Jesus being traced back to David

[WillHDearborn]

As a new member of the Christian faith I have just recently started to read the Bible for daily insparation. I find that it gives me good advice and helps me build a better relationship with Jesus. I do have a question that I hope some one could shed some light on or give me some references to look up.
Here is my question:
In the begaining of Matthew they give the line from David down to Jesus through Joseph but being that Jesus is the son of God and of a virgin birth shouldn't it be traced down through Mary?

 

[cubinity]

In the begaining of Matthew they give the line from David down to Jesus through Joseph but being that Jesus is the son of God and of a virgin birth shouldn't it be traced down through Mary?

I'm sure people will add more details, but off the top of my head I'll say this:

Messiah was expected to be both a priest and a king. Through Mary he is in a line of priests (see another Gospel's genealogy), and through Joseph he is in a line of kings.

Though Joseph is not seen as his biological father, he is accepted as his legal father, so all of the responsibilities, blessings and inherences are acceptably passed from Joseph to Jesus as if he were his first born son.

Therefore, the lineage from David to Jesus through Joseph is still significant for the Gospel's argument that he is Messiah.

 

[WillHDearborn]

I'm sure people will add more details, but off the top of my head I'll say this:

Though Joseph is not seen as his biological father, he is accepted as his legal father, so all of the responsibilities, blessings and inherences are acceptably passed from Joseph to Jesus as if he were his first born son.

When you say legal do you mean legal in the eyes of God, as in God made Jesus Joseph legal son, or legal as in accordence to human law legal? If its the ladder of the two then Jesus isn't a blood relative and shares no direct line to David.

 

[cubinity]

When I wrote legal, I was referring to the legal and cultural expectations of the author's audience. Jesus may not have a biological connection to David, but that doesn't matter in Matthew's argument. He has a familial connection as Joseph's "adopted" son.

Therefore, the birthright into the tribe of Judah is rightfully his in the audience's eyes. Jesus did not need to be blood related to claim the ancestry of Judah, he only needed to be Joseph's son, which he was in the same way Gentiles are God's sons.

 

[genifer]

In addition to all that, I would say that he can claim direct relations according to the fact that HE was the creator of the said tribe and David's Lord, Creator, etc.

 

[cubinity]

In addition to all that, I would say that he can claim direct relations according to the fact that HE was the creator of the said tribe and David's Lord, Creator, etc.

You could say that if you believe it, but it still wouldn't answer the question. The post is about why Matthew records a genealogy through Joseph's line to Judah. If he were just going to argue that Jesus created the kingly line of Judah so he can claim it as his own, then why bother writing genealogies at all?

 

[prodromos]

Mary is also a descendant of David, the bible just doesn't give the mother's genealogy because the inheritance is always passes on from the father to the heir.

 

[cubinity]

Mary is also a descendant of David, the bible just doesn't give the mother's genealogy because the inheritance is always passes on from the father to the heir.

Actually, Luke records the genealogy of Mary.

What is you source for the inheritance being strictly patriarchal?

 

[prodromos]

Actually, Luke records the genealogy of Mary.

No, they are both of Joseph. Joseph's fathers were brothers sharing the same mother but of different fathers, one descended from David via Solomon and the other via Nathan. When one brother died childless, his brother raised up seed for him in accordance with the law.

 

[cubinity]

No, they are both of Joseph.

Right. Thanks. My mistake. That's why I love this site!