Early Translation of the Septuagint
During the time of the early Christian Church, the presumption was that the Jews translated the Septuagint as a form of a Hebrew text.. The “Septuagint”, as proposed, gave the advantage to a more Christological interpretation than this 2nd century Hebrew text translation. On translating the Septuagint as in that form implies, indication shows that persons then blamed the Jews to have wittingly translate the text in a way of a poorly Christological point of view.
Irenaeus, in his theory, explains that Isaiah 7:14, by the Septuagint, clearly imprint the word “a virgin shall conceive.” On the other hand, Theodotion and Aquilla, proselytes of the Jewish faith, relate to it as a “young maiden that shall give birth”. Irenaeus suggested that due to this translation, Ebionites claimed that Joseph was the biological father of the Messiah. Irenaeus, being a father of the Church, denounced the translation and accused the translators of heresy for interpreting the Septuagint in a negative light.
If all such prophecies indicated in some way that the Christ shall be of the “fruit of Jesse – David seed (loins)”, which is to say his physical seed according to the flesh, then one need to consider the means of the product (covenant).
David, also in his height of prophetic pronunciation, made mention of a sworn oath saying, “that of the fruit of his loin according to the flesh, Christ will sit on his throne” (Acts 2-26 and 30).
A prophetic declaration coming from one of the Books of Minor Prophets, also link the coming of the Messiah (Yeshua) from the “root of Jesse” (Isaiah 11:1, 2, 9 and 12). Such connection and presentation, as according to the prophecies, certainly would indicate (He being) a physical heritage of David’s seed.
Transpired Perspective about Joseph
Heli, being in marriage, died leaving a widow, which Cultural custom encourages the marriage of Heli widow to his brother Jacob. Cultural values intervened again when the male-child of Jacob, name Joseph, was then registered as Heli next of kin. In this fashion, cultural values and customs listed Joseph as a tribe of Judah, seeing that his biological father (Jacob) and Heli his registered father, were of the tribe of Judah.
Mary and Joseph, being in marriage, also obtained a child. In era of time, a stir grew and many church fathers, theologians and scholars including locals depicted otherwise. Irenaeus, as his custom, attempted to denounce Joseph as the Messiah biological father. By doing this, he recalled on an Old Testament prophetic curse, a decree made against the seed of King Jehoiakim and Coniah. This decree stated that “there shall be no seed of Jehoiakim to sit on the throne of King David” (Jeremiah 22:30). Of such, Irenaeus exalted that this ascertained Joseph of no validity as father of the Messiah. Irenaeus continued to show that Yeshua, as an heir of the throne of King David, would exclude Joseph who was Jehoiakim seed to play that biological part.
Now of a truth, if what Irenaeus pointed to as hindrance to Joseph in playing that biological role, then that judgment is of no significance, because some time after, that same prophetic book established another decree that the Almighty would do a New Covenant in Israel. Considering His love for Israel, he said, “I will no more have the fathers eat the sour grape and the children teeth set on edge” (Jeremiah 31: 29-34). Because of that thought, be it known, there was no effect of that curse during the birth of the Messiah.
It is clear that theologians and “some church fathers” have disregarded the removal of the veil from their face, and decided to see with a blind eye. One can say otherwise, but at the choice for Mary’s groom, the High Priest and other elders did not veil their face to see Joseph not befitting. Being elders and upholding the sacred laws of Israel, the High Priest at that time accepted Mary’s husband. The lot cast without a doubt and Joseph became her husband.
From another perspective, if Joseph was not applicable to become Mary’s husband, then why would a “divine being,” as proposed according to the Scripture (Matthew 1:19 and 20), encouraged Joseph “to take unto thee Mary thy wife” and be a father to the child?
Transpired Perspective about Mary
Luke in his statement did not make reference of anything about Mary, when indicating the genealogy of the Messiah, but instead, a pattern of family harmonization creating confusion. However, this writer directly at one place link Mary with the family of Aaron, by saying, “behold thy cousin Elizabeth is also with child”(Luke 1:5 and 36). Of all the possibilities, one must insist that Mary somehow could have been a Levite.
However, we can see the history of Mary all in different baskets.
- Some historians listed her family with Matthan the High Priest of the House of Levi. Matthan had three daughters, Mary, Zoia and Annah. Zoia had a daughter named Elizabeth and Annah had Mary. They both, Elizabeth and Mary (daughter of Annah), were cousins.
- Other presumed that Joachim, Mary’s father, was more likely a Levite, but Anah, Mary’s mother was of the seed of David. If such was the case, then surely Mary would be of the tribe of Levi. Some theologians agreed that in this case a convincing link with Elizabeth as a cousin would be proper. Undoubtedly, her mother being of the house of David would give her that physical link with the house of Judah, though not in the form of inheritance.
Nevertheless, on such a ground, a mother could not pass on the “lineage” of David without the help of a male from the house of Judah. If one must succeed the throne by flesh, , as the these prophecies unfolded, we are lacking an important ingredient. On such ground, we then acknowledge the necessity of a kinsman from the “house of Jesse” to accommodate the prophecy, giving the Messiah His birthright and inheritance to the “throne of David according to the flesh.”
Panther, Mary Great grandfather was a brother to Matthat. His son, Bar Panther, was a cousin to Heli, and her father Joachim was also cousin to her husband Joseph. On account of this reasoning, it speaks that both were (if related by a male parent) of the tribe of Judah. On the contrary, the culture of the Jews speaks volume indicating that no female could pass on a seed by way of inheritance, unless by the male of that tribe. An Old Testament text gives such credence, and it speaks with volume saying, “let every female marry to whom they wish within their tribe…, and that every female that possessed an inheritance should marry within her tribe, that the inheritance handed to her by their father should stay in the tribe (Numbers 36:6-9)”. So, no female could pass on (or sustain) an inheritance without the help of a male in a tribe.
Transpired Perspective about the Messiah
Jerome, in his edited version, declares that Mary was not of the house of Judah, but of the house of Levi, by her father’s inheritance. The learned Faustus, Bishop of Riez, also conceded that Mary could not pass on the lineage of David’s inheritance to the Messiah. He pointed out that Yeshua did not meet the demand of the physical inheritance of the throne of the David, until he being baptised by John at River Jordan.
However, the Bishop of Riez fashion a motion that does not hold, as there were no details to show an allotted inheritance by water baptism. Does not the Epistle state that when John was baptizing at River Jordan, we were under the “Old Law,” the same Old Law Covenant that could not save us. Then how could it spiritually bless the “One” who came to do away with such Old Law Covenant? In fact, if it were so, then every person baptized would be equally given that space (same tribe) of inheritance, which is not part of the promise to the Kingdom of Yahweh. The “Book of Revelation” (Revelation 21:12), on this wise, would prove deceptive, seeing that the inherited tribe of the New Jerusalem, as according to the Twelve Tribes Israel, ushered through each respective gate.
I will say that the Scripture, as I recalled in every aspect, declared the Messiah out of the “root” and “loin” of Jesse-David. Christ Himself declares His status when He gave the “Book of Revelation” to John on the Isle of Patmos. There He says, “I Yeshua (Jesus) have sent my angel to testify…. I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star” (Revelation 22:16), Actually, He respond in this fashion to confirm His nature and person, which revealed only to the chosen (Saints).
The “point language” read according to the flesh, not some ceremonial divination. It is clear that the need for a male kin, according to the Scriptures, is relevant to produce that earthly fulfilment.