Jesus' Linage

When I ran across this I recalled our discussion in SS and thought it might prove interesting or helpful... I have edited it for brevity. 

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

The web page is a lengthy look at the prophecies of the Messiah. Not endorsing the site...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the problems for these prophecies run even deeper. Is Jesus actually of the tribe of Judah, the family line of Jesse, and the house of David? The sole evidence for this is two sets of genealogies for Jesus, in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38.

Strictly speaking, this is untrue. There are TONS of references to Jesus as being in the lineage of David, throughout the NT, and NOT just in the genealogies.

For examples:

• in Zechariah's Song - Luke 1:69
• The blindman at Jericho - Mt 9:27; Mr 10:47
• The Canaanite Woman (a foreigner!) - Mt 15:22
• The questioning crowd in Mt 12:23
• The massive crowd at the Triumphal Entry - Mt 21:15
• Apostle Peter - Acts 2.25ff
• Apostle Paul - Acts 13.22ff; Romans 1.3; 2 Tim 2.8
• Apostle John - Revelation 5:5; 22.16

It is worth pointing out that the issue of his Davidic blood was NEVER raised as an issue by his enemies (for the first several centuries!)--it was his alleged blasphemy and exorbitant claims that 'brought the house down'. And even though the general ignorance of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem was an issue (John 7:42), the local genealogical records were easily accessible to would-be-antagonists.

In fact, even after the time of Jesus, the family members of Jesus' family were being called up before the Roman government, in its attempt to eliminate the family of David. Hegesippus (via Eusebius) mentions several relatives of Jesus who were brought before  Domitian for investigation (see discussion in HI:JRJ, chapter two: "The Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church").

So, there really was a wide base of acceptance (on the basis of evidence) for Jesus' lineage. (For a discussion of the title "Son of David", see Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, pp254-258.)

Both of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the proper ancestry.

What Jim is arguing here is simple and worth making explicit:

• The genealogies show that JOSEPH is the descendent of David;
• Jesus, by virtue of the virgin birth, is NOT a gene-carrying descendent of Joseph;
• Therefore, Jesus is NOT a gene-carrying descendent of David.

However, notice the main assumption in this argument:

Only gene-carrying descendants are considered as legal descendants.

This assumption can be shown to be false. Let's look at the situation and background closely.

1. Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity.
   

   
   

2. It is debated whether the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line, or vice versa. One is a 'physical line' and the other a 'royal line'. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.) Strictly speaking, however, ANY DESCENDENT of David would be considered of the 'royal' family, because it was defined by the ancestor--NOT the current holder (or non-holder) of the throne. So, for example, in the case in 2 Sam 21, the children of Saul and his concubine Rizpah were of 'Saul and his bloody house', but--as children of a concubine--they would NEVER be in the line of succession. 
   

   
   

3. Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".
   

   
   

4. Joseph is already a legal heir of David, but he seems also to 'pick up' Mary's legal heritage, too. How?
   




Probably through the laws of inheritance, dealing with sonless families.


The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.

One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:


"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10...  ...the first mention in the Bible is the case of Zelophehad's daughters. This case is mentioned several times in the Hebrew Bible, as deal the issue of inheritance in cases of sonless marriages. The daughters inherited the estate...

...So, this inheritance-by-marriage principle is well-established from the Hebrew Bible.

What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, that the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal and kinship standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. .




So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J).