How is Mary From the Line of David?

Jythier,

I believe that this was already referenced on another thread...??  



I suggest you read the full article...it seems to be a good presentation. Perhaps this and many other apparent contradictions are good reason for us to not be BIBLE only Christian, but to look to God realizing that there have been many a slip twixt Spirit and implements of man. Then I am a terror on this one, preferring to look to the Spirit of God first, then the Bible,....some put the Church next and then man, but I wonder if the family is not first important to God and then Church attendance...just me thinking out loud... I am not a Bible worshipper, but a God worshipper, if that helps with the link...have a great Saturday...peace. A.

On my thread I will only accept an affirmitive answer. If you want to dispute it, you have your own blog, and I will look into it. In fact, feel free to post a link to the thread right here.

I believe I meant to ask 'how was Mary related to David' in that quote, but missed a word. Sorry for the inconvenience.

So, I wonder... if the Luke line is really Mary's line, why isn't she mentioned?

I can answer. But you will not like it. the answer is: I do not know.

I've actually brought this up many times around here on JU...surprised you haven't seen it Jythier.

We have two geneologies in scripture as you know. One is Mary's and the other Joseph's.

In Matthew's gospel we have Joseph's Line. We read in 1:6:

"And Jesse begat David the King and David the King begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias."

To conintue on to v16 you read

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."

So we see that Jesus inherited the Kingly line thru Joseph....but not the blood line, Joseph comes directly thru Solomon.

Now for Mary we go to Luke.

This line starts with Mary and goes backward to Abraham; a direct reversal of how Joseph's line was put forth. Anyhow we read in 1:23:

"And Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of age being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph wihch was the son of Heli"

Joseph was Jacob's son by birth (Matt 1:16) and Heli's son by Marriage. Heli would be Joseph's Father In Law or Mary's Father. That's why Luke phrase "as was supposed."

When you continue you read this in v31:

"Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha which was the son of Nathan which was the son of David. "

So instead of Solomon (son of David in Matthew) we see Nathan (son of David here in Luke). Mary comes directly from the blood line of David thru Solomon's brother.

So they cannot both be Joseph's line. Joseph could not come from the line of both brothers. He came from Solomon and Mary came from his brother Nathan. Therefore Jesus inherited his blood line from his mother that leads directly to David and his title from Joseph. His pedigree was never questioned because it's so well documented.

I appreciate your answers, MM, aeryck, and KFC! Thanks!

And LW, thanks for pointing out that I was being closed-minded. I'll try not to let it happen again.

As was supposed seems to apply to the Son of Joseph part, not the son of Heli part. It's true that the bloodlines can't both be for Joseph, but why couldn't he just say that Joseph was the son-in-law? Or son by marriage? It would be so much easier to pick up on, instead of thinking it's a contradiction.

because that's how they talked back then. It's not unusual in scripture either. In the whole scope of things women were not that important, so Mary's geneology was transferred to Jospeh and continued thru his relationship to his F-I-L.

There are other passages similar to that where they call their son by marriage their son. I'd have to go on a hunt tho to back that up...but I know I've read it more than once. What comes to mind first is Naomi and Ruth. Ruth was not her daughter by birth by only by marriage to her son, but yet she's called her daughter.

Well, it's still a bit closed minded based on the fact that if someone was to come up with an amazing answer showing that Mary was NOT related, I would miss out on such a thing. But, thanks for letting me off the hook!

Reading the Begats only shows me there was a whole lotta f*ckin goin on and someone was keepin score. heh heh heh

Even with a star, it's still a bad word.

And yes, there was. What else was there to do back then?

JYTHIER POSTS:


Ever since the return from the exile in Babylon, family registers were highly prized by the Jews. It was a particular honor to belong to one of the ancient noble families and especially connected with a branch of the royal family which began with David for this family was in fact, the bearer of the messianic promises. From it, the royal scion was awaited who was called simply, "the Anointed", Messias.

In order to understand this to a certain point we have to understand the way the Jews thought of family lineages at the time. And that's what the genealogy of Jesus Christ shows---that He is true man and yet, by a unique miracle, the Son of God. And with that the object of the lists of ancestors is to prove the true Messiahship of the Christ. The Gospels teach this from end to end.

It's through St. Joseph, who is legally His "father", Jesus enters into the series of generations. By this Scripture testifies that He is a true man (not one of those heavenly beings that myths are made. Jesus is truly "born of a woman". Gal. 4:4.

Therefore the first attribute given to Jesus Christ, is Son of David. Jesus is in the full meaning of the word, and with legal right, a descendent of David, member of the royal family and heir to his throne 2Sam.7:1-16; St.Luke 1:32.

Could He have been the Messiah in those days without this parentage? We don't know, however, if the proof could not be given that Jesus was of the house of David, it would have been very hard for the Jews to believe that this Jesus could be the Messias.


God saw that His eternal Son "was of the seed of David according to the flesh". Romans 1:3. So that definitely brings the Blessed Virgin Mary into the picture.

The second attribute has a wider scope----Son of Abraham. So, its not only the royal line which culminates in Jesus. More than the promises of the throne are fulfilled in Him. The list goes as far back as Abraham, the progenitor of the whole people not only 1 tribe. Now the promises were given to Abraham and his seed. Get this. God didn't say, "and to his seeds" as though they referred to many but as though He is referring to one only, He says, "and to your seed." who is Christ. Gal. 3:16. From the ancestor of Israel is spanned to the ancestor of a new Israel.

The genealogy from Abraham to Joseph ends rather strangely, not with the Blessed Mary, who was His real mother, but with Joseph, who was husband to her according to the law. This tells us that Jesus must not be looked upon as merely a member of the royal race and a great political figure, but that He comprises all the promises, not only those of a chosen dynasty, but those which are for a whole divinely consecrated people. For him who knows that this Jesus is the Messias the history of the whole world until His Second Coming can be read as a meaningful plan of God, rich in promise.

Both St.Matt and St. Lukes genealogies are historically authentic and give us completely accurate information. St.Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph in 42 names from Abraham, through David to Christ, and St. Luke 3:23-38 gives the genealogy of the Blessed Mary in 77 names beginning with God and ends with Christ.

The two genealogies are different becasue the Evangelists meant it that way. St.Matthew’s give the juridical succession through which the Davidic rights descended to Joseph and his legal son---Christ. St.Luke’s abstracts from this legal succession, and follows the real genealogy according to consanguinity.

Both St.Luke and St. Matthew had clear knowledge of the divine origin of Christ. St.Luke records the words of the angel to Blessed Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of theMost High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” 1:35. St.Matthew 1:20 records the words of the angel to St.Joseph. “Joseph, fear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

There is no trouble whatsoever of Jesus’ genealogy because St.Joseph wasn’t his biological father. For the most part the Jewish custom of recording genealogies was of the male line. It was certain that the Blessed Mary was related to St. Joseph and fundamentally the lineage of St. Joseph was that of Mary also. In St. Luke 1:32 the angel told the Blessed Mary that she would conceive under the direct influence of the Holy Ghost and that the child born of her would inherit the throne of David. This is evidence enough that the Blessed Mary by her own right was in the Davidic line.

Thanks Jythier for mentioning this.