A note to those trying to negate Messiah Y'shua

The anti-Y'shua crowd will go to any length to negate Him! They are adamant that He cannot be Messiah because His lineage came through a woman (since Joseph wasn't His biological father; just someone who "adopted" Y'shua...), and they insist the genealogy (according to Judaism), must come through the male. Also, according to the anti-Y'shua crowd, women cannot inherit or pass on an inheritance. Hence, on several levels, Y'shua's messiahship - according to them - is null and void.

Well, let's examine what SCRIPTURE says:

Numbers 27:8 Moreover, say to the people of Isra'el, 'If a man dies and does not have a son, you are to have his inheritance pass to his daughter. 9 If he doesn't have a daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father doesn't have brothers, give his inheritance to the closest relative in his family, and he will possess it. This will be the standard for judgment to be used by the people of Isra'el, as ADONAI ordered Moshe.'"

That, all by itself, negates the idea that women cannot have an inheritance. Now, let's move on to the genealogy thing, where we see that Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son, Yeshua - except for a little known exception to the rule! Read on....

In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Yeshua. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures. Not only are the two genealogies listed in the reverse chronology from each other, but the genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's mother, Mary, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Yeshua's earthly father Joseph. (Note: this is completely opposed to most teachings! But there is no doubt that Matthew's genealogy is that of Mary, and not her husband Joseph, as is usually assumed.)

However, many people fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Matthew's gospel - the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's, you must deal with a second difficulty: The rights of the line are NOT passed through the mother; but rather, through the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline (as was her husband, Joseph), she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because she was female (Deuteronomy 21:16).

So, it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David; she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore, she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Yeshua - EXCEPT for a little known exception to the rule.

AND LOOK AT THIS! In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons; only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair. So Moses prayed to YHWH and He gave Moses an exception to the rule! He told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements: There must be no male offspring in the family (Numbers 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Numbers 36:6).

Now, returning to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, she was of the line of David, AND received the inheritance of her father because her father had no sons, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.

End of argument!

Footnote to Matthew 1 from the Aramaic English New Testament:

The word gowra designates a protector-male or guardian; the context of this verse determines its specific meaning. Y'shua elsewhere says "which one of gowra, if he has a son...."; obviously "father" is intended. "Gowra" also applies to other forms of protector-male type relationships depending on the context, such as "husband", "son", and so forth. Ancient Aramaic Matthew ends at verse 17, not verse 25. The text not only establishes the subject, but shifts from "background history" into the present, from intro to body. This means that the Yosip in verse 16 (the guardian or adopted father of Miriyam (Mary)) is not the same Yosip as the husband of Miriyam in verse 19.

There is no reason for Matthew to use two different words for the same individual, whereas gowra sometimes means "husband" but can also mean "father". The other term baalah can only mean "husband". On the other hand, there would most definitely be a reason to differentiate two men named Yosip, one being the adopted father, the other the husband of Miriyam. With this differentiation we now have three full sets of 14 generations, which satisfies the demands of verse 17.

Furthermore....When you read thoroughly the details of Zelophedad's daughters it is clear that is exactly what it is about: Females inherit the assets of their father when there is no male heir. This is stated DIRECTLY:

Numbers 27: 7 'Zelophehad's daughters are right in what they say. You will indeed give them a property to be their heritage among their father's kinsmen; see that their father's heritage is passed on to them. 8 Then speak to the Israelites and say, "If a man dies without sons, his heritage will pass to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, the heritage will go to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, his heritage will go to his father's brothers. 11 If his father has no brothers, his heritage will go to the member of his clan who is most nearly related; it will become his property. This will be a legal rule for the Israelites, as Yahweh has ordered Moses."' (NJB)

Proof of this is also indirectly stated with Joseph and Mary returning to Bethlehem. Mary is attached to that inheritance through her husband but she also inherits from her family without there being a male heir.

And let's not forget, Talmud says a child is considered Jewish if his MOTHER is Jewish....And Torah says land can only pass WITHIN THE TRIBE it is allotted to. YHWH calls it an INHERITANCE. And with the Levites YHWH says, "I am their inheritance"...so obviously being from a tribe is an asset if you inherit YHWH....