands to logic and to science that the blood line of Jesus could only be from Mary.
 
rev_kevin said:
Biology has everything to do with it. Lets say I am born a white male, both of my parents are white. Then my biological father dies. Now my mother remarries a Mexican. Does that make me a Mexican because my step father is one?
Or if my mother had me and she was not married and both of the are white. My father is not in my life so my mother marries a Black man. Does that make me a African?
Click to expand...
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.
The answer is no to both of these because of biological make up.
Click to expand...
Joseph was the step father of Jesus. Jesus has no bioloical blood from Joseph, therefore it stands to logic and to science that the blood line of Jesus could only be from Mary.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rev_kevin said:
Biology has everything to do with it. Lets say I am born a white male, both of my parents are white. Then my biological father dies. Now my mother remarries a Mexican. Does that make me a Mexican because my step father is one?
Or if my mother had me and she was not married and both of the are white. My father is not in my life so my mother marries a Black man. Does that make me a African?

The answer is no to both of these because of biological make up.

Joseph was the step father of Jesus. Jesus has no bioloical blood from Joseph, therefore it stands to logic and to science that the blood line of Jesus could only be from Mary.
Click to expand...
For one thing,Mexican is nationality,not race. You can be white and also be a Mexican. Back to the subject. Are we not talking of royalty (i.e. the House of David)? Joseph, being married to Mary makes Jesus in the House of David, by royalty. Is that not so?
 
FaithJoy said:
For one thing,Mexican is nationality,not race. You can be white and also be a Mexican. Back to the subject. Are we not talking of royalty (i.e. the House of David)? Joseph, being married to Mary makes Jesus in the House of David, by royalty. Is that not so?
Click to expand...
And my wife’s nationality is Mexican. But to please you, Hispanic.

I have shown ample proof that Mary was a descendent of David.

No. The OP say, Why is Jesus as ( i believe the OP ment “a”) descemdemt of David?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top