2 Questions re Jewish Laws seemingly not being followed during the life of Christ

[dmar198]

I recently read through the Bible (third time through! ) and something struck me this time that didn’t strike me the other two times. It seems to me that God had parceled out the land for the Israelites to live in, tribe by tribe, in Joshua 13:8—19:51. The tribe of Judah was assigned a portion in the South. Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah, so it seems they should have lived in the South in the land of Judah. But they lived in Nazareth, which is in Galilee, which is quite a bit North of the tribes of Israel and Judah, and certainly not in the Southern portion where the Judahites were supposed to live according to the tribal allotments. So why didn’t they live in their allotted territory? Were the tribal allotments removed when the Captivity occurred?

The second question is, how could it be that Mary and Elizabeth were close of kin? We always think of Jesus and John the Baptist as cousins (or something similar), and Mary and Elizabeth obviously knew each other well and are called “suggenis” (in Greek that means close kin) in Luke 1:36. The problem is, they were of different tribes, and the tribes weren’t allowed to intermarry. Mary was a descendant of David, according to Luke 1:27 – and he was of the tribe of Judah. But Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, according to Luke 1:5 – and he was of the tribe of Levi. So without intermarrying, and being of different tribes, how could they be any closer related than any other women of different tribes? I never noticed these two difficulties until I read the Bible this time. But they seem really perplexing now that I see them. Any thoughts?

 

[dmar198]

Actually I just found a good answer to my second question from Gill’s Commentary on the Bible, which says this:

And behold thy cousin Elisabeth,… For though Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi by her father’s side, yet might be of the tribe of Judah by her mother’s side, and so akin to Mary. The Persic version calls her “aunt by the mother’s side”: intermarriages between the two tribes of Levi and Judah were frequent; nor were they at all contrary to the intention of that law, that forbid the tribes to intermarry, which was to preserve the inheritance in each tribe, since the tribe of Levi had none at all. Though she might be called her cousin in a more general sense; it being usual with the Jews to call all of their own nation their kinsmen and kinswomen, according to the flesh: but the former sense seems more agreeable; and so Mary is directed to her own family, and to her own relations, and known friends, for a sign, by which her faith might be confirmed, in what the angel had said unto her; for if she found the one to be true, she might conclude the other was also; which is as follows: My first question still perplexes me though. Anybody have anything on it?

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually I just found a good answer to my second question from Gill’s Commentary on the Bible, which says this:

And behold thy cousin Elisabeth,… For though Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi by her father’s side, yet might be of the tribe of Judah by her mother’s side, and so akin to Mary. The Persic version calls her “aunt by the mother’s side”: intermarriages between the two tribes of Levi and Judah were frequent; nor were they at all contrary to the intention of that law, that forbid the tribes to intermarry, which was to preserve the inheritance in each tribe, since the tribe of Levi had none at all. Though she might be called her cousin in a more general sense; it being usual with the Jews to call all of their own nation their kinsmen and kinswomen, according to the flesh: but the former sense seems more agreeable; and so Mary is directed to her own family, and to her own relations, and known friends, for a sign, by which her faith might be confirmed, in what the angel had said unto her; for if she found the one to be true, she might conclude the other was also; which is as follows: My first question still perplexes me though. Anybody have anything on it?

The Gospel does not state Mary’s family explicitly (there is supposition that one of the genealogies may have been hers, but both end with Joseph). Therefore, it may also be that she was born to a Levite family.

As for your other question, they were town dwellers so Joseph probably did not inherit a farm. Land would be passed to the eldest son so younger ones would need to find some other trade. It takes only one generation to break the cycle. In fact, David, the ancestor of Joseph, was a last-born son, so it is likely that would have done it there. Joseph would have been able to live in any town where he could find work. It was likely popular to remain close to the ancestral lands in the chance one might be able to claim an inheritance but I don’t think it would be required.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Actually I just found a good answer to my second question from Gill’s Commentary on the Bible, which says this:

And behold thy cousin Elisabeth,… For though Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi by her father’s side, yet might be of the tribe of Judah by her mother’s side, and so akin to Mary. The Persic version calls her “aunt by the mother’s side”: intermarriages between the two tribes of Levi and Judah were frequent; nor were they at all contrary to the intention of that law, that forbid the tribes to intermarry, which was to preserve the inheritance in each tribe, since the tribe of Levi had none at all. Though she might be called her cousin in a more general sense; it being usual with the Jews to call all of their own nation their kinsmen and kinswomen, according to the flesh: but the former sense seems more agreeable; and so Mary is directed to her own family, and to her own relations, and known friends, for a sign, by which her faith might be confirmed, in what the angel had said unto her; for if she found the one to be true, she might conclude the other was also; which is as follows: My first question still perplexes me though. Anybody have anything on it?

This article will probably help with you’re first question

• 3amthoughts.com/article/people-and-places/nazareth-and-bethlehem

"5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begot Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.

1. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.

1. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
2. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe."

• Eusbius*
• newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

-*newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

Hope this helps

Merry Christmas
God bless

 

[Bruce_Killian]

After the ten tribes were carried into captivity by Assyria, shortly before 700B.C. they ceased to exist except to God who still knows who they are. That is with the exception of the few from the other tribes that joined Judah and retained their tribe but lived among Judah. Judah and the much smaller Benjamin became the only remaining tribes so there was no reason for them not to expand to fill the whole land. Now Nazareth was in Galilee, which was 75% gentile so it was almost like missionary territory in Jesus’ day. If a substantial portion of one of the ten tribes returned, they could have their land retuned to them.

I believe Elizabeth was Mary’s maternal aunt so the sister of her mother. Her father was from the tribe of Judah and the house of David and her mother was from the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron. Because Mary’s father was of the house of David so was she. The big advantage of this arrangement was that because her mother was from a priestly family she learned to read and write so she was able to pass this ability on to Mary and Mary could pass it on to Jesus. By law, Zechariah could be no older than 49 when Gabriel appeared to him ministering in the Temple so Elizabeth was probably of similar age so about the right age to be the sister of Mary’s mother.
Grace and peace,
Bruce

 

[patrick457]

After the ten tribes were carried into captivity by Assyria, shortly before 700B.C. they ceased to exist except to God who still knows who they are. That is with the exception of the few from the other tribes that joined Judah and retained their tribe but lived among Judah. Judah and the much smaller Benjamin became the only remaining tribes so there was no reason for them not to expand to fill the whole land. Now Nazareth was in Galilee, which was 75% gentile so it was almost like missionary territory in Jesus’ day. If a substantial portion of one of the ten tribes returned, they could have their land retuned to them.

The idea of the ‘ten lost tribes’ is something firmly embedded in Jewish tradition, but it is not entirely accurate as in ten whole tribes just vanished without a trace. 2 Chronicles 30:1-11 mentions northern Israelites (in particular, members of Dan, Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher and Zebulun) during Hezekiah’s reign and how members of the latter three went to worship at the Temple inJerusalem at that time. And earlier than that, 2 Chronicles 15:9 makes mention of members of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon fleeing to Judah during the reign of Asa (913/10 BC-873/69 BC), although whether these groups were absorbed into the population or remained distinct groups, or returned to their tribal lands is not certain. The thing is, the deportations and other factors seem to have messed up the ancient territorial divisions.

As for the Galilee: the “Galilee of the nations” Isaiah spoke of was a thing of the past. The Hasmoneans expanded their territory by conquering surrounding lands like Idumaea (Edom) and the Galilee and made foreigners dwelling there convert to Judaism (the Herods originated as a family of Idumaean converts); soon ‘native’ Jews immigrated into these newly-won lands as well. (It could even be possible that there was a minority Jewish presence in the area before the Harmoneans.)

By the time of Jesus, Greek-speaking gentiles lived in the cities that they had long inhabited, which formed a kind of crescent around the Galilee: there were gentile cities to the east, to the north, and to the west. Within geographical Galilee was the gentile city of Scythopolis, but it was independent of political Galilee ever since Pompey wrested it from Jewish control in 64 BC. The Galilee itself was Jewish: its inhabitants were mostly Jews, there were synagogues in the towns and villages, schools were Jewish and Jewish magistrates ruled according to Jewish law.

 

[Glacies]

The second question is, how could it be that Mary and Elizabeth were close of kin? We always think of Jesus and John the Baptist as cousins (or something similar), and Mary and Elizabeth obviously knew each other well and are called “suggenis” (in Greek that means close kin) in Luke 1:36. The problem is, they were of different tribes, and the tribes weren’t allowed to intermarry. Mary was a descendant of David, according to Luke 1:27 – and he was of the tribe of Judah. But Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, according to Luke 1:5 – and he was of the tribe of Levi. So without intermarrying, and being of different tribes, how could they be any closer related than any other women of different tribes? I never noticed these two difficulties until I read the Bible this time. But they seem really perplexing now that I see them. Any thoughts?

The 4th-century Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church St. Gregory of Nazianzus gives the following explanation:

“GREG. NAZ. But some one will ask, How is Christ related to David, since Mary sprang from the blood of Aaron, the angel having declared Elisabeth to be her kinswoman? But this was brought about by the Divine counsel, to the end that the royal race might be united to the priestly stock; that Christ, Who is both King and Priest, might be descended from both according to the flesh. For it is written, that Aaron, the first High Priest according to the law, took from the tribe of Judah for his wife Elisabeth, the daughter of Aminadab. And observe the most holy administration of the Spirit, in ordering that the wife of Zacharias should be called Elisabeth, so bringing us back to that Elisabeth whom Aaron married.”