Charless Argument for Matrilineal Descent, with Dinahs Comments in Red

With help from the work of Rabbi Yisroel C. Blumenthal and Mickey Miller

Zelophehad, his daughters and Messiah's genealogy. The promise of God to David that a future Son whose throne would be established forever and who would build Gods house was fulfilled in immediately and illustriously in Solomon (1 Chron.22.6-10). The obvious contradiction: It cant be fulfilled immediately with Solomon, who eventually dies; otherwise what does forever mean? Solomon however fell into serious and multiple transgressions, and his kingdom was ripped in two shortly after his death. With some glorious exceptions, his progeny for the most part continued a path of dismal decline until the throne was permanently removed from Judah in the time of King Jeconiah. Nowhere does it say anything about permanent removal from Judah (see Isaiah 11:1, for example). Jeremiah 37 tells us that Zedekiah, Jeconiahs brother, reigned in his place, instead of Jeconiahs son. Was Solomon the apogee of Gods gracious promise? The Psalmist Ethan the Ezrahite, a contemporary of Solomons, looks for a far more glorious future fulfillment, One whom the describes as Gods firstborn (Ps.89.27). One to Whom not only the tribe of Judah and the whole nation of Israel, but all created powers will be subject. You are being hyperliteral with the use of the word firstborn. I would caution you against that, since Israel is called Gods firstborn son as well. If you read this in context, you will see that this is talking about David himself. The Psalmist speaks of the sins of his children and then complains that Hashem didnt uphold his honor. Jehoshua the Messiah, the son of Mary, the daughter of Heli, of the lineage of David, is the fulfillment of this promise. He is the divinely appointed firstborn substitute, both the Priest of sinners and the King of meekness, the true Surety of Judah, the One Who by His piercing brings Shiloh, and has laid the foundation stone of the Third Temple, by which alone iniquity may be purged. Although I am arguing as if Lukes genealogy applies to Mary, the argument that this isnt Josephs genealogy is a desperate attempt to reconcile this genealogy with Matthews.

Yet how does Jehoshua descend from David? If as the New Testament claims, His birth was the result of a unique and supernatural conception in Marys womb alone, how can He lawfully inherit Davids title? The Gospel of Matthew, lays out Josephs lineage from David, through Solomon, through cursed King Jeconiah, and Salathiel and Zerubabbel, right down to Josephs father Jacob. Here is a formal train of inheritance linking David to an adopting father, Marys lawful husband, yet with no blood ties to the Prince. The unconditional promise to David, unlike that to Solomon, explicitly refers to his genetic link to the coming King, And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son 2 Sam.7.12-14a The promise to Solomon was also unconditional. Christians need to delegitimize Solomon so that they can have the throne pass through Nathan, but it doesnt work. How can you dismiss Solomon? He authored three books--Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastesthat are part of the canon of Hebrew Scripture, works that are divinely inspired. He built the Temple. He was the greatest of all the Judahite kings, reigning over the longest period of peace and prosperity with wisdom and good judgment. His is the closest to the type of kingdom we can expect in the messianic age based on the picture painted by the prophets.

Solomon was called by God to be his son: 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chron 17:13, 22:10, 28:6. Second Samuel 7:12-17 makes it clear that God expects Solomon to deviate from the straight and narrow, but God will chastise him. Nevertheless, unlike Saul, Solomons dynasty will not be removedso this is an unconditional promise. You cannot bypass Solomon and have Nathan take over the royal line.

Remember, mercy is free, not paid for. Psalms 86:5 reassures us that God is merciful and forgiving. Solomon was not expected to be perfectand God in his mercy would forgive him. Proverbs 16:6 tells us that mercy and truth atone for sin.

The passage in 2 Samuel provides the following key points: 1. 2. 3. 4. Solomons kingdom is permanent. Solomon will be punished by men. God will not take the royal line from Solomons descendants and give it to another. Gods mercy will never leave Solomon.

Let us examine other biblical prophecies: 1. Solomon keeps the messianic tribe of Judah, 1 Kings 11:13; 36.

2. The loss of most of the kingdom wont be permanent, 1 Kings 11:39, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Ezekiel 33:25-26, 34:22-24, 37:21-27.

There are, to be sure, different kinds of prophecies regarding Solomon; some are conditional and some are unconditional. When God wants to end a kingdom, this is the language He uses: 1 Kings 14:7-11. Compare that to the eulogy of Solomon: 2 Chronicles 9:22-31.

Michael Brown argues that 1 Chronicles 28:7 is conditional and that 1 Kings 11:4-6 proves Solomon was disobedient, unlike David. Therefore, since Solomon was subject to a conditional prophecy, his kingdom ends. David, on the other hand, received an unconditional prophecy and so possesses an eternal kingdom.

We understand that the Davidic kingdom will progress through four phases: united, divided, exiled, and restored. In 1 Kings 11:5-9 we see that progression. Verse 5 describes the kingdom of the Lord. Verse 7 describes the united kingdom of Solomon (not the kingdom of the Lord); this is the kingdom which will be divided. Verse 8, David addresses the congregation of Israel and warns them about the third phase, exile. Verse 9, David addresses Solomon and warns him what will happen if Solomon forsakes God. But that never happened. Solomon sinned, but he did not forsake God. If he had, he would not have merited that eulogy in 2 Chronicles.

To summarize; 1. Solomons kingdom was established (1 Kings 2:12, 46) forever (2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:12, 14; 22:10). 2. 3. 4. David was also given conditional prophecies, 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; Psalms 132:12. Davids kingdom also ended temporarily, Psalms 89:40, 45. Solomons kingdom was part of Davids kingdom, not a separate one:

a. Solomon was told his kingdom would be taken from him (1 Kings 11:11-13), but when the people rebelled, they said they were leaving David (1 Kings 12:16; 1 Kings 14:7-8).

b. God forged a covenant with David and his sons for a permanent kingdom through his son Solomon (2 Chronicles 13:5, 21:7) because all Solomons brothers accepted his kingship (1 Chronicles 29:24).

The Gospel of Luke, with its focus both on Mary [this is your speculation] and her family and its distinct emphasis on the humanity of the Messiah, records a chain of genealogy from David, which bypasses Solomon, now via Nathan [in contradiction to Gods promise], also passing through Zerubabbel and Salathiel, right down to Heli. Joseph is recorded as though Helis son, with the unique insertion, as was supposed, ( Luke 3.23). Was Joseph the son of Jacob, son of Matthan, son of Eleazar, who Matthew records begat him ( Matt.1.16), or was he the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, son of Levi? Luke, by the Spirit, introduces his account like this, Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Matthew, or Levi, a senior tax collector before his conversion, records his genealogy of the Messiah with equal awareness of the many scoffers and rejecters of His majesty. Do critics really imagine the two writers to be presenting so awkward and massive a contradiction, that even a small child could easily perceive it, without any qualification or reference to the other flawed position? Yes, I do think its plausible that Luke did not properly consult Matthew. It is anachronistic to think of Luke as seeing his book standing side by side with Matthews in a complete KJV Bible printed by Zondervan. Luke may have had access to Matthews sources but quite possibly not to his work itself. So if both Joseph and Mary descended from David, how could the promise to Davids house properly apply to Jehoshua? It appears likely [not certain] that Mary had no brothers [because how can you know this? Furthermore, David had many other descendants through Solomon]. When the Messiah expired, He passed her care into the hands not of His half brothers or sisters, who were the natural born children of Joseph and Mary, but into the care of the son of Salome, John, His disciple. This must have seemed most peculiar, but John held a strong devotion to his Rabbi, not at that time shared by the natural brethren. Who was better placed to nurture and placate the bitter wound in the now widowed Marys soul, the sword Simeon had long foreseen? There is also evidence that Salome was Marys sister, for though it is often claimed that Mary of Cleophas was the sister referred to in John 19.25, it would be most unusual for two sisters to share the same name. Salome was also present (Matt. 27.56). If this was indeed the case, John would have been His Lords half-cousin, and as one also intimate with the extended family, naturally placed to take up the care of his aunt. Even if it were not, there were no other close relatives the Saviour dared entrust His own widowed mother, in either case it suggests Mary had no nephews or nieces from a brother ready to share her deepest grief. [This entire paragraph is based on speculation on a text I do not consider authoritative.]

Even if Mary had no male co-heir, how does this qualify her firstborn Son to a title in Davids name? Zelophehad had only 5 daughters and no sons (Numbers 27.1-9). These daughters, by their appeal to God through Moses, and by a later counter-appeal, from their tribal elders, establish the Divine right of the female inheritance, where no alternative male descendants exist. This counter-appeal clarifies that the right of inheritance must pass through the male name, and is only maintained if the daughters marry within their own tribe to avoid confusion. This exceptional double Divine lesson in reactive jurisprudence, comports with many other passages in which a womans right to land and protection is secured by her inheritance through a son. Ruth the Moabitess is graciously elevated into the royal line by boldly seeking the right of marriage at the hand of Boaz, as her Goel (kinsman redeemer). Tamar in an ignoble but equally tenacious manner, when denied the right of marriage to Selah, secures her family line by ensnaring Judah. The shame of a family head who refuses to oversee this duty properly commissioned, is lawfully underscored as the one whose shoe is loosed (Deut.25.10). It is claimed that the grant to Zelophehads daughters was strictly confined to their inheritance. Gerald Sigal, writes Zelophehads case does not apply here since it concerns the transference of physical property and not privileges of lineage.1 Yisroel Blumenthal claims, we shall shortly demonstrate that the right of inheritance has no relationship to genealogy2. However it appears from the passages that address these questions of inheritance, that the name of the father is as important a consideration as the shelter of and provision for the surviving wife and her progeny. In the text the perpetuity of the fathers name is the primary consideration. Moreover in 1http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59:whosgenealogy-is-given-by-luke&catid=58:birth-of-jesus&Itemid=488 Mahlons case the principle of inheritance is explicitly posited on the assumption of this perpetuation of his name. Boaz says to the elders of Bethlehem, (Ruth 4.9-10), Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day. The name of the deceased Mahlon is not be cut off ( ) , but raised up again in his posterity () , irrespective of the sinful descent into Moab that lead to his premature demise. In his opening appeal to Mahlons closer blood relative, Boaz roots the question of the land inheritance on this perpetuation of Mahlons name. Before the witnessing elders and experts, he actually enforces the duty to perpetuate Mahlons name upon the purchase of his inheritance, from Naomi, v.5, Then said Boaz, What day thou buyest the field of the hand of Naomi, thou must buy it also of Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance. If our learned friends had been in Bethlehems council, would they not have raised their eyebrows at Boaz forceful interweaving of land transfer and the line of the name of the deceased, and in doing so find themselves in a minority of two against twelve?

But waitthe line can only go through the deceased mans nearest kinsman, not through his wife. In other words, thats why she cant marry just anyone else. Moreover, by marryin g her husbands nearest kinsman, she was perpetuating his name, not hers. What youre trying to do is perpetuate Marys own bloodline, an entirely different matterand it doesnt work. You are quoting a Scripture that refutes your contention! It is intriguing that the elders allude to Tamar in their blessing of Boaz, And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman. Pharez is recognised and even celebrated as Judahs lawful seed and heir, even though the union that lead to his birth was so shameful that it was not to be repeated (Gen.38.26). This respect shown to the name of the deceased is enshrined in statute, not merely by approved tradition. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [the lineage passes through the brother] which is dead, that his name be not put out () of Israel. (Deut.25.6) The tribe is being passed through the man, dont you see? How weighty then is the scriptural evidence that, the right of inheritance has no relationship to genealogy2 or that the transference of physical property is unconnected to privileges of lineage1? Yisroel Blumenthals argument1 is based on Numbers 36, by which he claims that the revision of the law sought by the elders of Manasseh clarifies that, tribal genealogy remains exclusively in the male line2. So upon the assumption that he is correct, the entire purpose of the daughters in suing Moses on their fathers behalf was to ensure that his land remained in their possession, and was counted along with their future husbands lands as the title of their progeny. Largesse something similar to this is displayed in Jobs act of bestowing land rights, not only on his sons (who in Zelophehads case didnt exist) but also on Jobs three daughters (Job 42.15). Yet it is not just the inheritance that the daughters plead for, but a primary concern that the name of our father be done away from among his family (Num 27.4). It is solely upon this premise, that Zelophehads name should endure that the right of inheritance is then pleaded. This pretended separation between the name of the departed and his inheritance is both forced and artificial, the preservation of the inheritance is presupposed in the perpetuity of the name. While the daughters are alive, for that first generation there is still an association with the name of the father, but it does not pass to the next generation as the rest of Scripture proves. Numbers 27:4 speaks of the name of their father, which might indicate that something more than physical possession is being transferred, but since the rest of Scripture contradicts this concept it is right to limit this concept to the first generation where the daughters are still called by their fathers name. Also, remember: they may only gain this inheritance if they marry within the tribe. It is not difficult to see why this is the case, when the portion of land allotted to believers is sometimes named with their name Jair and Havoth-Jair (Nu 32.41), Leshem-Dan (Jos 19.47) or

Gilead and his land (Jos 17.1), though in the last example the name was taken from the land not conferred upon it (Gen 2 http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/dr-brown-volume-4/ (response to page 88) 31.21). It is of course, also a mark of the godless, though in false expectation (Ps 49.11, Gen 4.17). What indeed is the name of the promised land, and why should the patriarchs and Joseph have taken such trouble to be buried within the land if they did not expect a resurrection there later? Indeed the elders of Manassehs primary concern that the daughters inheritance be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers may be construed as a concern at the failed perpetuity of promised apportionment of the land given to Manassehs name. Yisroel Blumenthal writes, The entire thrust of the passage is that female inheritors must marry into their own tribe in order to keep the inheritance within the tribal possession. If the female inheritors would be able to pass their genealogical attributes to their children this would not be an issue. However the case is only half stated, the danger of confusion between the tribes arose, when a daughter bearing inheritance rights to her fathers land married outside of her tribe. Then her husbands name and lineage would take precedence, and her land being taken under his name, the land belonging to Manasseh would fall under the name of another tribe. This is speculation. The Scripture quoted has nothing to prove this point. There is another consideration which tends to support this consideration. Imagine Hepher, Zelophehads father, had had brothers, and such a hypothesis is feasible, given the 52,700 inhabitants of the tribe contemporary with the 5 daughters (Num.26.33,34). Exactly the same situation might have arisen within the tribe of Manasseh, as opposed to outside it in Numbers 37. What if Hephers other descendants expressed their concern about the daughters removing their landrights to another branch of the same tribe? Dynastic concerns can also be weighty. Might that not also have caused some confusion, some loss of prestige for the Hepherite branch of the family? No such concern was entered or considered, does this not suggest that there was some weight to the lineage of Zelophehad that ran through his daughters? Does not indicate that it was only the complete removal of the ownership of land to another tribe, given the supercession of the husbands rights over his wife that needed protection against? A marriage within the tribe not only prevented confusion, but also preserved the wifes right to her fathers title, in the peculiar circumstance that Zelophehads daughters found themselves. This is mere speculation; Numbers 36 clearly states the reason, as Rabbi Blumenthal has clearly explained. As Michael Brown points out in the case of Jarha3, the Egyptian servant of the sonless Sheshan of the tribe of Judah, upon the marriage of Jarha and Sheshans daughter, Sheshans genealogy continues through his grandson Attai, and is then recorded for 13 subsequent generations to Elishama (1 Chron.2.34-41). Yisroel Blumenthal suggests that the statement in v.33 before Jarhas match with Sheshans daughter demonstrates that his progeny were excluded from the genealogy, These were the sons of Jerahmeel4. It is extraordinary that a careful record of 15

generations of a non Israelite lineage is carefully recorded in the midst of Israelite genealogies. The expression these were the sons in the AV is used 12 other times in Chronicles, and 6 times in the Torah5. The exact Hebrew expression only three6. The phrase may either introduce a genealogy (1 Chr 2:50) or conclude it (Gen 36:13b), and the context of the last reference is rich in both uses. Yisroel Blumenthal however writes on 2 Chr 2.33, 3 Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: NT Objections, Vol.4, p.88. 4 Answering Dr Brown p.14. 5 Gen 10:29, 36:12,14,16, Nu 3:17; 1Chr 1:23, 2:50, 3:1, 4:6, 7:17, 8:38, 9:44, 23:10,24, 24:30, 25:5, 2Chr 21:2. 6 Gen. 36:13, 1Chr 2:33,50. the concluding statement in verse 33 it is made clear that the children of this union were not considered descendants of Jerahmeel (italics added). I suggest he perceives a clarity greater than the text allows, and has allowed his presuppositions to overrule his judgement, a snare we must all guard against. There are two ways to read the phrase: either as an introduction to a lineage or as a conclusion. There is no third possibility. In the case in Chronicles it cant be an introduction because it follows a long list of the lineage in question, so by process of elimination there is only one other interpretation. Furthermore, you have fallen into this snare yourself by combing through the text to find a single instance or two where the lineage possibly, maybe, passes through the female line, when the preponderance of the evidence is against that. Michael Brown also argues that Zeruiah, Davids sister is also given as the sole parent of the famous three warriors Asahel, Abishai and Joab 5 times, and 23 times of at least one of them, suggesting her dominant importance to their genealogy [Yes, but what does this prove?] He also alludes to the curious connection between Judahs Hezron marriage to Machirs the Manassehites daughter, leading to their grandson Jair conquering property in Gilead, which is of Manasseh not Judah. It is not clear what relevance this is to Zelophehadite inheritance however, and conquest may not be governed by the same principle as inheritance. What is interesting is Jairs link to the portion of land allotted to Manasseh is through his paternal grandmother, not his paternal grandfathers lineage (1 Chr.2.21-22). Again, inheritance of land, not tribal lineage! Michael Brown also raises the difficult question of the genealogy of Barzillai in Ezra and Nehemiah (Ez.2.62, Neh.7.63) as an indication of a genealogy that passes through female members of a family3. The very next verse in both accounts indicates that their qualification for a priestly genealogy was unsatisfactory and the sons of Barzillai were disqualified along with two other groups of candidates, These sought their register among those that were reckoned by

genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. At first sight, this would seem to serve the case against a Zelophehadite lineage perfectly, if the priesthood couldnt be safely entrusted to a genealogy that passed through a female member, how much less the Monarchy and the Messiahship? However it is most noteworthy that the dismissals were not final or definitive, the decision was merely postponed by Nehemiah until an authoritative determination was made. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim. This suggests there was not so much a problem with the principle of a female link in Barzillais genealogy, had there been one why the need for only a deferral? It suggests that along with the other two groups of candidates there was sufficient doubt about the records, based on the added complexities of their lineage, to temporarily disqualify the sons of Barzillai. In the event, this may well have fatally injured their own candidacy, but it only supports the validity of a female link in a genealogy under strict and defined circumstances, otherwise the very possibility could only have been dismissed out of hand. Barzilai was not a priest (he was from Gilead; that makes him from Manasseh). Whatever problem there was with the lineage, it had nothing to do with passing through a female line. The text is just pointing out an interesting quirk that the family kept the name of a maternal grandparent. This was just a matter of using the name, not giving any rights. You are speculating againthis isnt borne out by history. If a woman of priestly lineage married outside her tribe, her sons could not serve as priests. The Lord Yehoshua the Messiah was born of a virgin mother [a belief you take on faith] and adopted by His earthly patron and Marys betrothed husband Joseph, son-in-law to Heli, natural son of Jacob. Both lineages are important [Why are both important?] to the Divine promise to David. We have sought to show how the Messiahs descent from David through His mother is consistent with the inheritance and lineage of Zelophehad. We propose it too as a potential [thats not the same as clear] solution for the mysterious chiasm in the Messiahs genealogy at Salathiel, during the painful and murderous time of the first Exile. Charles Soper Last updated 9/4/2012 Home