Geneology of Mary

[Credo Catholic]

I have joined a Bible Study on Luke with a group of ladies at church.  It is based on the book written by Rosalund Moss.  At the beginning meeting we were discussing the "infancy narrative" and the geneology of Mary, and Joseph.  I said I have always heard that Mary and Joseph both were descended from the house of David, as prophesized.  Most of them agreed, except one lady made a good point.  Zachariah would have been a Levite, because he was a priest.  Elizabeth and Mary were cousins, or possible aunt and niece.  Could it be that Elizabeth, of the house of David, married Zachariah, a Levite?  Also, one lady said that Jewish geneology runs through the mother, hence during the Holocaust a person whose mother was Jewish was considered a Jew.  Thanks

[Talithacumi]

I can't speak about the issue of Zechariah being a Levite, but I've always heard that Mary and Joseph were both of the House of David, and I've also always been taught exactly the opposite of what that lady said about Jewish genealogy running through the mother's side. I've always been taught that it's the father's side that is important, and that is why Mary is not mentioned in Matthew's genaological list of Jesus' ancestors. And that is why it is Joseph's side that is focused upon. I remember reading or hearing somewhere that it made no difference that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. Jesus was accepted as his son, and that was what was important. Seems the Jews had a much higher regard for adoption than we do today. But one of The Davids, I'm sure, can speak more knowledgeably about this than I.

JMJ
- Cheri

[David W. Emery]

I too would dispute the lady’s assertion that all Jewish lines of descent are properly determined through the mother. In the bible, they are always determined through the father, whether by natural begetting or by legal convention (i.e., levirate marriage or especially adoption, as was the case with Joseph and Jesus).

The maternal genealogies, whose origins are in the halakha (rabbinic tradition), were used to determine who is a Jew by birth, rather than to which tribe a Jew belongs, and therefore have no bearing on the biblical question at hand. This is why, in the genealogies of Jesus Christ given in Matthew and Luke, we see fathers’ names given rather than mothers’ names. Actually, the only reason that a few women are even mentioned in the lists is to highlight their non-Jewish origin, which is a traditionally emphasized indication that the Gentiles will be heirs to the Kingdom of God along with the Jews.

As to the supposed prohibition concerning a Levite marrying a non-Levite: the exact wording is that “a widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he [the priest] shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people” (Leviticus 21:14). While it is true that “his own people” could be construed in a restricted sense as “Levite,” it is also true that it can be taken in a larger sense as “a believing and practicing Jew, one of God’s own people.” The context seems to support this, for it emphasizes the fitting and godly woman for a priest, who is holy to the Lord, and I would venture to say that it is in this same sense that Zechariah married Elizabeth.

Therefore, I would consider the lady’s objections to be a non-issue. Certainly Christian tradition says nothing about her supposed point, nor do any of the several biblical commentaries I consulted.

David