Jesus line of Judah question... especially from Jews

[Mommy2KandM]

I come with this question not doubting myself one bit that Jesus Christ is the messiah prophesied to come from the line of Judah. Just to make that clear from the start. :lol

I have a friend who is not yet a Brother In Christ.....Key word yet, but I am praying. :): And I have no doubt that if he searches with a pure heart God will meet him with truth. In his searching out for truth he has come across the web site "Jews for Judaism" which points out that in their mind Jesus Christ could not be the Messiah because the line has to come from the father and He had no bio father.

I did point out that Jews today that are still waiting on the messiah fully expect him to be born of a virgin, so how do they plan to meet the bio father and virgin requirement at the same time? The only thing I could come up with is a test tube baby. :noidea

I believe Joseph adopted Jesus as his own, giving him the name Ben-Jospeph and this fulfilling the line of Judah requirement in prophesy. But non believing Jews seems to say it can't be done that way. That the line can't be passed expect via bloodline from the father. (yet they expect the messiah to be born of a virgin at the same time :confused )

I'm not Jewish so don't really know the "laws" on this and if they are God's laws as well or just man made stuff. I would be interested in any responses, especially those who are believers in Christ Jesus and also Jewish by blood or religious affiliation.

[pilgrimian]

Was Yeshua (Jesus) the legitimate Messiah ?

Messiah's Right to David's Throne (http://www.messianicassociation.org/a-agf-throne.htm)
by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum - Director, Ariel Ministries

Many modern Rabbis have made special effort to prevent the Jewish people from accepting Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah. Many teachings have been developed in an attempt to answer some of the difficult passages that believers often use in evangelism. As we study Scripture from a Jewish perspective, we are able to uncover some of the faulty reasoning used in the Rabbis’ teachings. Understanding the perspective of the Jewish leaders in contrast with a Messianic perspective will provide you with a greater ability to share your faith effectively, and will enhance your understanding of the Scriptures.

The legitimate Messiah needed to be a descendant of King David and he needed to be appointed by God. The following Rabbinic account attempts to dispel Yeshua’s right to David’s throne and, therefore, the legitimacy of His Messiahship. In contrast, the Messianic interpretation, given by Dr. Fruchtenbaum, is a fascinating study proving that Yeshua truly is the rightful heir of David’s throne. For a more complete study, radio manuscript #25, Messiah’s Right to David’s Throne, is available from the Ariel catalog.

Modern Rabbi's Teach:

Because of the New Testament claim that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, it would have been impossible for him to have been a descendant of the House of David. According to Numbers 1:18, the tribal lineage was traced through the father only. Contrary to Christian teaching, the New Testament, therefore, does not give an account for Mary’s ancestry. The accounts in both Matthew and Luke, which are extremely contradictory, demonstrate that Joseph was from the House of David. Because Jesus was claimed to have come from a virgin birth, it would be necessary for Mary to also have been a descendant of the House of David. The real Messiah will be a legitimate heir to the Throne of David; however, this could not have been possible if Jesus had a human Jewish father.

In order to uphold the argument that Jesus was from the House of David and born of the virgin birth, Christians have claimed that Luke’s genealogy is really of Mary, not Joseph. This also clears up some of the contradictions between the two accounts; however, it is a false view, which contradicts Jewish tradition.

Jewish Believers in Messiah Teach:

Of the four Gospels, only two give us a genealogy, the same two that deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. While both Matthew and Luke give us the story of the birth of Jesus, they tell the story from two different perspectives. Matthew tells the story from Joseph’s perspective while Luke tells the story from Mary’s perspective.

Matthew’s genealogy (Matt. 1:1-17) traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of the Messiah. The line is traced from Abraham (v. 2), and continues down to David and Solomon (v. 6), and then to King Jechoniah (v. 11), who was one of the last kings before the Babylonian Captivity. It is the person of Jechoniah that is significant in dealing with the genealogy of Matthew because of the special curse pronounced on him in Jeremiah 22:24-30.

Jeremiah 22:30 says of King Jechoniah:

Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.
In the Matthew genealogy, it should be noted that Joseph was a direct descendant of Jechoniah (v. 16). This means, then, that Joseph, having the blood of Jechoniah in his veins, was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. This would also mean that no son of Joseph would have the right to claim the Throne of David. In essence, Matthew’s point is this: if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, He could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of Jechoniah’s curse. Then Matthew proceeds to show that Yeshua was not truly Joseph’s son, for He was born of the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18-25).

If, by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be mentioned in a genealogy, but you wished to trace a woman’s line, how would you go about doing so? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband. However, if the husband’s name were used, that raises a second question. Suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read; how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife because, in either case, it would be the husband’s name that was used?

The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English language which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew languages. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word "the" before a proper name. We do not use a definite article before a proper name; such as, the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John. However, this is quite permissible in both Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Luke’s genealogy is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text, every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the definite article "the" with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph. His name does not have the definite article "the" in front of it. What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: when he saw the definite article missing from Joseph’s name while it was present in all the other names, it would mean that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, rather, it is Mary’s genealogy. So, in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husband’s name which was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.

Luke’s genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (vv. 31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah. Since Jesus was Mary’s son, He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.

However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniah’s blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.

We read in Luke 1:30-33:

30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
The final question is: On what grounds can it be said that Luke’s account is actually Mary’s genealogy? While there is much evidence to support this, it will be necessary to limit it to only three lines of argument.

First, the Talmud itself refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli. It is obvious, then, that in long-standing Jewish tradition, Mary was recognized to be the daughter of Heli as mentioned in Luke 3:23.

Secondly, although most versions translate Luke 3:23 as follows:

... being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ...
That same Greek phrase could easily be translated in a different way. While all of the names in Luke’s genealogy are preceded with the Greek definite article, the name of Joseph is not. Because of this grammatical point, that same verse could be translated: "being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) the son of Heli." In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was supposed or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. The absence of Mary’s name is quite in keeping with Jewish practices on genealogies, and it was not unusual for a son-in-law to be listed in his wife’s genealogy.

The third argument is the obvious viewpoint of the two genealogies. Matthew is clearly writing from the viewpoint of Joseph. Luke, however, is obviously writing from the viewpoint of Mary. So from the context alone, it would appear that Luke is giving Mary’s lineage, because his whole perspective is focused on Mary.


Copyright © 1997, Ariel Ministries. Website: www.Ariel.org
Ariel Ministries
P.O. Box 3723
Tustin, CA 92781-3723
Tel: (714) 259-4800
Fax: (714) 259-1092

An excellent book that outlines His being the Messiah is
Messianic Christology (http://arielc.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AMC&Product_Code=baf-mc&Category_Code=baf)

It goes practically passage by passage showing how Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah of Israel, and the world. There are numerous passages in the Tenach (Old Testament) which simply cannot be fulfilled today because the Temple is not standing, and no one can be sure which Tribe they belong to (with the general exception of the Levites, with names such as Leventhal, Levin, Levine, Cohen, Keohane, Kohn, etc., etc.).

Don't belittle yourself. Just because you're not Jewish by blood doesn't mean God hasn't provided you everything you need to lift the standard and be a beacon for His truth and good news.

Blessings in our Matchless Messiah,
Matthew

[Christine]

I did point out that Jews today that are still waiting on the messiah fully expect him to be born of a virgin... This is not the case. The Jews are waiting on a mortal man, born of two earthly parents who the Lord will use to restore Israel (the nation and the people).

The teaching isn't about being born of a virgin, it is of a normal, fallible man who will be a leader.

[Mommy2KandM]

This is not the case. The Jews are waiting on a mortal man, born of two earthly parents who the Lord will use to restore Israel (the nation and the people).

The teaching isn't about being born of a virgin, it is of a normal, fallible man who will be a leader.

So what do they do with OT prophesies that the Messiah will be born of a virgin?

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Or do they say virgin means young woman not virgin????

As a side note.. how do they plan to trace it back to the line of Judah now a days??? Is that something possible to do? It would seem very difficult with so much time and people pasted.

Off to read your article now Matthew.. thanks. :): I was hoping you or ants would post in this thread.

[roadrunner570]

So what do they do with OT prophesies that the Messiah will be born of a virgin?

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Or do they say virgin means young woman not virgin????

As a side note.. how do they plan to trace it back to the line of Judah now a days??? Is that something possible to do? It would seem very difficult with so much time and people pasted.

Off to read your article now Matthew.. thanks. :): I was hoping you or ants would post in this thread.

The claim the Hebrew word for virgin should be translated at "young woman" which usually means a young single woman, which in that culture would have been a virgin anyway, but still, thats the explanation I've read.

[Christine]

I have been meaning to write an article about alma, and indeed, it means 'young woman' in cultural context.

I don't have my notes in front of me, but I do have supporting scriptures from Song of Solomon and others that speak to when 'alma' is virginal and when it is 'young woman'.

I will try to dig those up for you, but regardless, don't go on the assumption of a virgin birth as that is not in Jewish teachings.

Just FTR -- neither is the book of Daniel or Isaiah 53 as neither are classified as messianic passages by the Rabbinical coding (writings, prophesy, law, etc).

Not unlike the Muslims claiming that things refer to Mohammed (like the prophet mentioned by Moses in Deut 18:18 and the Comforter by Jesus in
John 15:26)

[Mommy2KandM]

Thanks for the info all.

Matthew.. your article was very informative. And it shows me that in my error saying Joseph was His adoptive father, and that was His connection to the line of Judah, only runs into other issues since Joseph is from the line of Judah that also contains Jechoniah. But God in His perfect plan once again fully covered all the bases. :thumb

It was also news to me that Jews today are not looking for a virgin birth. So thanks for that info as well. :):

I certainly don't know all the answers.. and I have told my friend this. But I do believe answers are out there and I am willing to look for them if that helps him to close doors that cause him to question. Ultimately he will be left with a single door that leads to a narrow path, but life eternal. My prayer is that he recognizes it when he sees it and takes that step. :):

[roadrunner570]

I have been meaning to write an article about alma, and indeed, it means 'young woman' in cultural context.

I don't have my notes in front of me, but I do have supporting scriptures from Song of Solomon and others that speak to when 'alma' is virginal and when it is 'young woman'.

I will try to dig those up for you, but regardless, don't go on the assumption of a virgin birth as that is not in Jewish teachings.

Just FTR -- neither is the book of Daniel or Isaiah 53 as neither are classified as messianic passages by the Rabbinical coding (writings, prophesy, law, etc).

Not unlike the Muslims claiming that things refer to Mohammed (like the prophet mentioned by Moses in Deut 18:18 and the Comforter by Jesus in
John 15:26)


I have a Jewish study bible, and it seems to explain that Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel.

[pilgrimian]

This is not the case. The Jews are waiting on a mortal man, born of two earthly parents who the Lord will use to restore Israel (the nation and the people).

It depends on the Jew you are speaking with. There are two Jews, and you'll have three opinions. The destruction of the Temple, among other things have created the necessity for non-Believing Israel to create something that doesn't work with Scripture...that actually disagrees with the earliest of notable Rabbis. Messiah in the Tanach, Targums, and Talmuds (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/messiah.html)is an excellent source for understanding this.

I have been meaning to write an article about alma, and indeed, it means 'young woman' in cultural context.

I don't have my notes in front of me, but I do have supporting scriptures from Song of Solomon and others that speak to when 'alma' is virginal and when it is 'young woman'.

I will try to dig those up for you, but regardless, don't go on the assumption of a virgin birth as that is not in Jewish teachings.

Context is key. And there are couple other words that Isaiah could have used instead of Almah.

Na'a'rah means "damsel" and can refer to either a virgin (as in I Kings 1:2), or a non-virgin (as in Ruth 2:6).

Betulah is commonly considered to mean virgin, exclusively. It has been argued that if Isaiah meant "virgin" he would have used this word and not Almah. However, in answer to those critics, this word also has a variation of meanings. In Joel 1:8 it is used in reference to a widow.

In Genesis 24:16, because the word does not specifically mean "virgin," the writer adds the phrase "had not known a man." This same specificity takes place in Judges 21:12 where we see "had not known a man" so the reader is sure of what is being conveyed.

Almah means "virgin," or "a young virgin," or a "virgin of marriageable age." The word is used seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures and never once is used of a married woman.

Genesis 24:43 needs no specifying comment as in Genesis 24:16 -- "virgin" is meant. It's used of Rebekah who was a virgin at the time of her marriage with Isaac.

Exodus 2:8 refers to Moses' sister Miriam, who was a virgin.

Psalm 68:25 uses the word in reference to the royal procession of virgins. Since the King in this context is God Himself, absolute virginity is required; it is unthinkable that God would allow unchaste, unmarried women in His procession.

Song of Songs 1:3 -- the context is purity in marriage.

Song of Songs 6:8 -- in contrast to wives and concubines...and these would obviously be non-virgins...so the word is obviously virgin.

Proverbs 30:18-19 -- used in contrast to adultresses.

Isaiah 7:14 -- since all the other times the word is used it means "virgin," why would it not be virgin here?

Since everyone agrees that almah means an unmarried woman, if the woman in Isaiah 7:14 were a non-virgin, then God would basically be promising a sign that involves fornication and illegitimacy! Would God sanction in any case? And what would be so unusual about an illegitimate baby that would constitute a "sign" in verse 14? What kind of sign is that?

So, regardless of what many in contemporary Judaism think, the Tanach is clear...and God was clear in revealing such a thing to Isaiah. Many miss the portion dealing with Isaiah's son in this passage, Shear-Jashub. Also, it is fascinating to see it in the Hebrew because the Lord is speaking at one moment to Isaiah and then the "you" becomes plural...not just Isaiah and his son, but all of Israel is in view here.

I have a Jewish study bible, and it seems to explain that Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel.

The one by David Stern? He's a Messianic Believer, albeit one who tends to lean towards the bondwoman rather than the free.

Blessings,
Matthew

[Mommy2KandM]

Context is key. And there are couple other words that Isaiah could have used instead of Almah.

Na'a'rah means "damsel" and can refer to either a virgin (as in I Kings 1:2), or a non-virgin (as in Ruth 2:6).

Betulah is commonly considered to mean virgin, exclusively. It has been argued that if Isaiah meant "virgin" he would have used this word and not Almah. However, in answer to those critics, this word also has a variation of meanings. In Joel 1:8 it is used in reference to a widow.

In Genesis 24:16, because the word does not specifically mean "virgin," the writer adds the phrase "had not known a man." This same specificity takes place in Judges 21:12 where we see "had not known a man" so the reader is sure of what is being conveyed.

Almah means "virgin," or "a young virgin," or a "virgin of marriageable age." The word is used seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures and never once is used of a married woman.

Genesis 24:43 needs no specifying comment as in Genesis 24:16 -- "virgin" is meant. It's used of Rebekah who was a virgin at the time of her marriage with Isaac.

Exodus 2:8 refers to Moses' sister Miriam, who was a virgin.

Psalm 68:25 uses the word in reference to the royal procession of virgins. Since the King in this context is God Himself, absolute virginity is required; it is unthinkable that God would allow unchaste, unmarried women in His procession.

Song of Songs 1:3 -- the context is purity in marriage.

Song of Songs 6:8 -- in contrast to wives and concubines...and these would obviously be non-virgins...so the word is obviously virgin.

Proverbs 30:18-19 -- used in contrast to adultresses.

Isaiah 7:14 -- since all the other times the word is used it means "virgin," why would it not be virgin here?

Since everyone agrees that almah means an unmarried woman, if the woman in Isaiah 7:14 were a non-virgin, then God would basically be promising a sign that involves fornication and illegitimacy! Would God sanction in any case? And what would be so unusual about an illegitimate baby that would constitute a "sign" in verse 14? What kind of sign is that?

So, regardless of what many in contemporary Judaism think, the Tanach is clear...and God was clear in revealing such a thing to Isaiah. Many miss the portion dealing with Isaiah's son in this passage, Shear-Jashub. Also, it is fascinating to see it in the Hebrew because the Lord is speaking at one moment to Isaiah and then the "you" becomes plural...not just Isaiah and his son, but all of Israel is in view here.



WOW.. thanks Matthew.

Something I have been wondering about..... Has God hardened Isreals (Jewish) heart, except for a remnant (those that see Christ for who He is), for the time being because of their continued rejection of Christ as Messiah?

[antsinmypants]

here's something that might also assist you: http://chazak.heartofisrael.org/

The Jews for Judaism group can sometimes get to be quite extreme with their methods. I've been in their Paltalk room before and listened/dialogued about Talmud and the Torah Readings before and it was quite interesting, however their anti-missionary tactics... they're enough to scare even a marine...

[pilgrimian]

WOW.. thanks Matthew.

Something I have been wondering about..... Has God hardened Isreals (Jewish) heart, except for a remnant (those that see Christ for who He is), for the time being because of their continued rejection of Christ as Messiah?

1I ASK then: Has God totally rejected and disowned His people? Of course not! Why, I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin! [I Sam. 12:22; Jer. 31:37; 33:24-26; Phil. 3:5.]
2No, God has not rejected and disowned His people [whose destiny] He had marked out and appointed and foreknown from the beginning. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

3Lord, they have killed Your prophets; they have demolished Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.

4But what is God's reply to him? I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal! [I Kings 19:18.]

5So too at the present time there is a remnant (a small believing minority), selected (chosen) by grace (by God's unmerited favor and graciousness).

6But if it is by grace (His unmerited favor and graciousness), it is no longer conditioned on works or anything men have done. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace [it would be meaningless].

7What then [shall we conclude]? Israel failed to obtain what it sought [God's favor by obedience to the Law]. Only the elect (those chosen few) obtained it, while the rest of them became callously indifferent (blinded, hardened, and made insensible to it).

8As it is written, God gave them a spirit (an attitude) of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, [that has continued] down to this very day.

9And David says, Let their table (their feasting, banqueting) become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a just retribution [rebounding like a boomerang upon them];

10Let their eyes be darkened (dimmed) so that they cannot see, and make them bend their back [stooping beneath their burden] forever.

11So I ask, Have they stumbled so as to fall [to their utter spiritual ruin, irretrievably]? By no means! But through their false step and transgression salvation [has come] to the Gentiles, so as to arouse Israel [to see and feel what they forfeited] and so to make them jealous.

12Now if their stumbling (their lapse, their transgression) has so enriched the world [at large], and if [Israel's] failure means such riches for the Gentiles, think what an enrichment and greater advantage will follow their full reinstatement!

13But now I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I lay great stress on my ministry and magnify my office,

14In the hope of making my fellow Jews jealous [in order to stir them up to imitate, copy, and appropriate], and thus managing to save some of them.

15For if their rejection and exclusion from the benefits of salvation were [overruled] for the reconciliation of a world to God, what will their acceptance and admission mean? [It will be nothing short of] life from the dead!

16Now if the first handful of dough offered as the firstfruits [Abraham and the patriarchs] is consecrated (holy), so is the whole mass [the nation of Israel]; and if the root [Abraham] is consecrated (holy), so are the branches.

17But if some of the branches were broken off, while you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them to share the richness [of the root and sap] of the olive tree,

18Do not boast over the branches and pride yourself at their expense. If you do boast and feel superior, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root [that supports] you.

19You will say then, Branches were broken (pruned) off so that I might be grafted in!

20That is true. But they were broken (pruned) off because of their unbelief (their lack of real faith), and you are established through faith [because you do believe]. So do not become proud and conceited, but rather stand in awe and be reverently afraid.

21For if God did not spare the natural branches [because of unbelief], neither will He spare you [if you are guilty of the same offense]....

Yes, to put it bluntly.

[Mommy2KandM]

Thanks Matthew. :):

[roadrunner570]

The one by David Stern? He's a Messianic Believer, albeit one who tends to lean towards the bondwoman rather than the free.

Blessings,
Matthew

No, this is called the Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society. NOT messianic Jews, I made sure it wasn't.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195297512/103-0952478-5102222?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[pilgrimian]

No, this is called the Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society. NOT messianic Jews, I made sure it wasn't.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195297512/103-0952478-5102222?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Wow...excellent. So they concur with the Rabbis of old. Most Jews I speak with who are not Believers have not even come face-to-face with some of these Scriptures. It saddens me to no end. Either they are open...or dead-set against listening. All I can do is be a friend, and love them. This is the best witness. I have known folks who want to take mission trips for a couple weeks here and there...this is commendable. But we need to remember our mission field here in our daily lives.

Shabbat Shalom--Godspeed,
Matthew