justinangel
Newbie
- Feb 19, 2011
- 1,301
- 197
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
This is the opinion of Michelle Andrews, an apologist staff member at Catholic Answers, who is only speculating. You won't find what she proposes in any magisterial document of the Church. Here's a comment in reply from a Catholic member of the site:
#1 Eric F - Shorewood, Illinois
"I think your point that Joseph was essential in God's plan for salvation is well taken. There is the expression "No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus" Obviously, that one can work the other way as well, and in fact trumps it..."No Jesus, No Mary...Know Jesus, Know Mary! I think we might also be able to say "No Joseph, No Jesus...Know Joseph, Know Jesus." Joseph played a key, irreplaceable role which is often overlooked and far transcends a "sham" or token figure. However, the fact remains....Joseph was not Jesus' father in a literal sense and I think we should tread lightly with this title. Yes, Joseph was indeed a father in the heart. and a father present in action to Jesus, but he wasn't a father "in the flesh" to Jesus. Splitting hairs maybe, but a key distinction. The Mother of God truly fits Mary, because she truly was and is the Mother of Jesus in her heart, in action, and in the flesh! A better title would be Joseph "A father to God", and how humble would that be that God would allow Himself to be fathered in this sense. Yet, isn't that the great mystery... God was so humble as to take on human flesh, to be born in a stable, to be "taught" by the human family. Oh the humility of God! St. Joseph, pray for us!"
We know from the Scriptures that Jesus is a descendant of David by bloodline, so it makes no difference whether Joseph was Jesus' natural father. 'The LORD has sworn in truth to David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of your body will I set on your throne' (Psalm 132:11); '"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David."' (Luke 1:31-32). 'And she cried out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"' (Luke 1:42); 'Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh' (Romans 1:3);' Remember that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was descended from David' (2 Timothy 2:8).Jesus' bloodline could only be traced through his mother Mary, who alone provided all the genetic material and our Lord's flesh and blood.
There is no reason why we should designate Joseph as the Father of God for the sake of preserving Jesus' Davidic lineage. Joseph had to be Jesus' natural father in order for him to be a true descendant of David on his side. And Mary certainly (not praobably) was a member of the House of David, if what the Scriptures say about Jesus is true. Michelle Andrew's reasoning (If Joseph was not truly Jesus' father, as Jesus' own Mother said that Joseph was (cf. Luke 2:48), then Jesus was not truly the Son of David.) is somewhat careless. I agree with Eric F that Joseph was a father to Jesus "in the heart and present in action". I'm sure Mary meant it in this sense, too. Jesus certainly knew who his real Father was by nature when he asked: "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" (Luke 2:49).
Luke has quite a different account of the geneology of Jesus from what we have in the Gospel of Matthew. Unlike Matthew, he wrote his Gospel to address the Gentiles who weren't under the Mosaic Law. Jewish law stipulated that genealogies were to be through the line of the males, not the females. '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' (Numbers 1:17-18). In Luke 3:23-38, the genealogy goes from Jesus, through David, and back to Judah, continuing all the way back to Adam, and then finally to God. Luke, however, shows the descendant of David to be Nathan (v. 31) rather than Solomon, as does Matthew. This suggests the possibilty that Luke's geneaolgy is for a different person than Joseph, so, in that case, he would be tracing Jesus' ancestry through Mary's side of the family.
"And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli [Eli] who was of Mathat,"
Luke 3, 23 [DRB]
"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..."
[KJB]
This verse seems to say that Heli (Eli) is Joseph's father, yet in the Gospel of Matthew we have Joseph being the son of Jacob. So how on earth can Joseph have two fathers? Surely, he had only one father. And certainly the two gospels can't be contradicting each other. We have good reason to conclude, that in order to trace the bloodline of Jesus through Heli, we would first have to go through Mary, His mother. 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 surely is implied. The Greek word used for "as it was supposed" is nomizo, which means "to hold by custom or usage".
In Matthew 1:15, we read that Matthan is the father of Jacob, and in Luke 3:23-24, Matthat is the father of Heli. It's unknown whether Matthan and Matthat are the same persons. But if they are, that could indicate that Jacob and Heli were brothers, having the same mother, or stepbrothers if they had different mothers. It's even possible that one of them could have been adopted from the tribe of Judah. The Hebrew Bible makes no distinction between genetic birth and adoption. In 2 Samuel 6:23, Michol, the daughter of Saul and the wife of David (1 Samuel 18:27) is said to have no children.Yet in 2 Samuel 21:8, Michol is mentioned as having five sons. These were adopted sons of Moreb. Hence, it's virtually certain that Jacob was the natural father of Joseph, and Heli was Mary's father, which makes Joseph Heli's son-in-law by being married to Mary. A father-in-law was regarded as a legal father in Jewish custom. In this sense Joseph would be called a son of Heli in Jewish society.
Hence,we know that Jesus truly descended from David by bloodline, which could only have happened by being the Son of Mary - the fruit of her womb. Luke's geneaology through Mary is implied, but it is virtually certain by the fact that Joseph wasn't Jesus' blood father. There was no human intercourse for the conception of Jesus, and so the Davidic bloodline cannot be traced through Joseph. And since Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Mary all the way back to God through David and Adam, it is most approporiate to designate Mary as the Mother of God.
When I was in elementary school, I knew a boy who called his stepfather "Dad". His stepfather was a dad to him albeit any blood ties. I'm sure mothers who remarry prefer that thier offspring call their stepfathers "father" rather than "stepfather". Joseph was a father to Jesus when he was on earth, and he's probably still a father to Jesus in Heaven, albeit not being his natural father. But it is only because Jesus is the Son of Mary that Joseph is a father to him.
Joseph cannot be designated as the Father of God because he wasn't actually the father of Jesus in the flesh. Mary, on the other hand, was actually Jesus' mother. He was her offspring (Genesis 3:15). The Adoptionist Theodotus would have reason to designate Joseph as the Father of God because he believed Jesus was Joseph's offspring in the flesh who eventually was deified when he resurrected from the dead. We Catholics do call Joseph Jesus' father, but only because he was a father to Jesus. But we find it inappropriate to assign the word "father" as a name or title because the divine Person Jesus was not his blood son. By doing so, we remain mindful of the important role he had in the economy of salvation. In the order of grace, Joseph's prayers for us in Heaven are the most efficacious among all the saints after Mary by virtue of her Divine motherhood.
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luke 1, 43
Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord." She does not say "the mother of my Lord Incarnate". The Hebrew-Aramaic word for Lord is Adonai. It is the name "Lord God" used as a substitute for the sacred Tetragrammaton: the four Hebrew letters "Yod, He, Waw, and He" that correspond to Yahweh (YHWH). The word Lord is often used as a substitute for God's name "Yahweh" or "Jehova" in the OT. Adonai is the emphatic form of Adon. Jesus himself recited the prophet:
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on me; because the LORD has anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.
Isaiah 61, 1
"And blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord (Adonai) would be fulfiilled."
Luke 1, 45
Jesus isn't more or less God. Nor is he ontologically any different from the God of the OT by becoming incarnate. To designate Mary as the Mother of God Incarnate as diametrically opposed to the God of the OT implies an intrinsic alternation within the immutable essence of the Triune God. By juxtaposing Luke 1, 43 with v. 45, we see there is no division within the Holy Trinity and thereby no change in essence with respect to the Son in His relation to the Father. So the title would be most inappropriate. Enlightened by the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth identified Mary as the mother of "her" Lord: the Lord God of the Israelites. To her Mary was the mother of God Who happened to become incarnate.
"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, pray for us!"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
