Something thats always bugged me for years. How is Jesus from the house of David and if his birth was to that of a virgin. Technically Mary is never given a family tree in the bible and Joseph didnt conceive Jesus, it was an immaculate birth. So how does he fit the requirements for being the messiah?
Mary was of the House of David, as well. In Israel at the time most people married within their tribe, not outside it. Also, the genealogy of Joseph in Luke’s Gospel is that of his father-in-law whereas the one in Matthew is his line. The Israelites used male lines only when listing descendents, which is why Joseph’s father-in-law’s line is given for Mary.
Only family lineage could be traced through a male
And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head. (Numbers 1:18)
And Mary was of House of Levi the priestly class not the House of David the royal famly. It even states Mary was related to Elizabeth who was of Levi descent in Luke.
He was adopted into the house of David through Joseph…
Oh Lord! quite a mixup you have there! :eek:
House of Levy? I don’t think so! It is The Tribe of Levi.
King David was from the Tribe of Judah. Jesus was killed on the cross with a plaque stating “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum”. Now you can quibble on whether Mary is descendant from the “House of David”, Scholars are divided on whether Jesus ascendance to the “House of David” can be attributed to His adoptive father or directly to Mary who according to Matthew was descendant from a brother of Solomon.
Rabbi or teachers were chosen from all the tribes. The Levi were reserved the exclusivity of Temple service in Jerusalem.
Is Nathan a brother of Solomon?
As I wrote most Israelites married within their own tribes. It is more likely that Elisabeth was the exception and married into Levi than that Mary was not of the House of David. God knows perfectly well which family Mary was from–and since his promise was to David, we have no good reason to doubt Mary’s lineage from David except to call into question Jesus’ heritage.
I explained that since Mary was not a male child her family line would have been listed through her father, not in her name. There is nothing difficult or mysterious about that.
Go here: haydock1859.tripod.com/id67.html. Scroll down to “Remarks on the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ.”
I have always reckoned it this way.
At this time, people understood that the male deposited his seed in the woman. They had no notion of a woman’s ovum. So they thought that all people were descendant from the Fathers only.
God of course knows different.
But the people had to think that Jesus was a descendant of Davis, and so the fact that Joseph ‘adopted’ Jesus was not known. They all thought Joseph was Jesus’ natural Father and thus descended from David.
You can see this in Luke 3:23 which says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.”
So that establishes Jesus as being from David in the erroneous way that people understood it. But then, for Jesus to actually be a descendant, his Mother’s lineage must be known, but they did not record it, because they didn’t understand the birds and the bees that way yet. So Luke could not come out and say that the lineage he gives is for for Mary, because they didn’t do it that way, and it would ‘blow Joseph’s cover’. But it really was for Mary, because Luke knows about the whole issue here. And we see that the lineage given by Luke takes a different route to get to David then the other given in Mathew. Since the two don’t agree they must be for different people. So we know that the one in Luke is for Mary, even though he can’t come out and say it, and it establishes Mary being a descendant from David.
So the answer is that both Joseph AND Mary must be from David, and it appears that they are.
The Genealogies of Jesus
One of the most widely held theories suggests that Matthew’s account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus. This interpretation would mean that Jacob was Joseph’s biological father, and Heli (Mary’s biological father) became Joseph’s surrogate father, thus making Joseph Heli’s heir through his marriage to Mary. If Heli had no sons, this would have been the normal custom.
Also, if Mary and Joseph lived under the same roof with Heli, his “son-in-law” would have been called “son” and considered a descendent. Although it would have been unusual to trace a genealogy from the maternal side, there was nothing usual about the virgin birth. Additionally, if Mary (Jesus’ blood relative) was indeed a direct descendant of David, this would make her son “the seed of David” in keeping with Messianic prophecies.(1)
(Solving: 2, 3, and 4)
According to one of the oldest theories, some scholars assign the differences in genealogies to the “Levirate marriage” tradition. This custom said that if a man died without bearing any sons, his brother could then marry his widow, and their sons would carry on the dead man’s name. For this theory to hold up, it would mean that Joseph, the father of Jesus, had both a legal father (Heli) and a biological father (Jacob), through a Levirate marriage.
The theory suggests that Joseph’s grandfathers (Matthan according to Matthew; Matthat according to Luke) were brothers, both married to the same woman, Estha, one after the other. This would make Matthan’s son (Jacob) Joseph’s biological father, and Matthat’s son (Heli) Joseph’s legal father. Matthew’s account would trace Jesus’ primary (biological) lineage, and Luke’s record would follow Jesus’ legal lineage.(2)
Many thanks to my EO brother in Christ, prodromos, who first brought this to my attention!