Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
Someone asked: "I understand that for Jesus to be Mashiach Ben David, he has to be the son of Yosef. Many people have tried to explain to me the the genealogy from Luke is his legal lineage through Natan via yibum and they quote from anarticle written by Chabad website to verify this claim."
A link to the article "Is the Messiah a Descendant of King Solomon?" Yibbum aka "levirate" (in Latin) is a mitzvah whereby an older brother may marry the widow of a younger brother if there was no male heir conceived in the deceased brother's marriage. This is done to allow inheritance to go to the deceased brother's widow's son while staying in the same tribe / family since the biological father is an elder brother to the deceased. Does the article support the idea that King Solomon married his younger brother Nathan's widow and had a son by him who could be an ancestor to Joseph, Mary's husband (but not Jesus' actual biological father)? Missionaries are distorting the article which itself states: G‑d singles out King Solomon (I Chronicles 22:9–10): Behold, a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace (shalom) from all his enemies around about, for Solomon (Shlomo) will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house in My name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever. And later on, David states: And of all my sons—for the L‑rd gave me many sons—He chose my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel . . . (Ibid. 28:5) When King David reaffirms that Solomon will reign after him, he is saluted with the expression, “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31), indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon. In light of the above, the fact that Moshiach will be a descendant of both David and Solomon is part of the twelfth (of the thirteen) Jewish fundamental beliefs as outlined by Maimonides. The article makes it clear that the messiah will be a descendant of Solomon, not Nathan or one of King David's other nine sons. The missionaries attempt to find an excuse for Luke's bypassing Solomon and including Nathan's son in the lineage he gives for Joseph, Mary's husband (this even though Joseph was supposedly NOT Jesus father!). They come up with the excuse that Nathan must have died childless (the only way a yibbum is permitted) and Solomon must have married Nathan's widow and fathered a son with her that eventually became the ancestor to the Joseph of the Christian bible. Even though none of this is supported by either the Hebrew Bible or the Christian bible this is the excuse they try to use. Let's not forget either that the messiah must not only be born from a line including David and Solomon, he must also fulfill the actual messianic prophecies (which Jesus never did) or he would not be the messiah no matter if he was descended from both men or not! Ignoring the virgin birth -- which makes Joseph's lineage immaterial since tribal status is only passed down by a biological father of a given tribe married to a Jewish woman fathering children with her -- let's assume that Joseph actually got Mary pregnant and so his lineage has some value. Big assumption, but for the sake of this argument let's say that Joseph fathered Jesus... Both of Joseph's lineages in the Christian bible disqualify him from being a messiah, including any of his children. One line goes through Jeconiah and the other through Nathan, not Solomon. Matthew includes King Jeconiah in his lineage for Jesus and Joseph. Yirmiyahu / Jeremiah 22:30 states that none of Jeconiah's heirs will ever be kings of the Jews. Thus by including Jeconiah in Jesus (and Joseph)'s lineages Matthew has just eliminated Jesus from the possibility of ever being an anointed (messiah) king of the Jews. Luke has a completely different lineage for Joseph and says he was descended from King David's son Nathan, not Solomon, thus eliminating Joseph and his heirs from the kingly line. Nathan is not the son G-d promises in Shmuel 2 / 2 Samuel 7 will build G-d’s house (the Temple) and through whom the throne will be established. This person was David’s son Solomon, not his son Nathan. The Jewish bible is clear that the messiah must be a physical offspring of both David and Solomon on their father's side (paternally). That throws Jesus out completely if one believes Luke's lineage since it bypasses Solomon. What of the information on theChabad website regarding Nathan and a yibbum marriage? Missionaries are misusing a Jewish source. The Chabad makes it clear that in Kabbalah (which is mystical, not literal) there is the possibility that the messiah will have descended not from Nathan, but from Nathan's wife via a yibbum. Remember: to marry under the law of yibbum the widow must be of childbearing age and not have had an heir with her husband. This would seem to support the missionary argument -- but the Chabad article also made it clear that the messiah must be descended from Solomon, meaning he must be of the legal line of Solomon. The Chabad article brings up a comment in the Zohar (Kabbalah) that Nathan, one of King David's youngest sons, died without a male heir and Solomon took her as one of his 700 wives (he also had 300 concubines). There is no biblical support for this idea, so it seems that the Zohar is using drash (non-literal story telling) to make a point. Here is a link to the Chabad which restates that the messiah must be descended from Solomon, not one of David's other sons. The concept of yibbum / ייבום, sometimes called levirate (by non-Jews as it comes from Latin), speaks of a brother marrying his dead brother's wife. Same tribe, It is very important to note that in a yibbum (levirate marriage) both brothers must have the same FATHER. If there are two brothers who have the same mother but not the same father then it is not a yibbum marriage. Any older brother of a deceased man may offer yibbum although most often it was the eldest brother. FYI, Solomon was NOT the eldest son of David. That honor belonged to Amnon, son of Jezreel. The second son was Chileab, son of Abigail... -- The fact is that it is ILLEGAL for a Jewish king to take part in a yibbun marriage so this Christian idea of a loophole to explain Luke's lineage bypassing Solomon and going through Nathan can be excused. The fact is that it is ILLEGAL for a Jewish king to take part in a yibbun marriage so this Christian idea of a loophole to explain Luke's lineage bypassing Solomon and going through Nathan can be excused. The Talmud, Sanhedrin 2:2 -- this is the Mishna so this is not mere "opinion" -- it is Jewish law -- says a king is forbidden from marrying under yibbum: "The mishna continues, enumerating the Jewish law pertaining to the king in similar matters: The king does not judge others as a member of a court and others do not judge him, he does not testify and others do not testify concerning him, he does not perform cḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform cḥalitza with his wife, and he does not consummate yibbum marriage with his brother’s widow and his brother does not consummate yibbum marriage with his wife, as all these actions are not fitting to the honor of his office." This is repeated twice again in the Talmud Sanhedrin 18a:5-10 "he (the king) does not perform cḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform cḥalitza with his wife, and he does not consummate yibbum marriage with his brother’s widow and his brother does not consummate yibbum marriage with his wife, as all these actions are not fitting to the honor of his office." It is repeated again in Sanhedrin 19b:1 - 2 repeats this "The mishna teaches that the king does not perform cḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform cḥalitza with his wife." R' Y'huda disagreed with chazal, but they told him: "The Sages said to him: They do not listen to him if he desires to do so, as this affects not only his own honor but that of the kingdom. " The Talmud, Sanhedrin 2:2. Commentary agrees: "No one hears him, that it is not only the honor itself but the honor of the kingdom." Steinsaltz Commentary and "because it is forbidden to marry." Rashi. What is cḥalitza? This is when a widow refuses a brother of her husband's offer of yibbum. This absolves a brother from having to marry a widow of a younger brother. Likewise, if one brother receives chalitza from a widow of a younger brother all the brothers are absolved of any obligation to marry her. The Rambam in his Mishneh Torah repeats what the Talmud has told us -- a king was forbidden from marrying via yibbum. "Since he (the king) is not allowed to perform chalitzah, he is not eligible to participate in yibbum. Similarly, in the event of his death, since it is forbidden to initiate yibbum with his wife, chalitzah is also not performed for her. Rather, she must remain in her state of attachment forever." Mishneh Torah M'lachim uMilchamot - Chapter 2. So much for the missionary thought that Luke's bypassing Solomon in favor of Nathan (which disqualifies the line from being a messiah) was because it was REALLY Solomon who had married Nathan's widow via yibbum. Kabbalah is not literal and it most certainly does not "trump" the written or oral Torah. Kings are forbidden from a yibbum marriage. This far reach to excuse Luke's mistake is, itself, a mistake. Is it possible that King Solomon's younger brother, Nathan, died before having any sons? Sure. Is it possible that out of the eight brothers (Nathan was the 2nd to last son) older than Nathan didn't offer yibbum, but King Solomon did even though it went against Jewish law? Possible. Is any of it likely? No. Is any of it supported by anything in the Bible? No. Luke goes on to name sons of Nathan in his lineage who are not named in the Bible as sons of Solomon so even the Christian bible does not support this far reach by missionaries to explain why Luke would bypass the REQUIREMENT that the messiah be a son of Solomon. Just more attempts by missionaries to make excuses while completely ignoring both the Hebrew Bible and Jewish law.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|