Were both of Jesus' parents descendants of King David?

Answer 1

Yes. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke confirm that Jesus came through that family line of King David. (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) Though Jesus had many bitter enemies, none of them challenged his well-publicized line of descent. (Matthew 21:9, 15) Clearly, then, his lineage is beyond question.

Answer 2

No He didn't. He knew that He was, just as other people know their genealogy. If later people call it into question that is their problem. Jesus knew where He was from both in a human and a divine sense.

He did not according to Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 & Luke 20:41-44." If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"

The three passages mentioned above are parallel passages which say virtually the same thing. The one from Luke is below:

Luke 20:41-4441And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

42And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

43Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Firstly, it is important to realize that Jesus actually says nothing at all in this discussion about what He thinks or knows or believes about Himself. It is clear that He is asking His opponents a question about what is in the scriptures to bring their attention to an interesting point.

Secondly, what is interesting is the particular point which is obvious about the implications of what was said in the Old Testament scripture to which Jesus is here referring (Psalm 110:1). What is obvious is that David called his descendant 'Lord'. This is a clear reference to David's descendant Jesus Christ who is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Thirdly, the fact that the scribes could not Him means absolutely nothing about Jesus' own belief about Himself but it means a lot about what the scribes knew or did not know about Him and His identity. It also shows that they were ignorant of the scriptures which talked about Jesus.

Fourthly, it could be concluded from this discussion that Jesus had no problem with His own identity but He was interested to know what others thought and interested to challenge them to consider what the word of God, the God they professed to worship, also said in His word. This very word here spoke about Jesus Himself, the one to whom they were speaking.

Fifthly, in order to rightly understand scripture it is always important to read what it actually says and to read everything in context. Here the context is a discussion along the lines of a typical exchange between religious teachers or rabbis about a point of detail in scripture. The asking of questions was a regular part of such discussions.

The parallel passages from Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37 & Luke 20:41-44 actually speak about Jesus' own self understanding that He was both descended from David and that He was one who was greater than David.

Elsewhere Jesus is referred to by a number of others who addressed Him as 'Son of David'. Nowhere does He ever correct them for saying this, another clear indication of its correctness. see Matthew 12:23, Matthew 15:22, Matthew 20:30-31, Matthew 21:9,15, Mark 10:47-48, and Luke 18:38-39.

The genealogy of Christ from King David is given in Matthew chapter 1:-

Mat 1:1 [Good News Bible] This is the list of the ancestors of Jesus Christ, a descendant of David, who was a descendant of Abraham.

Mat 1:2 From Abraham to King David, the following ancestors are listed: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and his brothers; then Perez and Zerah (their mother was Tamar), Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (his mother was Rahab), Obed (his mother was Ruth), Jesse, and King David.

Mat 1:3-6 (SEE Mat 1:2)

Mat 1:7 From David to the time when the people of Israel were taken into exile in Babylon, the following ancestors are listed: David, Solomon (his mother was the woman who had been Uriah's wife), Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, and Jehoiachin and his brothers.

Mat 1:8-11 (SEE Mat 1:7)

Mat 1:12 From the time after the exile in Babylon to the birth of Jesus, the following ancestors are listed: Jehoiachin, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, and Joseph, who married Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was called the Messiah.

Mat 1:13-16 (SEE Mat 1:12)

Mat 1:17 So then, there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, and fourteen from David to the exile in Babylon, and fourteen from then to the birth of the Messiah.

The Jews took their genealogies very, very seriously; when Christ said He was descended from David you could absolutely guarantee that the Pharisees would have checked out the genealogy of Christ very closely, and if there had been anything wrong they would have trumpeted it to the world. In fact, His genealogy would have already been checked and then remembered from soon after His birth when the wise men from the east came to Herod seeking Him. Herod was rightly terrified: he was a usurper king who was not even entitled to sit on the throne of David because he was not one of his descendants, he was not even Jewish (he was Idumaean), and here was Someone fully entitled to claim Herod's throne because of birth!

Mat 2:1-3 MSG After Jesus was born in Bethlehem village, Judah territory--this was during Herod's kingship--a band of scholars arrived in Jerusalem from the East. [v. 2] They asked around, "Where can we find and pay homage to the newborn King of the Jews? We observed a star in the eastern sky that signaled his birth. We're on pilgrimage to worship him." [v. 3] When word of their inquiry got to Herod, he was terrified--and not Herod alone, but most of Jerusalem as well.

The Pharisees never said Christ was not entitled to call Himself King: they knew it and recognized it , and put a sign saying He was king on the cross when He was crucified.

Mat 27:37-38 KJV And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. [v. 38] Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Answer 3

Another answer from our community:

The Bible says, of course, that Jesus was actually God's son, descended from God himself (Matthew 16:16), but legally he was physically born into the line of Kings, through Abraham, Judah, David, and both his parents, so that he could legally step into the position of King of God's Kingdom.(Genesis 49:10).

So, according to the flesh(Romans 1:1-4) (Matthew 1:1-16) gives us the genealogy from Joseph's side and(Luke 3:23-38) gives us the genealogy from Mary's side. (It is commonly believed that Heli was Mary's father--Jewish genealogy only being counted through the males-in this case, son-in-law)

Answer 4

Even if King David was a real, historical person, probably not. Matthew's Gospel provides a genealogy back through Joseph and his father Jacob to David, while Luke's Gospel provides a genealogy back through Joseph and his father Heli to David. Then both go and spoil it by saying that Mary was a virgin, in which case the genealogies have no bearing. Despite some attempts to claim that Luke's genealogy was really that of Mary, neither gospel tries to tell anything about Mary's ancestry. Perhaps the definitive critique of the two genealogies comes from Raymond E Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) when he says that neither genealogy is likely to be historically accurate.

Without any evidence that Jesus was a direct descendant of King David, there is no reason to suppose that he was.

Answer 5

Yes.

Matthew's genealogy shows that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon, while Luke's genealogy reveals that Mary was also a descendant of David through Nathan.

Matthew's genealogical account was significant to the Jews (for whom his gospel was specifically intended), because "birthright" was passed down from FATHER to SON, and Joseph was the "legal" father of Jesus, though not the "true." Thus, Joseph's lineage satisfies the Davidic aspect of Jesus' heritage according to Jewish law.

Jesus' literal descent from David "according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3) HAD to be through Mary's lineage (as Luke shows), since Jesus wasn't actually Joseph's offspring.

[Understanding Heli to be Mary's father (Luke 3:23) dispels the apparent contradictions between the two genealogies. Luke points out that people "supposed" Joseph to be the father of Jesus, then goes on to say, "the son of Heli…", but this should not be taken to mean that Heli was Joseph's father (whom Matthew identifies as Jacob); remember - this is Jesus' genealogy, not Joseph's. In jewish geneology, 'son of' can refer to both the direct son, the grandson, or even more remote descendence. Also, by levitical law, if a man's brother died he was to marry his widow and provide an heir in the name of his brother. Thus, there are "sons" in the jewish reckoning that under a different legal system might be termed nephews.]

The preservation of geneological records was of extreme importance to the jews, as impacting the political stability of their nation, the lineage of the future Messiah, status among families and tribes, who was eligible to serve in the temple or be appointed High priest, and to follow the commands of Yahweh. If a jew could not prove their genetic heritage, they were stripped of many rights as jewish citizens. For anyone to come forward claiming to be the Messiah, it would have to show in books of geneology his legal descent (royalty) and physical descent from King David, as well as prove his descendence from Abraham. This is the reason both Jesus's legal descent from King David on his father's side, and physical descent from his mother's, were so carefully presented in Mt 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-28.

Hebrew geneological records were kept very strictly; a man who could not prove his descent would have been excluded from the inner temple and restricted to the court of the gentiles. {leading to some unfortunate souls excluded from priveledges or lessening in status after the exile, being unable to prove their descent}. Not only is Jesus shown visiting the temple frequently in the gospels, but his half-brother James is a known historic figure for his prominent presence as a "just man" in the temples, he was even allowed into the holy of holies. The pharisees so well respected James that they placed him a top a temple to testify against his brother, since many jews were converting after Christ's ressurection, and asked that he tell the crowd to reject Jesus who had been cricufied. Instead, James declared that Jesus was the Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of the Most High, and would come again. The crowd responded "Hosannah to the son of David!" - just as they had the first time Jesus entered Jerusalem. [And James was pushed off the roof and killed for testifying].

In a society where any jew's geneology could be easily checked, devout jews of the 1st century accepted him as a descendent of David.

Another answer:

Yes.

"You will become pregnant and have a son, and you are to name Him Jesus. He will be very Great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the LORD God will give Him THE THRONE OF HIS ANCESTOR DAVID. And He will reign over Israel forever; His Kingdom will never end!" (Luke 1:31-33 NLT New Living Translation)

"For a child is born to us, a Son is given to us. And the Government will rest on His shoulders... His ever expanding, Peaceful Government will never end. He will rule forever with Fairness and Justice FROM THE THRONE OF HIS ANCESTOR DAVID. The passionate commitment of the LORD Almighty will guarantee this!" (Isa.9:6-7 NLT)

Answer 6

Mary was not directly related to King David; Joseph is. Matthew 1 shows the lineage of Jesus all the people from Abraham down to Joseph and Jesus.

AnswerThere is no way to know if Mary was descended from David. Christian tradition holds that her parents were called Joachim and Ann, and even this is uncertain as there is no biblical evidence. In any case, we do not know the ancestry of Joachim or Ann.

We do not even know the real ancestry of Joseph. Matthew's Gospel say that his father was called Jacob, but Luke's Gospel says that Joseph's father was called Heli. Some seek to resolve this by saying that the genealogy in Luke's Gospel was really intended to be that of Mary, but Raymond E Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that the text is clear - for Luke, Heli was the father of Joseph, not Mary.

Answer 7

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

Both Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel say that Joseph was descended from King David, following quite different versions of the same family line, but also that Mary was a virgin.

Matthew's Gospel says that King David was the ancestor of Joseph, and therefore at least nominally of Jesus. It says that Joseph's father was Jacob, adnd that the male line went back through the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, then the royal line to David. Matthew demonstrated (1:17) that there were 14 generations: from Abraham to David; from David to Josiah; from Josiah to Jesus. To do this, he had to ignore 3 kings in the Old Testament and have David in the preceding (as 14) and following (as 1) groups, but not so Josiah. The use of numerology was intended to show that Jesus was destined for greatness.

Luke's Gospel says that King David was the ancestor of Joseph, and therefore at least nominally of Jesus. It says that Joseph's father was Heli, and that the male line went back through the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, then a line of commoners to David. Luke had great men occur in multiples of 7 generations starting from Adam, with: Enoch at 7; Abraham at 21; David at 35; Jesus at 77. He also had: Joseph at 42 and 70; Jesus (Jose) at 49. To do this, he had to insert his own fictitious people into the Old Testament list: Kainan at 13; Admin at 28.

Answer 8

King David was from the tribe of Judah. Through the genealogies in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke3:23-38 we see that Jesus was born from the tribe of Judah. Matthew traces Jesus' legal claim to David's throne in Jerusalem through Joseph His step father. Luke traces Jesus blood line from David down to Heli who was the father of Mary, Jesus mother. In Luke's genealogy no women are mentioned, not even Mary. Heli was Joseph's father in law, making Heli Mary's father. Moses established this precedent for this type of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12.

Answer 9

Joseph It is even surprising to know the ancestors of Joseph. First of all, few even of the Jewish priests of the first century CE knew their ancestors back as far as 5 generations, and it is unlikely that any lay people could say who were their ancestors in the male line past their grandfathers or perhaps great-grandfathers.

There is some confusion because the Gospel According to St Matthew provides a genealogy back through Joseph and then through the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, to King David, but the Gospel According to St Luke also provides a genealogy back through Joseph and then through the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, to King David. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says while Luke's list may be less classically monarchical than Matthew's, there is little likelihood that either is strictly historical.

Mary

We do not know anything about the genealogy of Mary, so it would be impossible to answer this question in respect to Mary. Early Christians believed that Mary's father and mother were called Joachim and Anne, but they had no tradition linking Joachim and Anne back to King David. In modern times, some have suggested that the genealogy in Luke's Gospel is really that of Mary. However, Luke is quite clear - this genealogy is through Joseph, going back through Zorobabel to David.

Even if Luke meant 'Mary' when he said 'Joseph' in the genealogy he passed on to us, this would still not explain why Matthew gave Zorobabel's paternal grandfather as Jechonias, while Luke gave the same grandfather as Neri. A man can not have two paternal grandfathers.

It is necessary to understand that Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels in separate communities and each was entirely unaware of the work being performed by the other. So, they were unable to compare and harmonise their work, to assist future generations better understand the life of Jesus. We should, of course, not take the genealogies too literally - the two evangelists were simply doing the best they could with the information available.

Answer 10

The New Testament provides two genealogies for Jesus, one in Matthew chapter 1 and one in Luke chapter 3. They both trace back through Joseph and the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, to David, but apart from these important ancestors, they detail very different ancestries.

In Matthew, Joseph's father was called Jacob (just as the Old Testament Joseph's father was called Jacob), and he was descended from David through the royal line, then the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel. Matthew 1:17 tells us that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, from David to Josiah and from Jechonias to Jesus, demonstrating by means of numerology that Jesus was destined for greatness. To do this, he had to ignore 3 kings in the Old Testament and have David in the preceding (as 14) and following (as 1) groups, but not so Josiah. Then, we have no possible way of verifying Matthew's list of Jesus' ancestors from the time of the Exile.

In Luke, Joseph's father was called Heli. He was descended from David by a line of commoners, then the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel. It was, of course, necessary for Salathiel to have a different father, in order to follow a line of commoners back to David, so his father is called Neri. Luke has great men occur in multiples of 7 generations starting from Adam, with: Enoch at 7; Abraham at 21; David at 35; Jesus at 77. He also had other men called Joseph at 42 and 70. To do this, he had to insert his own fictitious people into the Old Testament list: Kainan at 13; Admin at 28. Once again, we have no possible way of verifying Luke's list of Jesus' ancestors after King David. Some Christians explain that Luke's genealogy is not of Joseph, but of Mary, although Luke 3:23 makes it very clear that this was indeed the family tree for Joseph.

Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that neither genealogy is likely to be literally true, in which case we may never know the ancestry of Jesus (or even of Joseph).