The Israelites always reckoned the lineage (blood) through the mother as that was the one parent they could be sure of. We are told in Luke 3:31 that He was descended from the Nathan "Davidic" line through his maternal grandfather, Heli....verse 23.
The Solomon "Davidic" line of course appears in Matthew 1:6-16. This is the legal genealogy as the property and inheritance rights always came from the father. Matthew recorded this for legal reasons as Joseph was thought to be his father [Luke 3:23], but this line had a curse upon it [Jeremiah 22:24-30][Matthew 1:11-12]. This genealogy shows that Mary indeed was a virgin as Jesus would not be acceptable to the throne if he were Joseph's real son....because of the curse. The curse was fulfilled because none of Jeconiah's (also known as Jehoiachin) children went on to rule in Judah.
Our Lord qualified for the throne because Mary's genealogy was transferred to Joseph....the son-in-law of Heli. Since Mary's lineage came down through David's son, Nathan....there was no curse to worry about. According to the Law if a daughter had no brothers (Mary had none) and she was the only heir (she was) she would inherit all the possessions and property rights....but she had to marry with in her own tribe [Numbers 27:1-8][Numbers 36:6-8]. Thus, Joseph was the heir to Heli by marriage, giving him the royal inheritance down through Nathan's line. He was then able to pass this inheritance [Genesis 49:10] on to his step son and first born of Mary, Our Lord.
Both genealogies were recorded to show Our Lord's right to the throne..... Matthew's, the legal genealogy and Luke's, the bloodline. The prophecy in [Jeremiah 33:17] was that David will always have a descendant on the throne of Israel and further substantiated by [Psalm 89:11][2 Chronicles 6:16] and [1 Kings 2:4].
Thank You -— I think that clearly dismantles the argument in the link.
Thank G-d for someone that understands a little about Judaism. A person can potentially have many fathers, but only one mother. Arabs lineage is reckoned through the fathers—isn’t that interesting. That is why when I hear people say that they may be Jewish because they have a little Jewish blood in them, I cringe. If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish (unless you converted.)_ If she is not, you are not. I, for one, am glad that I was grafted in...
This statement of yours is incorrect. The Israelite lineage was always reckoned through the fathers not the mothers until the 70 AD when all records were lost. All genealogies listed fathers --- not mothers. Moses who had an Egyptian wife in Numbers 1:18 records:
"And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls."
Furthermore, the command to the daughters of Zelophehad was that they had to marry within a family of the tribe of their father --- not their mother, or even one of their own choosing [Nu 36:6-8].
And the law of inheritance [Nu 27:1-11] even specified that the inheritance, if there were no sons or daughters, was to pass to the brethren, the father's brethren, or the nearest kinsman. Always the father or the father's lineage --- not the mothers'.