Jesus' Lineage

[Stroopwafel]

One thing that's been on my mind recently is concerning the seeming incongruousness between the Gospels providing Jesus' genealogy (Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) to justify his "Davidic" descent, going through Joseph, and the same Gospels clearly stating the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus through the Holy Ghost, making him the literal son of God.

 

My concern is how are we supposed to reconcile the two?

 

Obviously, it doesn't make sense to have the lineage of David justified through Joseph since the scriptures say he is not the father of Jesus. So why provide two genealogies which, although differing, both make specifically Joseph the descent?

 

From what I've read, some hold that Luke 3 is actually the genealogy of Mary, pointing to the differences between the two (among those, in Matthew, the father of Joseph is named Jacob, while Luke gives the name of Heli). But why explicitely name Joseph and not Mary?

 

I've also read that Mary, somehow, is from the tribe of Judah, which would then make Jesus meet the davidic lineage requirement. I say somehow because I cannot find anything to that effect in the scriptures. How is that deduced? Talmage, in Jesus the Christ, doesn't address the genealogical issue I'm raising, but indeed points to Mary's tribe lineage as the sufficient justification for making Jesus of David's lineage.

 

Could any of you help shed some light on this?

[David T]

Likely two different genealogical traditions for Joseph for two substantially different infancy/birth narratives. While I think their message is more the point than their accuracy, here's a thoughtful discussion of the issue by Eric Hunstsman. He discusses the different approaches and theories, and then concludes by saying, "Many scholars propose that Matthew and Luke simply used different, competing genealogical lists of descendants of David that were circulating at the time in order to illustrate different ideas, in particular that Jesus was the Son of David and heir to the promises of Abraham (Matthew) and that he was the Son of God and belonged to the entire human family (Luke). While the details of the lists are different and often remain difficult to reconcile, the points where they do agree represent the most important theological truths: namely that Jesus, through both Joseph and Mary, was heir to the covenants and promises that God made with Abraham and David."

Edited February 15, 2014 by David T

[halconero]

One thing that's been on my mind recently is concerning the seeming incongruousness between the Gospels providing Jesus' genealogy (Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) to justify his "Davidic" descent, going through Joseph, and the same Gospels clearly stating the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus through the Holy Ghost, making him the literal son of God.

 

My concern is how are we supposed to reconcile the two?

 

Obviously, it doesn't make sense to have the lineage of David justified through Joseph since the scriptures say he is not the father of Jesus. So why provide two genealogies which, although differing, both make specifically Joseph the descent?

 

From what I've read, some hold that Luke 3 is actually the genealogy of Mary, pointing to the differences between the two (among those, in Matthew, the father of Joseph is named Jacob, while Luke gives the name of Heli). But why explicitely name Joseph and not Mary?

 

I've also read that Mary, somehow, is from the tribe of Judah, which would then make Jesus meet the davidic lineage requirement. I say somehow because I cannot find anything to that effect in the scriptures. How is that deduced? Talmage, in Jesus the Christ, doesn't address the genealogical issue I'm raising, but indeed points to Mary's tribe lineage as the sufficient justification for making Jesus of David's lineage.

 

Could any of you help shed some light on this?

 

I've read some reconciliation somewhere, and I'm sure I could find it, but I'll give you what I consider to be my answer:

 

The don't necessarily need to be reconciled. Matthew and Luke both have very different objectives in their writings. Matthew is a text that's addressed to Jews and Jewish-Christians, uses legalistic language, and strives to show that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah according to their traditions and scripture. Whether or not Jesus was adopted by Joseph doesn't matter as much as far as inheritance goes. The Mediterranean world of antiquity saw adopted sons as full inheritors of a family's wealth and name (with the accompanying glory, fame and weight that goes with a name). 

 

An example: The gens Julia (of the Gaius Julius Caesar, and the Octavian fame) claimed descent from Venus & Mars. This obviously gave their name a lot of weight among the patrician and noble plebian families of Rome. When Gaius Julius Caesar adopted Octavian (who would later adopt Tiberius) as his son, that fame, glory and divine lineage became just as real for Octavian as it would have for a son by blood. Evidence shows that such attitudes were held throughout the Roman Empire, even among the Jews.

 

In other words, it didn't matter that Jesus was born of a virgin. As Joseph's adopted son he held just as much a claim to the Davidic fame and rights as any trueborn son would be. It was important for Matthew to demonstrate this, as it was seen as a key requirement for the Jewish Messiah.

 

As for Luke, take a note about the first person mentioned in the genealogy. It differs significantly. In Matthew the first person is Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites. In Luke it is Adam. Why is this?

 

Luke's writing style, and specific message, is for a Greco-Roman audience. The Jesus of Luke is stoic, performs miracles as good deeds rather than the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and is much more interactive with Gentiles. He is defended by Pilate, and exonerated by the centurion at the cross. What does this mean for his lineage?

 

Tracing Jesus' lineage back to Abraham in Matthew conveys the message that Jesus is very much his, and David's hear. He is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Tracing Jesus' lineage back to Adam in Luke shows that Jesus is the Saviour of all mankind, as Adam predates the practice of circumcision and the establishment of a promised people. 

 

This doesn't make either account any less meaningful, testimony building, or significant. What it does show us is that the writers of the Bible were writing in specific eras, with differing social and religious contexts, to different audiences.

Edited February 15, 2014 by halconero

[BCSpace]

Could any of you help shed some light on this?

 

Perhaps Joseph's lineage is there to handle the situation where people don't believe or understand that the Father is the literal father of Jesus and hence the father's lineage becomes more important.  I like halconero's view about the lineage of the adoptive father (Joseph) being important.

 

 

As for Luke, take a note about the first person mentioned in the genealogy. It differs significantly. In Matthew the first person is Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites. In Luke it is Adam. Why is this?

 

I think it's interesting to note here that the JST has Adam being formed of God instead of being the literal physical son of God like Jesus is.  This clears up a conflict with Jesus being the only begotten of the Father.

[David T]

 

I think it's interesting to note here that the JST has Adam being formed of God instead of being the literal physical son of God like Jesus is.  This clears up a conflict with Jesus being the only begotten of the Father.

 

Conflict wasn't there to begin with, as in the NT, only John uses the term 'Only Begotten', and contextually is a reference to his eternal/divine/pre-mortal nature, and isn't related to his mortal birth experience - which is not an aspect of John's gospel. The term 'Only Begotten' is used consistently in this premortal/eternal-divinity context when used again in restoration scripture, such as Book of Mormon, Moses and the Doctrine and Covenants. In addition,  I'm not aware of anyone (pre-Mormon) traditionally taking the 'Adam, who is the son of God' as a literal biological thing.

 

The phrase "Only begotten after the manner of the flesh" is actually a sort of an unnecessary modern LDS term not found in scripture that creates any perceived conflict! I sort of wish we'd stop using it. Although if the brand new 2014 NT Institute manual is any indication, it's going to be staying around for a while. Ah well. 

Edited February 15, 2014 by David T

[Robert F. Smith]

One thing that's been on my mind recently is concerning the seeming incongruousness between the Gospels providing Jesus' genealogy (Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) to justify his "Davidic" descent, going through Joseph, and the same Gospels clearly stating the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus through the Holy Ghost, making him the literal son of God.

 

My concern is how are we supposed to reconcile the two?

.................................................................   

Over and above what halconero correctly says, the doctrines of Virgin Birth and Divine Paternity are required for Jesus, the Word of God, because they were already part of the stock legends of Hermes (son of the Bona Dea, Maia, daughter of Atlas), the Word/Logos of Zeus; and Perseus, son of Zeus and Danaë (like Isis, and some others, she conceived via a shower of gold or a "bolt from the blue"); cf. Hercules, son of Zeus and Alcemena (wife of Amphitryon); Dionysus, son of Zeus and Semele of Thebes; Minos and Rhadamanthus, sons of Zeus and Europa, daughter of the King of Sidon; Theagenes of Thasos, a great athlete, miracle-worker, and son of a god.

 

The late Cyrus H. Gordon broadened the discussion by including the pattern of dual paternity: the virgin Polymele bore Eudorus to the god Hermes, though married to the human Echecles; Polydora, wife of Borus, bore Menesthius to the god Spercheius; Patroclus is the son of Zeus and of Menoetius; Odysseus is divine because son of Zeus, but King of Ithaca because son of Laertes; Noah is son of both God and Lamech; and, of course, Jesus is divine because the son of God, but King of the Jews because son of Joseph.  Gordon also suggests that Isaac is divine because he is the literal son of God and Sarah (Gen 21:1-2, Judg 15:1, paqad "coitus, visit"), though also the heir of Abraham.  He adds that both Isaac and Jesus faced sacrifice, the former as a type of the latter (Gen 22 ∥the Gospels; Heb 11:17-19, Rom 8:32).

 

This of course suggests birth stories, and, among the motifs which constantly accompany the births of heroes and kings, one frequently finds the new star -- as for Alexander Severus (late 2nd century A.D.), Mithradates Eupator (132/134 B.C.), Augustus Caesar, and Jesus.

 

Another frequent accompaniment is the declaration of divinity by magi, e.g., the Temple of Diana at Ephesus burned down in 356 B.C., and the magi declared that the plague and bane of Asia had been born that very night, namely Alexander the Great; so also the magos Tiridates and his followers came to Rome in A.D. 66 to acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor Neron Caesar.  The star and magi go together for Jesus, as well as for the story of Balaam: Philo Judaeus terms Balaam a magus who is accompanied by two servants = three who foil King Balak's action against God's people -- just as Herod's actions are foiled by the magi coming to visit Jesus (Mat 2:1-12 ∥Num 22 - 24, esp. 24:17 on the star from Jacob), and to bring him gifts and to praise him and bow before him (Mica 5:2, Ps 72:10-11, Isa 60:6).  John Dominic Crossan goes to considerable lengths to show that the infancy narratives of Moses and Jesus (in Matthew) find their closest parallels in Midrashim of Philo, Pseudo-Philo, Josephus (all writing in the 1st century A.D.), and the Sefer ha-Zikronot.  Philo, for example, mentions magoi-advisers telling Pharaoh about the birth of Moses.  Moreover, just as Moses and Jesus escape massacres while infants, so also does Moses escape to Midian as an adult -- Jesus escaping to Egypt while yet a child (Mat 2:13-18, Hosea 11:1, Jeremiah 31:15).  Both end up at the Nile River while very young.  Likewise, Pliny the Elder said that Augustus Caesar believed that the "star" (actually a comet) which appeared for seven days in 44 B.C. was that "predicted" in Virgil's 4th Eclogue (40 B.C.) and that it signaled his own rebirth or regeneration.

 

Raymond E. Brown saw these motifs as basic literary fictions deliberately employed by Matthew in the Jesus infancy narrative in order to present his "theological understanding of Jesus."  Gerhard Lohfink, Mulholland, Brown, Kenneth Gros Louis, Helmer Ringgren, and Chang-Wook Jung separately list an impressive array of Infancy Narrative Parallels or formulae, which we won't go into here:  But see Louis, "Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus," Bible Review, I/1 (Feb 1985), 33-40; Ringgren, "Luke's Use of the Old Testament," Harvard Theological Review, 79 (1986), 227-235; and Jung, The Original Language of the Lukan Infancy Narrative (2004).

Edited February 15, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[BCSpace]

Conflict wasn't there to begin with, as in the NT, only John uses the term 'Only Begotten', and contextually is a reference to his eternal/divine/pre-mortal nature, and isn't related to his mortal birth experience - which is not an aspect of John's gospel. The term 'Only Begotten' is used consistently in this premortal/eternal-divinity context when used again in restoration scripture, such as Book of Mormon, Moses and the Doctrine and Covenants. In addition,  I'm not aware of anyone (pre-Mormon) traditionally taking the 'Adam, who is the son of God' as a literal biological thing.

 

The phrase "Only begotten after the manner of the flesh" is actually a sort of an unnecessary modern LDS term not found in scripture that creates any perceived conflict! I sort of wish we'd stop using it.

 

I disagree.  In the NT Greek, a literal Begotten is the strongest, if not the only, possibility.  In addition, the 'modern' LDS "in the flesh" is official doctrine.  For example:

 

2. Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God in the flesh (see JST, John 1:1, 13–14; 1 Nephi 11:14–22; Jacob 4:5, 11; Alma 5:48; D&C 20:21; 76:22–24).

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-4-jesus-christ-the-son-of-god?lang=eng

 

That it might 'only be' in John is absolutely meaningless.  We aren't Protestants that we pick and choose which gospels or apostles were most popular or relevant or prolific or most agreeable to our pov.  Instead the doctrine is:

 

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

D&C 1:38

Edited February 15, 2014 by BCSpace

[David T]

I disagree.  In the NT Greek, a literal Begotten is the strongest, if not the only, possibility.

 

Remember how in Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is stated as Abraham's Only Begotten, which also referenced a similar Hebrew term in Genesis 22:1-2? Is Ishamel being taken into consideration? There's a bit more going on there in their uses of the term. As we well know from living language, a literal rendering doesn't always convey the received contemporary idiomatic expression.  I'm not stating that John's usage not referring to a literal physical mortal parentage means that there necessarily wasn't a physical mortal parentage, just simply that that wasn't what John was referring to. Just like how even if Isaiah's time-sensitive statement about the young woman conceiving doesn't actually refer to the Virgin Birth of Jesus by Mary, doesn't mean that such a thing still might not have happened. If one individual was affirming something true, finding that others in scripture didn't really make reference to it doesn't make the truth less true. Just less specific references.

 

 

In addition, the 'modern' LDS "in the flesh" is official doctrine.  For example:

That is irrelevant, and redundant. Just by nature of using the phrase and repeating it in publications it becomes "official doctrine".

 

 

That it might 'only be' in John is absolutely meaningless.  We aren't Protestants that we pick and choose which gospels or apostles were most popular or relevant or prolific or most agreeable to our pov.

 

I wasn't trying to determine or describe doctrine, or suggest that one less supportable scriptural witness to a doctrinal position makes it less doctrinal. All I was doing was pointing out that a conflict does not exist in the scriptural texts, only when forced to relate to the non-scriptural but "Doctrinal" interpretive phrase.  I'm not affirming that the doctrine isn't "Only Begotten After The Manner of the Flesh", just noting that John's gospel isn't supportably making reference to that idea. And, as I said above, noting that John doesn't reference it doesn't mean it isn't true, just the point  that he wasn't talking about it.

 

I agree that modern Doctrine is not always consistent with original intent, nor needs to rely on scriptural support, and that it sometimes creates complicated interpretative problems that aren't necessary when we try to read the modern doctrine back into an earlier text. And that's fine - as long we understand the difference.

Edited February 15, 2014 by David T

[BCSpace]

I wasn't trying to determine or describe doctrine, or suggest that one less supportable scriptural witness to a doctrinal position makes it less doctrinal. All I was doing was pointing out that a conflict does not exist in the scriptural texts, only when forced to relate to the non-scriptural but "Doctrinal" interpretive phrase.  I'm not affirming that the doctrine isn't "Only Begotten After The Manner of the Flesh",

 

 

Okay.

 

just noting that John's gospel isn't supportably making reference to that idea. And, as I said above, noting that John doesn't reference it doesn't mean it isn't true, just the point  that he wasn't talking about it.

 

I would still disagree.  John is making express reference to that idea.

Edited February 15, 2014 by BCSpace

[David T]

 

 

Okay.

 

 

I would still disagree.  John is making express reference to that idea.

 

 

As long as we each understand each others' positions, I'd say we're in a good place to amicably agree to disagree on this point

[Stroopwafel]

First, thank you all for your thoughtful contributions.

 

After all what have been said (written) thus far, I'd say the crux of the issue for me is down to understanding how Jesus' davidic descent can be justified from the material that is given in the scriptures.For me, the problem is not so much the discrepancies between the two genealogical lists, but rather that it is the genealogy of Joseph that is given in the first place. Unfortunately, despite all that's been provided here, I'm not finding a convincing treatment of the issue.

 

halconero said:

 

In other words, it didn't matter that Jesus was born of a virgin. As Joseph's adopted son he held just as much a claim to the Davidic fame and rights as any trueborn son would be.

 

And this is where I struggle. What scriptural passage would justify this "right" of an adopted son, such that even though Jesus was not a literal descent from David, he could still be considered to meet the davidic lineage requirement?

[halconero]

First, thank you all for your thoughtful contributions.

 

After all what have been said (written) thus far, I'd say the crux of the issue for me is down to understanding how Jesus' davidic descent can be justified from the material that is given in the scriptures.For me, the problem is not so much the discrepancies between the two genealogical lists, but rather that it is the genealogy of Joseph that is given in the first place. Unfortunately, despite all that's been provided here, I'm not finding a convincing treatment of the issue.

 

halconero said:

 

 

And this is where I struggle. What scriptural passage would justify this "right" of an adopted son, such that even though Jesus was not a literal descent from David, he could still be considered to meet the davidic lineage requirement?

Social context. Matthew was written in the Mediterranean world of antiquity. Adoption was just as real as being born into a family. In our modern western world adoption is seen as something less than sanguinious (blood) relationships. Such is not the case in many places today, and it certainly wasn't in Jesus' era. Royal dues, wealth, and even divinity could be past through adoption, and was seen as just as valid. We see this in the Pauline epistles where Paul argues that the Gentiles have been grafted into Israel.

[Calm]

In our modern western world adoption is seen as something less than sanguinious (blood) relationships.

 

Inheritancewise though, don't adopted chlidren rate the same treatment as blood children?  There is no legal differentiation even if there is an emotional for some?

[halconero]

Inheritancewise though, don't adopted chlidren rate the same treatment as blood children?  There is no legal differentiation even if there is an emotional for some?

Generally correct (in Euroamerican culture), although there have been more than a fair share of court cases that favoured blood-relations. Socially and emotionally I would argue that those who are adopted are often expected to want to "get to know" or "find" their birth parents. Colloquial phrases such as "blood is thicker than water" are still fairly common.

In Jesus' world family was just as, if not more important than our notion. However, people could easily be grafted or adopted into a family. Yes, this entitled them to legal inheritance, but also to the "dignitas" (one's public glory, fame), and clientele of the family, both of which were passed on as well. It's hard to express it using English words, which come loaded with modern context, but an adopted son was treated as the son he was. An adopted son had even greater claim than the nearest nephew or cousin.

In short, Jesus had just as much claim on the Davidic kingdom, dignitas and privileges as any biological son would. No Greek, Roman or Jew of Christ's time would look at Matthew's geneology and say "but how can that be if he's adopted?"

[Stroopwafel]

Still, no matter how much rights and privileges can be claimed by an adopted son, from what can be gathered from the scriptures, Jesus is still not a literal descendant of David. This goes contrary to the idea that the Messiah would have to actually be from David's lineage, not merely adopted in it. Consider the vocabulary from the following:

 

"Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne." (Ps 132:11)

 

"Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." (Ps 89:4)

 

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch..." (Jer 23:5)

 

In my (stubborn?) mind, the lineage from David was a requirement in the sense of being directly related to him.

[halconero]

Still, no matter how much rights and privileges can be claimed by an adopted son, from what can be gathered from the scriptures, Jesus is still not a literal descendant of David. This goes contrary to the idea that the Messiah would have to actually be from David's lineage, not merely adopted in it. Consider the vocabulary from the following:

 

"Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne." (Ps 132:11)

 

"Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." (Ps 89:4)

 

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch..." (Jer 23:5)

 

In my (stubborn?) mind, the lineage from David was a requirement in the sense of being directly related to him.

To be perfectly blunt, you're applying Eurocentric modernist views of adoption to the Greco-Roman Jewish world.

You're right! Lineage from David is a requirement! Guess what? Adoption in the ancient world fulfills this. Their notions of adoption are incredibly different than ours, and we shouldn't try and apply our contextual views on them.

We see the same reflected in Latter-day Saint doctrine. Those who are adopted into a tribe of Israel, or those sealed to non-birth parents are just as eligible to the rights, powers and blessings of both.

[flameburns623]

Romans 1:3 and II Timothy 2:8 explicitly declare Jesus "of the seed of David", Romans using language which explicitly implies blood lineage "according to the flesh". Gabriel, in Luke 1:32 speaks of the Son-To-Be-Conceived and declares that the Lord God shall give unto Him "the throne of His father David".

One is led to infer that Mary's lineage likewise was of the House of David.

Had this been noticed previously?

Edited February 16, 2014 by flameburns623

[David T]

Jesus said God could raise up Abrahams seed from rocks if he wanted in the face of Pharisees who claimed chosen status because Abraham was said to be their lineal father. The NT has far more gospelcentric things to say about promisrs through adoption than blood lineage.

[David T]

(Duplicate)

Edited February 16, 2014 by David T

[volgadon]

I disagree.  In the NT Greek, a literal Begotten is the strongest, if not the only, possibility.  In addition, the 'modern' LDS "in the flesh" is official doctrine.  For example:

 

 

That it might 'only be' in John is absolutely meaningless.  We aren't Protestants that we pick and choose which gospels or apostles were most popular or relevant or prolific or most agreeable to our pov.  Instead the doctrine is:

 

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

D&C 1:38

 

That misses the point of monogenes, which is to indicate a special, favoured relation.

[Stroopwafel]

To be perfectly blunt, you're applying Eurocentric modernist views of adoption to the Greco-Roman Jewish world.

You're right! Lineage from David is a requirement! Guess what? Adoption in the ancient world fulfills this. Their notions of adoption are incredibly different than ours, and we shouldn't try and apply our contextual views on them.

We see the same reflected in Latter-day Saint doctrine. Those who are adopted into a tribe of Israel, or those sealed to non-birth parents are just as eligible to the rights, powers and blessings of both.

 

I appreciate that you want to make your point clear, but one objection I'd have is that, though I do understand how adoption was conceived differently in the ancient world, this notion of adoption by which Jesus is made heir of David is, to my knowledge, never used by anyone to reconcile the claim to "the royal lineage" and the "problem" of tracing his genealogy through his earthly father. If you could point out to me a book/article/anything to help uphold your point of view, I'd sincerely appreciate.

 

By the way, I'd point out it may be the Church that is applying "Eurocentric modernist views" if you take this to mean adhering to the view that Jesus had to be of direct blood descent from David. Take a look at the bolded parts in what follows...

 

Since in the OP I referred to Jesus the Christ by Talmage, I'll quote the relevant passage I had in mind, which is from chapter 7. In addition, to make things easier for everyone, I'll write in the things I wish to understand better in red. So if anyone has anything regarding these, feel free to share what you have!

 

In common with other daughters of Israel, specifically those of the tribe of Judah and of known descent from David, Mary (Is this saying that Mary is from Judah? If so, where in the scriptures can this information be found/deduced?) had doubtless contemplated, with holy joy and ecstasy, the coming of the Messiah through the royal line...

 

...

 

Two genealogical records purporting to give the lineage of Jesus are found in the New Testament, one in the first chapter of Matthew, the other in the third chapter of Luke. These records present several apparent discrepancies, but such have been satisfactorily reconciled by the research of specialists in Jewish genealogy (Talmage doesn't give any reference here, which would have been welcome. Anyone know what "research of specialists" he would have been specifically thinking of?). No detailed analysis of the matter will be attempted here; but it should be borne in mind that the consensus of judgment on the part of investigators is that Matthew’s account is that of the royal lineage, establishing the order of sequence among the legal successors to the throne of David, while the account given by Luke is a personal pedigree, demonstrating descent from David without adherence to the line of legal succession to the throne through primogeniture or nearness of kin. Luke’s record is regarded by many, however, as the pedigree of Mary, while Matthew’s is accepted as that of Joseph. The all important fact to be remembered is that the Child promised by Gabriel to Mary, the virginal bride of Joseph, would be born in the royal line. A personal genealogy of Joseph was essentially that of Mary also, for they were cousins. Joseph is named as son of Jacob by Matthew, and as son of Heli by Luke; but Jacob and Heli were brothers (Where does it say this?), and it appears (How does it appears?) that one of the two was the father of Joseph and the other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to Joseph. That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many scriptures (which ones?); for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten by Joseph, who was the reputed, and according to the law of the Jews, the legal, father, the blood of David’s posterity was given to the body of Jesus through Mary alone.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Stroopwafel

[Stroopwafel]

*Bump of the last chance*

[Thunderfire]

I found a great explanation to this paradox surrounding Jesus lineage in:  "The History of the Church", by Eusebius

 

He claims that in ancient Israel, lineage could be claimed two ways:  Natural and Legal.  Natural denoting a genuine offspring of the father; legal when a man "father's" children in the name of a brother (or step brother) who had died childless.   So the gospel of Matthew records Joseph's "natural lineage" (through Jacob) where the gospel of Luke records Joseph's "legal lineage" (through Heli).   What's truly amazing is how both these lineages lead back to King David!  (Jacob back through Solomon and Heli back through Nathan).  Interesting stuff! 

[Stroopwafel]

I found a great explanation to this paradox surrounding Jesus lineage in:  "The History of the Church", by Eusebius

 

He claims that in ancient Israel, lineage could be claimed two ways:  Natural and Legal.  Natural denoting a genuine offspring of the father; legal when a man "father's" children in the name of a brother (or step brother) who had died childless.   So the gospel of Matthew records Joseph's "natural lineage" (through Jacob) where the gospel of Luke records Joseph's "legal lineage" (through Heli).   What's truly amazing is how both these lineages lead back to King David!  (Jacob back through Solomon and Heli back through Nathan).  Interesting stuff! 

 

That is a reasonable explanation, and this is exactly what halconero has been proposing, but I still find this unsatisfactory.

 

After further reflexion, and from re-re-reading (no stuttering, just emphasize ) the relevant passage in Jesus the Christ, I can see how the "adoption" aspect of Jesus' relation to Joseph could reasonably explain and justify the legal aspects of "succession" to "the throne", which, from my readings, seems to be the concern of Matthew's genealogy. Luke on the other hand is concerned with providing the "natural lineage". Funnily enough, this goes the opposite way of Eusebius' claim as you report it. Anyways, Luke provides the genealogy of Joseph. So how can we have two differing genealogies? Some simply say that it is not really Joseph's genealogy in Luke, but rather Mary's. Well, just substitute the name and problem solved I guess! ...

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

One thing that's been on my mind recently is concerning the seeming incongruousness between the Gospels providing Jesus' genealogy (Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) to justify his "Davidic" descent, going through Joseph, and the same Gospels clearly stating the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus through the Holy Ghost, making him the literal son of God.

 

My concern is how are we supposed to reconcile the two?

 

Obviously, it doesn't make sense to have the lineage of David justified through Joseph since the scriptures say he is not the father of Jesus. So why provide two genealogies which, although differing, both make specifically Joseph the descent?

 

From what I've read, some hold that Luke 3 is actually the genealogy of Mary, pointing to the differences between the two (among those, in Matthew, the father of Joseph is named Jacob, while Luke gives the name of Heli). But why explicitely name Joseph and not Mary?

 

I've also read that Mary, somehow, is from the tribe of Judah, which would then make Jesus meet the davidic lineage requirement. I say somehow because I cannot find anything to that effect in the scriptures. How is that deduced? Talmage, in Jesus the Christ, doesn't address the genealogical issue I'm raising, but indeed points to Mary's tribe lineage as the sufficient justification for making Jesus of David's lineage.

 

Could any of you help shed some light on this?

It is costomary to list the father's linage. Joseph was Christ's father in every way that matters. I am adopted, I was born with the last name of "Nation", but now I am a "Lee" to my very core. I adopted my oldest daughter who was born a "Prather", she has been a "Lee" since she was two...she could not be more of a "Lee" than if I had given birth to her myself (of course I cannot give birth as I am male) but she is born of my heart, and her five children are of my adopted father's linage, which became mine when I was eight...so my point is this, Sonya is my flesh, my DNA, any a part of my soul more importantly. Literal linage matters little, when we accept Christ, we become his sons and his daughters (see Mosiah 5: 7).