Replies

Yes, the "firstborn" points to the fact that Jesus is to be dedicated to God. Which of course, He is. So? That Jesus was not a result of natural conception and birth has meaning for the future narrative of the Gospel beyond the time mark of Matthew 1:25. That Jesus was dedicated to God by the mere virtue of being firstborn has some significance beyond that mark as well. But how Mary disposed of her life does nto have a similar significance, so St. Matthew does not make any allusions to it.

So, by your own recognition of this custom of dedicating the firstborn to the Lord, how do you square the thought of Joseph having other sons BEFORE Jesus was born? Would not the firstborn son of a "previous" wife have counted for the dedication of the first child? In that case, Jesus would not have been the firstborn to Joseph. Saying he was the firstborn of Mary, would not have had the same significance because the Jewish custom did not recognize the mother's place but only the father's.

boatbums wrote:
“Saying he was the firstborn of Mary, would not have had the same significance because the Jewish custom did not recognize the mother’s place but only the father’s.”

No. Read Exodus 13:2.

Saying he was the firstborn of Mary, would not have had the same significance because the Jewish custom did not recognize the mother's place but only the father's.

That is not true. The patrilinear primogeniture had to do with inheritance. The first-born of the father was entitled to twice the inheritance of the other siblings.

Jewish Encyclopedia writes:

The primogeniture of inheritance refers to the first-born son on the side of the father by any of his wives (if he lived in polygamy).

Matrilinear pirmogeniture is different. As per Jewish Encyclopedia (my emphasis):

of the mother

The primogeniture of the mother refers to redemption, not inheritance. The JE explains:

The primogeniture of redemption refers to the male first-born on the mother's side and applies to both man and beast: "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine"(Ex. xiii. 2).

Hence Jesus was the firstborn of redemption, and he belonged to God, by Law (remember Gal 4:4 "born of a woman, born under the Law"?).

You people should not be interpreting anything form the Bible without thoroughly familiarizing yourselves with the customs, laws and the language of the times.

how do you square the thought of Joseph having other sons BEFORE Jesus was born? Would not the firstborn son of a "previous" wife have counted for the dedication of the first child? In that case, Jesus would not have been the firstborn to Joseph. Saying he was the firstborn of Mary, would not have had the same significance because the Jewish custom did not recognize the mother's place but only the father's.

Is that a legal question? I don't know what legal significance the birth of Jesus had as the firstborn to the marriage but not to the adoptive or apparent father, but I know that firstborn is by the mother, as is Jewishness in general (*). In truth though, Jesus is the firstborn of God, as you and I know, and that has mystical rather than legal significance. Matthew was writing his gospel primarily to the Jews and it was natural for him to underscore the point, and, of course, in his narrative, as it correctly tells us Who the real Father is, the adoptive paternity of St. Joseph played no role.

There is a good chance though -- although we don't know for sure, there is no single tradition on that, -- that the firstborn son of Joseph was none other but St. James the Just, brother of the Lord, a Holy Apostle and the First Bishop of Jerusalem. So yes, the dedication probably worked fine.

Reading ahead, I see Belteshazzar quoting aptly Ex 13:2, thank you. That is what I tried to remember.