0

If Jesus wasn’t the actual son of Jospeh. We don’t follow Mary’s blood line.

Wendy Embree
  • 1
  • 1
    Welcome to BH and do read the tour [below, left] to see how this site works. If you edit in a couple of verses to support your ideas it will help us to work from the same starting points. – C. Stroud Feb 19 '24 at 14:37
  • 1
    Matthew follows the Royal Line in his genealogy, the crown rights which passed to Jesus, the firstborn by adoption. Luke follows the direct line, but again as an adopted son. Joseph passed on to Jesus both royal and crown rights and also the rights of a firstborn son. Jesus was born of Mary, the wife of Joseph and no man came forward to claim the boy as his own progeny. Mary was a close relative of Elizabeth who was 'of the daughters of Aaron' - of the tribe of Levi. – Nigel J Feb 19 '24 at 15:21

4 Answers4

1

Lineage in ancient Judaism was traced through the father. That is the reason why Jesus' lineage was traced through Joseph and not Mary. Also in terms of biblical precedent, all of the genealogical lists are patrilineal, even those of the matriarch Rebekah (Gen. 22). Indeed Matthew's list is exceptional in that it names several women as Jesus' ancestors.

In terms of Jesus' supposed descent from David, this was claimed on the basis of his adoption by Joseph. Whether this would have held up in a Jewish legal court or not is uncertain, but it has was sufficient to allow Jesus' earliest followers - all of whom were Jewish - to accept him as the Son of David.

Conclusion: In the Bible, lineage was traced through one's father. Although Jesus did not himself claim to be the physical descendant of David, his disciples gave him the messianic title Son of David and the Gospel writers supported this with genealogies of his adopted father.

Dan Fefferman
  • 15,919
  • 2
  • 12
  • 62
0

Both the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are meticulously presented to avoid any misunderstanding that Jesus was physical born from Joseph.

Matthew 1:16 NIV

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 NIV

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

I recommend directing this question to another user on this platform. They might be able to provide a more detailed answer Why is the genealogy in Luke attributed to Mary

Vincent Wong
  • 4,865
  • 1
  • 4
  • 31
0

The reason we use Joseph's lineage for Yeshua is because Joseph is Jesus' legal father. His natural mother and legal father were from the same tribe and their lineages both joined at Zerrubabel. Jesus is not only naturally descended from David, but legally as well.

Average American
  • 1
  • 1
  • Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Feb 20 '24 at 14:37
-1

Joseph was a descendant of David and one of Mary's parents could very well have also been of David. Rather than type the entire lineage, the below link serves this purpose I believe:

https://biblefamilytree.info/

Mark Vestal
  • 177
  • 9
  • 1
    Mary was a close relative of Elizabeth who was 'of the daughters of Aaron' - of the tribe of Levi. – Nigel J Feb 19 '24 at 15:18
  • @NigelJ Elizabeth was the "daughter of Aaron", not Mary. Luke 1:5 "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth." Both Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah. – Mark Vestal Feb 19 '24 at 15:28
  • I repeat, Mary was a close relative of Elizabeth. And Elizabeth was of Levi. Where do you read of Mary being of Judah ? ? Your link shows no substantiation of its claims. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son Luke 1:36. – Nigel J Feb 19 '24 at 15:58
  • We know for a fact at least one of Mary's biological parents could trace their ancestry back to Aaron. The ancestry of the other parent is not given. Mary may have been "pure" Levite or "mixed" - Levi-Judah. In fact, if one of her parents was descended from Judah, it would explain why Joseph married her. – Revelation Lad Feb 19 '24 at 15:58
  • I prefer to deal with the facts that scripture reveals to us. – Nigel J Feb 19 '24 at 16:00
  • @NigelJ Not cousin as in the way we consider "cousins". From Strong's G4773 "συγγενής suggenēs soong-ghen-ace' From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman: - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman)." A relative by blood of ANY of the tribes would qualify as being a "cousin" using this definition. Trace Mary biblically all the way back rather than take 1 word "cousin" and thus incorrectly assume. – Mark Vestal Feb 19 '24 at 16:09
  • I would point out Scripture is clear, Mary's was not a virgin birth. She in fact had two parents. Factually we are not in a position to say other than she was Levite in part. Luke's genealogy supports her lineage from Adam to Abraham to David for one parent and to Levi from the ancillary details of her relative, Elizabeth. – Revelation Lad Feb 19 '24 at 16:10
  • @RevelationLad Are you saying we could both be right? I'm good with that! – Mark Vestal Feb 19 '24 at 16:16
  • The parents of her relative, Elizabeth were both Levites. This means one of Mary's parents would most likely have been descended from a Levite (ruling Mary being adopted). In Judaism Levitical status is defined by the Father's lineage, not the mother who must only be a Jew. It is not uncommon for a husband to choose a wife who is also a Levite (Zechariah and Elizabeth). What we can say for certain, is based upon tradition, Jesus would not be considered to be a Levite regardless of Mary's lineage since Joseph was not a Levite, and of course Joseph was not the biological father. – Revelation Lad Feb 19 '24 at 17:25
  • @RevelationLad That is very logical. Thank you for the explanation! – Mark Vestal Feb 19 '24 at 17:33
  • @RevelationLad So, you believe that the Christ was born of the seed of Adam and not of a virgin ? Do you ? – Nigel J Feb 19 '24 at 19:34
  • 2
    @NigelJ No. Mary was a virgin who had a biological mother and a biological father. At least one of the two were of the lineage of Levi. Perhaps both, but her betrothal to Joseph suggests only one of her parents were of the lineage of Levi. It also suggests the other was of the lineage of David. I see nothing in the Bible which prevents one of Mary's parents being of Davidic ancestry and the other being from Levi. Luke shows regardless of which side you choose you get to Adam if you continue to go back in time...as is the case for everyone. – Revelation Lad Feb 19 '24 at 19:42
  • @NigelJ I just revised the answer to include the lineage as being possible, rather than definitive. – Mark Vestal Feb 19 '24 at 19:46
  • 1
    @RevelationLad Thank you. I misunderstood your statement 'Mary's was not a virgin birth'. I do apologise. – Nigel J Feb 19 '24 at 21:49