No detailed analysis of
the matter will be attempted here; but it should be borne in mind that
the consensus of judgment on the part of investigators is that Matthew's
account is that of the royal lineage, establishing the order of sequence
among the legal successors to the throne of David, while the account
given by Luke is a personal pedigree, demonstrating descent from David
without adherence to the line of legal succession to the throne through
primogeniture or nearness of kin.[212] Luke's record is regarded by
many, however, as the pedigree of Mary, while Matthew's is accepted as
that of Joseph. The all important fact to be remembered is that the
Child promised by Gabriel to Mary, the virginal bride of Joseph, would
be born in the royal line. A personal genealogy of Joseph was
essentially that of Mary also, for they were cousins. Joseph is named as
son of Jacob by Matthew, and as son of Heli by Luke; but Jacob and Heli
were brothers, and it appears that one of the two was the father of
Joseph and the other the father of Mary and therefore father-in-law to
Joseph. That Mary was of Davidic descent is plainly set forth in many
scriptures; for since Jesus was to be born of Mary, yet was not begotten
by Joseph, who was the reputed, and, according to the law of the Jews,
the legal, father, the blood of David's posterity was given to the body
of Jesus through Mary alone. Our Lord, though repeatedly addressed as
Son of David, never repudiated the title but accepted it as rightly
applied to Himself.[213] Apostolic testimony stands in positive
assertion of the royal heirship of Christ through earthly lineage, as
witness the affirmation of Paul, the scholarly Pharisee: "Concerning his
Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according
to the flesh;" and again: "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of
David was raised from the dead."[214]

In all the persecutions waged by His implacable haters, in all the false
accusations brought against Him, in the specific charges of sacrilege
and blasphemy based on His acknowledgment of the Messiahship as His own,
no mention is found of even an insinuation that He could not be the
Christ through any ineligibility based on lineage. Genealogy was
assiduously cared for by the Jews before, during, and after the time of
Christ; indeed their national history was largely genealogical record;
and any possibility of denying the Christ because of unattested descent
would hav