What Tribe Was Mary the Mother of Jesus From- Levite or Judah?

prewrathrap

Newbie
Jan 24, 2010
108
4
✟15,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just curious what tribe do you think Mary was? Levite or Judean?

My view is Levite as she was cousin to Elizabeth wife of Zacarihas who was a levite priest. By law to be a priest in service to temple he had to be married to a Levite woman, therefore to be her cousin she was a Levite.


Union of Levite (Mary)with David (Judah) - Jesus was both king and priest.

Shalom
Mark
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ligurian

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Standing Up, good point with the Melchizedek reference

is it possible that Mary was of Judah and he cousin was of Levi?
like we do not know how closely Mary and Elizabeth were, they could have been distant cousins

Thank you.

Num. 36:6 This [is] the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry.

Num 18:2 And thy brethren also of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of thy father, bring thou with thee, that they may be joined unto thee, and minister unto thee: but thou and thy sons with thee [shall minister] before the tabernacle of witness.

Heb. 7:14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

So, Mary of the tribe of Judah married Joseph of the tribe of Judah.

No idea how Elizabeth was a distant cousin of John the Baptist whose father was of Levi. Someone 'broke the rules' somewhere I suppose. Or the word translated 'cousin' is simply 'kinsman'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

prewrathrap

Newbie
Jan 24, 2010
108
4
✟15,293.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5 KJV)

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. (Luke 1:5, 30-36 KJV)

I cannot see how Mary is not of house of Aaron even Gabriel tells Mary her cousin, Elizabeth, is pregnant.

Shalom
Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyrasong
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The word translated 'cousin' for Elizabeth's relationship to Mary is the same word Paul uses in this verse, but no one believes all of those people were of Benjamin (Paul's tribe).

Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Lk. 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

OR, here's Gill's Exposition:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And behold thy cousin Elisabeth,.... For though Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi by her father's side, yet might be of the tribe of Judah by her mother's side, and so akin to Mary. The Persic version calls her "aunt by the mother's side": intermarriages between the two tribes of Levi and Judah were frequent; nor were they at all contrary to the intention of that law, that forbid the tribes to intermarry, which was to preserve the inheritance in each tribe, since the tribe of Levi had none at all. Though she might be called her cousin in a more general sense; it being usual with the Jews to call all of their own nation their kinsmen and kinswomen, according to the flesh: but the former sense seems more agreeable; and so Mary is directed to her own family, and to her own relations, and known friends, for a sign, by which her faith might be confirmed, in what the angel had said unto her; for if she found the one to be true, she might conclude the other was also; which is as follows:
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Just curious what tribe do you think Mary was? Levite or Judean?

My view is Levite as she was cousin to Elizabeth wife of Zacarihas who was a levite priest. By law to be a priest in service to temple he had to be married to a Levite woman, therefore to be her cousin she was a Levite.


Union of Levite (Mary)with David (Judah) - Jesus was both king and priest.

Shalom
Mark

If I may share, the following are things in line with your OP that were shared before on the issue...and may help you:
Originally Posted by Thekla
David was of the tribe of Judah - so Christ is King from that line by adoption by Joseph.

Elizabeth is of the Levites, the priestly tribe; Mary is her suyyenis which can indicate tribal affiliation. Christ is the High Priest.

The tribe of Benjamin decided to be loyal to the House of David, and of course Paul was of this tribe.
More was discussed elsewhere on the issue - as seen here in #7/./ #40./#45 . Many Jews have often noted was that there should never have been an issue with seeing Christ descended from the line of Levi since that is exactly where his mother came from....and Christ was technically adopted into the line of Judah due to his step-father Joseph.
Luke 3:23
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,
Luke 3:22-24
Although Joseph was the one who took in Christ/His mother and was considered to be the father of the Messiah, he technically was not. For as Christ noted often, His true Father was the Lord. That doesn't mean that Christ was of the mindset that Joseph was not a Father-figure to Him since everyone assumed that Christ was the son of a carpenter who came from Judah...but to assume that Christ only saw His identity as being of Judah may be reading more into things than necessary.

Genetically, Christ had the DNA of His mother Mary within Him since he was born of a woman under the Law....and for those who emphasized the PRIESTLY role of the Messiah, seeing Christ descended from the line of Levi would not have been an issue.

And to be clear, More was actually discussed by many Messianic posters (including some in this discussion) elsewhere as seen here ( #102 and #107 ). For myself, personally, I think that there's a lot of beauty in seeing how the lineages of Christ document the King line (Judah) and the Priest line (Levi) of Jesus Christ. For the King line (Judah) comes Joseph via adoption....whereas the Priest line (Levi) would comes through Mary's mother genetically. ...as it was noted she was a cousin of Elizabeth and Elizabeth was of Aaron.

On Elizabeth:
Luke 1:35
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month.

As one ministry said best:
We find this in Luke 1:5, as scripture shows that Mary's Cousin Elizabeth is a Levite. Mary and Elizabeth's mothers were sisters. Below we see that Elizabeth was of the genealogy of Aaron. Aaron was a Levite (of Levi) and thus Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi. Elisabeth's mother and Mary's mother were sisters and both Levites, thus Mary was of the tribe of Levi. Below we see that Zacharias (Elisabeth's husband) was a Levitical priest, and a Levitical Priest could only marry a full blood Levite woman if he was to perform duties in the Temple of God. In verse 8 below we see that Elisabeth's husband was indeed a practicing priest, therefore Elisabeth would have to have been a full blood Levite. And for Elizabeth to be a full blood Levite the her mother had to be a full blood Levite. Elizabeth's mother is the sister of Mary's mother and thus was also a full blood Levite. This documents that Mary was born of a full blood Levite woman......
Luke 1:5-9
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.6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. 8 And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, 9 According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. (KJV)

Perhaps its just me...but I was under the impression that the line of Levi and the line of Judah would've met together with Christ simply by family dynamics. For the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist, was of the Levitical line since his father was a priest. Many say that John's line was the true line of the Levitical priesthood whereas others were either hijacked/corrupt or false due to a loss of data. But with Christ, his background was from the tribe of Judah---whom Jacob promised in Gensis 49 that kings would come forth from and the Messiah would come. Thus, John the Baptist would have been akin to the priest who ordained the king...with Jesus fitting the role as ruler. This would have run parallel to the way that the priesthood was set up that was corrupt in their sacrifices and worship of the temple....and thus, the priesthood persecuting John and Jesus as "false" were really in error for missing the true KING and PRIEST to come.

If there was a Levitical background in Christ's history through Mary, that's cool to see..and there are other solid organizations that support the theory from logic. One can go here for more info on the matter, as they show how Mary's mother was the sister of Elizibeth, who was descended from Levi. The Levitical side of Mary's lineage probaby would've taken a backseat to the fact that lineage was often determined by the Father's background.

As it stands, even within Judaism there was the thought that the Messiah would be a Levite...and it is common error to assume that ALL camps in Judaism would assume the Messiah would simply be from Judah. To be more technical, some of the Holy writings from the era of Christ note things not often talked about in Judaism...one of them being that the Damasucs Document actually calls for the coming of two Messiahs, one from the House of Aaron, and one from the House of Israel. The concept involved what's known as the Teacher of Righteousness....and the high-ranking priests who fled into the wilderness at one point when seeing much corruption within the Jewish nation. This paticular group believed the Messiah would be a Levite priest from the line of Zadok....and according to some of the scrolls, there was a call for the people to look for a warrior Messiah who would be a Levite priest. In the end of all things, the Messiah would lead the Sons of Light in a forty-year long war against the Sons of Darkness that would end with the re-establishment of David’s kingdom ....and if one studies the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes (another significant camp within Judaism itself), there are some things that'll make a lot more sense.

For more, one can go here to A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone? | Daily Bible and Archaeology News or The Messiah Son of Joseph....or one can investigate The Dead Sea Scrolls--Community Rule and Doctrine of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Doctrine of the Messiah

For more clarity on the subject, the Judaism that came about in the days after David was truly diverse in multiple ways...and in many ways, vastly different from what is seen in Judaism today as well as the days of Christ..and a lot of it was directly in line with Samaritan culture (as seen directly in the camp of the Essenes, as they had a camp within their group believing the Messiah would come as a Levite /from Joseph )

For many, what is considered to be true "Judaism" is Rabbinic Judaism as seen in the time of Christ...and they go from that starting point to say that what was accepted within that era was what was legitimate. Thus, if the other camps in Judaism considered followers of the Way/Yeshua to be a sect within Judaism, that is what made the Nazarene Sect/early Christians acceptable in Judaism. However, what is often not realized is that Rabbinic Judaism (often considered to be THE definition of Judaism) was in many ways a totally new synthesis which borrowed from at least three different streams of Judaism which had emerged during the Second Temple period - Zadokite (covenantal) Judaism, Enochic (apocalyptic) Judaism, and Sapiential (wisdom-based) Judaism. Again, there was Zadokite Judaism, Enochic Judaism and Sapiential Judaism. For anyone wishing to investigate more in regards to the differing variations of Judaism, I'd highly recommend investigating the work of Dr. Gabriele Boccaccini, professor of New Testament and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Michigan. He is an expert on what happened to the religion of the Jews after the Babylonian exile and in the centuries that led up to the beginning of Christianity...and has written several books, including Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 BCE-200 CE (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Partings of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), and Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

The last of the works noted was very fascinating as it concerns detailing the development of Rabbinic Judaism and it's development. For Rabbinic Judaism developed and became the mainstream form of Judaism after Jerusalem’s Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. In Roots of Rabbinic Judaism , Boccaccini traces the Rabbinic movement back to its roots in the Second Temple period (the period that commences right after the Jews’ return from Babylon)...starting from the premise that Rabbinic Judaism was not always the normative or mainstream expression of Judaism that it claims to be. There's much basis for seeing how Rabbinic Judaism is something that likely descended from a combination of “Judaisms” that competed with each other in post-exilic Judah when trying to do the best that was possible to give a united front.



For more, one can consider going here for more review...or here:
__________________



 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
From post above " Genetically, Christ had the DNA of His mother Mary within Him since he was born of a woman under the Law....and for those who emphasized the PRIESTLY role of the Messiah, seeing Christ descended from the line of Levi would not have been an issue. "

No. According to scripture, Christ was of Judah, not Levi (Hebrews).

Levi's priestly reign ended in 30ad and most clearly at 70ad.

Christ was of the priestly order of Melchizedek and has zero to do with Levi. See your Bible.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
From post above " Genetically, Christ had the DNA of His mother Mary within Him since he was born of a woman under the Law....and for those who emphasized the PRIESTLY role of the Messiah, seeing Christ descended from the line of Levi would not have been an issue. "

No. According to scripture, Christ was of Judah, not Levi (Hebrews).

Levi's priestly reign ended in 30ad and most clearly at 70ad.

Christ was of the priestly order of Melchizedek and has zero to do with Levi. See your Bible
.
Not according to Scripture - as Christ being of the Line of Judah was about PRIMARY emphasis. It was a matter of his family line being determined by the Fathe, who was of Judah ...and the FATHER'S lineage was what took precedence. This is what's discussed in Hebrews 7. Mary WAS a cousin of Elizabeth - who was a daughter of Aaron (of Levi) and the mother of John the Baptist.

Scripture with scripture..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Just curious what tribe do you think Mary was? Levite or Judean?

My view is Levite as she was cousin to Elizabeth wife of Zacarihas who was a levite priest. By law to be a priest in service to temple he had to be married to a Levite woman, therefore to be her cousin she was a Levite.


Union of Levite (Mary)with David (Judah) - Jesus was both king and priest.

Shalom
Mark
As said best elsewhere:
First, the King James translation of the term syngenis as “cousin” (Luke 1:36) is unwarranted and somewhat misleading to those who normally interpret the word to mean “first cousin.” The Greek term syngenis simply means “relative” (NKJV, NASB, NIV) or “kinswoman” (ASV, RSV). It is “a general term, meaning ‘of the same family’” (Vincent, 1997). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth may have been first cousins, or they may have been fourth cousins. All we know for sure is that they were kin. Second, Mary and Elizabeth could have been from different tribes and still have been first cousins. It may be that their mothers were sisters. Their mothers could have been from the tribe of Judah or Levi. As commentator Matthew Henry noted: “Though Elisabeth was, on the father’s side, of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), yet on the mother’s side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah” (1997). However Mary and Elizabeth were related, tribal heritage among the descendants of Jacob was passed down through fathers, not mothers (cf. Ruth 4:18-22); children were always of their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Thus, Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, respectively, by way of their fathers’ ancestry, and not necessarily of their mothers’.
Some say that Luke's gospel provides the lineage of Mary but this is far from certain. According to Matthew's Gospel we know the line of Joseph precedes from Judah but we are not told the lineage of Mary. Jesus could very well have been from the tribe of Judah through his father Joseph without his mother Mary herself being from the tribe of Judah. This would have been fully adequate to fulfill the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-14. Nowhere is it required that Mary herself have a proven lineage from Judah. If that was essential, it would have been made plain in Scripture since it would have been crucial. However, Jesus was from the line of Judah through his legal father Joseph.

Matthew says, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. . . . and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ" (Mt 1:1, 16). Scripturally, Matthew is writing to Jews proving the Kingship of Jesus and Lineage here is crucial to establishing Jesus as the Jewish king from the tribe of Judah. It is the line of Joseph the father that is followed. The line of Mary is unmentioned - and Mary could have been from any tribe without in any way invalidating the promise of 2 Sam 7...but as her cousin was of Aaron (and John was of that tribe - which makes sense for him since a Levite would be used to anoint the King Messiah), things line up.

From the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Southern US


According to Luke 1:5, St. Elizabeth was from the daughters of Aaron from the tribe of Levi. According to Mathew 1, St. Joseph, and therefore St. Mary, were from the tribe of Judah. Since St. Elizabeth and St. Mary were close relatives how is it that they are from two different tribes?

Intermarriage between Israelites from various tribes was common. The children from such marriages were counted to belong to the tribe of their father. St. Mary's and St. Elizabeth's mothers were sisters but St. Mary's father was from the tribe of Judah while St. Elizabeth's father was from the tribe of Levi.
There was actually another discussion elsewhere on the issue - as seen here in the thread entitled Barnabas the Levite: Is it significant that Paul learned from a liturgical priest? and here:
Yeshua was in a different line of Priesthood. Aaron (and his sons) were washed by others before he could be prepared for anointing. Yeshua's anointing was from heaven in the form of a dove, after he had been washed by John.


Gxg (G²);62113965 said:
Spot on...as Yeshua was affirmed by the Lord himself...although it makes sense that John would declare Yeshua as He was since John was also descended from a Levitical line - and perhaps one of the few who actually had any real right to the priesthood after the Hasmonean Dynasty messed things up and set up their own, Roman enforced priesthood with no connection to the Levitical line/ Zadokites. The book "In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity" did an awesome job covering the issue - and for more, one can go here or here.


Exactly - it couldn't be any old priest from those appointed by Herod's choice. John was miraculously born for the purpose of declaring who the son of G_d was - it would make sense, therefore, for G_d to use him in this very public anointing of Yeshua to his Kingly and Priestly role and so to fulfill the prophecies. Many think John was the High Priest of the true Temple - in Qumran - and so Yeshua was properly anointed according to the Law. This links in with his gown not being torn too - Leviticus 10, I think it is, that a priest who tears his gown shall die, so his gown was not torn by the soldiers. It was a part of acknowledging his Priesthood, just as the Charge, above his head on the cross, acknowledged his Kingship as well as his G_dly role as seen in Philippians.

There are lots more connections if his 'baptism' is in fact an anointing.

Gxg (G²);62114049 said:
I do take it significant seeing the location that John lived in (Desert) and the clothing style he utilized - for as argued elsewhere (here, here and here), there were other legitimate groups within Judaism who were not mentioned in the scriptures/had bounced out long before Yeshua arrived on the scene...and yet their actions had a signfiicant effect in how others saw the Temple era. Specifically, in order to break away from the corruption in Jerusalem in the priesthood and be ready for the Lord, the Essenes broke away and went into the wilderness - and numerous scholars have noted their community practices and language (from their use of the term "The Way" to having a commune/communal lifestyle, their rites with baptism/water and other things) were directly present in the NT community of believers - and it has been noted that John himself probably went out to the Essene community in the wilderness/lived there for a time. His dress style was similar to what many of them (in a monastic spirit) dressed due to their focus/ascetic practices. Additionally, although not a dominant group in Jerusalem, they were hated by the other groups in Jerusalem -especially the priesthood - due to their actions being somewhat "outside the lines of jurisdiction." More has been shared on the issue elsewhere, as shared here/here and here/here and here.



With the Levitical priesthood dynamic, it is also interesting to see that Mary - a cousin of Elizabeth (a daughter of Aaron) - would also have had Levitical background...and thus, even apart from John, Yeshua would have had legal rights to the Levitical priesthood in addition to what he had from his father Joseph (of Judah/David's kingship).




Gxg (G²);62114757 said:
On the early Christian tradition, according to Holy Tradition, Mary’s parents were Joachim and Anne. Joachim was a priest and his wife Anne was probably a daughter of a priest. Mary is said to have been born in the grotto under the Church of St. Anne which would have been adjacent to the Temple, in an area where the Temple priests lived.








For more:
Will have to investigate the Mishah on the temple curtains made by the priests daughters....



 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eliyah Moshiach

New Member
Jun 30, 2018
1
0
48
la
✟15,201.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Single
Mary was of Judah. (OT--marry within your tribe). Jesus was of Judah (Hebrews).

The priest reference refers to Melchizedek, not Levi.
How when Yusef was! Mary was from the house of Imran who was a Levite which came Moses and Arron. Yeshua was a priest/prophet a Moshiach. Not THE Moshiach. Yeshua was a Levite he never got the Yahudah seed from Yusef if the book is absolutely correct. So-called "Jesus Christ" aka Ceasere Borgia of Nazareth did not fulfill messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the Moshiach. He was a Levite not a Lion of YAHudah
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,918
8,033
✟572,541.44
Faith
Messianic
How when Yusef was! Mary was from the house of Imran who was a Levite which came Moses and Arron. Yeshua was a priest/prophet a Moshiach. Not THE Moshiach. Yeshua was a Levite he never got the Yahudah seed from Yusef if the book is absolutely correct. So-called "Jesus Christ" aka Ceasere Borgia of Nazareth did not fulfill messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the Moshiach. He was a Levite not a Lion of YAHudah
Yet scripture gives Him that lineage. Revelation 5:5

“The scepter will not pass from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs will come. To him will be the obedience of the peoples” (Genesis 49:10).

This Messianic prophecy declares that the Messiah would come from Judah’s line. So how can that be?
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
As said best elsewhere:
First, the King James translation of the term syngenis as “cousin” (Luke 1:36) is unwarranted and somewhat misleading to those who normally interpret the word to mean “first cousin.” The Greek term syngenis simply means “relative” (NKJV, NASB, NIV) or “kinswoman” (ASV, RSV). It is “a general term, meaning ‘of the same family’” (Vincent, 1997). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth may have been first cousins, or they may have been fourth cousins. All we know for sure is that they were kin. Second, Mary and Elizabeth could have been from different tribes and still have been first cousins. It may be that their mothers were sisters. Their mothers could have been from the tribe of Judah or Levi. As commentator Matthew Henry noted: “Though Elisabeth was, on the father’s side, of the daughters of Aaron (v. 5), yet on the mother’s side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah” (1997). However Mary and Elizabeth were related, tribal heritage among the descendants of Jacob was passed down through fathers, not mothers (cf. Ruth 4:18-22); children were always of their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Thus, Elizabeth and Mary were descendants of Aaron and David, respectively, by way of their fathers’ ancestry, and not necessarily of their mothers’.
Some say that Luke's gospel provides the lineage of Mary but this is far from certain. According to Matthew's Gospel we know the line of Joseph precedes from Judah but we are not told the lineage of Mary. Jesus could very well have been from the tribe of Judah through his father Joseph without his mother Mary herself being from the tribe of Judah. This would have been fully adequate to fulfill the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-14. Nowhere is it required that Mary herself have a proven lineage from Judah. If that was essential, it would have been made plain in Scripture since it would have been crucial. However, Jesus was from the line of Judah through his legal father Joseph.

Matthew says, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. . . . and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ" (Mt 1:1, 16). Scripturally, Matthew is writing to Jews proving the Kingship of Jesus and Lineage here is crucial to establishing Jesus as the Jewish king from the tribe of Judah. It is the line of Joseph the father that is followed. The line of Mary is unmentioned - and Mary could have been from any tribe without in any way invalidating the promise of 2 Sam 7...but as her cousin was of Aaron (and John was of that tribe - which makes sense for him since a Levite would be used to anoint the King Messiah), things line up.

From the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Southern US


There was actually another discussion elsewhere on the issue - as seen here in the thread entitled Barnabas the Levite: Is it significant that Paul learned from a liturgical priest? and here:




What about Messiah ben Joseph, also called Messiah ben Ephraim, the Messiah who was to suffer and die? So yes Jesus did satisfy the requirement of Messiah in first century Judaism.
The only difference is Jesus is both Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David. Messiah ben Joseph suffering servant on the cross, being raised Messiah ben David.
Curiosity here concerning the birthright and Genealogy.
1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s:) {chief … :
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
1,572
726
56
Ohio US
✟147,852.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The lineage in Luke is of Christ through Mary by her father. The term "which was the son".... ,- in laws of Joseph had to be listed that way because only men had their geneologies listed. And it's different than Matthew which has "begat" Also Joseph came from Solomon while Christ came through Nathan. People think there are contradictions but that's not the case. Luke is showing the actual "bloodline".

Mary's mother was a Levite, we know that since Elizabeth was her cousin. I'm pretty sure only the the male Levititcal priests who served in the temple had to marry with in their own tribe.

But it would make Christ from the lineages of both Judah (King line) and Levi (Priest line)
King of King, Lord of Lords

Talk about perfection.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟368,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
.
we do not know how closely Mary and Elizabeth were, they could have been distant cousins


They have a biological grandmother in common. Jacob's first wife Leah was the biological mother of both Levi and Judah. (Gen 29:34-35)
_
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟368,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
.
FAQ: Can it be known for certain whether Jesus' mom was biologically related to David?

A: Well; it would be easy to see were the language and grammar of the opening remarks to Jesus' genealogy-- per Luke's gospel --not so controversial. Since that route has been compromised, we'll have to take another.

Rom 1:1-3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny; for example:

Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny; whereas David's is biological because his seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

Seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then we're left with Jesus' mom as the default trail of flesh to David; and if Jesus' mom, then of course her dad too.
_
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
.



They have a biological grandmother in common. Jacob's first wife Leah was the biological mother of both Levi and Judah. (Gen 29:34-35)
_
The tribe of Levi And especially the sons of Aaron are strictly a line which both male and female are levite in lineage.
The priests daughter becomes a stranger marrying outside the tribe, and any children from that marriage are strangers (ie zuwr.)
See the Hebrew term for stranger in these passages
02114 זור zuwr zoor

a primitive root; v; [BDB-266a, BDB-266b] {See TWOT on 541}

AV-stranger 45, strange 18, estranged 4, stranger + 0376 3, another 2, strange woman 2, gone away 1, fanners 1, another place 1; 77

1) to be strange, be a stranger
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to become estranged
1a2) strange, another, stranger, foreigner, an enemy (participle)
1a3) loathsome (of breath) (participle)
1a4) strange woman, prostitute, harlot (meton)
1b) (Niphal) to be estranged
1c) (Hophal) to be a stranger, be one alienated

Le 22:10 There shall no stranger <02114> eat of the holy thing : a sojourner of the priest , or an hired servant , shall not eat of the holy thing .

Le 22:12 If the priest’s daughter also be married unto a stranger <0376> <02114> (8801), she may not eat of an offering of the holy things . {a stranger: Heb. a man a stranger }

Le 22:13 But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced , and have no child , and is returned ) unto her father’s house , as in her youth , she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger <02114> eat thereof.

Nu 3:38 But those that encamp before the tabernacle toward the east, even before the tabernacle of the congregation eastward, shall be Moses, and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the sanctuary for the charge of the children of Israel; and the stranger <02114> that cometh nigh shall be put to death.

***Only the sons of Aaron could offer incense, all other Levites were estranged from/ strangers to, that office.

Nu 16:40 To be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger
<02114>, which is not of the seed of Aaron
, come near to offer incense before the LORD; that he be not as Korah, and as his company: as the LORD said to him by the hand of Moses.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BrotherJJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
1,120
424
North America
✟166,413.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Just curious what tribe do you think Mary was? Levite or Judean?

My view is Levite as she was cousin to Elizabeth wife of Zacarihas who was a levite priest. By law to be a priest in service to temple he had to be married to a Levite woman, therefore to be her cousin she was a Levite.


Union of Levite (Mary)with David (Judah) - Jesus was both king and priest.

Shalom
Mark

Matthew, Luke, Mary, Joseph & Jesus genealogies

Joseph was descended from David from Solomon. While Mary was a descendant of Solomon’s older brother Nathan.

Mary had to find a husband from the tribe of Judah like herself to protect her father’s estate. (See Numbers 36:6-9)

She also needed a direct descendant of Solomon to perfect her son’s claim to the throne of David, since Nathan’s descendants weren’t of the Royal line.

Joseph fit the bill on both accounts but like every other descendant of Solomon’s carried a blood curse disqualifying any biological son of his from ever being King of Israel. (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

Since Joseph was not the Lord’s biological father, he could adopt Him, qualifying Him to be King without passing Him the curse.

Thus, because of the virgin birth, Jesus became the only one in Israel qualified to sit on David’s throne, and remains so to this day.

There are two recorded lineages of Jesus. One from Mary & another from Joseph. Thus, Jesus became Joseph’s actual son via ADOPTION. Old testament adoption gives the child complete equality & all the benefits of a natural born child.

A simpler way to explain it:

Jesus differing genealogies are a result of Matthew's account being Mary's line, and Luke's being Joseph's line

Matthew is about Messiah as King. Luke is about Messiah as the son of man.
 
Upvote 0

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟368,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
.
FAQ: Why was Joseph left out of Jesus' conception? Why couldn't he have been Jesus' biological father?

A: There's a few theories going around out there we might consider.

1• Men are filthy, unsanitary beasts. It's unthinkable that God would permit them to contaminate, and thus violate, the womb that was to bear the Holy Son of God.

» Women's bodies are made of material taken from a man's body (Gen 2:21-23). Mr.Job nailed it when he remarked: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one (Job 14:4). You see; women aren't from Venus after all; they're actually from Mars, same as men.


2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.

» Well; whence did Eve get it? She was constructed of material taken from Adam's body; but he tasted the fruit after she was born, so it was too late for him to pass the fallen nature on to her via procreation.


3• Joseph was left out of Jesus' conception in order to protect him from the curse upon king Jeconiah's royal posterity (Jer 22:29-30, Matt 1:11).

» That's a very popular theory among quite a few Protestants. However; according to the language and grammar of the curse; its duration was limited to an era when the land of Israel was divided into two kingdoms-- Judah in the south and Samaria in the north --which came to an end when Nebuchadnezzar crushed the whole country and led first Samaria, and then later Judah, off to Babylonian slavery. When Christ takes the reins, the land of Israel will be unified, i.e. it will no longer be Judah in the south and Samaria in the north.

And besides, Jeconiah's royal line and the curse were inseparable. Had the curse been established in perpetuity, then when Jesus was placed in Jeconiah's royal line via his adoption to Joseph, he would've inherited the curse right along with the line; virgin conceived or not would've made no difference.

4• Another theory, which seems to me the most sensible, is that it was simply God's wishes that Jesus be not only Adam's progeny, but also His own, viz: Son of Man and Son of God; consistent with the angel's announcement. (Luke 1:32-35)
_
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟368,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
2• It was a measure to prevent the so-called fallen nature from infecting Jesus; which is believed inherited from a child's biological father.


When Eve tasted the forbidden fruit, it had no effect. She went right on just as naked as before without the slightest feelings of shame. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she obtained a sense of decency. Prior to that, had someone walked up and said; "Hey you; put some clothes on, you're exposed!" she would've stared at them as if they were a man gone mad.

Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, give her a sense of decency by means of procreation, nor by means of his body parts that God used to construct her.

Since Eve didn't obtain a sense of decency from the chemistry of the fruit, nor via procreation by means of Adam's body parts; then whence?

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (John 8:44, Heb 2:14) and is able to tamper with the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield the power of death the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it set in. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, they both immediately set to work with the fig leaves. (Serpent is an appropriate name for the Devil seeing as how they are typically portrayed in scripture as poisonous snakes whose bite is fatal; e.g. John 8:44)


FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's decision that sin and death come into the world via a man's actions just as life and righteousness would later be offered to the world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his deadly work on people. . . in the womb or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)

In conclusion: even if Joseph had been baby Jesus' end-game biological father, the child wouldn't have necessarily been born with the so-called fallen nature because it's not passed on by one's biological father nor one's biological mother. It's obtained from humanity's other father; the Serpent-- ergo: protecting baby Jesus from the so-called fallen nature was just a simple matter of keeping the Devil's paws off him.

John 14:30 . . He has no hold on me
_
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0