Was Jesus' mother, Mary, of the DAVIDIC blood line?

by nomoreguilt 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Eliveleth,

  This is a rather common way of explaining the genealogical difference away, but imo it runs against the texts; both Matthew and Luke present their genealogy as that of Joseph, not Mary (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23).

  To the thread topic, I don't think any of the canonical Gospels implies Davidic descent for Mary (nor do they rule it out).

  Otoh (now that I can see nomoreguilt's question on the other thread) it is not entirely impossible that an early stage of the Matthean genealogy did not consider the idea of a virgin birth, which would solve the issue as far as Jesus is concerned. For at least a Syriac manuscript of v. 16 has: "Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called the Christ."
• 

  flipper

  NO MORE GUILT - I think Evileth covered it pretty well ! Glad you got an answer. My Bible scholar skills are pretty rusty in that regard ! Way to go, Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  Leolaia

  Rather than the virgin birth per se, the genealogy is quite conscious of Mary's unwed status which relates to the common rumor that Jesus was born of fornication (ek porneias gegennésai), as the Acts of Pilate 2:4 puts it, which is known also from Celsus (cf. Origen, Contra Celcum 28, 32, 28), b. Sanhedrin 106a, Sepher Toledot Yeshu, etc. The genealogy, in contrast to usual custom, goes out of its way to single out and emphasize women of ill-repute -- including Tamar (Matthew 1:3, who became pregnant while acting as a prostitute), Rahab (v. 5, who had been a prostitute), Ruth (v. 5, a foreign Moabite widow), and Bathsheba (v. 6, who became pregnant after fornicating with David).
• 

  JosephMalik

  Matt 1:.24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

  Luke 3:23 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,

  The chronologies recorded in scripture from both the man and woman established Jesus as rightful heir to the throne of David.. Matthew established the fact that Joseph agreed and gave his acceptance to this arrangement thus giving Jesus legal status to the throne. Luke added to this chronology by the women despite what others may have thought and included the whole human race. This gave Jesus the right to more than just David’s throne but the right and authority to redeem all mankind back to Adam and not just the Jews. Both chronologies also established the real humanity of Jesus, but such humanity would still produce a sinful human life. So John came along and appended further chronology to these two and said: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. So now we go back in time before Adam, before any of this chronology and learn how it came into existence. And now we learn the source of the life that made this Jesus different from than that of Adam being not only human but without sin. What this source was up to then was only known as the Holy Ghost but was now further identified as the Word, a sinless Being that was responsible for all humanity in the first place. It is this sinless life and its acceptance by both human parents that made the ransom of all of us possible.

  Joseph
• 

  atypical

  How is it that Jesus was not physically Joseph's son, but could claim his bloodline? I guess characters in stories can be made to do anything the writer wants...
• 

  JosephMalik

  atypical,

  Joseph claimed him as his own son. That gave him the legal right. The blood of Jesus was without sin. That did not come from Joseph or David did it? Yet it redeemed us all when sacrificed.

  Joseph
• 

  atypical

  But was he Joseph's physical son? If not, then to claim to be of the bloodline of David via Joseph is false, correct? If I "claim" someone who is not a related to me physically, do they become a blood relative?
• 

  JosephMalik

  atypical,

  Why do you keep adding the word blood where it does not exist? The correct thinking is legal right. So the answer to your question is yes for all practical purposes. This is the way sinless life or blood as it became known was introduced. This is how all Israel will be saved. When we are restored to immortal human life then we will have the same Jewish Father and qualify for such salvation.

  Joseph
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  It's a genealogical problem also in a figurative sense... what do we have to posit first, the suspicion of illegitimate birth, or the claim to royal or even divine descent (which are not mutually exclusive in the popular religious mind)? Each calls for the opposite in its own way. And the ascription of an extraordinary status (like that of "Messiah") to any (real or fictitious) "outsider" to the aristocratic circles with a real genealogical tradition would call for both (the suspicion and the claims, in whatever order) in no time.

  It is worth noting that the claim to Davidic descent for Jesus (whatever that may mean) is also debated within NT tradition. Mark 12:35ff// and John 7:41f can be construed as ironical denial. Paul's kata sarka ("according to the flesh") in Romans 1:3 is at least ambiguous in view of his overwhelmingly negative use of that expression The frequent plays on the polysemy of egeirô or anistèmi, especially in the apostolic discourses of Acts (God raises a Son to David, not by bringing about the birth of the child Jesus, but by raising the crucified from the dead) confirm a rather widespread figurative understanding of Davidic descent.
• 

  MOG

  isnt this one of the reasons the Jews do not believe Christ was the Messiah..