The Jewishness of Mary

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//jewishmary.htm ^ | unknown | By Sr. M. Danielle Peters U-Dayton

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

but I know that a child's mother is the one that determines whether or not a child is Jewish.

Mary was also of the House of David as a descendant of Nathan.

[RobbyS]

The New Covenant God ushered into existence was not with through Mary but through the Man Christ Jesus, who without an earthly father, did not carry the sin nature of all born of Adam (including Mary). Covenants, in the past were made with the blood of bulls, goats and sheep...but the New Covenant was in the Sinless Blood of Jesus Christ, the LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD the ONLY SAVIOUR.

Careful that you don't deny that God entered the world through Mary.

[Ping-Pong]

Campion stated - "No, Luke 3:23 names Heli as Joseph's father..... Matthew 1:16 names Jacob as Joseph's father".

My understanding is that Matthew gives the lineage of Joseph, the legal lineage, while Luke gives that of Mary.

The wording in Luke is, (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. As was supposed means according to the law, or, as we now call it, in-law.

Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt.1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heli's daughter (Mary), and be reckoned so according to law (Gr.nomizo). It does not say "begat" in the case of Heli. - E.W. Bullinger

So Luke's account is that of Mary, given through Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli.

GoLightly stated- Who was of Heli"... St. Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, (St. Matt. 1. 16,) in the account of the law, was son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers, by the same mother; and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow: in consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.

I must question that. How does the writer know they were brothers? How does he know Heli was older and died without a child? It sounds as if he is simply trying to make it fit. He does get to the fact that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, as stated in Luke.

We see genealogies of two lines of the Stepparents of Jesus, while there is none given for his maternal line.

The Matthew account is that of his step-father but the one in Luke is that of Mary given in a very male oriented way, through Joseph, son-in-law to Heli.

distancing Jesus from his Jewish roots must have been important to someone, somewhere along the line. A child is Jewish based on his mother, not his father.

I agree that in a mixed marriage the child is considered a Jew only through the mother being Jewish. I don't believe anyone was trying to distance Him from being Jewish however as the Messiah must be born from the tribe of Judah, the King line. His mother Mary was of Judah and Levi, making Him King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Elizabeth was married to a Priest. Were Levites allowed to marry outside of their line?

No, they weren't. Elizabeth was full blood Levite.

Diego1618 discussed this issue not long ago with me and stated:

Matthew shows the legal lineage (always down through the father) and the Jews saw Our Saviour as Joseph's son (John 6:42). This lineage is also used to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. Joseph's lineage had a curse (Jeconiah) (Matthew 1:1-12) and (Jeremiah 22:30) confirms this.

Luke's genealogy compliments the Matthew account because Mary's line had no curse. Her line came down through Nathan, not Soloman...but still through King David (Luke 3:31). According to the Law, if a daughter were the only heir she would inherit all her father's possessions, rights and inheritances...but only if she married within her tribe (Numbers 27:1-8). Mary had no brothers so she was able to transfer David's royal lineage and inheritance to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph an heir to Heli and thus the right to David's throne...which was then passed on to Our Saviour......

It's fairly clearly laid out but there is no mention of Joachim and Anna in this. That lineage is given in The Infancy Gospel of James.

Thank you both for your replies...Ping

[Ping-Pong]

Matthew names Heli as Mary’s father.

Sorry - I should have said Luke, not Matthew

[RobbyS]

I am bothered by this emphasis, because it ignores that Mary’s role was very much the same as that of Noah, Abraham, and Moses. I think Luke makes this point. The angels brings the promise to Zachariah and he demands a sign. The Aengel appears directly to Mary and she agrees without hesitation. Mary was literally the first Christian. “Let it be unto my according to thy word.” Would that we all could answer thus.

[Ping-Pong]

Let me try again and address this to the correct person:

Matthew names Heli as Mary’s father.

Sorry - I should have said Luke, not Matthew and then should have addressed this reply to the correct person - It's been a busy day and I'm old. What more can I say......Ping

[RobbyS]

Yes, that is what you are asserting, and to me this implies a rather low Christiology. Traditional Christianity has always taught that the Incarnation came at the annunciation, when the angel of the Lord came to Mary. I compare what he said to Mary with what the Lord said to Abram at the beginning of Genesis 12. Abraham simply obeyed and so did Mary. Did not Abraham become the Father of Israel at that moment?

[Ping-Pong]

Let me make a correction.

Elizabeth was married to a Priest. Were Levites allowed to marry outside of their line?

I answered "No, they weren't. Elizabeth was full blood Levite." - I should have said that in order to be a Levitical priest you must be a full blood Levite.

Sorry.........Ping

[GoLightly]

“Abraham simply obeyed and so did Mary. Did not Abraham become the Father of Israel at that moment?”

In what way did he obey? Abraham showing his faith in the Lord, but the covenent didn’t go into effect until Abraham made a blood offering.

Genesis 15

8 But Abram said, “O Sovereign LORD, how can I know that I will gain possession of it?”

9 So the LORD said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.”

10 Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other; the birds, however, he did not cut in half. 11 Then birds of prey came down on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away.

12 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. 13 Then the LORD said to him, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. 15 You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. 16 In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

17 When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram

[GoLightly]

Reading one of your previous responses, the part about “in-law” is the one that makes the most sense now.

The article mentions a couple of non-Jewish women in Joseph’s line, so wouldn’t that mean the seed had been lost in that line? The women would have had to have converted for their children to be Jewish, but the seed didn’t matter in the King line, because Kingship was passed down on the paternal side anyway & even adoption was an acceptable way for that to happen.

[RobbyS]

Mary was the first to know who Jesus was, the first to commit to him, body and soul. That is what I mean by Christian. She even learned , in a limited way, what would befall him through Simeon. (Lk 2:34-36.) Of course, the only one who knew all that his mission would entail, was Our Lord Himself. It has been speculated that the Incarnation itself might have been sufficient to save mankind, and by taking on flesh the Lord humbled himself to the condition of a slave, but of course that was not “the plan.” He had to suffer even the indignity of death.

[television is just wrong]

wow.

[GoLightly]

Right, but the Kingship was a paternal line, not a maternal one. David was adopted into it.

[Ping-Pong]

The article mentions a couple of non-Jewish women in Joseph’s line, so wouldn’t that mean the seed had been lost in that line?

I don't have the article in front of me but it could be that if they aren't "Jewish" they could still be Hebrew. Of the 12 tribes only one was Jewish - Judah.

I hope you are doing well - you sound terrific.

....Ping

[GoLightly]

It has been speculated that the Incarnation itself might have been sufficient to save mankind, and by taking on flesh the Lord humbled himself to the condition of a slave, but of course that was not “the plan.” He had to suffer even the indignity of death.

If "the plan" didn't require blood of an innocent, there'd be little need for most of Mosaic Law or the OT, for that matter. Why bother putting blood on the door for the Angel to pass over the homes of the Jews? The blood of the lamb was for the people to learn an important symbol, a sign, something to watch for, not because the Angel needed it to know which homes to pass over.

[Uri’el-2012]

In either Mary’s or Joseph’s line one of the forefather’s was disqualified from sitting on the Throne of David..that’s one of the reasons why (either Joseph’s or Mary’s) lineage is important as it overcame that legal barrier.....while the other parent’s lineage fulfilled a legal requirement.

There are four things that are important here:

1 Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers
and is descended from King David.

2 Joseph is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.

3 The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad
is in effect (Numbers 26,27,36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7 ).

4 Joseph and Miriam are married ( each descended from King David)
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Y'shua.

b'shem Yah'shua

[GoLightly]

One of them was a Moabite, not sure about the others. Moabites were Semitic, & their line is through Terah, father of Abraham.

Of the 12 tribes only one was Jewish - Judah.

Smacking myself on the forehead, DUH! LOL

I'm going great! The chemo wasn't as bad as I thought it was gonna be. Course, I'm gonna prolly be mostly brainless again for a few days after tomorrow.... not that most people would notice, cuz I'm pretty good at doing scatterpated on the best of days.