Zuno Yazh
Member
-
Q: Seeing as how Jesus was virgin conceived; how did he get into Joseph's genealogy as per the first chapter of Matthew?
A: Via a patriarchal precedent.
At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid Bilhah.
Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for his beloved wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own. Ephraim and Manasseh brought Rachel's total up to six. (No doubt Asenath-- the two boys' biological mother --was none too pleased with Jacob's idea but what was she to do? Jacob's word was law in the Israel of that day.)
Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take part in naming Mary's out-of-wedlock baby.
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt 1:21)
Joseph complied.
"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)
So Jesus went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's how it worked in those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child. In other words: Jesus became Joseph's son by means of adoption, just as Ephraim and Manasseh became Jacob's sons by means of adoption.
Q: But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Jesus was Joseph's foster child rather than adopted child?
A: Webster's defines "foster" as affording, receiving, or sharing nurture or parental care though not related by blood or legal ties. In other words: foster children have no inheritance rights nor a legitimate place in their foster father's genealogy, i.e foster children are expendable.
In contrast; Webster's defines "adopt" as to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child. In other words: adopted children have inheritance rights and a legitimate place in their adopted father's genealogy, i.e. adopted children are permanent.
Jesus' adoption was essential because though he was born David's progeny, he wasn't born Solomon's; and that was a rub because God chose Solomon to inherit David's throne. Well; Mary's father Eli wasn't related to Solomon, rather, he was related to Solomon's brother Nathan. Plus, the throne never passes down through women, only men. Mary could provide Jesus a biological connection to David, but she could not provide him a royal connection; that had to come via Joseph.
/
Q: Seeing as how Jesus was virgin conceived; how did he get into Joseph's genealogy as per the first chapter of Matthew?
A: Via a patriarchal precedent.
At Gen 48:5-7, Jacob adopted his two grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim; thus installing them in positions equal in rank, honor, and power to his twelve original sons, which had the effect of adding additional children to Rachel's brood just as effectively as the children born of her maid Bilhah.
Jacob's motive for adopting Joseph's two sons was in sympathy for his beloved wife being cut off during her child-bearing years, which subsequently prevented her from having any more children of her own. Ephraim and Manasseh brought Rachel's total up to six. (No doubt Asenath-- the two boys' biological mother --was none too pleased with Jacob's idea but what was she to do? Jacob's word was law in the Israel of that day.)
Now, fast-forward to the New Testament where the angel of The Lord spoke to Joseph in a dream and instructed him to take part in naming Mary's out-of-wedlock baby.
"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus" (Matt 1:21)
Joseph complied.
"And he gave him the name Jesus." (Matt 1:25)
So Jesus went in the books as Joseph's son; because that's how it worked in those days when a man stood with a woman to name her child. In other words: Jesus became Joseph's son by means of adoption, just as Ephraim and Manasseh became Jacob's sons by means of adoption.
Q: But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Jesus was Joseph's foster child rather than adopted child?
A: Webster's defines "foster" as affording, receiving, or sharing nurture or parental care though not related by blood or legal ties. In other words: foster children have no inheritance rights nor a legitimate place in their foster father's genealogy, i.e foster children are expendable.
In contrast; Webster's defines "adopt" as to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child. In other words: adopted children have inheritance rights and a legitimate place in their adopted father's genealogy, i.e. adopted children are permanent.
Jesus' adoption was essential because though he was born David's progeny, he wasn't born Solomon's; and that was a rub because God chose Solomon to inherit David's throne. Well; Mary's father Eli wasn't related to Solomon, rather, he was related to Solomon's brother Nathan. Plus, the throne never passes down through women, only men. Mary could provide Jesus a biological connection to David, but she could not provide him a royal connection; that had to come via Joseph.
/