|Matt's genealogy is not Jesus' bloodline|
The standard apologist answer is that Jesus was adopted into Joeph's line as his adopted son. Skeptics are quite to argue that the throne could not be passed on through adoption. As a counter Glenn Miller uses the Laverite marriage, an OT provision that allowed for a woamn to marry her brother-in-law or other close realize of non blood connection if her husband was killed. While this may prove that Jesus could be adopted as Jo's son, it does nothing at all to prove that the throne could be passed on in this way. The thing is, I have yet to see anyone furnish evidence that the right to the throne could not be passed on through adoption. I've argued with some very knowledgeable Orthodox Jews and they never produced any kind of documentatin on this piont; no Talmud, no scripture from Torah, no Tenaoch no nothing. While I do not have evdience that specifically applies to the throne being passed on I do have evidence that all knids of leadership could be assed through adotion.
Ben Worthington III
The genealogy in Matthew 1 is a royal genealogy, and as such it has several features of such ancient genealogies. For one thing, it is schematized and does not include all the generations. For another, it reflects the Jewish practice that if a man adopted a son, then he was entitled to his stepfather's genealogy, even though he wasn't physically his offspring. In the case of Jesus, this meant when Joseph accept him as his son he was entitled to Joseph's genealogy. The author does not give us Mary's genealogy because we are dealing with a patriarchal Jewish culture, where the father's genealogy is all-important.
"challenging Jewish Anit-missioaries"
The Refiner's Fire.
Adoption: Adoption in Biblical times WAS an accepted practice. The Bible itself is proof of that. Please read the following from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary:
Greek: huiothesia, the "placing" as a "son". The admission of a person to some or all of the privileges of natural kinship. As the practice of adoption was confined almost exclusively to sons - the case of Esther being an exception - it probably had its origin in the natural desire for male offspring. This would be especially true where force, rather than well-observed laws, decided the possession of estates.
Hebrew: Abraham speaks of Eliezer (Gen 15:3), a house-born slave, as his heir, having probably adopted him as his son. Jacob adopted his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh, and counted them as his sons (48:6), thus enabling him to bestow through them a double portion upon his favorite son, Joseph. Sometimes a man without a son would marry his daughter to a freed slave, the children then being accounted her father's; or the husband himself would be adopted as a son (1 Chron 2:34).
Most of the early instances of adoption mentioned in the Bible were the acts of women who, because of barrenness, gave their female slaves to their husbands with the intention of adopting any children they might have. Thus Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, and the son (Ishmael) was considered the child of Abraham and Sarah (Gen 16:1-15). The childless Rachel gave her maid, Bilhah, to her husband (30:1-7) and was imitated by Leah (30:9-13). In such cases the sons were regarded as fully equal in the right of heritage with those by the legitimate wife. (From The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)
ADOPTION: The taking of one as a son who is not so by birth. (I) Natural: As Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses; Mordecai Esther; Abraham Eliezer (as a slave is often in the East adopted as son) (Gen 15:2-3); Sarai the son to be born by Hagar, whom she gave to her husband; Leah and Rachel the children to be born of Zilpah and Bilhah, their handmaids respectively, whom they gave to Jacob their husband.
The handmaid at the birth brought forth the child on the knees of the adoptive mother (Gen 30:3); an act representative of the complete appropriation of the sons as equal in rights to those by the legitimate wife. Jacob adopted as his own Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, on the same footing as Reuben and Simeon, his two elder sons (Gen 48:5). Thereby he was able to give Joseph his favorite son more than his single share, with his brothers, of the paternal heritage.
The tribes thus were 13, only that Levi had no land division; or Ephraim and Manasseh were regarded as two halves making up but one whole tribe. In 1 Chron 2 Machir gives his daughter to Hezron of Judah; she bore Segub, father of Jair. Jair inherited 23 cities of Gilead in right of his grandmother. Though of Judah by his grandfather, he is (Num 32:41) counted as of Manasseh on account of his inheritance through his grandmother. So Mary, being daughter of Heli, and Joseph her husband being adopted by him on marrying his daughter, an heiress (as appears from her going to Bethlehem to be registered in her pregnancy), Joseph is called in Luke's genealogy son of Heli. (From Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft)
Of course there is a simpler answer than even adoption. Both Geneaologies suggest that Joseph was thought to be Jesus' father. If he just claimed Jesus as his son, he would not have to say "O he's not the product of a virigin birht, I really did sire him." All he had to do was say "He's my son." No one would ever challenge. Even thsoe who suspected that there might be more to it than just Joseph is the father, would never say so, becasue they wuold assume he was being noble. Skpetics have argued againt this idea "O it's deception. It's founding the Messiah on a lie." Not at all. First, what is Jo suppossed to do, tell everyone, I"m sorry can't be Messiah becasue he's the product of a Virigin bith so I can't be the father?" Secondly, if God did bring about the Virginal conception isn't it pretty obvious that the problem with connection to the royal throne wouldn't borther God, otherwise why would he do the virigin birth bit? If God is willin to accept to accept Jesus as Messiah, who can say he isn't? As to the paternity of Jospeh, it's no one's business. He was under no obligation to expalin. All he had to do was act as though everything was normal and it would be taken so.
Looks as though Leadership, ownership, headship of the fmaily were passed through adotion, even though kinship to females!
|Curse on Line listed in Matthew|
Since this page on the curse is already part of the Messiah pages: find it here