Davidic Lineage through Solomon

Royal Lineage had to be through King Solomon not Nathan

The primary and foremost criteria for Jesus to qualify as the Messiah is that he be a descendant of king David with Solomon, David’s son in the lineage.

If Jesus’ lineage were through the David’s son Nathan he would be have been disqualified to be the Messiah, king of the Jews. According to messianic prophecy, Solomon must be in the lineage of the Messiah — whether the genealogy in Luke belongs to Mary or Joseph is really a mute point. The important genealogy is the one in Matthew, which is indisputably of Joseph. When the word “begat” is used there, it is without a doubt that the it is a physical lineage:

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Mat 1:16)

Opinion: A correct translation would have been — which would also continue the style as it was from the beginning:

And Jacob begat Joseph; and Joseph begat Jesus, who is called Messiah, born of Mary.

(that is, assuming that Christ actually meant Messiah in Greek at the time.)

The messianic prophecy in 2 Samuel is obviously alluding to the Messiah. God uses the same wording to show that the lineage of the eternal throne of David starts with Solomon — not of Nathan

The genealogy in Matthew, which is obviously and indisputably of Joseph, is the one that has Solomon in the lineage. Comparing the following passages it is easy to see that Solomon has to be in the Messiah’s lineage:

Mary’s lineage is not the one in Luke

Fundamentalists claim that the royal bloodline had to be through Mary since Jesus’ had no earthly father and the genealogy in Luke is hers. However, this genealogy does not say it was Mary’s, but it literally does say it’s Joseph’s.

They also claim that this genealogy is hers because Heli was her father. The motive behind this is to try to prove that though Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus and the royal bloodline came through her lineage.

However, this is not the case, since there is absolutely no proof in the bible that the lineage in Luke is of Mary. Royal lineage was never traced through any lineage but the father’s, and every other genealogy in the Bible is traced through the lineage of fathers and sons, since this was a very patriarchal society. Never was a king’s genealogy traced through Mothers.

Moreover, the lineage of the Messiah had to come through Solomon and not Nathan as is in the case of the genealogy in Luke — even if it could be proven that it belongs to Mary, which is impossible, especially since it literally says: “Jesus… being… the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli”, even if he was a “step son”.

The True Story of Mary’s Birth

According to James, the brother of Jesus, in the gospel written by Matthew, “The Gospel of the Birth of Mary”, her parents were Joachim and Ana. Joseph was Heli’s step son by Levirite marriage. Zachariah and Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, were Levites which makes Mary a Levite on her mother’s side.

According to the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, (before it was altered) “Mary her self was not of the tribe of Judah but of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim” — and priests were of the tribe of Levi. In the Catholic tradition:

“Tradition has it that St. Joachim was a retired Priest and Holy man of his time. (http://www.newmanministry.com/saints/saint-joachim)

Mary was a Levite, not of the tribe of Judah

In the primitive ages there was a Gospel extant bearing this name, attributed to St. Matthew, and received as genuine and authentic by several of the ancient Christian sects. It is to be found in the works of Jerome, a Father of the Church, who flourished in the fourth century, from whence the present translation is made. His contemporaries, Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, and Austin, also mention a Gospel under this title. (Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob05.htm)

What this is saying is that there were copies of the “Gospel or the Birth of Mary” that were in circulation that were different than Jerome’s copies. They were genuine and authentic according to several of the ancient Christian sects, and were “ancient” manuscripts. In other words, they were older than Jerome’s copies and more accurate. It speaks of Jerome: “from whence the present translation is made”, which seems to indicate that it was by his hand the copies were altered.

This Gospel (before it was altered) contained the phrase, “her father being a priest of the name of Joachim”. This means that both Mary’s mother, who we already know was a Levite since her cousin also was a Levite, and her father also was a Levite since he was a priest. Or her father could have been the brother of Elisabeth, which would make Anna a Levite also, since the priesthood could only come from the Tribe of Levi and priests were only allowed to marry Levite women.

This makes Mary a full-blooded Levite and NOT an heir to the royal lineage of David, which the Messiah needed to qualify for the throne. Therefore, if Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, then Jesus would be disqualified from being the Messiah.

However, for Jesus to qualify for the royal kingship he had to be a flesh and blood descendant from the lineage of David through his son Solomon. The lineage of kingship was always passed to a son through the father according to Jewish law and never through the mother.

Why the Gospel of the Birth of Mary was corrupted

It is for obvious reasons that This Gospel was altered — so that it would be in harmony with the doctrine of the church that Mary was of the royal lineage of David and was born of a virgin. This is how the original read:

the virgin was of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim.                

And the original was replaced with this:

THE blessed and ever glorious Virgin Mary, sprung from the royal race and family of David.            

It even has that familiar smack of the Catholic church: “blessed and ever glorious”. All we have today is a translation from the Greek from the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries. The originals, which we know did in fact exist, are “lost” (or destroyed) as are all the rest of the original uncorrupted autographs (original writings) of the words of Jesus and his disciples.

However, by the sixth century many people had already read the original copy of this Gospel originally written by the hand of Matthew (in Aramaic), before it was altered by Jerome, and was very popular. So the only thing the church could do was to declare it apocryphal. This left the church with no history of Mary’s background, so they invented the story that the genealogy in Luke was Mary’s and not of Joseph since it is indisputably that the genealogy in Matthew is of Joseph.

Faustus, bishop of Riez, cites this same gospel concerning the parentage of Mary. But the apocryphal gospel, ‘The Birth of Mary,’ still extant, is of a totally different character (https://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/gar/gar33.htm) according to the Gospel he [Faustus] cited, the Virgin herself was not of this tribe [of Judah], but of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim. (https://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/mary.htm)

For those who don’t know about Jewish history, a man could be a priest ONLY if he were from the tribe of Levi and a Levite priest could ONLY marry a Levite woman. We know that Mary was the cousin of Elisabeth that we know from the gospels that she was a Levite. So that makes Mary’s mother, Anna, a Levite woman. And if Joachim, Mary’s father were a Levite priest, it would only be logical that he would marry Anna, being a Levite woman. Therefore, Mary was a full-blooded Levite woman from both her father and mother’s sides. (there is no indication that Joachim was a descendant of King David and King Solomon)

The Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus (Heb 3:1)

Though Jesus doesn’t get his kingly heritage through Mary, he gets something almost as important, that he doesn’t inherit through the lineage of Joseph — the priesthood of the Levites and his Jewishness. One thing that many people don’t know is about Jesus that, besides being a king, prophet and messiah, was also a high priest.

So, though Jesus was of the Levite priesthood through Mary’s lineage, he had to have gotten his royal kingship lineage through Joseph — his biological father. In reality what this makes Jesus is a ‘pure thoroughbred’ of the priesthood through the Levitical tribe and a pure thoroughbred of the Royal kingship through David, if we look at the facts. Then what is revealed is that the story concerning Mary’s virginity before her first birth becomes obviously a forgery.

Why are there two lineages of Joseph if one of them is not Mary’s?

The question arises, “Why is there two lineages of Joseph if one of them is not Mary’s?” The answer to that is because when Jacob, Joseph’s biological father died, Heli, Jacob’s brother, married Joseph’s mother and she gave birth to Joseph — it’s called a Levirite marriage. (That is… providing that the stories and the genealogies were not fabrications of church men in later centuries.)

Mary wasn’t the Eternal Virgin the Catholic Church claims.

Now some say Joseph already had children before he married Mary which would seem to justify the catholic doctrine of Mary being an eternal virgin, but there is no evidence to support this, especially since it says that “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son”, which means (if this not a forgery also) that he had sexual relations with her after her son was born. Moreover the angel told Joseph, “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife“. What’s more is Mary’s children are named:

Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Mat 13:55)

According to the Gospel of the Nazirenes Joseph was Jesus’ Biological Father

And in the same day the angel Gabriel appeared unto Joseph in a dream and said unto him, Hail, Joseph, thou that art highly favoured, for the Fatherhood of God is with thee. Blessed art thou among men and blessed be the fruit of thy loins.

And as Joseph thought upon these words he was troubled, and the angel of the Lord said unto him,

Fear not, Joseph, thou Son of David, for thou hast found favor with God, and behold thou shalt beget a child [not the “Holy Spirit”], and thou shalt call his name Jesus (correctly translated: Yeshua) for he shall save his people from their sins. (Yeshua means salvation in Hebrew)

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel had bidden him, and went in unto Mary [had intimate relations], his espoused bride, and she conceived in her womb the Holy One. (Gospel of the Nazarenes 1:9,10,12)

Very first Gospel knows Joseph as Jesus’ biological father The Jewish Christians used only what they called the gospel of Mathew, which is more commonly known as the Gospel of the Hebrews originally written in Hebrew. It is believed to be the very first gospel written around 40 BC.

They did not accept the epistles of Paul as inspired of God nor the gospels that had been altered by the Greeks. The Gospel of the Hebrews began with the story of the baptism of Jesus and had no mention of the virgin birth or any of the genealogies as exist in the canonized gospels Matthew and Luke. The majority of the Jewish Christians did not believe in the virgin birth and it was common knowledge that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus]:

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (Jn 1:45)

They knew Jesus to be the biological son of Joseph since he was a direct descendant of Solomon, the Son of David of whom the prophecy of the Messiah was given.

The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY

This gospel, though it is considered to be authentic by several ancient Christian sects to be true of Mary’s life, has parts of it that has been corrupted. Jerome, a church father of the fourth century, made translations of this gospel.

Other church fathers such as Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, and Austin, also mention this gospel in their writings. However, a bishop named Faustus, said that ancient copies were different than those translated by Jerome. Faustus writes that the “Virgin” was not of the tribe of Judah, but of the tribe of Levi. The most recent copies of this gospel state:

THE blessed and ever glorious Virgin Mary, sprung from the royal race and family of David, was born in the city of Nazareth, and educated at Jerusalem, in the temple of the Lord. (Birth of Mary 1:1)

Reasons that the first verse of this gospel is forgery:

1. “THE blessed and ever glorious Virgin Mary”, besides the “Virgin Mary” being worshiped by the Catholics, this obviously smacks of Catholic style talk.

2. “…born in the city of Nazareth”, is trying to convince the reader Mary was of the tribe of Judah, being born in Nazareth. However, the gospel according to Matthew states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

3. “…the royal race and family of David”.

   • the genealogy in Luke is not the “royal” lineage;
   • though the genealogy in Luke leads back to King David, it is not the lineage that contains King Solomon, who is of the royal lineage.

4. “…educated at Jerusalem, in the temple of the Lord”: only Levite girls could be educated in the Temple. Her mother Anna was the sister of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, who we know from scripture was a Levite:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5)

5. Faustus referred to a Gospel in which states that “the Virgin herself was not of this tribe, but of the tribe of Levi; her father being a priest of the name of Joachim”. Not only does he state that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, but also that her father was a priest. Priests only came from the tribe of Levi and they were allowed to only marry a Levite woman.

6. This means that both Mary’s parents were Levites, which makes Mary a Levite. (Again, unless a man of the Tribe of Judah could become a priest — however there is no indication that Joachim was a descendant of King David and King Solomon)

The Gospel of the Birth of Mary was corrupted to make it look like Mary was of the  tribe of Judah, but the corrupter doesn’t take into account other factors that contradict his falsehood. The obvious reason was to make it look like Mary could have been a descendant of King David, making it possible for the genealogy in Luke to be Mary’s.

The reason for this is obvious: if Jesus’ genealogy were through Joseph, then Mary could not have been a virgin — contradicting the virgin birth forgery in Matthew and Luke. But since Mary was a Levite, it is impossible that she was a descendant of the genealogy in Luke.

Next: Who Was Jesus Part 1 | Joseph The Biological Father of Jesus