How is Jesus descended from David?

[EmmaXO]

I was wondering how Christians consider Jesus as descended from David. Mathew 1 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but he is not related to Joseph through blood, since the bible says he was conceived through God. He cannot be through the line of David through "adoption". He would still not be a direct blood descendant of David.

I know people say Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Mary, but wouldn't this be irrelevant since a woman does not pass on the bloodline, since the tribe is passed through the father?

I've researched this and can't get a straight answer.

 

[ChristianT]

I was wondering how Christians consider Jesus as descended from David. Mathew 1 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but he is not related to Joseph through blood, since the bible says he was conceived through God. He cannot be through the line of David through "adoption". He would still not be a direct blood descendant of David.

I know people say Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Mary, but wouldn't this be irrelevant since a woman does not pass on the bloodline, since the tribe is passed through the father?

I've researched this and can't get a straight answer.

I'm not sure what you know of biology, but both parents' genetic information is passed on to the child[ren] and so it doesn't matter if it's the father or the mother: they both pass down information, but usually in biblical genealogies, women didn't get mentioned because it would most likely have been complicated to account for who married who (rather than who is the child of the father). Though I think a woman was mentioned several times.

 

[EmmaXO]

I'm not sure what you know of biology, but both parents' genetic information is passed on to the child[ren] and so it doesn't matter if it's the father or the mother: they both pass down information, but usually in biblical genealogies, women didn't get mentioned because it would most likely have been complicated to account for who married who (rather than who is the child of the father). Though I think a woman was mentioned several times.

And on the seventh day God said, "Thou shall be a smart aleck."

Mary's lineage is irrelevant. The lineage goes through the father, and Judaism goes through the mother.

 

[ChristianT]

And on the seventh day God said, "Thou shall be a smart aleck."

You said "bloodline."

bloodline |ˈblədˌlīn|
noun
an animal's set of ancestors or pedigree, typically considered with regard to the desirable characteristics bred into it.
• a set of ancestors or line of descent of a person.

I was just saying. I'm sorry if I came off as rude.

Mary's lineage is irrelevant. The lineage goes through the father, and Judaism goes through the mother.

modern scholars merely say the genealogies were theoretical crafts than actual mapped out facts. I'm ok with that.

 

[razeontherock]

I was wondering how Christians consider Jesus as descended from David. Mathew 1 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but he is not related to Joseph through blood, since the bible says he was conceived through God. He cannot be through the line of David through "adoption". He would still not be a direct blood descendant of David.

I know people say Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Mary, but wouldn't this be irrelevant since a woman does not pass on the bloodline, since the tribe is passed through the father?

I've researched this and can't get a straight answer.

Bolded statement is false, outright. Here's one of the better things I've seen on the topic, nice and simple:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7632047/ Post #1

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was wondering how Christians consider Jesus as descended from David. Mathew 1 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but he is not related to Joseph through blood, since the bible says he was conceived through God. He cannot be through the line of David through "adoption". He would still not be a direct blood descendant of David.

I know people say Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Mary, but wouldn't this be irrelevant since a woman does not pass on the bloodline, since the tribe is passed through the father?

I've researched this and can't get a straight answer.

I don't believe there's much merit in attempting to make Luke's genealogy Mary's. That seems like a leap in eisegesis to me.

That said, there's no reason to be bothered by saying that Jesus is descended from David through Joseph by the fact that Jesus was St. Joseph's legal Son.

In conjunction with this, general Christian Tradition posits that the Blessed Virgin is descended from David through her father, St. Joachim. Which means that, from Mary, Jesus is the Son of David by blood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

Jesus is Son of David by blood, and by law

This is actually quite a rich topic to explore! Each Gospel makes it's own unique representation of Christ, with Luke presenting Him as (primarily) the Son of Man, and Matthew's emphasis on His Kingship. (Mark shows Him primarily as the suffering servant, and John as the Son of God)

 

[EmmaXO]

Bolded statement is false, outright. Here's one of the better things I've seen on the topic, nice and simple:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7632047/ Post #1

Ay yay yay. That gave me a headache. That video was so complicated.

Let me see if I got this right. Jacob is the biological father of Joseph, but Heli is the legal father of Joseph. Matthan is the biological father of Jacob. Matthan had married Esta, but he died and she married Mathhat.

There seems to be some jumping through hoops here. So the first genealogy given is the biological one. Joseph is still not the biological father of Jesus. The Deuteronomy law does not directly apply to Joseph. As far as I know, Joseph was Mary's first husband.

Joseph is the legal father but not the bloodline father. As far as I can tell, Jesus' tribal status and lineage would be from his birth father ... who is God.

I found sources saying they adoption is not valid for lineage or tribe. Descent goes through the biological father:

Matters relevant to the child's status are determined by the status of the birth parents, not by that of the adoptive parents. The child's status as a Kohein, a Levi, a Jew, and/or a firstborn, are all determined by reference to the birth parents.

Judaism 101: Birth and the First Month of Life

Any children of the marriage will take their tribal affiliation from their father, not their mother, just as their mother takes her status from her husband after marriage. If the couple adopt children, they will not automatically take on the Judaism of the mother, nor the tribal affiliation of the father.

Raise Your Hand If You’re A Kohen - More Mitzvahs & Traditions


When an adopted child is born Jewish, the adoptive parents need to determine the child's tribal affiliation: Kohen, Levite, or Yisrael. If, for example, a male child is born a Kohen, traditional Jewish law forbids him from marrying a divorcee, even if his adoptive parents are not Kohanim.
Jewish Adoption in America - My Jewish Learning

Yahoo! Canada Answers - Is Jesus really descendant of King David?

(Scroll down to see Allon's answer, an orthodox rabbi. The other answers are pretty much nonsensical)

 

[EmmaXO]

You said "bloodline."

bloodline |ˈblədˌlīn|
noun
an animal's set of ancestors or pedigree, typically considered with regard to the desirable characteristics bred into it.
• a set of ancestors or line of descent of a person.

I was just saying. I'm sorry if I came off as rude.


modern scholars merely say the genealogies were theoretical crafts than actual mapped out facts. I'm ok with that.

I'm sorry if I came off as snarky. I need to get to sleep now.

 

[Faulty]

One thing to keep in mind is that it's easy to sit here almost 2,000 years later and say "by our more contemporary standards, we don't like some points of the geneologies", without considering when these were written, they were perfectly acceptable as legal and religious proof and their sources from very learned men, Matthew a Levite and Luke a companion of Paul, the "Pharisee of Pharisees".

It's more than likely that modern "scholars" are those who are incomplete in their understanding of such things as opposed to those in that time who were taught all points of the Judaic laws from birth.

 

[razeontherock]

Ay yay yay. That gave me a headache. That video was so complicated.

The video is simple as can be. The facts, as presented in the Gospels, are where the complexity comes from.

Joseph is still not the biological father of Jesus.

You're supposing this is somehow news?

As far as I can tell, Jesus' tribal status and lineage would be from his birth father

You're ignoring the whole concept of legality. The way this is practiced currently may be substantially different.

 

[GrayAngel]

Legally, Jesus was the son of Joseph. While culture only accepted the bloodline of the father, Jesus' only biological ties were to His mother, and not all cultures considered only the father's blood to be of relevance. Both his mother and his legal father were descendants of David.

 

[EmmaXO]

One thing to keep in mind is that it's easy to sit here almost 2,000 years later and say "by our more contemporary standards, we don't like some points of the geneologies", without considering when these were written, they were perfectly acceptable as legal and religious proof and their sources from very learned men, Matthew a Levite and Luke a companion of Paul, the "Pharisee of Pharisees".

It's more than likely that modern "scholars" are those who are incomplete in their understanding of such things as opposed to those in that time who were taught all points of the Judaic laws from birth.

Some of those were about modern adoption because it was difficult to find any sources besides people saying adoption isn't valid to be a member of a tribe. The sources I cited weren't even about the genealogy of Jesus, besides the last one. They were just general information about tribes, lineage, and adoption.

Mathew was desperately trying to create a relation of David to Jesus. It's not like he's going to start talking about how, well, maybe Jesus wasn't descended from David. He's already professed his faith, so he's hardly unbiased. He traces Jesus from Abraham. Perhaps a little unnecessary. Unless you want to convince everyone beyond a doubt Jesus is Jewish.

Matthew wanted to prove Jesus was a descendant of David since this is qualification to be the messiah, even if he had to do it legally.


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


He never says Joseph is the father of Jesus. He connects Jesus to Mary, and Mary to Joseph.

 

[EmmaXO]

Legally, Jesus was the son of Joseph. While culture only accepted the bloodline of the father, Jesus' only biological ties were to His mother, and not all cultures considered only the father's blood to be of relevance. Both his mother and his legal father were descendants of David.

Are we considering Luke 3 about Mary?

His legal father doesn't have anything to do with Jesus' lineage. An adopted child would have the lineage of his biological father. When would you ever encounter a situation (besides Jesus) when a child has no biological father‽

 

[EmmaXO]

The video is simple as can be. The facts, as presented in the Gospels, are where the complexity comes from.

Perhaps it was just my inability to remember names.

You're ignoring the whole concept of legality. The way this is practiced currently may be substantially different.

You're ignoring the whole concept that Jesus isn't a physical descendant of King David and insisting adoption is valid and somehow Jesus takes on the bloodline of his adoptive father.

How exactly do you think a bloodline can be joined through adoption?

 

[Enkil]

You're ignoring the whole concept that Jesus isn't a physical descendant of King David and insisting adoption is valid and somehow Jesus takes on the bloodline of his adoptive father.

How exactly do you think a bloodline can be joined through adoption?

Since Mary is descended from David, He is certainly a "physical descendant of King David." I'm a Biology major, so I can assure you wholeheartedly that a daughter is equal to a son. If you want, I can point you to a good biology book that will prove the point.

 

[Enkil]

Mathew was desperately trying to create a relation of David to Jesus. It's not like he's going to start talking about how, well, maybe Jesus wasn't descended from David. He's already professed his faith, so he's hardly unbiased.

Well, you could say the entire Bible is biased then, and therefore every man a possible liar, and you are trying to disprove the Bible from the Bible. This isn't very logical or convincing.

Here, chew on this:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Since the scripture itself testifies that Jesus would be God and conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, it would appear that there cannot be any possible logical issue with Christ's birth. Attempting to disprove the Bible from the Bible is irrational.

He traces Jesus from Abraham. Perhaps a little unnecessary.

Based on what? Your random opinion?

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


He never says Joseph is the father of Jesus. He connects Jesus to Mary, and Mary to Joseph.

Is there a point somewhere in this? You're trying too hard. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus. Thus Jesus was descended from David through Mary, and legally from David through Joseph, as testifies the scripture.

By the way, this forum isn't for debating nonsense such as this. It says quite specifically to take these issues to the theology or other forums. It's quite clear that you are arguing just to argue and that you are no seeker. So take it to where it belongs, instead of adding to yet more clutter to this forum.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I was wondering how Christians consider Jesus as descended from David. Mathew 1 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but he is not related to Joseph through blood, since the bible says he was conceived through God. He cannot be through the line of David through "adoption". He would still not be a direct blood descendant of David.

I know people say Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Mary, but wouldn't this be irrelevant since a woman does not pass on the bloodline, since the tribe is passed through the father?

I've researched this and can't get a straight answer.

Actually, since the return from Babylon, Jewishness has been determined on the mother's side.

Tribal affiliation is on the father's side.

 

[EmmaXO]

Since Mary is descended from David, He is certainly a "physical descendant of King David." I'm a Biology major, so I can assure you wholeheartedly that a daughter is equal to a son. If you want, I can point you to a good biology book that will prove the point.

And in the process you can completely ignore that Judaism recognizes the tribal affiliation and lineage as passing through the father!

Luke never directly mentioned Mary, and Razeontherock presented the idea the two genealogies were accurate and about Joseph.

Mary could only pass on Judaism to Jesus. If Joseph was the biological father of Jesus he would pass on the lineage and the tribal affiliation. But he's not.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I was wondering how Christians consider Jesus as descended from David. Mathew 1 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but he is not related to Joseph through blood, since the bible says he was conceived through God. He cannot be through the line of David through "adoption". He would still not be a direct blood descendant of David.

I know people say Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Mary, but wouldn't this be irrelevant since a woman does not pass on the bloodline, since the tribe is passed through the father?

I've researched this and can't get a straight answer.

Not to mention that Joseph isn't actually Jesus' father, which is kind of an important plot point, you may recall.