Was Mary a Levite or a Judahite?

By Eli James

 

Many Christian Identity believers have written to me expressing the opinion that Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, was not of the tribe of Judah but was a descendant of the Tribe of Levi. In this paper, I am going to do my best to counter this opinion and show the Biblical reasons why it is unsound. Although most of those who have expressed this opinion are concerned Christian Identity adherents, there are also those who wish to throw a monkey wrench into the works of Christianity by suggesting the idea that Jesus was NOT of the House of David, and therefore, not a Judahite.

But if Mary was indeed a Levite, then there would be a problem with the prophecy that the Messiah would be of the House of Judah, seed of David. Let's take a look at what the Good Book tells us in Matthew 1:1:

"A genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham"

Here is listed the statement by Matthew that Jesus is, indeed, the son of David. Christ's genealogy is given in a forward historical direction, starting from Abraham and ending with Jesus. Now, of course, this statement alone does not solve our problem because we need two or three witnesses.

The Gospel of Luke also lists Jesus Christ's genealogy, but in a backwards order, from Jesus all the way back to Yahweh, our Father:

"When he started to teach, Jesus was about thirty years old, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, son of Levi, son of David, son of Judah, son of Adam, son of God." - Chapter 3, Verse 23-38.

(Note that in the above quotation, the man, Levi, is mentioned. It is not mentioned whether he is a member of the Levitical priesthood or of the tribe of Levi. He is simply mentioned as Joseph's great-grandfather.)

But since Jesus Christ's true father was the Holy Spirit, not Joseph, then we must concentrate on Mary's lineage in order to show that Jesus was, in fact, a Judahite. If Mary is not a Judahite, then Christianity has a problem. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this question. Going back to Matthew, we have this list of patriarchs:

"Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob; and Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called Christ." -- Verse 15 & 16.

Since these lists do not contain the same names, many critics of Scripture have claimed that this is one of the famous instances where the Bible seems to contradict itself; but I do not think so. I think what the New Testament has recorded for us is the separate genealogies of Joseph and Mary, with Matthew giving us Joseph's descent and Luke giving us Mary's line of descent. The important fact is that BOTH are of the house of David and Judah.

In Old Testament times (and the days of the Messiah were not different in this regard), the wife was considered the property of the husband. This custom led to certain idiomatic expressions which are very confusing to those who are not aware of the idiomatic nature of much of the Bible's language. A great example is the story where Noah curses his grandson, Canaan, for a sin committed by his son, Ham. The sin committed by Ham is described as "Ham saw the nakedness of his father." The reality is that the idiomatic expression, "nakedness of the father," can also be a reference to the nakedness of the wife because she is his property. Therefore, many Bible scholars interpret this story as being a case of incest in which Ham must have had sexual relations with his mother while both Noah and his wife were in a drunken stupor, presumably celebrating the landing of the Ark.

This is why Noah cursed Canaan, not Ham, because Canaan was quite likely the product of incest! Without the knowledge of the idiomatic nature of Biblical Hebrew, this idea is not likely to occur to anyone and the whole incident is a mystery. The same type of idiomatic interpretation probably applies to Luke 24 which says that Joseph was the son of Heli, but here we have to take the meaning as son-in-law. The reason for this is that the two genealogies are different and because Matthew expressly identifies Joseph as the husband of Mary, thus giving us the clue that Matthew gives Joseph's side of the family and Luke gives us Mary's side of the family. Since the custom was always to give the genealogy through the father [Jews take note: NOT through the mother!], Joseph is mentioned in both cases.

The Bible is not contradicting itself. It is simply giving us the two different lines of descent of the two parents. Note, however, that, either way, whichever genealogy you choose, Jesus is of Judah and of David, so the claim that Mary is not a descendant of the tribe of Judah and merely of the tribe of Levi just does not stand.

In addition, it is a matter of historical fact that the Tribe of Levi was set apart and not to be considered a distinct tribe anymore:

"Yahweh then set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of Yahweh's covenant, to stand in the presence of Yahweh, to do him service and in his name to pronounce blessing as they still do today [whenever this verse was written!]. Levi therefore has no share or inheritance with his brothers: Yahweh is his inheritance, as Yahweh your God told him." -- Deut. 10:8,9.

The Levitical priests were to get their wives from the other tribes, so that the Tribe of Levi would no longer exist as a distinct tribe.

Joshua 13:14 repeats this testimony.

"To the tribe of Levi alone was no inheritance given."

From this standpoint, it is impossible for Mary to be a Levite because the tribe of Levi ceased to exist as a distinct tribe during the forty years wandering in the desert. Yahweh gave them a special mission and they obeyed that part of the mission, about 1400 years before Mary was born.

In short, the Tribe of Levi was absorbed into the other tribes and was no longer considered a distinct tribe. During the time of Christ, the expression, "the sons of Levi," could only be a reference to the Levitical Priesthood, not the tribe of Levi. By this time, this priesthood had the blood of all twelve tribes in its veins. None of this disqualifies either Joseph or Mary from their claim to being of the House of Judah through David. All it means is that they might each carry the genetic material of an original Levite in addition to the genetic material of David himself. This fact would make Jesus qualify all the more for His role as Priest, King and Kinsman Redeemer.

Praise Yah!