38
If the miraculous conception be true the Davidic descent could only be through Mary. Was Mary descended from David?
“We are wholly ignorant of the name and occupation of St. Mary’s parents. She was, like Joseph, of the tribe of Judah, and of the lineage of David ([Ps. cxxxii, 11]; [Luke i, 32]; [Rom. i, 3]).”—Smith’s Bible Dictionary.
Three passages are cited in support of this claim:
1. “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it. Of the fruit of thy body will I sit upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne forevermore” ([Ps. cxxxii, 11, 12]).
2. “He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” ([Luke i, 32]).
3. “Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” ([Rom. i, 3]).
The second and third passages do not refer to Mary; the first passage refers neither to Jesus nor Mary. There is no evidence to prove that Mary was descended from David. On the contrary there is evidence to prove that she was not descended from him.
1. “The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city in Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” ([Luke i, 27]). Joseph, and not Mary is declared to be of the house of David.
2. It is stated that Joseph went to Bethlehem “to be taxed with Mary,” not because they, but “because he was of the house and lineage of David” ([Luke ii, 4, 5]).
3. Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth ([Luke i, 3]), and Elizabeth “was of the daughters of Aaron” ([i, 5]), i. e., descended from Levi, while the house of David was descended from Judah.
This desperate, yet ineffectual, effort to establish the Davidic descent of Mary is virtually an abandonment of the genealogical tables of Matthew and Luke, and a falling back upon this pitiable argumentum in circulo: Mary was descended from David because the Messiah was to be descended from David, and Jesus was the Messiah because Mary was descended from David.
These genealogies do not give the lineage of Mary who is said to have been his only earthly parent, but the lineage of Joseph who, it is claimed, was not his father. But if Joseph was not the father of Jesus, what is the use of giving his pedigree? If Joseph was not the father of Jesus how does proving that he was descended from David prove that Jesus was descended from David? If these genealogies run through Joseph to Jesus, as stated by Matthew and Luke, then Joseph must have been the father of Jesus; and if he was the father of Jesus the story of the miraculous conception is false.
The Synoptics, as we have seen, are for the most part, mere compilations, made up of preexisting documents. These documents belonged to different ages of the primitive church. In the first ages of the church Christians believed that Jesus was simply a man—the son of Joseph and Mary. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, which trace his descent from David through Joseph, belonged to this age. The story of the miraculous conception was the product of a later age.
If the dogma of the miraculous conception be true, if God, and not Joseph, was the father of Jesus as taught, these genealogies, being genealogies of Joseph, fail to prove what they are intended to prove, the royal descent of Jesus from David. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke and their accounts of the miraculous conception mutually exclude each other.