The Genealogy of Jesus Christ Through Mary... (Ecumenical)

Catholic Treasure Chest ^ | Bob Stanley

[NYer]

Jesus Christ is descended from David:
If He is from the line of David, then certainly Joseph could not be of his immediate paternal bloodline since Joseph was not his natural father. The bloodline could only be traced through His mother, Mary. She alone provided 100% of His genetic material, and thus provided the "flesh of the offspring of David", as shown in Rom 1:3,
"...concerning His Son who was born to Him according to the flesh of the offspring of David."

Matt 1:1, "The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham."

John 7:42, "...Does not the Scripture say that it is of the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David lived, that the Christ is to come."

2Tim 2:8, Remember that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was descended from David."

Luke 1:32, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord GOD will give Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall be king over the house of Jacob forever."

Gal 4:4, "But when the fullness of time came, GOD sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law."

See also all of these verses which refer to Jesus Christ as the Son of David:
Matt 9:27,12:23,15:22,20:30-31,21:9,21:15,22:42,22:45, Mark 10:47-48,12:35,12:37, Luke 18:38-39, Luke 20:44.

---

---

I have shown so far that Jesus Christ is descended from David, but through the genealogy of Mary it is only implied. However, Jesus had no human father. There was no human exchange for the conception of Jesus and so the human bloodline cannot be traced through Joseph.

---

---

Jewish law required that genealogies were to be through the line of the males, and not the females...

Num 1:17-18, "So Moses and Aaron took these men who had been designated, and assembled the whole community on the first day of the second month. Every man of twenty years or more then declared his name and lineage according to clan and ancestral house."

Keeping accurate records of genealogies was very important to the Jews. The Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote that Public Records* recorded genealogies from the oldest to the youngest, and Private Records went from the youngest back to the oldest, and these genealogies were passed down through the generations. This was done in part in order to prevent unqualified persons from gaining positions through their ancestry. See Ezra 2:61-63, and Neh 7:63-65 where some priests were rejected because they could not prove their Levitical ancestry.

* Flavius Josephus, against Apion, Book 1:7

---

Since the custom was of using male genealogies only, then how could an ancestral line of Jesus be shown through Mary?

---

It appears that GOD left a convenient loophole in this law that would allow women to be included in the ancestral line if they met two stringent conditions...

1. Num 27:8, "Therefore, tell the Israelites; If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall let his heritage pass on to his daughter."
2. Num 36:6-7, "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, provided they marry into a clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage."

---

So now, all we have to show is that:
1. The father of Mary had no sons.
2. Mary married within her own tribe of Judah. Gen 49:8-12

---

Regarding the first condition, did Mary have brothers?
We have no record of it. The Bible does not mention brothers, but it does say she had a sister.
John 19:25, "Now there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." It is thought that the sister of Mary was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John (Matthew 20:20, Mark 15:40).
Please see "The Genealogy of the Brethren", for more.

In the Jewish culture in those days, the mother who was widowed (assuming that Joseph was dead at this time) would have gone to her father, or brother, or to her other children. Apparently, her father was dead, she had no brothers, and she had no other children, so Jesus gave her to John in John 19:27.
The words of Jesus in John 19:27, and lack of evidence of male siblings, strongly suggest that the first condition was satisfied.

---

The second condition is a bit more involved:
Matthew 1:1-16, "(1) The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the son of Abraham. (2) Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah.....(5)...Jesse begot David the king. (6) And David the king begot Solomon of the former wife of Uriah." (Bathsheba)
This Genealogy continues and we see in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ."
Notice that the descendant of David is Solomon. We shall see in Luke's genealogy, a different son of David.
Matthew clearly shows that the bloodline of Joseph does go back to the tribe of Judah, and through king David. If Jesus Christ is the Son of David, then His mother, Mary has to be also of the house of David and therefore by implication, of the tribe of Judah. As we have already seen in Romans 1:3, it could have not been said that the Son was born according to the flesh of the offspring of David unless Mary were of Davidic descent. We shall delve into this further later on.

Luke 1:26-27, "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from GOD to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary."
We have already seen that Mary is implied as being of the house of David in Luke 1:32. If she were not of the house of David, then clearly, Jesus Christ could not have been descendant of David as do so many verses attest. She married within her tribe (by implication) and so the second condition appears to be satisfied.

Consequently, both conditions for the bloodline to continue through the female line are satisfactorily met by Mary if we can show that she is of the same tribe of Judah through David, as is her spouse, Joseph.

---

Now, let us look at the evidence:
First, a review of the bloodline of Joseph with some added observations.
Saint Matthew addressed his Gospel to the Jews, who followed the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law). He wrote the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matt 1:1-17, and he was careful to meet the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law. His was of the Public Record as explained earlier. In it he begins with Abraham and shows the line going through David and then Solomon and all the way down to Jesus Christ. Remember in verse 16, "And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, and of her was born Jesus who is called Christ." Matthew depicts Jesus Christ as "The Messiah".
Clearly Matthew said that the blood father (begot) of Joseph was Jacob. Matthew had satisfied the Mosaic Law by showing the male ancestry of Jesus by going through Joseph instead of Mary. Keep in mind that this genealogy shows the legal, or royal, or public record, of descent and not the human descent. More evidence that Matthew shows the legal line of descent is in Matt 1:11-12 where a man named Jechonias is mentioned.
See Jer 22:28-30 regarding Jechonias, as it states, "...for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit on the throne of David...".

---

---

Saint Luke has quite a different account of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. He wrote his Gospel to address the Gentiles who were not under the Mosaic Law, and for the most part were unfamiliar with it. He was also a physician, (Col 4:14). His interest, no doubt, was not in the legal aspect of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, but of the human or natural bloodline, by depicting Jesus as the "Son of Man". Luke's Genealogy begins with Jesus Christ and goes backward in time, just the opposite of Matthew who started back and came forward. Luke's genealogy follows the custom of Private Records as explained above. Notice in Luke 3:23-38, that Luke's genealogy does go from Jesus Christ, through David, and back to Judah, continuing all the way to Adam, and then to GOD. By doing this he shows a tie between the "New Adam" (1Cor 15:45) and the first Adam. However, Luke shows the descendant of David to be Nathan (31), and not Solomon, as does Matthew. This alludes to the possibility that Luke's genealogy is for a different person other than Joseph. Let us have a closer look at verse 23 with three different Bibles.

"And Jesus Himself, when He began His work, was about thirty years of age, -being as was supposed- the Son of Joseph, the Son of Heli, the Son of Matthat."
Challoner-Rheims-Confraternity

"When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the Son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat..."
New American Bible

"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the Son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat..."
King James

This verse at first reading might seem to say that we have something amiss:

1. This verse appears to say that the father of Joseph is Heli, yet in Matthew we just saw that it was Jacob. How can Joseph have two fathers?
In many places in Holy Scripture we must revert to the underlying Greek text in order to fully understand the verse. The Greek word used for "as was supposed, or, as was thought" is "Nomizo", which means:
1. To hold by custom or usage.
2. To follow by custom or usage.
3. It is the custom.
4. It is the received usage.
5. To deem, to think, to suppose.

This matter can be made clearer by interpreting the verse as:
"When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the Son (so it was thought, of Joseph) of Heli."

The underlying Greek text supports this interpretation as, "...Joseph son of Heli", in the English translation, simply reads, "...Joseph of Eli". The word 'son' before Heli, is not in the Greek text.

So in order to trace the bloodline of Jesus through Heli, we would first have to go through Mary, His mother. This shows that Heli would be the blood father of Mary, and the father in law of Joseph. Even though the name of Mary is not listed, in order to comply with Jewish custom, it is certainly implied.

Matthew 1:15, shows that Matthan is the father of Jacob, and Luke 3:23-24, show that Matthat was the father of Heli. It is not known if Matthan and Matthat are the same person. If they are the same person, that would indicate that Jacob and Heli could be brothers if they had the same mother, or half brothers if they had different mothers, or one of them could have even been adopted from the tribe of Judah. Julius Africanus (160-240) wrote in his Epistle to Aristides that Jacob and Heli were half brothers. The Bible makes no distinction between genetic birth and adoption. See 2Sam 6:23, where Michol the daughter of Saul and the wife of David (1Sam 18:27) had no children. Yet in 2Sam 21:8, it says Michol had five sons. In reality, they were adopted sons of Merob. Jacob was the genetic father of Joseph. Heli, the father of Mary, was Joseph's father in law, his legal father.

---

---

Some additional notes:

1. Saint Luke was devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary as evidenced by his beautiful accounts of her in his Gospel. Knowing full well that Joseph was not the human father of Jesus Christ, and being a physician, he would naturally show the ancestral blood line to go through Mary.

---

2. Matthew's genealogy lists three breaks in the Mosaic Law. This indicates in the first few verses of the New Testament, that the Old Covenant, and with it the Mosaic Law, is coming to an end, being fulfilled (Matt 5:17), and soon to be superseded by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.

a. Females are listed. (3)Tamar Gen 38:6, 1Chron 2:4, (5) Rahab Josh 2:1,17, (5)Ruth, book of Ruth, (6) Bathsheba (former wife of Uriah) 2Sam 11:12,24.

b. Sinners are listed. (3) Tamar, a deceiver, (5) Rahab, a harlot, (6) Bathsheba, an adulteress, (6) Solomon, idolatry. By naming sinners, GOD has shown that His ways are not our ways.

c. Gentiles are listed. (3) Tamar, a Canaanite, (5) Rahab, a Canaanite, (5) Ruth, a Moabite,
(6) Bathsheba, a Hittite. Foreigners like these symbolized GOD's desire to save all, with no distinction between Jew and Gentile, Col 3:11.

---

3. What about Joachim? I thought he was the father of Mary with Anne as her mother?
Joachim is mentioned as the father of Mary in the following apocryphal books: The Protoevangelium of James, The Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and The Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Joachim is another form of Joakim and Eliakim. Take a look at these two verses:

2Kings 23:34, "And Pharao Nechao made Eliakim the son of the Josias king in the room of Josias his father, and turned his name to Joakim..."

2Chron 36:4, "And he made Eliakim his brother king in his stead over Judah and Jerusalem; and he turned his name to Joakim..."

Subsequently, over the centuries, it is probable that the name Eliakim was shortened to Eli or Heli.
Heli is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew Eli. The high priest in 1Sam 1:3 is called Heli in the Challoner-Rheims, and Eli in the New American Bible. You can see that the differences in translations will show different names at times.
There are many name changes and different spellings of persons names in Scripture. For example, Matthew himself, was also called Levi in Luke 5:27, and in Mark 2:14.
Joachim and Heli appear to be one and the same person.
Do not forget that Biblical names spanned many centuries and names evolved and changed then, just as they do now.

The Jewish Talmud, in the Gemara, also mentions that the father of Mary was Heli.
Chagigah 77:4

The meaning of some of the names we have used here...

Eliakim - resurrection of GOD.
Eli - my GOD.
Joachim/Joakim - YAHWEH prepares.
Heli - ascending, climbing up.

Names with 'El', meaning GOD, are from the Hebrew name for GOD, Elohim.
Notice that Joachim simply is meaning another name for GOD, 'Yahweh'.

Here is one last thought on this subject. The name Heli (as the father of Mary) is Biblical, as shown in Luke 3:23, while the name, Joachim, (as being the father of Mary), is found only in Apocrypha.

[NYer]

Genealogy Sunday

Icon from the Maronite Church

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Uri’el-2012]

Miriam's role was not her characteristics or value,
but her bloodlines to King David,
having no brothers and
the exception started by
the daughters of Zelophehad.

There are five things that are important here:

1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers
and is descended from King David.

2. Joseph is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.

3. The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect (Numbers 26, 27, 36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7).

4. If a woman who has no brothers marries a man of the same tribe
She can inherit forever.

5. Joseph and Miriam are married (each descended from King David)
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua (Messiahship).

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[NYer]

Most interesting!

[Uri’el-2012]

Most interesting!

I stand in awe of how tightly woven is the Holy Word of Elohim.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Gamecock]

Many Christians tend to gloss over the genealogy.

They don’t stop and consider that starting the Bible with the NT is like walking into a movie at the middle.

The genealogy is like the OT in a fast forward mode, it reinforces the continuity of the Old with the New.

[kosta50]

[the author, Bob Stanley:] "Saint Matthew addressed his Gospel to the Jews, who followed the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law). He wrote the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matt 1:1-17, and he was careful to meet the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law."

Sounds to me like a big, fat rationalization. If anything, knowing the truth, that would make St. Mathew's approach rather deceptive. St. Matthew was not there to satisfy Jewish legalities, but to tell the truth.

Right after the genealogy, St. Matthew tells us that the angel appeared to Righteous Joseph and "cleared up" any suspicions of inproporiety (Mat 1:20), which makes it obvious that Joseph is not the father and his lineage as such has no bearing on Jesus being eligible for messiaship.

So, the whole Matthew's legality postulate is baseless. In fact, according to some 13 or or so Jewish biblical messianic requirements, Jesus fulfills only the first—being Jewish!

[Uri’el-2012]

which makes it obvious that Joseph is not the father and his lineage as such has no bearing on Jesus being eligible for messiaship.

Joseph played a very important role.

He was from the house of David.

Had Joseph been from any other tribe but that of David,
Miriam would have only inherited until the next Jubilee year.

See # 5 above.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[kosta50]

Had Joseph been from any other tribe but that of David, Miriam would have only inherited until the next Jubilee year

How so, if your own #2 says "Joseph is descended from King David. But he is from a line prohibited to inherit"? How can one and the same line be both prohibited to inherit and grant full inheritance?

Number 26, 27, 36...

I imagine yu are referring to 27:4, for example. The name of the father has to do with inheirtance rights (property), not titles. Messiah is a title.

The only way to inherit the title was through the male "seed", through the male line.

The Catholic verison of the Bible (imagine!), NAB, actually falsifies the Greek text where this is made abundantly clear, such as in John 7:42 which says, literally:

ουχ (has not) η (the) γραφη (scripture) ειπν (said) οτι (that) εκ (from) του (the) σπερματος (spermatos, seed, sperm) [of] δαυιδ (David)...

which the NAB translates as

Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from (A)the descendants of David..."

Clearly, this translation would include all descendents, including women, but that's not what the Greek text says. Manipulation with translations, as usual, to make the "glove fit" better.

NIV, which is most norotrious for alsfiying the Greek text, says:

Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family

Obviosuly, "family" can be an extended concept (especially nowadays!), and not limited to male line. However, in defense of the NIV, it does have a foot note that in Greek it says "seed." NAB makes no such reference.

Thus, by removing the "seed" (which appears in the KJV) one also artificially removes the narrow definition of inheritance stated in the original text.

The need for male seed as the signture of inheritance of titles was absolutely necessary because women were considered only the "fertile soil" (woemn who were not "fertie" were "barren") for the male seed to grow in. It did not matter if the mother was not of a Hebrew tribe (as the Bible makes abundantly clear, given that the women mentionedin the genealogy are not Jewish; likewise, Moses ad a non-Hebrew wife). It had nothing to do with universal salvation, but with property and title rights.

Interestingly, rabbinical Judaism inverted this rule and the Jewishiness of the child is determined solely by the Jewishness of the mother: if your mother is Jewish, you are considered a Jew even if you are raised in another religion. Given the historical circumstances, such a change was necessary for the Jews subject to assimilation in diaspora.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>Had Joseph been from any other tribe but that of David, Miriam would have only inherited until the next Jubilee year

How so, if your own #2 says "Joseph is descended from King David. But he is from a line prohibited to inherit"? How can one and the same line be both prohibited to inherit and grant full inheritance?

See Daughters of Zelophehad

Particularly Endogamous and exogamous inheritance.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[kosta50]

See Daughters of Zelophehad  Particularly Endogamous and exogamous inheritance.

You need to re-read what I posted. Your reference is arguing over property rights,  not titular rights.

Your source (Wikipedia) says so in the very first paragraph.

"The Daughters of Zelophehad (Hebrew: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד‎) were five sisters in the Hebrew Bible who lived during the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and who  raised before Moses the case of a woman's right and obligation to inherit property in the absence of a male heir in the family."

 I argued that property rights were one thing, but titles such as a royal title (which is what messiah is supposed to be) can only be transferred through the male line (i.e. the "seed" of David).  

The hypothesis of Marian genealogy of Luke is a 15th century Catholic innovation.

But if Jesus was a product of the seed of David (as Paul believed), then he could not be the only-begotten Son of God, the incarnate Logos. But if he is not, then he is not the messiah accoridng to the law.

[John Locke]

She [Mary] alone provided 100% of His [Jesus'] genetic material, and thus provided the "flesh of the offspring of David", as shown in Rom 1:3

So who provided the Y chromosome? Enquiring minds want to know.

[BikerTrash]

Got a question for you.

Mary's aunt, (John the Baptist's mother), was married to a Levitical priest, and it's my understanding that Levitical priests could only marry another Levite. That would make the bloodline for Christ from the king line and the priest line, which I understand is in prophecy.

Could you reconcile this for me or tell me where I'm wrong, if you please?

[kosta50]

So who provided the Y chromosome?

I have already had this hopeless discussion, appealing to reason, on another thread with a Reformed Southern Baptist (a lawyer by trade). The answer I basically got was: the Holy Spirit "fashioned" the Y chromosome (David's I suppose!) because with God all things are possible!

The really sad thing about a complete disconnect between the Bible and the real world is that the Y chromosome (the male "seed") only determines the gender of an individual, and has very little if any other paternal characteristics. Everything males inherit is determined through female X chromosomes.

So, in a true sense, the inheritance is through female genes. There is nothing vital about the Y chromosome. The only problem with Mary providing 100% of the human material is that she never had David's Y chromosome, nor did any of the females in her lineage. There was no David in her in any shape or form.

But, if by divine intervention David's Y chromosome was fashion at Incarnation, the it is clear that Jesus would have two "fathers," a human one (David) and a divine one, in one person! However, since the Incarnation took place between Mary and the Holy Spirit, it is the Holy Spirit who would be the "father," even in a supernatural sense, and not God the Father.

The third possibility is that Jesus was a male only in form, but not genetically; asexual.

As for Romans 1:3 NYer mentions, Apostle Paul (who wrote before all others) never mentions something as miraculous as the Incarnation. He doesn't even call Mary a virgin, but alludes to her as "a woman." He makes no mention of her as having been "full of grace" or as someone God selected for an awesome task. Either he was unaware of it or there was no such theology in the Church in the first half of the first century.

[NYer]

Mary's aunt, (John the Baptist's mother), was married to a Levitical priest, and it's my understanding that Levitical priests could only marry another Levite. That would make the bloodline for Christ from the king line and the priest line, which I understand is in prophecy. Could you reconcile this for me or tell me where I'm wrong, if you please?

That's an interesting question to which I do not have an answer. But, I will get back to you on this ... just be patient, okay.