Article Index

Page 3 of 15

»The family lineage and name could not be passed on or inherited from the mother but only from the father«
The Bible is clear and unambiguous when it comes to the inheritance through which the inheritance of the family name and lineage was passed from father to son. The daughter could inherit property and land only if the father died without a son. In that case, she was only required to marry within her father's tribal lineage so that the inheritance would not be transferred to another tribe (see Numbers 36). Just as in that case, where the inheritance can pass to another tribe, that is, to her son who would be from another tribe by his father, so that biological son would be legally bound to his father and his lineage from another tribe, not to his mother's lineage, from which it originated. Hence,
  • the son is legally bound to his biological father.
By the law of God, the importance of the male 'seed' is emphasized in order to maintain connection with the family and tribal lineage. Namely, if an Israelite died without a male offspring, regardless of the fact that he might have a daughter, by God's law only his brother (or the closest relative from his father's family lineage) should marry his wife (Deuteronomy 25:5). It was a levirate marriage by which his brother extended his lineage with his 'seed' (son), and also the lineage of their common father, descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In essence, his brother legally bore the 'seed' of the same family lineage, not his daughter. If he had a daughter, she could only through her husband participate in the extension of another family lineage, not the lineage of her father. This means that Mary could not pass on the bloodline of her father to Jesus but only the bloodline of her husband Joseph and his seed. If a man did not have a son, his name would be deleted or 'blotted out' because we read:
"And the firstborn she bore (by his brother-in-law) should inherit the name of his dead brother, lest his name be removed from Israel." (Deuteronomy 25:5,6)
There was no alternative but a bridal marriage. There is no place in God’s law for an adopted son. There is no law in the Bible that would force anyone to take a woman who had a son and children with another man, except that the community needed to care for widows and orphans. If one were to take such a woman (widow) and adopt her children, her son would not be able to study in his stepfather's family tree but only his late biological father.
The proponents of the conception of Jesus (without the seed of Joseph) claim that in Israel the adopted son received all legal rights by his stepfather, as if he were the biological son. Interestingly, they cannot find any biblical or extra-biblical text to support this claim. Such hasty claims were made only to give Jesus the right to the royal lineage through Joseph, who allegedly adopted him as his son. However, this cannot be true because legal provisions prevented it, so that the biological son would get that right.
Namely, every Israelite passed on his name and lineage to his son. Suppose one of them got a son with his wife and died while his son was a child. If a man married that widow and accepted her son as his own, could her son legally inherit his stepfather's name and lineage? If he could, then that son should give up the name and lineage of his late biological father. Such a possibility would be a great burden to any married man who would be anxious not knowing what would happen if he died before his son came of age and his wife married another man. We do not have such a situation in the Bible because everything was regulated by the rule of God. Therefore, the adopted son could not take over and extend the lineage of his stepfather, nor could he be called by his name because he was related to the biological father. Thus, Moses could only inherit and extend the lineage of his biological father from the tribe of Levi, although he was adopted by an Egyptian woman.
In the Bible we have an example concerning the problem of inheritance that Abraham had.
"Abram answered, 'Ah, Lord, God, what can you give me when I have to live without children, and the Eliezer of Damascus will be the possessor of my property?' And Abram continued, "Behold, you have not given me offspring, and so my servant born in my house will be my heir." (Genesis 15: 2,3).
This servant could have legally inherited Abraham's estate, but not Abraham's family lineage. If one did not have a biological son, his family lineage would be cut off by his death, even though he might have a daughter.
The alleged adoption of a son by women who could not give birth is also alleged here. Sarah adopted Ishmael son for Abraham through her maid, but this son must still have been Abraham's biological son. Rachel gave Jacob a son, who was born by her concubine. The son of the concubine belonged to a married woman, so he was counted as an adopted son (Genesis 30: 6). But this son also bore the seed of his father Jacob, and so he was Jacob's legal heir. However, there is no example that a man adopted another's son and that he was the heir to his bloodline (family), nor did God allow it by his laws.
We know that Jacob had 13 children, but only 12 of them came from the 12 tribes of Israel. Why couldn't a 13th child inherit his father and pass on his seed and bloodline to his children and be part of one and the same people through which all other nations will be blessed? Because it's a female child. Unlike her brothers, Dinah, as the daughter of Jacob, could not bear and transmit the seed of her father and fathers to her children, so that her sons could not, by their mother's blood, be heirs of the lineage of Jacob. None of them could belong to Abraham's offspring, which had come by promise.
If the Bible is clear on this point, on what basis is it claimed that Jesus, through his mother's blood, was the heir to the lineage of David? Who was Jesus bound to if he did not have a biological father? Whose lineage could he have extended if he had not inherited it through Joseph? Could he have extended the lineage of his maternal grandfather? The Bible does not support such a thing because, according to what it says, Jesus could not be called Joseph's son or David if he was adopted.
When we take into account the biblical facts, it is understood that the Jews considered Jesus the 'son of David' after his father Joseph, not his mother. Namely, there were some women from other nations in the lineage of Jesus (Ruth, Rahab, Naam…), but according to the marriage covenant they bore the seed of their husband, who was a descendant of Abraham and David. It was not at all thought that such a woman bore the "seed" of her father or the family lineage of her father, because then her son would have been a descendant of the heathen or a mixed race, not from the lineage of Abraham and the tribe of Judah from which David originated. Therefore, the woman's bloodline is completely destroyed so that her child can belong to blood and body only to the biological father. Let's look at one such example found in the Bible, which reads:
“One day, the son of an Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian intervened among the children of Israel, and thus the son of the Israelite woman and an Israelite quarreled.” (Leviticus 24:10)
Two sons whose mothers were Israelites are mentioned here. One of them was an 'Israelite' by both his mother and father, and the other is only said to be 'son of Israelite woman', but he was not an Israelite because his father was Egyptian. If this other woman were from the lineage of David, her son would not be considered a 'son of David' but a son of an Egyptian. If Jesus did not have a biological father in the lineage of David but only a stepfather, then he would be just 'the son of a Jew', but not a 'son of David'. By this legal rule, women of Judah or some other tribe of Israel could not be the bearers of their father's family lineage. They only brought into the world sons who were born by the 'seed' of their husband, so that the legal right of David's name and his throne could not be obtained by the woman's lineage. Therefore, the Bible clearly states that
  • Jesus is not the son of David by his mother
The descendants of David by the royal (Solomon) lineage married girls from these and other tribes, but their sons were not registered by the lineage of their mother.
All Israelites are determined by their genealogy according to the patriarchal system, that is, to their father's bloodline, and never to the matriarchal line (bloodline of mothers). For this reason, in both genealogies in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, only men are mentioned, of whom sons and daughters are descended, who eventually became fathers and mothers. In some biographies of individuals, it was important to know which lineage their mother was from and even whose daughter she was, so the writers wrote it down neatly. For example:
  • King Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah.
"His mother's name was Abijah, and she was the daughter of Zechariah" (2 Kings 18:1,2)
His mother, by her father, may have been from David's family on some occasions. However, her son Hezekiah could only become king of the law only because he ...
  • was born by a woman whose husband was from the family lineage of Solomon.
Otherwise, if she married King Ahaz as a widow, her son would not be entitled to the throne of David if he were adopted by her second husband. If the adopted son was appointed king, then the kingdom could move to another family lineage because the son had a legal right to confess his ancestry by biological father. This is another reason why an adopted son could not have the same rights as a biological son. So, even if Jesus was adopted, he had no legal right to be the bearer of the royal lineage of his stepfather Joseph. That was the right of the other sons of Joseph.
Likewise, an adopted son who was not from the family of Aaron's sons could not become a priest. Therefore, God demanded that the priest of the vine of Aaron marry only a virgin, that is, a girl of Israelite birth, or a widow whose husband was a priest.
"Let them not marry a public harlot, or a dishonored woman; neither let the woman from whom her husband divorced marry her…” (Leviticus 31:7)
"And the priests of the tribe of Levi, the descendants of Zadok, (...) They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. (Ezekiel 44:15,22)
By obeying these ordinances, the priest would have only those lawful sons who, according to his lineage, could become priests. Even if he married a widow who had a son with her late husband, a priest, that adopted son could only become a priest in that case. Otherwise, if he took the widow of a deceased man who was not a priest, then her son, whom he would adopt, could not become a priest. Imagine then the problem that would arise if a priest or king took a woman and adopted her son who would not know who his biological father was.
It seems that in the various Christian communities, through their views, Jesus is being put into this unenviable position whereby he loses the legal right to the throne of Solomon (i.e. David). This is because outside the biblical context they interpret the virgin conception by which they do not accept Joseph as his biological father but only their mother.
It was important for the Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and the King to know who his mother was and whose daughter she was, but it was crucial to know who his father was by whom he inherited the lineage of David's family and royal. Some claim that in Jesus' case, both of his parents were of the lineage of David, which could further add importance to his lineage. This was the case with John the Baptist, because both of his parents were from Aaron's priestly family lineage (Luke 1: 5). However, the genealogy quoted in Luke's Gospel states that Joseph was the 'son' of Heli, descended from David's son Nathan, while the genealogy in Matthew's Gospel shows that Joseph was born of James, descended from David's son Solomon.  This is what we read:

“Solomon was born to David… (following the genealogy to) (…) Matthan begot Jacob, Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:1-16)
 "Jesus ... They held him for Joseph's son. This one was the son of Heli, the son of Matthat (...) (following the genealogy to) ... the son of Nathan, the son of David (Luke 3:23-31)
Matthew's genealogy traces the royal genealogy of David's son Solomon, which is recorded in 1 Chronicles, while Luke's genealogy according to David's son Nathan is not mentioned in the Bible. That is why some claim that Luke cited the genealogy of Mary, that is, she is a daughter of Heli, and that Joseph, therefore, is the son of Heli because he married his daughter. If this theory were correct, then Luke would explicitly state or remark on the term 'son' so that there would be no confusion (eg when he mentions 'Judas' at 22:47 he notes that he is 'one of the twelve' and not any Judas). Since there is no mention here of Heli's son-in-law, then the term 'son' has only biological meaning for Joseph, son of Heli, as well as for the other sons mentioned in that same genealogy. That is why Luke's report most likely states the legal genealogy that Joseph was born of, and Matthew's report is a biological genealogy.
It is possible that Jacob, as the closest relative, 'raised a seed' to Heli who died without a son, so that Joseph is legally referred to in one genealogy as' the son of Heli ', but is also listed in the other genealogy as a natural or biological' son Of Jacob '(or vice versa). Only in this way could it be known that Joseph's birth was in accordance with God's decree on the levirate marriage which kept the 'seed' of the male line. This means that one's genealogy could also be traced to the fathers of the levirate marriages.
Now one might notice one problem. Namely, if Heli descended from Nathan, then there was a family distance between him and James who descended from Solomon for about ten generations, so it is difficult that Heli could have been the closest generation to Jacob and had an obligation to extend his 'name' and 'give birth' 'son.
However, if we consider that David's grandchildren, according to Solomon and Nathan, may have been the closest relatives obliged to extend one another's name, then it is quite possible that Heli also descended from Solomon's family line, even though Nathan is mentioned at the beginning of this genealogy. not Solomon. This possibility exists because Luke's genealogy also contains some names that belong to the lineage of Solomon and overlap with those of Matthew's genealogy, and which, like Heli / Jacob, also had sons from levirate marriages. This means that one of Nathan's sons 'gave birth 'to a son who belonged to the lineage of Solomon by law, or one of Solomon's sons' gave birth to a son to his relative who belonged to Nathan's lineage by law. Before explaining this, I will single out examples that prove that Joseph is not the only one who is said to be the son of two fathers from two different families. Let's look at the following example:
"The sons of Jeconiah, who were born to him in captivity, were Salathiel his son, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenasar, Jekamiah, Hosham, and Nedabiah. Pedaiah's sons were Zerubbabel and Shimi." (1 Chronicles 3:17-19)
This genealogy states that Zerubabel was the son of Pedaiah. However, the genealogy of Matthew and Luke states that Zerubabel was Salathiel's son. Since Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers - Jeconiah's sons - then it is possible that Salathiel died without a son, so Pedaiah, his brother, performed brother-in law duty and took his wife, after whom he gave birth to his firstborn son's brother, Zerubbabel (see 1 Chronicles 3 : 17-19; Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). If we compare Matthew's and Luke's genealogy then we see this situation in the case of Salathiel as well.
"After the exile in Babylon, Salathiel was born to Jeconiah, Zerubbabel was born to Salathiel, Abiud was born to Zerubbabel..." (Matthew 1:12)
"... the son of Johanan, the son of Resin, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, the son of Neri." (Luke 3:27)
Salathiel is listed here as the son of Jeconiah and the son of Neri, so Jeconiah probably took Neri's wife as the closest relative and 'gave birth' to him a firstborn son. So, from these genealogies we have extracted the three sons of David, who were apparently born of a levirate marriage.
  • Salathiel   {son of Neri}   and   {son of Jeconiah}
  • Zerubbabel   {son Pedaiah}   and   {son Salathiel}
  • Joseph   {son of Jacob}   and   {son of Heli}
We have noticed that the genealogy cited by Luke, which begins with David's son Nathan, contains the names of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, who, according to another genealogy, are descendants of David's son Solomon. Therefore, because Luke's genealogy is based on Nathan's son David, it does not mean that everyone in that genealogy is Nathan's descendants. It is possible that Nathan's son Matat took his wife as one of his closest relatives to one of the sons of Solomon who died last but without a male offspring, so he "gave birth" to his son so Meniah is kept as Matthat's biological son even though he legally belongs to the father of one of the sons of Solomon. In that case, the other descendants, among whom Luke cites Salathiel and Zerubbabel (father and son), nevertheless belong to the law lineage of Solomon from which Heli was born.
Luke in Jesus' genealogy lists names that do not match the names of Matthew's genealogy because he published the line of descendants from which Heli was born, who came after Zerubbabel son of Resus, while Jacob came after Zerubbabel's son Abi. Therefore, it is quite possible that Heli was a descendant of the lineage of Solomon, not Nathan, and thus the closest relative to Jacob, to whom he 'bore' Joseph, the father of Jesus.
Note: As for Mary, she may have been from the tribe of Levi because she is said to have been a relative of Elizabeth who was also from the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:36). Namely, Elizabeth and Mary could have been cousins ​​by their fathers if their fathers were brothers of the tribe of Levi. But Mary could have been from the tribe of Judah, and also cousin Elizabeth by mother if their mothers were sisters. One sister was married to Elizabeth's father from the tribe of Levi and the other to Mary's father from the tribe of Judah. Some claim that Elizabeth was the aunt of Mary (by father), the Greek word 'syngenis' referred to gender or kinship and not exclusively to cousin (Greek: xáderfos). Because of this, Elizabeth was a generation older than Mary because Mary was a young girl and Elizabeth was barren in later age. Since Luke emphasizes the lineage of Joseph, Zechariah, and Elizabeth, and not of Mary, then it can be assumed that Luke indirectly said that Mary was of the tribe of Levi by being closely related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:5,36; 2:4).
All of the above tells us that at that time we looked at 'seed' since it was never related to a woman and a female offspring or to her blood relationship. A woman could only carry in her womb the seed or offspring of her husband (the representative of God’s authority), which by marriage union was also her seed (offspring). This is why in the beginning of the Bible there is a reference to the 'seed of the woman' because we read:
“And I put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed…” (Genesis 3:15)
This prophecy mentions the 'seed' of Satan and the 'seed' of woman. It is the context that determines the meaning. Namely, the evil people did not come from the seed of Satan and his body, because he has no seed in his body, but came from the male 'seed' (offspring) that stood on his side. So even righteous men did not descend from the seed of the woman, for neither is the seed-bearer. A seed can only be a female within the framework of a conjugal union with a husband and through it that male seed comes into existence. Thus, Hagar was the bearer of the seed of Abraham, after which she bore Ishmael (Ishmael), so that an angel concerning her son could tell her:
"I will greatly multiply your seed ..." (Genesis 16:10) ...... Hagar's (female) seed
God also predetermined the male offspring (Abraham, Isaac, James, Judas, David, Solomon, Joseph) to accomplish his purpose through which the 'seed' was passed on to each new generation, and transmission was possible only through the woman. It means that it is the woman's seed by which she brings into the world those whom God, not man, has ordained beforehand to stand on the head of the serpent, and among them the one who will completely crush that serpent's head. The Bible does not mention the 'seed of women' outside this framework founded by God Himself. That is why the Jews never used the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, which mentions the 'seed of a woman' to expect the Messiah (the Anointed) to be born without the seed of a biological father. Not even one of the apostles claimed or mentioned it, let alone use it as an argument.