Was Mary a descendant of David?

[ProphetMark]

Does the bible give a genealogy of Jesus through Mary's line of ancestors?
The messiah was supposed to be a descendant of David wasn't he? Matthew 1 and Luke 3 only give the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph's line. But if Joseph wasn't actually the Father of Jesus, then Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant isn't it?

 

[heather]

Here's what I found.
Luke 3:23-38
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[a] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

So, this should help explain it.

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary’s genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38 . Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:

“Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says “son of Heliâ€Â] should be understood to mean “son-in-law of Heli.†Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word “son†is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either “son†or “son-in-law†in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of Davidâ€â€Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon’s line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah’s sin†[Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender’s Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).].

 

[one_lost_coin]

The short answer is "no" neither genealogy is through Mary but instead Joseph just as is written in the bible.

That however does not mean Mary is not a descendant of David.

Third difficulty
How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

full article can be read here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

St. Ignatius writes - "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost."

I find this most interesting because St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch was an actual disciple of the Apostle John who as we all know took care of Mary after Jesus Ascension.

 

[tim-from-pa]

There are no shortage of posts in the past on this forum and other forums regarding the genealogy of Jesus, and the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Your question is actually related to this subject.

Yes, Mary was directly related to King David and her genealogy is that of Luke. The supposed 'contradiction' arises when a skeptic sees two genealogies with Joseph in both. careful reading of the two demonstrates that Matthews genealogy is the actual royal genealogy (the rightful lineage) but no blood Messiah could have that lineage due to King Coniah's curse. This in itself gets studies of multiple linages of the Kings of Judah (and the bible actually prophesied that this breach would occur in Genesis--- not a whim of God).

Then, if we read Luke's genealogy we can see that Joseph is not really in that genealogy at all if we consider the red comments that I used to explain it:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, [Jesus}being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which [i.e. Jesus] was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat.

In other words, the King James funny language was effectively saying, "Jesus was the supposed son of Joseph, but was the son of Heli". The "which" in the KJV is not referring to Joseph, but to Jesus. Notice that Joseph's relation to Jesus was parenthetical, but the rest of the genealogy is directly from each son tracing their father. Since the writer wanted to trace the male lineage, it was proper to call Jesus the "son of Heli" even though he was his grandson.

There are other lineages, including the one I have on my site in my signature that traces the Kings of Judah. This is important to know and interpret correctly since Kingdoms depended on one proving their origin.

Also little known is that Jesus will ultimately come to be King, on earth as it is in heaven. Most people look at the bible from a personal relationship and spiritual perspective without realizing that the basic theme of the bible is a severe conflict between two kingdoms throughout the ages. Therefore, it directly involves nations and peoples and myriads of supernatural beings, and what is colloquially called "politics".

 

[stranger]

tim_from_pa wrote:

Yes, Mary was directly related to King David and her genealogy is that of Luke. The supposed 'contradiction' arises when a skeptic sees two genealogies with Joseph in both. careful reading of the two demonstrates that Matthews genealogy is the actual royal genealogy (the rightful lineage) but no blood Messiah could have that lineage due to King Coniah's curse. This in itself gets studies of multiple linages of the Kings of Judah (and the bible actually prophesied that this breach would occur in Genesis--- not a whim of God).

Interesting post (all of it) and I commend you for it. Do you know if the curse from Joseph's lineage leaves him without an heir to the throne or without descendants?

 

[tim-from-pa]

Interesting post (all of it) and I commend you for it. Do you know if the curse from Joseph's lineage leaves him without an heir to the throne or without descendants?

By the word "his", I'm not sure if you mean Joseph or King David.

If it's the former, then descendants of Joseph are not by the flesh qualified in God's eyes to take the throne, even though that was the legal lineage. If more Christians knew this, books like Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" would not be so threatening to their faith because God would not use such a descendant. Of course they do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and such a curse does not matter to them, although I think it shows some ignorance of scripture (or downright disregard).

Jesus was known as "the branch" and as such justified an alternate branch (in this case thru David's son Nathan). This way Jesus had a legal tie to the breached line of Coniah, but being from another bloodline of David could repair the breach. In other words, one could say that Jesus' legal lineage to Joseph entitled him from man's perspective to ascend to the throne, but the alternate lineage allowed Jesus to be the repairer of the breach. This way he was both David's legal son and blood son.

As for King David, I believe there are many other lineages alive and well today, some ruling, thus fulfilling the promise that David will never lack a man to reign until Messiah is given the throne. This occurred thru King Zedekiah and His daughters but that is another mundane lineage.