Nazarene Space

An adopted child (like Mashiach was) can inherit the throne of David?

An adopted child (like Mashiach was) can inherit the throne of David? Mashiach was adopted by Yoseph, but the question is, he as an adopted person could inherit the throne of David? Why?

Views: 306

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Adopted children are considered to be children of their adoptive parents, with all that it entails.

The Torah even talks about levirate marriage, which also relates to a similar topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0525.htm#5

But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen. So, that's my question, and actually im looking for an answer to have more evidence in my hand to prove to some friends that Yeshúa as an adopted child was able to sit in the throne of David. :-)

...throne goes to pedigree. adopted child is as much as natural child to that respect.

...the ehod likewise goes to pedigree (sons of Aaron). but the strict halachic injunction of "marriage"  imposed upon the sons of Aaron is a specific law that imposes further requirement respecting "maternal" lineage.

(please don't obligate me to present chapters and verse. read your bible properly.)

shabbat shalom.

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

Maybe the rabbinic law is wrong.
Maybe the answer is found somewhere in f.ex the gospel/besorah of Luke, who deals with his matrilineal (priestly) side more so than the other gospel accounts.

YB"E said:

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

The Bible tells us God can create sons of Abraham from the stone.

And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. (Matt. 3:9)

It shouldn't be more difficult to create a son of David from flesh.
Maybe the Davidic DNA, genes, blood, were simply implanted in his body.

This chart might be of value:

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. 

in matters of legal right the adopted is as if the woman bore him --that is, like the natural child.

But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

the office of a kohen is not a matter of legal right (not all israelite can be a kohen) but is a matter of "appointment of Aaron" of whom and from whom alone such an office can flow by natural pedigree. to this appointed office the legal fiction of "adoption" cannot pierce because of the natural sonship requirement: it says "sons of Aaron" to state a rule that the right to this appointed office can only flow from his loins.



YB"E said:

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

Christian, we do not count Yeshua's pedigree to end with Yosef being a mere step-father. simply said: Davidic lineage is not wanting in the Ruach Haqodesh Who overshadowed the virgin to effect conception by divine intervention.

else, say it: does Dovid possess something that G-d cannot bestow upon the womb?

,

however, again, kingship is a matter of legal right: that is, it can happen to anyone that falls within or enters into the line by way of natural birth, by adoption, or by filiation (marriage).

,

but not the kohanite office: that is, although Moshe and Aaron share common pedigree and maternal lines Aaron can be priest while Moshe cannot.

shavua tov



Solomon Avar said:

Maybe the rabbinic law is wrong.
Maybe the answer is found somewhere in f.ex the gospel/besorah of Luke, who deals with his matrilineal (priestly) side more so than the other gospel accounts.

YB"E said:

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

According to YB''E's comment the Rabbis apparently do not count adopted children as equal children (which it seems you disagree with.)


beryl etanah said:

Christian, we do not count Yeshua's pedigree to end with Yosef being a mere step-father.



Solomon Avar said:

Maybe the rabbinic law is wrong.
Maybe the answer is found somewhere in f.ex the gospel/besorah of Luke, who deals with his matrilineal (priestly) side more so than the other gospel accounts.

YB"E said:

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

it is not that i disagree (check my post next to his), rather, i explained further the rules concerning adoption. YBE was asking for answers. it is pointless to disagree or agree when your intention is to expound on something the other side needed.



Solomon Avar said:

According to YB''E's comment the Rabbis apparently do not count adopted children as equal children (which it seems you disagree with.)


beryl etanah said:

Christian, we do not count Yeshua's pedigree to end with Yosef being a mere step-father.



Solomon Avar said:

Maybe the rabbinic law is wrong.
Maybe the answer is found somewhere in f.ex the gospel/besorah of Luke, who deals with his matrilineal (priestly) side more so than the other gospel accounts.

YB"E said:

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

If one really believes in Yeshua as being what the Letter to the Hebrews says of him, I think him being Kohen haGadol in the order of Malchizedek - (who wasn't a Levite because in terms of time he came much before him, in Genesis chapter 14 - he blessed Abraham - the book of Jasher says this is Shem, Noach's son) takes care of the issue. 

If Yeshua is Son of YHWH, as I believe he is, doesn't it seem silly to split hairs about rabbinic law?

Some have made the point that when John the Baptist baptized Yeshua he in effect 1) Levitically declared him a valid sacrifice, and 2) passed High Priestly authority from the Levites (John was a Levite) to Yeshua.

With Yeshua's sacrifice on the execution stake the priesthood changed forever because animal sacrifices were no longer to be done.  In the current era, Yeshua is kohen haGadol.


YB"E said:

Yes, but the rabbinic law says that an adopted child is consider as if the woman bore him. But, if a kohen adopted a child, that child was not converted in a kohen.

Also, concerning the typology present in Yeshua haMaschiach's life consider the workings of the priesthood from the Hebrew Scriptures.  In Joshua 20:6 it says that a manslayer shall find refuge in a safe city which is defined in Numbers 35:6 as being the towns of the priests. 

The cities of refuge, being the cities of the priests,  bore the sin of the manslayer.  What the high priest was to the Levites, the Levites were to the nation, and the nation was to all of humanity.  On the Day of Atonement, therefore, all the sins of the nation therefore came into the High Priests hands.  On his death, the manslayer was released from the law.  Upon Yeshua, the Kohen HaGadol's death, a believer was released from the impossibility of having to perfectly keep the entire Law as a prerequisite to inherit eternal life  (I am not being antinomian here).  Yeshua being indwelt to such a very high extent by the Ruach haQodesh allowed him to not sin, and he was, as such worthy to inherit the Covenants of Promise as promised to Avraham, and to be the sinless Lamb of God and the High Priest forever in the order of Malchizedek. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service