Jesus and Joseph

[TheInquisitor]

Did Jesus inherit the Legal rights of Joseph’s heritage (The Davidic Line)? I hear this from tons of apologetics resources, but I can’t find a source for the life of me. Can anyone find me a source that says Joseph could pass on his legal rights of the Davidic line to Jesus even though he wasn’t his Biological son? I’m thinking something along the lines of Biblical or Jewish practice or something, anything. lol. Not just hearsay.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Wasn’t Mary part of the Davidic line also:shrug:

 

[Nita]

It is the lineage of the birth mother (not the father) that determines whether a child is a Jew or not. That being the case, it would seem that the child would be a member of the particular Jewish tribe to which the mother belongs. Thus Jesus would be a legal member of the tribe of David since that was the tribe of Mary.

jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

 

[TheInquisitor]

Yes, but didn’t Jesus inherit the direct Royal Bloodline legally through Joseph? If I recall correctly, that’s a large prerequisite for the Messiah.

 

[Nita]

Yes, but didn’t Jesus inherit the direct Royal Bloodline legally through Joseph? If I recall correctly, that’s a large prerequisite for the Messiah.

Yes. Did some more googling and found that, altho one is a Jew is dependent on the mother, the tribe membership depends on the father.
jewishtreats.org/2009/07/laws-of-inheritance.html

The above site does not go into tribal membership where the father is not a Jew. Neither does it comment on an adoptive/foster Jewish father.

 

[Nita]

Only found one site that had pertinent info; don’t kow it’s reliability.

adopting.org/jewish.html

Altho most of the article on the above site is about current adoption, the first few paragraphs deal with earlier times.
It says that “adoption as a formal legal procedure” was “totally unknown”.
The article also includes the following quote: “he who brings up a child is to be called its father, not he who gave birth.” (Exodus Rabbah 46:5) Thus, by raising Jesus, Joseph became the “legal” father.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke shows a linage of Jesus through Joseph and shows how he is a descendant of David, because the technical requirement for someone being the Messiah is that he would be a descendant of King David.

It is suggested that, due to the placement of the lineage in Luke, Luke’s intention was more to establish the priesthood of Jesus rather than his royal status (“But to the tribe of Levi he gave no possession: because the Lord the God of Israel himself is their possession” (Joshua 13:33)). Matthew may have intentionally left out names in order to get a certain number of descendents (see newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm for more details on the differences and some difficulties with the differences)

But does it matter?

See Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22

And the Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying: What think you of Christ? whose son is he? They say to him: David’s. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand (Psalm 110), until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word; neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Therefore, he has every right to the throne regardless of paternity. Jesus is the Son of God, who is King and Lord over all the Earth, and is called King of Kings. God gave David his earthly throne, and He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

 

[Richard320]

Common sense dictates that in Biblical times they would use the same assumption we use now, that any child born to a married couple is theirs. And I think there would have been very little adultery anyway since the punishment was death by stoning.

 

[Gidras05]

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke shows a linage of Jesus through Joseph and shows how he is a descendant of David, because the technical requirement for someone being the Messiah is that he would be a descendant of King David.

It is suggested that, due to the placement of the lineage in Luke, Luke’s intention was more to establish the priesthood of Jesus rather than his royal status (“But to the tribe of Levi he gave no possession: because the Lord the God of Israel himself is their possession” (Joshua 13:33)). Matthew may have intentionally left out names in order to get a certain number of descendents (see newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm for more details on the differences and some difficulties with the differences)

But does it matter?

See Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22

Therefore, he has every right to the throne regardless of paternity. Jesus is the Son of God, who is King and Lord over all the Earth, and is called King of Kings. God gave David his earthly throne, and He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Well this pretty much ends this discussion. Case closed!