Was Jesus a Jew at all? [duplicate]

Question

First of all: what I mean here by “Jew” is nationality/race and not religion. The question of whether Jesus was a Jew therefore means whether Jesus was an Israeli, i.e. a descendant of Jacob/Israel. The focus here is not on whether Jesus was a Jew from a religious point of view, i.e. whether he was a follower of Judaism.

Was Jesus a Jew at all? He had no Jewish father, he is not from Jewish sperm. According to the Bible, a child inherits the nationality from the father. Two examples: 1. The wife of Joseph was a Gentile (Egyptian), and with her he made two children, Ephraim and Manasseh. Although their mother was a Gentile, they are still called Israelis because their father was an Israeli. They inherited their father's nationality. 2. Moses allowed the men of Israel to take Gentile women, but he didn't allow them to take Gentile men for Israeli women.

Since Jesus did not come out of Jewish sperm, he can't be a Jew by nationality. It's wrong to say that Jesus was a "half-Jew" because his mother was a Jew. In the Bible, there is no such thing like "half". You are what your father is. If your father is Italian and your mother is Spanish, then you are Italian. You are not half-italian and half-spanish. You are what your father is because out of his sperm you came.

However, if someone wants to claim that the nationality goes from mother to child, then he must agree that Ephraim and Manasseh were not Israelis but Egyptians since their mother was Egyptian. He must also agree that Obed was not an Israeli but a Moabite since his mother Ruth was a Moabite. If he does not agree, then his position is hypocritical.

Since Jesus has no human father, he cannot biologically belong to any nationality. What does this mean now?

Answer 1

Was Jesus a Jew at all?

John 4:9 describes a stranger's reaction on meeting Jesus: "Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.".
Clearly anyone's first impression of Jesus would be that he was a Jew.

Nationality:

• Galilee was mentioned 6 times in the Hebrew scriptures (OT), and 70 times in the Greek scriptures (NT).
• Jesus was born in Galilee, and was referred to as a Galilean.
• At that time, Galilee was ruled by the Roman Empire.
• Unlike Paul, Jesus did not have Roman citizenship.
• Depending upon circumstances, Galilee was considered separate from Judea, or lumped together with it as part of Palestine or the Levant.

Ethnicity (culture):

• The Judeans referred to him as "Jesus of Nazareth".
• Having grown up in Galilee, Jesus culture would have been slightly different (e.g. more Greek influence) from those that grew up in Judea, but to a Roman or other outsider their cultures would have been indistinguishable.

Race:

• Jesus's mother was Jewish (see Why Is Jewishness Matrilineal? - Chabad.org).
• Paul states "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda" in Hebrews 7:14.
• Jesus could escape from others by passing through a crowd (e.g. Luke 4:30), so obviously he must have looked like an ordinary Jew of the time.

Religion:

• Jesus was raised in Judaism, as shown by Luke 2:27 ("the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,") and 2:42 ("And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.").
• Jesus continued practicing Judaism, per Luke 4:16 ("as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read").
• The Pharisees criticized Jesus because they (incorrectly) thought he violated God's commandments, something they wouldn't have cared about if he hadn't been Jewish.

Answer 2

First of all, there were different opinions -even in scripture - as to Christ’s origins. Only two gospels speak of the virgin birth (Matthew and Luke) while the rest of the NT is pretty silent on the matter (which is rather odd).

Paul even writes, to the contrary, that Jesus was of the seed of David (Romans 1:3). This would appear to be a rejection of the idea of the virgin birth.

Personally, the virgin birth has no baring on my faith as a Christian; I can take it or leave it.

Secondly, while you are generally correct that within scripture that the family lineage is determined by the father - there is at least one exception: if a man died, leaving no sons, it was the duty of one of his brothers to marry his wife and for any resulting son (or just the first one?) to be treated as the son of the dead man - effectively continuing his line.

In a similar scenario- though I don’t think there’s a command concerning it - when Abel was killed by Cain, Eve was given another son Seth. It is said that Seth was given to Eve in place of Abel. It is through Seth that the righteous line continues vs the cursed line of Cain.

So there is precedent for a near relative dedicating a child to a lost loved one with no male descendants in order to preserve their line - so it wasn’t always the biological father’s name being passed along. Nevertheless it has to be a near relative, and I’ve not seen anyone make a good argument of how these rightly apply to Christ in the event of a virgin birth.

Third, even if Christ was not of the seed of David, yet he was adopted into the Davidic line through Joseph. Thus, through adoption he was indeed a son of David and thus a Jew. He was circumcised as prescribed by the Law and he observed the Law. And even as adults, anyone can convert to Judaism (but without a Jewish father they wouldn’t be part of one of the twelve tribes).

There is some beauty in this idea of him being adopted - for we ourselves are said to be adopted by God.

It is also worth noting that the 3 Synoptic Gospels argue against the interpretation that Christ was to be the son of David (but only 2 present the virgin birth). Each has a passage similar to this:

Mark 12:35-37 And Jesus responded and began saying, as He taught in the temple area, “How is it that the scribes say that the [t]Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself said [u]in the Holy Spirit,

‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies under Your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?” And the large crowd [v]enjoyed listening to Him.

Of course, all three Gospels also identify him as a son of David; which on the surface appears somewhat contradictory. Why question that the Messiah was a son of David if they indeed maintained that the Messiah was a son of David? It’s an interesting question. But ultimately we don’t have the ability to go back and verify claimed lineages one way or the other and whichever answer you prefer it must be taken on faith.

Finally, it is worth noting that even today different Jewish communities have different standards for determining one’s Jewishness by birth. Some only consider the paternal lineage, some only consider the maternal lineage, and others accept either lineage as a basis for one being born Jewish. But I agree that biblically the lineage is paternal.