The Line of David

[VictimofChanges]

If Jesus was meant to be of the Line of David, and we accept the truth of the Virgin Birth, then how on earth is he of the Line of David?

The book attributed to Matthew begins of course by listing the lineage of Mary's husband Joseph as a descendant from King David. But what is the relevance of this if Jesus was no blood relation to Joseph?

 

[MrGoodbar]

In the custom of the time in Judea, Joseph would have to have been engaged to a woman of the same tribe.

 

[gluadys]

In the custom of the time in Judea, Joseph would have to have been engaged to a woman of the same tribe.

Then how is it that Mary's cousin Elizabeth is married to a priest?

By Mosaic law a woman only needed to be betrothed to a man of the same tribe if she was inheriting tribal land.

Catholic tradition IIRC is that Mary came also from a priestly family (but that is tradition and not mentioned in scripture).

 

[beamishboy]

It's important for Jesus to be seen as one of the line of David because of the O.T. prophecies which were applied by Jesus to himself. Lots of them allude to the House of David, the seed of David and so on. That is why the evangelists were at great pains to show that Jesus descended from such a line.

 

[VictimofChanges]

That is my feeling on the matter too - Jesus's story needed to match up as much as possible to OT prophecy, and the best link they could come up with was drawing up a tenuous family tree of his step-father!! (made all the more doubtful by the other NT lineage of Joseph which has about double the number of ancestors - I forget where)

Moreover, how on earth could Joseph's descent have been known even beyond two or three generations at best?? Why should we believe that the authors of the NT had any more clue than you or I of the extremely detailed descent of a carpenter who they most probably never met? It seems ludicrous.

 

[beamishboy]

I'm going to write a lot. I need 100 posts before I can join in the debate in General Apologetics. A warning told me that the arguments can get heated. That sounds like fun.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I always thought Mary was descended from David too? Though I don't think I found it in Luke.. I know I saw it somewhere..

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I guess I'll see you there, I'm guessing we won't be allies/brothers in Christ there? :/ But I won't be the youngest.. Haha..

 

[beamishboy]

I guess I'll see you there, I'm guessing we won't be allies/brothers in Christ there? :/ But I won't be the youngest.. Haha..

I believe in Christ but I think my beliefs would be considered different from those of the usual fundamental American evangelical group.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Unorthodox is a better word, you'll be called a fundie if you believe in the resurrection.

 

[VictimofChanges]

I can't even find the General Apologetics forum!!! (if it's the one open to non-Christians too)

I find this forum in general extremely hard to navigate, and also clogged with loads of irritating profile add-ons.

~~

Anyway, back on topic (somewhat) - I went to a start of term chapel service today, and at the end the Priest blessed the congregation on behalf of God, Jesus, Mary, and...Joseph!?

How did the irrelevant carpenter step-dad of Jesus come to occupy such a divine pedestal? Because he believed Mary hadn't just been sleeping around? Does that qualify one for sainthood (if indeed that concept even has any scriptural justification at all)?

I've never been blessed on behalf of Joseph before...and don't feel any better for it believe it or not.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

General Apologetics http://christianforums.com/f13-general-apologetics.html
It's near the bottom of the list, under "Discussion and debate".

 

[MrGoodbar]

Greetings all.

Then how is it that Mary's cousin Elizabeth is married to a priest?

By Mosaic law a woman only needed to be betrothed to a man of the same tribe if she was inheriting tribal land.

Most likely, everyone inherited something, however, and since the marriages were all arranged by parents who deigned to keep inheritances in tribal lands, the custom seems sound.

The exception to this was the priestly tribe of Aaron (Levi), who could marry a woman from any tribe. This tribe, incidentally, long ago lost its land.

That is my feeling on the matter too - Jesus's story needed to match up as much as possible to OT prophecy, and the best link they could come up with was drawing up a tenuous family tree of his step-father!! (made all the more doubtful by the other NT lineage of Joseph which has about double the number of ancestors - I forget where)

Moreover, how on earth could Joseph's descent have been known even beyond two or three generations at best?? Why should we believe that the authors of the NT had any more clue than you or I of the extremely detailed descent of a carpenter who they most probably never met? It seems ludicrous.

It may seem crazy in the 21st century to think that 1st century peoples would know their ancestry, but it was a major part of identity in Judea. Given the importance, it doesn't seem crazy that they could identify the generations much longer before one or two, past that, you would come into ancestors common to more and more people, and so the common ancestry seems even more reliable for that.

The geneology chronicled in Luke is theorized to be Mary's by some scholars, and they believe that "Heli" listed in 3:23 is Mary's father. Also, it may be that Luke's geneology is more of an ancestry, as the greek term translated "was the father of" can be rendered "was the ancestor of."

Just some thoughts. God bless.

 

[VictimofChanges]

It may seem crazy in the 21st century to think that 1st century peoples would know their ancestry, but it was a major part of identity in Judea. Given the importance, it doesn't seem crazy that they could identify the generations much longer before one or two

I can certainly conceive of your point that ancestry was held closer to heart and memorized to a greater extent, but even if Joseph himself did have some idea of a much more distant descent (although confidently tracing it to Abraham seems hugely dubious), how does this account for the authors of Matthew and Luke being able to run off such lists (and contradictory ones, unless the latter is Mary's after all) for a totally inconsequential tradesman who was not a contemporary of theirs?

past that, you would come into ancestors common to more and more people, and so the common ancestry seems even more reliable for that.

Wouldn't this also belittle the significance of the prophecy then? If so many people could trace distant links to King David and beyond, then any number of people could match the "line of David" prophecy!

 

[MrGoodbar]

I can certainly conceive of your point that ancestry was held closer to heart and memorized to a greater extent, but even if Joseph himself did have some idea of a much more distant descent (although confidently tracing it to Abraham seems hugely dubious), how does this account for the authors of Matthew and Luke being able to run off such lists (and contradictory ones, unless the latter is Mary's after all) for a totally inconsequential tradesman who was not a contemporary of theirs?

Well, if you take my premise that anyone in Nazareth would be aware of their ancestry, and an additional premise that the gospels were written in the late first century, then a visit to Nazareth seems like it would reveal all one would need to know to trace back to a common "Nazarene" ancestor. Whatever people of the day thought about Jesus, he made quite an impact at the time, and it seems likely that his family would still be known to the town. Only 2 generations removed from Joseph, I'm sure that a few questions and basic "detective work" would yield the knowledge of Joseph's ancestry.

As to the ancestry back to Abraham, one can know several of the next generations through the deuteronomic history. After the return from Babylon and the conflict between those who were exiled and those who remained (Ezra, Nehimiah), it seems equally likely that families of the returned would be intimately familiar with their bloodline to this point. This is only 500 years from Jesus (I realize the length of time, just trying to establish how the older generations would have been preserved).

I believe that ancestry would have been more than memorized, and most likely recorded and held quite dear.

Even if the Lukan geneology isn't Mary's, its still likely that since he was describing a more symmetrical point with his geneology, he would have given the "was the ancestor of" line of thought more credence.

Wouldn't this also belittle the significance of the prophecy then? If so many people could trace distant links to King David and beyond, then any number of people could match the "line of David" prophecy

Well, certainly a number of people could match the prophecy, but so it would be with any prophecy given with 1000 years between its antecedent and fulfillment. I don't think it diminishes the prophecy at all, but rather testifies to God's faithfulness in fulfilling it much later. The fact that many people COULD have been the Christ doesn't diminish the fact that Jesus IS the Christ.

God Bless.

 

[gluadys]

Greetings all.

Most likely, everyone inherited something, however, and since the marriages were all arranged by parents who deigned to keep inheritances in tribal lands, the custom seems sound.

The exception to this was the priestly tribe of Aaron (Levi), who could marry a woman from any tribe. This tribe, incidentally, long ago lost its land.

That is an interesting note about the priestly tribe. On inheritance, we may be looking at a difference between Mosaic Law and 1st century customs. The only provision for women having an inheritance in the Mosaic law was if they had no male siblings.

 

[VictimofChanges]

Good post MrGoodbar! But back to the topic: why is this relevant anyway if Joseph was no blood relation of Jesus?

If the claim is that it was Mary instead who provided the bloodline link, what is the evidence for this, aside from conjecture surrounding the Lukan genealogy?

 

[MrGoodbar]

That is an interesting note about the priestly tribe. On inheritance, we may be looking at a difference between Mosaic Law and 1st century customs. The only provision for women having an inheritance in the Mosaic law was if they had no male siblings.

True, I think actually the custom is indeed paired with the Law. Women were not entitled to the land or inheritance under nearly any circumstances, thus the custom came about in order to preserve the inheretance in the tribe through marriage only to other tribal members.

For women whose husbands have died, there is a "next of kin" or in Hebrew "go-el" who is in line to marry her in order to preserve the inheritance in the family, and to provide a male heir to preserve it in future generations. Boaz, in the book of Ruth functions this way.

Interestingly, the term means literally "redeemer" and is used in many OT metaphors for how God is the "go-el" for Israel after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile.

Sorry if I babble, it is an interesting topic to me!

 

[MrGoodbar]

If the claim is that it was Mary instead who provided the bloodline link, what is the evidence for this, aside from conjecture surrounding the Lukan genealogy?

Great question, and I'm enjoying this discussion greatly!

Well, to this, I would say let's review the critical events in the geneology:

1. Abraham - David circa 1800 - 1000 BC (preserved in Gen-2 Sam)
2. David - Exile (Jehoiachin) circa 1000 - 586 BC (2 Sam - 2 Kings)
3. Exile, Return - Christ circa 586,539 - 0 BC (Ezra, Nehimiah, Matthew, Luke)

Just like when the world was destroyed in the flood and therefore the pre-Noah geneology is essentially irrelevant because HE becomes the common ancestor of everyone thereafter, Christ's geneology kind of bottlenecks at the Exile.

The returning Israelites would not have been that many, the whole assembly according to Ezra 2:64 42,360. That puts it at roughly 3,500 per tribe. Endogamy (marriage within the Israelite nation) is portrayed forcefully in Nehemiah, as he beats those who are of mixed descent. It seems to stem from this that even if it is Joseph's line chronicled in both that Mary would not have been far from Joseph in the family tree. Marriage between cousins was common as was marriage between uncle and niece. Admittedly, there is an element of faith in this, as in anything, but it seems to logically flow this way as well.

And a brief aside that you aren't going to like...

While I tend to believe that the Lukan geneology is Mary's, if you look at the line and the people in it such as Rahab the prostitute, David the adulterer (though great King as well), Tamar (look that one up in Genesis, too sordid to briefly recount), Ahaz the 'wicked' king of Israel, etc... God clearly uses people who would not fit the profile of a "righteous" line to deliver forth his Son. Therefore, it may be that God fulfills the prophecy through Joseph, in a way that most people wouldn't see or accept, as the way He works is clearly never quite what we're thinking...

God Bless.

 

[VictimofChanges]

Another thought-provoking post! I am quite interested in the historicity of the Bible, and would like to look into it further.

Being of the position that I do not take the Bible to be the Word of God or to have any supernatural origins, I prefer to approach the issue of its historical value (being a History degree student). My History grounding prompts a number of negative reactions to the texts' reliability on very elementary points (vested interest, lack of external corroboration, and the degree of contemporaneity).

Nonetheless, I think it's challenging to see what we can glean together from scriptures alongside other evidence; while a lot of your proposals clearly hinge on biblical information, I think you've gone a good way towards advancing ideas!