Mary- from the line of David?

Is Jesus from the line of David? I am taking a philosophy class taught by a feminist. A couple weeks ago, she said Jesus wasn’t the Mesiah promised by God, to the Jews because He was not Joseph’s son (in the flesh). Joseph was from the line of David, but Mary wasn’t? Is it true that Mary wasn’t from the line of David? What is a good response to this teacher’s challenge that Jesus is not the Mesiah of the Jews, because He is “not” from the line of David?

It is traditionally believed that Mary was in the line of David.

Beyond that, you may want to make the point that for inheretance rights in Koshrut law allow full inheretance to an adopted son

You may also want to print out the following and bring it to class:
The Geneologies of Christ.

God Bless,
RyanL.

ok, so Catholics disagree with the Protestant claim that the Greek text in Luke could make it Mary’s line? My protestant upbring had always taught that it could be interpreted that way because of the way the text was phrased, but also because if Mary had no brothers, Joseph would be considered his son…

So I take that from that link that the Catholic view is VERY far off from that, lol - luckily they both make sense to me so its not going to become a hang up, but… lol its just kind of odd is all since neither really creates a theological issue (other than if you believed that the entire Bible was wrong because of the non corresponding geneologies, of course!)

If you read the Protoevangelium of James it mentions Mary is from the family of David.

What is the Protoevangelium of James? Is it a Catholic Book? Is it one of the books of James in the Bible?

[quote=glow8worm]What is the Protoevangelium of James? Is it a Catholic Book? Is it one of the books of James in the Bible?
[/quote]

No it is not one of the books in the bible. I’m not sure if it is favourably looked on by the Church or not but the eastern Church, I believe, accepts it.
You can find it here:

newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

[quote=glow8worm]Joseph was from the line of David, but Mary wasn’t?
[/quote]

The Bible is silent on Mary’s lineage. But. as others have pointed out, non-Biblical early writings say Mary WAS of David’s lineage. What sources does your instructor have that says Mary was NOT of David’s lineage?

If your instructor insists on Biblical evidence (unlikely?) then she must admit that the Bible is inconclusive. If your instructor will admit non-Biblical writings of the early Church, then she must admit that the weight of evidence is **wholly **in favor of the Davidic lineage of Mary. Either way, she has absolutely no basis whatsoever to **DENY **such lineage. A college instructor ought to know better!

My understanding is that Mary was indeed of the line of David. In fact, she was what we today call a “Princess Royal”–a direct descendant of King David.
Joseph’s line comes from Jeconia/Conias whose descendants were said (in Jeremiah) to be barred from the throne. But, Jesus had to be descended from David in order to qualify as King of the Jews.
The custom was that people in those days did NOT marry out of their tribe of origin…(This began back in Exodus & Leviticus).
Joseph gave Jesus the legal right to the throne; Mary gave Him the blood right to the throne of David.

PS: I usually like Jimmy Akin a lot, even when I disagree with him, but this time, I think he really messed up…(Whereas, of course, :stuck_out_tongue: I :wink: know :rolleyes: everything!!:rotfl: ).

Scripture is not silent on the lineage of Mary. Joseph and Mary were devout Jews who knew and followed the Law. Mary was an only child, as such she was required, by Jewish Law (Numbers 36, 7), to marry a man from her own “tribe” or house. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David.

[quote=DRBO.org] Numbers 36, 5 Moses answered the children of Israel, and said by the command of the Lord: The tribe of the children of Joseph hath spoken rightly. 6 And this is the law promulgated by the Lord touching the daughters of Salphaad: Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to men of their own tribe. 7 Lest the possession of the children of Israel be mingled from tribe to tribe. For all men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred: 8 And all women shall take husbands of the same tribe: that the inheritance may remain in the families,
[/quote]

This of course must be kept in context, it only applies to families who have no male children. Men must marry within their own tribe only if their wife to be has no brother.

BTW, Numbers is also where you’ll find the answer as to why Mary is “ever virgin”. (Hint): look to Luke chap 1 and Numbers Chap 30. She was under a vow of virginity when Joseph accepted her into his house as his wife, he accepted her vow when he accepted her, it could never be broken.
Good reading Numbers between Chap 27 – 30.

There’s a discussion about Mary in this thread: (forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=11145)

[quote=RyanL]It is traditionally believed that Mary was in the line of David.
[/quote]

Is there any documentation on this tradition?

Thanks

[quote=glow8worm]Is Jesus from the line of David? I am taking a philosophy class taught by a feminist. A couple weeks ago, she said Jesus wasn’t the Mesiah promised by God, to the Jews because He was not Joseph’s son (in the flesh). Joseph was from the line of David, but Mary wasn’t? Is it true that Mary wasn’t from the line of David? What is a good response to this teacher’s challenge that Jesus is not the Mesiah of the Jews, because He is “not” from the line of David?
[/quote]

The professor was wrong on several accounts but traditionally, the lineage is carried through the maternal in Jewish law. Mary was of the house David as per Sacred Tradition and, if you look at Tom’s excellent post (#9) it show’s that she would have married within her own tribe - Joseph - thereby fullfiling Jewish law…please let us know what your professor’s reaction to your argument is…

[quote=Tom]BTW, Numbers is also where you’ll find the answer as to why Mary is “ever virgin”. (Hint): look to Luke chap 1 and Numbers Chap 30. She was under a vow of virginity when Joseph accepted her into his house as his wife, he accepted her vow when he accepted her, it could never be broken.
Good reading Numbers between Chap 27 – 30.
[/quote]

Could you go into more detail on this?

[quote=trumpet152]Could you go into more detail on this?
[/quote]

I looked over Num 27-30 after reading Tom’s post and I think the specifics he was talking about are found in Chapter 30.

Num. 30:1-5
1 Moses then gave the Israelites these instructions, just as the LORD had ordered him. 2 Moses said to the heads of the Israelite tribes, "This is what the LORD has commanded: 3 1 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered. 4 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, 5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid.
Num 30:7-9
7 "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, 8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. 9 But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it.

That says to me, my opinion only of course, that if a vow is taken while still in the house of her parents and the father doesn’t dissaprove of it, it is valid. She was a virgin in the temple according to the protoevangelium and her father and mother both gave her up to the Lord for that purpose so her father obviously approved of her virginity vows, so it is valid to that point.

Now, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, who had vows of virginity and never said anything against it, so her husband also upheld that same vow and it was valid after the marriage as well.

[quote=Maranatha]Is there any documentation on this tradition?

[/quote]

*“Take a wife of the seed of thy fathers, and take not a strange woman to wife, which is not of thy father’s tribe” (Tob. 4: 12).

*The Proto-Gospel of James (X 1.) unequivocally affirms that Mary is of the house of David.

Also, several early Christian writers - namely, Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Justin Martyr - say that Matthew gives Joseph’s and Luke, Mary’s geneaology.

God Bless,
RyanL

Also, in the Benedictus (Canticle of Zechariah, Luke 1:68-79) Zacharia declares:

“He has raised up for us a mighty savior, born of the house of his servant David” with Mary, 3 months pregnant with Jesus, standing right in front of him. Sounds like Mary was of the Davidic line to me! :wink:

[quote=trumpet152]Could you go into more detail on this?
[/quote]

Sure,

[quote=Tom] I don’t think anything in Scripture is by chance, it all has a purpose. I’m not a quoter, I feel giving exact verses often results in taking things out of context, so I will only site chapter, read it all, it won’t hurt.
I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? Now before you go ballistic, it was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows.
When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how can this be”?
The question “how can this be"? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how can this be”?
o.k. that’s the first part. Let’s discuss it.
[/quote]

From an earlier thread, actually the words used are “how shall this be” which implies an event in the future. Why would she surprised that in the future she would have a child???
Mary and God all knew that in actuality Mary was “married” to the Holy Spirit. I know it sounds a little strange, but think about it for a second. Whose child was Mary carrying? Joseph’s or God’s? Who “overshadowed” Mary and impregnated her? Joseph or God? Read Mt, again. Joseph was not going to marry her, since she was impregnated by someone else. He only decided to marry her to protect her from the punishment (stoning to death) for being pregnant out of wedlock. So Joseph’s “marriage” to Mary was for appearance and never sexually consumated.
St. Jerome went over that issue in his arguement against Helvidius on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm


[quote=jesusluv]I looked over Num 27-30 after reading Tom’s post and I think the specifics he was talking about are found in Chapter 30.

Num. 30:1-5
1 Moses then gave the Israelites these instructions, just as the LORD had ordered him. 2 Moses said to the heads of the Israelite tribes, "This is what the LORD has commanded: 3 1 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered. 4 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, 5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid.
Num 30:7-9
7 "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, 8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. 9 But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it.

That says to me, my opinion only of course, that if a vow is taken while still in the house of her parents and the father doesn’t dissaprove of it, it is valid. She was a virgin in the temple according to the protoevangelium and her father and mother both gave her up to the Lord for that purpose so her father obviously approved of her virginity vows, so it is valid to that point.

Now, Joseph was betrothed to Mary, who had vows of virginity and never said anything against it, so her husband also upheld that same vow and it was valid after the marriage as well.
[/quote]

Absolutely correct. This is also the reason Mt covers the annunciation from Joseph’s side, so there is no doubt that he knows of her vow and that he accdepts her under this vow. He also has no doubt as to who the “Father” of the child is, and who entered the covenant with Mary.

[quote=glow8worm]Is Jesus from the line of David? I am taking a philosophy class taught by a feminist. A couple weeks ago, she said Jesus wasn’t the Mesiah promised by God, to the Jews because He was not Joseph’s son (in the flesh). Joseph was from the line of David, but Mary wasn’t? Is it true that Mary wasn’t from the line of David? What is a good response to this teacher’s challenge that Jesus is not the Mesiah of the Jews, because He is “not” from the line of David?
[/quote]

It is interesting. If you ask your professor to tell you how she knows that Mary is not from the line of David, she will most likely refer to the Bible.

If so, then she must believe the Bible is a reliable source.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.