Patrilineal Descent in Determination of Jewish Identity

By Katherine Pia Glickler | December 30, 2024

 

Katherine Pia Glickler

Introduction

The matter of Jewish identity has been a central concern for the Jewish people ever since God made a covenant with the descendants of Abraham. Throughout the generations, the question of who is a Jew has always required a definitive answer. For nearly two millennia, rabbinic law has dictated that Jewish identity is determined by matrilineal descent alone. In the face of unprecedented levels of intermarriage, in 1983 the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) broke with this dictum and issued a resolution making the American Reform Movement the first major branch of modern Judaism to also grant Jewish status to the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers. It was a momentous decision with broad-reaching effects upon modern Jewry that continue to unfold to this day.1

Was the CCAR’s decision an illegitimate one, as many traditional Jews claim? Is there any reason to believe that Jewish identity should be determined according to the father’s ancestral line? Do people with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers have the “right” to identify as Jews?

In researching the answers to these questions, one must examine the history of the “patrilineal principle” (which determines Jewish identity according to patrilineal descent) and the “matrilineal principle” (which determines Jewish identity according to matrilineal descent). The quest reveals a mystery with profound ramifications for the Jewish people.

The Patrilineal Principle in the Hebrew Bible

It is not hard to see that patrilineal descent is the operative factor in establishing Jewish identity throughout Torah. The covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to the sons of Jacob, and throughout Scripture, the God of Israel is referred to as “the God of your fathers.” Biblical genealogies almost always follow the father’s line. In Growing Your Olive Tree Marriage, David Rudolph states that “the patrilineal definition of Jewish identity . . . is the standard established by God in the Torah.”2

One can find examples of the patrilineal principle throughout the Tanakh. King David’s great-grandmother was a non-Israelite named Ruth, and his great-great grandmother was a non-Israelite named Rahab. King Solomon’s son Rehoboam, who succeeded his father and ruled Judah for seventeen years, was the son of an Ammonite woman. Upon his death, he “rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the city of David” (1 Kgs 31 NKJV). The child of an Israelite father and a non-Israelite mother was unquestionably an Israelite, but Leviticus 24:10–16 demonstrates that this was not the case when the mother was an Israelite and the father was a Gentile. In this passage, the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father is significantly identified only as “the son of an Israelite woman,” contrasting him with the “son of Israel” with whom he contends.

There is no evidence in the Torah — and only very little inconclusive evidence in the entire Tanakh — that the mother’s identity ever played a role in determining the Israelite status of offspring. In The Beginnings of Jewishness, Shaye Cohen’s seminal study of Jewish identity in antiquity, he states, “The preexilic portions of the Tanakh are not familiar with the matrilineal principle.”3 The fact that the patrilineal principle was operative in ancient Israel is unsurprising, given that it was a patriarchal society with male-headed households at the center of its structure (Num 1:12–19).4

Intermarriage

In order to understand the patrilineal principle in the Tanakh, one must also examine the inextricably related topic of intermarriage. The Tanakh is replete with examples of Israelite men who married non-Israelite women, among them Joseph, Judah, Moses, Salmon, Boaz, and King David. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 describes a law permitting Israelite warriors to take home and marry a war captive, and Numbers 31:25–47 gives the account of 32,000 Midianite virgins who were taken as spoils of war on one occasion.

Rudolph distinguishes between two kinds of marriage in the Tanakh: conversionary and non-conversionary.5 Cohen explains that “it never occurred to anyone to demand that the foreign women undergo some ritual to indicate her acceptance of the religion of Israel. The woman was joined to the house of Israel by being joined to her Israelite husband; the act of marriage was functionally equivalent to the later idea of ‘conversion.’”6 Marriage came with the expectation that the foreign wife would renounce the religion of her people and embrace the God of Israel instead.7

Ruth is the prototype of the ideal convert wife whose loyalty to Israel is heralded to this day. The famous Moabite’s conversion consisted of her pronouncement to her Israelite mother-in-law Naomi, “Your people will be my people and your God will be my God” (Ruth 1:16). Her words “inspired the Sages and became the formal statement of covenant that has since been uttered by hundreds of thousands of other converts to Israel.”8

Another illustrious example is the union of Moses and Zipporah, the daughter of a Midianite priest named Jethro. God assigned Moses his role of liberator of Israel when he was already married to Zipporah, indicating that God was not displeased with Moses’ choice of spouse.9 In Exodus 4:24–26, Zipporah personally circumcises Moses’ son in faithfulness to the covenant, demonstrating her loyalty to the God of Israel and hence her own status as a legitimate convert.

But what happened if a foreign wife failed to convert and instead held onto the religion of her people? 1 Kings 11:1–11 tells of the Lord’s punishment of King Solomon for letting his many non-convert wives lure him into worship of their foreign gods. It is apparent that the question of whether an intermarriage between an Israelite man and a gentile woman was positive or negative depended on whether the marriage was conversionary: “it all depends on the character of the non-Jewish spouse and their commitment to the God of Israel and the people of Israel.”10 Numbers 25 tells of the orgiastic liaison between Zimri the Simeonite and a Moabite named Cozbi that caused God to unleash a terrible plague upon the Israelite people. Though their union was likely not considered a marriage, this account still warns of the terrible dangers posed by alliance with idolatrous women.

It is significant that even if a marriage was non-conversionary in the extreme to the extent that the gentile wife intended deliberate harm against the Israelite people, the children of such a union were still considered Israelites. One sees this in the case of Jezebel, the Sidonian wife of King Ahab, who conspired to turn all of Israel to the worship of Ba’al (1 Kgs 16:32-33; 18:22; 18:4, 13; 19:2), and of Jezebel’s wicked daughter Queen Athaliah who attempted to kill the entire royal family and thus destroy the Messianic line (2 Kgs 11:1). While it would be nearly impossible to argue that Jezebel and Athaliah were rightful converts to Judaism, both Athaliah’s son Ahaziah and grandson Joash were Jews. Furthermore, Ahaziah was an ancestor of Messiah (Matt 1:9).11 These dramatic examples provide especially compelling evidence of the patrilineal principle in the Tanakh. “The foreign woman who married an Israelite husband was supposed to leave her gods in her father’s house, but even if she did not, it never occurred to anyone to argue that her children were not Israelites.”12

What about the case of Israelite women who married non-Israelite men? Cohen explains that such women generally joined their husbands’ families in the same way as did foreign women who married Israelite men, which is why there is little mention of such relationships in the Bible.13 One notable exception is to be found in 1 Chronicles 2:34–35, which describes the marriage between an Israelite woman and the Egyptian slave of her father. Given their placement in this genealogy, it is clear that their son is considered an Israelite. According to Cohen, “the offspring of Israelite women and foreign men were judged matrilineally only if the marriage was matrilocal — that is, only if the foreign husband joined the wife’s domicile or clan,”14 and this particular marriage was likely a form of adoption. This text is situated in the middle of an extended genealogy that is otherwise completely patrilineal

In sum, there is an abundance of evidence throughout the Tanakh that the patrilineal principle was overwhelmingly determinative of the ethnic and religious identity of offspring, and that intermarriage between Israelite men and foreign women was not uncommon. Whether or not a gentile wife met the conversionary expectations of marriage, neither her ethnic nor religious status affected the fact that her children were Israelites whose identity was secure in that of their father.

Prohibition of Intermarriage

Deuteronomy 7:3–4 and Exodus 34:11–17 are the only two scriptures in the Torah that explicitly prohibit intermarriage and the prohibition applies only to the seven Canaanite nations inhabiting the Promised Land. The same reason for the prohibition is given in both scriptures: Canaanite spouses will turn the sons and daughters of Israel away from their God and toward the worship of Canaanite gods. In Deuteronomy 7:2 the Israelites are instructed not only to not marry them, but to “conquer them and utterly destroy them.”

It is important to understand whether this prohibition applies only to the seven Canaanite nations or to all foreign nations in general, as it was later interpreted. Cohen answers the question plainly: “Does this prohibition apply to all gentiles or only to the seven Canaanite nations? The answer is clearly the latter.”15 He asserts that the “narrow interpretation” (indicating the prohibition is only of marriage with the Canaanite nations) is confirmed by the evidence in the Genesis narratives which prohibit intermarriage with these same specific nations (Gen 24:3–4, 27:46).16 Deuteronomy 12:31 reveals that these nations burn their babies alive as sacrifices to their gods. The reason why God commanded Israel to avoid them and destroy them altogether was clearly because of their wickedness.17 Nonetheless, the Israelites did not listen. They instead intermingled and intermarried with the peoples of these nations and turned to follow their evil ways (Judg 3:5–6). That Deuteronomy 7:3–4 does not prohibit intermarriage with all non-Canaanite nations is implied by the wealth of examples of faithful Israelite men who married gentile women and went on to carry the Jewish line, including some of the founding fathers of the faith (see above). That the “narrow interpretation” is what is intended by the biblical text is also implied by common sense: “if God had intended to ban intermarriage with all nations, he would have certainly said so.”18

It is also important to note that even with the explicit biblical prohibitions of intermarriage in place, not every single intermarriage between Jew and Canaanite resulted in destruction. Two of the sons of Jacob, Judah and Simeon, took Canaanite wives. And there is the beautiful story of Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute who risked her life to protect the Israelite spies in Joshua 26:22–25 and who later married Salmon. According to Matthew, she is an ancestor of King David and of Yeshua (Matt 1:5). It seems fitting that a Canaanite woman who once was a prostitute could be among the ancestors of Messiah, the One through whom redemption has come to the Gentiles (Gal 3:13–14).

The other main Torah text which the Rabbis later took to be a prohibition against intermarriage is Deuteronomy 23:4, which prohibits four specific nations from entering the congregation of the Lord. Cohen constructs a persuasive argument that this scripture does not have to do with marriage at all.19 Among the peoples listed are the Moabites, the people of Ruth. As in the story of Rahab, even a woman from a prohibited nation was capable of blessing Israel and becoming an honorable Jew through intermarriage. “For the Lord does not see as man sees . . . the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam 16:7).

The Second Temple Period: Changing Boundaries, Changing Attitudes

Nowhere in the Tanakh can one find a general prohibition of intermarriage.20 Cohen presents the case that in the Second Temple period, however, this practice came to be increasingly condemned. He explains:

Attitudes changed when conditions changed. In the wake of the destruction of the temple in 587 BCE, Judea lost any semblance of political independence, the tribal structure of society was shattered, and Israelites were scattered among the nations. In these new circumstances, marriage with outsiders came to be seen as a threat to Judaean (Jewish) identity and was widely condemned.21

In the Hasmonean period (approximately 167–63 BCE), there was a formulation of a new Jewish identity that was “partly the product of an ethic of separation from, and hostility toward, gentiles.”22 This period saw the rise of diverse voices that argued against intermarriage. Shortly after the end of the Hasmonean Dynasty in 63 BCE, Philo and Josephus expressed their concern that exogamy would lead to idolatry23 and interpreted Deuteronomy 7:3–4 expansively to include all Gentiles.24 These two Greco-Jewish authors were both surely influenced by the deviant behavior of some of their Jewish contemporaries.25

Interestingly, for the first time in Jewish history, one also sees during the Hasmonean period the establishment of procedures through which a non-Jew could cross the boundary and become a Jew (beside through conversionary marriage or adoption).26 This could occur through obtaining citizenship within the Judean League27 or through converting to Judaism. The role of ethnicity in Jewish identity, though still central, was thus now supplemented by other ways in which a person could become identified as a Jew.28 Initially, gentile women were not expected to convert formally to Judaism, but this changed: “At some point in the late first or second century CE, the idea arose that gentile women (wives) too must convert; if they did not convert, they remained gentiles, even if married to a Jewish husband.”29 The later institution of the rabbinic conversion ceremony sometime in second century CE formalized the conversion process for both women and men.30

The emergence of the idea of non-marital conversion for women was gradual, however, and one sees evidence in this period that conversion through marriage was still customary as it had been in ancient Israel. Writing about the conjugal affairs of the Herodian house, Josephus “carefully narrates the conversion . . . of the gentile men who were married to the princesses . . . but he never mentions the conversion (or nonconversion) of the gentile women who were married to the princes of the house, and Josephus obviously has no doubt that their children are Jewish.”31 Despite the changes in the boundaries and definitions of Jewishness in the Second Temple period, and despite the significant social changes taking place at this time, Cohen does not find evidence for the emergence of the matrilineal principle among them.

Ezra

Traditional Judaism holds that the matrilineal principle is introduced in the Book of Ezra,32 which narrates the return of the Israelite people to Judea and the reestablishment of the nation in its homeland after the Babylonian exile. Ezra, a priestly figure serving the Jerusalem community, is appalled and deeply grieved to learn that the people have been guilty of intermarrying with the women of the surrounding nations. These peoples are like the Canaanites and other prohibited nations with respect to their abominations, “so that the holy seed is mixed with the peoples of those lands” (Ezra 9:1–2). Even the leaders of the people have been guilty of this grave trespass. This passage incorporates language from both Deuteronomy 7:1 and 23:4 and is clearly a reference to both. Ezra agrees to order the expulsion of all the foreign women from the community and with them their children, and from this act it is traditionally deduced that the reason for these children’s expulsion is because they are not accepted as Jews.

While this could possibly be the meaning of the text, this interpretation is problematic for multiple reasons, which Rudolph expounds compellingly:

First, the text does not explicitly state a change in the definition of who is a Jew. Second, Ezra is described as a devout observer of the Torah (Ezra 7:6, 10), a legal tradition that upholds patrilinealism. Third, of the 31,089 men who returned from exile, 111 had married non-convert wives and only some of these wives were mothers (Ezra 2:64–65, 10:18–44). . . . It is a stretch to believe that Ezra, the Torah-faithful scribe, would have changed the basis of Jewish identity for all future generations, affecting millions of Jews, in order to deal with 111 couples and their children.33

According to Rudolph, a far more logical explanation for why Ezra expelled the gentile women and their children is that the women were continuing to adhere to their pagan religious practices.34 It is not clear who these foreign women were, but it is significant that the text says their ways were like those of the very same pagan nations that had seduced Israel into idolatry in the past, ultimately resulting in exile. A likely explanation as to why Ezra does not mention foreign husbands or their children is that Israelite woman who married gentile men generally left their people to join their husbands’ families, as mentioned above. It is unlikely there were many, if any, such couples in Ezra’s purview.35

In Ezra, the Israelite people were in a position as precarious and decisive as when their ancestors had first entered the Land with the divine mandate to annihilate the resident nations. In Ezra’s emotional prayer in verse 9:14, he asks, “should we again break Your commands and join in marriage with the people committing these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had consumed us, so that there would be no remnant or survivor?” Clearly Ezra saw the matter as one of life or death for Israel. The children could have been expelled along with their mothers as a precautionary measure intended to stop the influence of idolatry in the population. Or perhaps it was an act of compassion undertaken to not separate these children from their mothers.36

Ezra’s lament over the mixing of the “holy seed” in 9:2 does give one pause, however. Gabizon interprets this as a concern with genealogical purity and deduces that Ezra believed such impurity was a result of the forbidden mixture between Jews and Gentiles that corrupts the holy seed.37 Hayes concurs that the profanation of the holy seed is Ezra’s principal concern. Contrasting the “moral-religious” prohibitions of intermarriage in the Torah, Hayes asserts that “the holy seed rationale of Ezra supports a universal and permanent prohibition of intermarriage.”38 Gabizon’s analysis of Ezra 9–10 leads him to conclude similarly. He considers the absence of any expulsion of foreign fathers and their children as possible evidence that “Ezra portrays the genealogical link of impurity as transferring from the mother to the child alone.”39

While an in-depth discussion of Ezra’s use of the term “holy seed” is outside the scope of this article, several points bear mentioning here. The first concerns the morally defiling and polluting effects of grave sin.40 Jonathan Klawans explains the effects of idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed in Ancient Judaism as follows: “they bring about an impurity that morally — but not ritually — defiles the sinner (Lev 18:24), the land of Israel (Lev 18:25, Ezek 26:17), and the Sanctuary of God (Lev 20:3, Ezek 5:11). This defilement, in turn, leads to the expulsion of the people from the land of Israel (Lev 18:28, Ezek 36:19).”41 Klawans’ analysis of Ezra leads him to conclude that the reason he did not entertain the possibility of these women’s conversion was because they were considered “inherently morally impure as a result of their alleged sinful behavior.”42

Klawans’ work makes a significant contribution to understanding why, in the Ancient Jewish context, that which was holy — in this case the seed of Israel — was not allowed to come into contact with that which is polluting — grave sin — without the expectation of dire consequences. Indeed, Israel had defiled itself through intermarriage with idolatrous nations in the past (“they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs . . . thus they were defiled by their own works” [Psa 106:35–39 NKJV]). What remains unclear is whether the mixing of the holy seed with women from more upright pagan nations who did not practice abominations would pose a problem if these women followed standard marital conversionary procedures.

Secondly, one must consider that Ezra’s decree did not change circumcision as a sign of the covenant passed from Jewish father to Jewish son. To this day and according to Jewish law, the responsibility for the eighth-day circumcision of a baby boy is borne by his father.43 According to Daniel Juster, the very nature of the covenant of circumcision precludes the possibility that Ezra instated the matrilineal principle: “Ezra’s decision was a response to a specific problem and does not change the essence of circumcision pointing to the father as the source of covenant identity.”44 The term “holy seed” itself supports this conclusion. It may also be translated as “holy semen,” which logically points to the conferral of Jewish identity through the father’s line just as it had always been throughout Israelite history. (There is no mention of the “holy egg” or “holy womb” anywhere in the Bible.)

If Ezra indeed definitively introduced the matrilineal principle, the glaring question remains of why devout Jews demonstrated no knowledge of its existence in the centuries following the Israelites’ return from exile. Cohen’s analysis reveals no evidence of the matrilineal principle within Second Temple literature: furthermore, the first-century writings of both Philo and Josephus contain statements or assumptions that cannot be reconciled with it.45 The only possible attestation of the matrilineal principle in the Second Temple period is in the case of Timothy of Lystra, to which this study now turns.

The Circumcision of Timothy

Acts 16:1–3 narrates Paul’s circumcision of Timothy, the son of a Jewish mother and Greek father, whom Paul circumcises “because of the Jews who lived in the area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” In order to understand what this pericope may reveal about the Jewish status of the child of a Jewish mother and a gentile father in first-century Judaism, one must understand Paul’s motives for circumcising Timothy, and whether he considered him a Jew. Traditional supersessionist Christian thought has interpreted Paul’s reasons for circumcising Timothy to be entirely missiological, an example of him becoming “a Jew to the Jews” (1 Cor 9:20) as also understood through a supersessionist lens. This reading of the text presumes no reason for Paul to circumcise Timothy besides making him presentable to the Jewish community.

Though he is certainly not a Christian supersessionist, Shaye Cohen seems to agree that the above interpretations are what the texts intended. He reads “because of the Jews that were in those places” to indicate that had it not been for the Jews present, Paul would not have carried out this act, and “for they all knew that his father was a Greek” to indicate that Timothy was plainly considered a Gentile after his father and not a Jew after his mother.46

As multiple scholars have noted, these interpretations make very little sense when placed in the context of the Book of Acts. In the chapter immediately preceding the circumcision, the Jerusalem Council ruled that gentile believers in Jesus were free from the requirement to be circumcised, and Paul meets Timothy while on his mission to deliver a letter conveying the Council’s ruling to the regional churches. Paul circumcises Timothy before having him join in his continued travels to deliver this letter. It is highly improbable that Paul would take such intentional steps to ensure the participation of a man who was a “walking contradiction of the very thing that the decree said,”47 which would be the case if Timothy were a Gentile.

Secondly, the circumcision of Timothy occurs just a few chapters prior to Paul’s temple sacrifice in Acts 21, which he performs at the behest of James and the elders in order to refute rumors that he has been teaching Jews not to circumcise their children and to “forsake Moses.” James and the elders of the Council conclude their instructions to Paul by saying, “Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.” Rudolph calls Acts 21:17–26 “the most explicit statement in the New Testament that Paul lived as a Torah-observant Jew and taught fellow Jews to remain faithful to Jewish law and custom.”48 To these dramatic events “the Timothy narrative serves as a fitting precursor,” Gabizon notes, “in order to reinforce the idea that Paul is not telling the Jews to forsake circumcision.”49 This is indeed a logical explanation for the role that the circumcision narrative serves within the larger body of the text, but it only makes sense if Timothy is Jewish.

Rudolph offers a convincing interpretation of the phrase because of the Jews who lived in the area that takes into account the settlement of the controversy over Paul’s covenant faithfulness in Act 21: “The literary context suggests that Luke’s explanatory statement . . . does not mean that the act of circumcision was an expedient, but that the timing of the circumcision was an expedient.”50 Paul’s decision to circumcise Timothy when he did was indeed missiologically motivated, but it was still an act of covenant faithfulness and was intended to be understood as such. Gabizon concurs that the phrase “because of the Jews” points toward Timothy’s Jewish identity: “there is no clear explanation as to why the Jews in Lystra and Iconium would have been offended if Timothy was an uncircumcised gentile. It is more likely that offense would be taken because of a Jew who had not undergone circumcision.”51 The phrase “for they all knew that his father was a Greek” is likely given as an explanation as to why Timothy hadn’t been circumcised on the eighth day lest the Jews regard him “a covenant breaker due to indifference.”52 Both Rudolph and Gabizon conclude that the only logical explanation for Paul’s circumcision of Timothy was because he considered him a Jew after his mother.

Apparently, a change took place in the late Second Temple period that extended the boundaries of Jewish identity to include the children of Jewish mothers and gentile fathers, but there is no clear documentation of this change outside of Acts and as such, it remains an enigma.

The Rabbinic Matrilineal Principle

The primary rabbinic text on the matrilineal principle is m. Qiddushin 3:12, which delineates four types of marital unions and how each one affects the status of the child. Central to this text is the concept of qiddushin, the potential for a legal Jewish marriage. Paragraph D reads, “and any woman who does not have the potential for a valid marriage, either with this man or with other men, the offspring will follow her. And what (masc.) is this? This is the offspring of a slave woman or a gentile woman.” Of significance is that paragraph A of this same text states that in the case of a valid marriage where the sexual union is not sinful, the children follow the status of the father. This ruling is assumed by m. Yevamot 2.5, which states that those born to a man from a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman do not have the halakhic status of children. Together, m. Qiddushin 3.12 and m. Yevamot make up half of the matrilineal principle. Both texts are believed to be written circa 80–120 CE.53

The other half of the matrilineal principle that determines that the children of Jewish mothers and gentile fathers are Jews, is found in m. Yevamot 7:5. This text states that the child of such a union is a mamzer, the child of a forbidden union, but still a Jew. Eventually the view that such children were kasher came to prevail,54 perhaps because the designation of mamzer was deemed unreasonably harsh. While a Gentile may convert to Judaism, a mamzer has no possibility of ever being legitimized and passes his corrupted status onto his offspring indefinitely.55 “The anonymity of m. Yevamot 2:5, 7:5 and Qiddushin 3:12 implies that the mishnaic editor regarded their rulings as beyond dispute,”56 but the Sages apparently had license to change the meaning of mamzer in m. Yevamot 7:5.

The Babylonian Talmud brings together the two halves of the matrilineal principle together explicitly for the first time in Qiddushin 68b,57 which states that “your son who comes from an Israelite woman is called your son; your son from a non-Israelite woman is not called your son, but rather her son” (Qiddushin 68b). Though there was a small number of rabbis who questioned the matrilineal principle over the centuries,58 “within rabbinic society it commanded almost universal assent.”59

Why the Change?

Cohen notes the bold confidence with which the Mishnah “states the matrilineal principle . . . as if it were agreed upon by all, and provides no reason or justification. It appears in the Mishnah like a bolt out of the blue.”60 While the circumcision of Timothy suggests that the matrilineal principle may not have been as totally unprecedented as Cohen purports, it certainly was a drastic departure from the way in which Jewish identity had always been defined in the Torah. The writings of both Philo and Josephus contain statements that “cannot be squared with the rabbinic matrilineal principle,”61 indicating that very shortly before the rabbinic matrilineal principle came into being, at least some Jews — and probably many — were still following the biblical patrilineal principle. The question of why the Rabbis enacted this sea change in the definition of Jewish identity is notably unclear. We have hypotheses but no conclusive explanation. The Rabbis largely deduced the matrilineal principle from Ezra,62 interpreting the expulsion of the children of the gentile wives as a clear indication that these children were not considered Jewish. But this interpretation is not necessarily correct.

Many believe that the reason for the matrilineal principle is because maternity is always certain whereas paternity is not. This explanation is unsatisfactory, as Cohen notes, because “the rabbis restricted the matrilineal principle to cases of intermarriage, but paternity is no more uncertain in these marriages as it is in unions between Jews.”63 Kohanite status to this day is inherited through the paternal line, and many synagogue traditions are still based on patrilinealism.64 If paternity were never certain, why would this be?

Of the possible reasons for the matrilineal principle that he surveys, Cohen concludes that only two are convincing. One plausible explanation is that the rabbinic matrilineal principle is rooted in Roman law. Cohen notes the striking parallels between qiddushin and the Roman concept of conubium and asserts that “The terminology, ideas, and conclusions of M. Qiddushin 3:12 are thoroughly Roman: if one parent does not possess the capacity to contract a legal marriage . . . the offspring follows the mother.”65 Cohen also proposes the possibility that the rabbinic matrilineal principle is derived from rabbinic animal husbandry laws concerning kilayim, forbidden mixtures. In the case where interbreeding between two species is prohibited but occurs anyway, such as in the case of a mule, the offspring also follows the status of the mother.66

Another possible explanation put forth by some scholars is that the matrilineal principle was developed out of compassion for the plight of Jewish women raped by Roman soldiers in the wars of 66–70 and 132–135 CE.67 A motive of compassion for the women in this situation could explain why the Rabbis eventually chose to upgrade the status of the children of Jewish mothers and gentile fathers from mamzer in m. Yevamot 7:5 to kasher. However, it does not shed any light on why the children of Jewish fathers and gentile mothers were no longer considered Jews.

Cohen notes that the gradual emergence of the concept and practice of conversion for women was likely a relevant factor in paving the way for the matrilineal principle, as the foreign woman was now “a person whose Jewishness could be determined without reference to her Jewish husband. If she converts to Judaism, the children she bears to her husband are Jewish; if she does not, they are gentiles, in spite of the Jewishness of her husband.”68 Susan Sorek poses an interesting explanation for why the Rabbis could have chosen to adopt the matrilineal principle that may also explain why they began to permit the conversions of independent gentile women in the same general time period. She suggests that in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE (which surely must have played a role in the rabbinic decision somehow), the Rabbis were concerned about the salvation of the Jewish nation. With the loss of the system of temple sacrifices, Sorek argues that the Rabbis gave increased importance to the atoning function of acts of hesed, an area in which the Sages understood that women generally surpass men.69 She suggests that they may have wanted to bring more women into covenantal relationship with God and into the Jewish fold for this reason. Regarding the new practice of allowing women to convert to Judaism, she asks, “What could a woman have that would be an asset to the future of Judaism? The one attribute that they have is their natural inclination toward hesed.”70 If this were indeed a consideration of the Rabbis, it would follow logically that “women had to be given more consideration in the role they played as progenitors.”71

It is likely that several of these possible explanations played a role in the nascence of the rabbinic matrilineal principle, but they are still only hypotheses, and the reasons why the Rabbis enacted this monumental change remain a mystery. Regardless of where the true explanation lies, the ruling came to have so much authority that, for many Jews, it has almost completely eclipsed the existence of the patriarchal principle in the Jewish Bible to the extent that Orthodox scholar Ari Zivotofsky can boldly assert that “from a historical perspective . . . the child of a non-Jewish woman was never considered Jewish.”72

The Reemergence of the Patrilineal Principle in Modern Times

The 1983 CCAR resolution that granted full Jewish status to the child of just one Jewish parent, irrespective of whether the Jewish parent was the mother or the father, marked a watershed moment for modern Jewry. A sometimes-overlooked aspect of this resolution is that it stated that the Jewish identity of such children had to be established through “appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.” Among the “mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity”73 are acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah.74 Interestingly, the CCAR resolution echoes some of Philo’s views on mixed progeny, whom he believed had a “malleable status, whereby they may be counted as Jews by virtue of their dedication to the Jewish religion.”75 For Philo, Jewish education and virtues were key to securing the Jewish identity of such children. It is notable that CCAR’s requisite criteria for the children of only one Jewish parent are much stricter than the simple halakhic criterion of matrilineal descent.76

The resolution notes the decisive role of paternal descent in the determination of Jewish identity in both the biblical and rabbinical traditions. Though the term “patrilineal Jew” is itself nowhere in the CCAR resolution, the term has entered the common Jewish parlance in the decades since its passing (though some believe the term conveys lesser status and is offensive).77 The American Reform movement’s embrace of the patrilineal principle has not been followed by the Reform movement in Israel, which still determines Jewish status matrilineally.78

The Reform movement’s recognition of the Jewish status of patrilineal Jews continues to be the source of much debate and controversy to this day. The “dissent over descent” lives on.79 Many in the Orthodox community view the 1983 CCAR Resolution as a wantonly unauthorized act that created deep and lamentable fractures within the Jewish people.80 (The Reconstructionist movement actually preceded the Reform movement by fifteen years in officially recognizing the Jewish status of patrilineal Jews,81 but this relatively small movement’s policy enactment did not draw the same attention as the 1983 resolution of the CCAR). The words of Rabbi Mitchell Wohlberg reflect predominant Orthodox thought on the matter: “If ever we were one, after that decision we weren’t. It was a dividing line. Whether Jews sit at prayer together or separately, whether they cover their heads or not, whether they eat kosher or not does not divide our people. But when we go to definitions of who is and is not a Jew, that’s where we stand or fall.”82

According to official policy, Conservative Judaism continues to follow the matrilineal principle alone. Per the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, “ascription of Jewish lineage through a legal instrument or ceremonial act on the basis of anything other than matrilineal descent” constitutes a violation of Conservative halakhah that is “inconsistent with membership in the Rabbinical Assembly.”83 Within the Conservative movement, however, some believe there is the urgent need to reassess this policy.84 Richard Margolis laments that the RA’s continued insistence on defining Jewish identity exclusively by matrilineal descent “simply and willfully ignores the reality of our times. We are consciously disenfranchising significant numbers of those who might be or become come [sic] wonderful Jews, at least if we did not exclude them by definition.”85

Though the American Messianic Jewish movement does not have a central governing body that rules on matters of halakhah as do other branches of Judaism, the most well-known and respected American Messianic Jewish organizations affirm both the matrilineal and patrilineal principles. These include the International Messianic Jewish Alliance, the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues, the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, and the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council. Among these organizations, only the MRJC does not place patrilineal and matrilineal descent on equal footing. It accepts patrilineal descent as sufficient for Jewish status if it is accompanied by “public and formal acts of commitment to the Jewish faith and the Jewish people,” but does not place such requirements on those with matrilineal Jewish descent, for “As Messianic Jews, we should never find ourselves in a situation where we deny Jewish status to those accepted as Jews by most of the wider Jewish community.”86

With such a wide range of policies within the Jewish world concerning their status, it is unsurprising that many children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers feel at a loss to understand or explain their relationship to their Jewish identity clearly. Despite the growing acceptance of them as Jews, many bear wounds from having been repeatedly told that they were not “really” Jewish, no matter how strong their ties to Jewish culture and faith. Though the Messianic Jewish movement recognizes their Jewish status, this may not be known outside of the movement, and it is possible that previous experiences of rejection could discourage some patrilineal Jews from engaging with Jewish religious life in any form. From the Messianic Jewish perspective, the tragedy in the risk of alienating members of this large population is not only that they could be or become wonderful Jews, but that they could become wonderful Jews in Messiah whose salvation would lead to “life from the dead” for all creation (Rom 11:15).

Conclusion

The search for answers about the validity of the patrilineal principle reveals reasons to believe that it is indeed authorized by the Tanakh while the matrilineal principle may not be, a discovery that turns the halakhic definition of Jewish identity on its head. In the words of David Rudolph, a Messianic Jewish rabbi as well as a scholar, “Messianic Judaism . . . seeks to honor God and His Word above all. In this regard, most Messianic Jews cannot support the rabbinic view that it was permissible to deviate from the Torah’s standard of Jewish identity.”87 In answer to the question of whether patrilineal Jews have the “right” to consider themselves Jewish, one may respond with a confident “yes!” that is deeply rooted in the Tanakh.

The reasons for the emergence of the matrilineal principle remain murky, and one can make a case against its biblical propriety, at least according to the Hebrew Bible. However, Paul’s recognition of Timothy’s Jewish identity in Acts 16 can be understood as an implicit biblical authorization of the matrilineal principle, a view shared by Rudolph and other Messianic Jews who believe in the canonicity of the Brit Chadasha.88 Perhaps God in his infinite wisdom and mercy included the narrative of Timothy’s circumcision in the Bible as a “gift” that would one day grant the Messianic Jewish community biblical grounds to recognize Jewish identity on the basis of either matrilineal or patrilineal descent.

Regardless of the true reasons for the emergence of the matrilineal principle, which may never be fully understood, it has been normative in Jewish tradition for nearly two millennia, and the Messianic Jewish movement seeks to honor both the Bible and tradition. Despite the changes in the boundaries and definitions of Jewish identity that have taken place in the last forty years, most of the Jewish world continues to reckon Jewishness matrilineally. If one believes in the eschatological importance of Israel’s acceptance of Yeshua, it behooves the Messianic Jewish movement to continue to embrace every Jew who comes to faith whether their claim to Jewish identity is through their maternal or paternal line. One can trust that God in heaven surely rejoices over every single lost sheep of the House of Israel who comes home to him in Messiah.

Kat Glickler grew up in Brookline, MA, as the daughter of a Jewish father and Yankee Protestant mother. Her spiritual journey began in her early 20s when she moved to New Mexico and began a quest for wholeness that eventually led her to traditional Judaism and then to faith in Yeshua. In 2022, she moved from Joshua Tree, CA, to the Dallas-Fort Worth area to attend The King’s University, where she is currently pursuing a Master’s in Divinity in the Messianic Jewish Studies program. Kat enjoys singing, spending time in nature, doing impersonations, and sharing life with her beshert dog, Buttercup.

  1. 1 Sylvia Barack Fishman, “Fathers of the Faith? Three Decades of Patrilineal Descent in American Reform Judaism,” The Jewish People Policy Institute, 29 March 2013, http://jppi.org.il.

  2. 2 David J. Rudolph, Growing Your Olive Tree Marriage: A Guide for Couples from Two Traditions (Baltimore: Lederer, 2003), 131.

  3. 3 Shaye J.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 264.

  4. 4 Joshua Kulp, “English Explanation of Mishnah Kiddushin,” https://www.sefaria.org.

  5. 5 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 13.

  6. 6 Cohen, 265.

  7. 7 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 13.

  8. 8 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 18.

  9. 9 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 15.

  10. 10 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 21.

  11. 11 Daniel Juster, Jewish Roots: Understanding Your Jewish Faith (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2013), 246.

  12. 12 Cohen, 265.

  13. 13 Cohen, 266.

  14. 14 Cohen, 266.

  15. 15 Cohen, 242.

  16. 16 Cohen, 243.

  17. 17 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 26.

  18. 18 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 27.

  19. 19 Cohen, 248–61.

  20. 20 Cohen, 260.

  21. 21 Cohen, 261.

  22. 22 Cohen, 135.

  23. 23 Michael Gabizon, “Mixed Offspring in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Period” (PhD dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, 2022), 236–37, 253.

  24. 24 Cohen, 244–45.

  25. 25 Cohen, 245.

  26. 26 Cohen, 136.

  27. 27 The Judean League was a Judean state formed by the Hasmoneans that was a union of Judeans, Idumaeans, and Ituraeans. See Cohen, 128.

  28. 28 Cohen, 137.

  29. 29 Cohen, 170.

  30. 30 Cohen, 306.

  31. 31 Cohen, 272.

  32. 32 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 35.

  33. 33 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 135.

  34. 34 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 136.

  35. 35 Cohen, 267–68.

  36. 36 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 136.

  37. 37 Michael Gabizon, “The Development of the Matrilineal Principle in Ezra, Jubilees and Acts,” Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 27.2 (2017): 148–52.

  38. 38 Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” The Harvard Theological Review 9.2 (1999): 13.

  39. 39 Gabizon, “Development of the Matrilineal Principle,” 150.

  40. 40 Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), 28. Drawing from the work of Büchler, Klawans clarifies “the term ‘pollute’ (חנף) . . . is a technical term that articulates the defiling force of sins. The term is synonymous with the term ‘defile’ (מטא) only in the latter term’s moral sense — but it is not used in contexts of ritual impurity.”

  41. 41 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26.

  42. 42 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 46.

  43. 43 Blu Greenberg, How to Run a Traditional Jewish Household (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 242.

  44. 44 Juster, Jewish Roots, 25.

  45. 45 Cohen, 268–73.

  46. 46 Cohen, 366.

  47. 47 Christopher Bryan, “A Further Look at Acts 16:1-3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107.2 (June 1988): 293.

  48. 48 David Rudolph, “Was Paul Championing a New Freedom from — or End to — Jewish Law?” Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Essays on the Relationship between Christianity and Judaism, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2021), 40.

  49. 49 Michael Gabizon, “Matrilineal Principle,” 157.

  50. 50 David J. Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016), 27.

  51. 51 Michael Gabizon, “Matrilineal Principle,” 158.

  52. 52 Michael Gabizon, “Matrilineal Principle,” 158–59.

  53. 53 David B. Golstein, Jacob’s Legacy: A Genetic View of Jewish History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 76–77.

  54. 54 Cohen, 282.

  55. 55 Cohen, 304.

  56. 56 Cohen, 280.

  57. 57 Cohen, 280.

  58. 58 Cohen, 280–81.

  59. 59 Cohen, 282.

  60. 60 Cohen, 283.

  61. 61 Cohen, 273.

  62. 62 Cohen, 290.

  63. 63 Cohen, 290.

  64. 64 Rudolph, Growing Your Olive Tree Marriage, 133.

  65. 65 Cohen, 306.

  66. 66 Cohen, 306.

  67. 67 Cohen, 304.

  68. 68 Cohen, 306–07.

  69. 69 Susan Sorek, “Mothers of Israel: Why the Rabbis Adopted a Matrilineal Principle,” Women in Judaism 3.1 (2002): 7.

  70. 70 Sorek, “Mothers of Israel,” 8.

  71. 71 Sorek, “Mothers of Israel,” 9.

  72. 72 Ari Z. Zivotofsky, “Matrilineal Descent: A Background Check,” Tradition 53.2 (Spring 2021): 39–50. Later, Zivotofsky allows that “in the case of a non-Jewish mother here may be a biblical source regarding the status of the children.” But he goes on to state definitively that “Ezra insisted that by Torah law non-Jewish wives and their children were required to be banished (Ezra 10:3). Clearly, including the children in the banishment indicates their own status as non-Jewish.”

  73. 73 Central Conference of American Rabbis, “Report of the Committee on Patrilineal Descent,” Central Conference of American Rabbis, 15 March 1983, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/reform-movement-s-resolution-on-patrilineal-descent-march-1983.

  74. 74 Kabbalat Torah is a ceremony of confirmation for teenagers (typically around sixteen or seventeen years of age) who have completed a set course of religious study and who wish to reaffirm their fidelity to Judaism. Originally introduced within the Reform movement in the 19th century, it is now a common practice within both Reform and Conservative Judaism and often takes place on Shavuot. See Alfred Kolatch, A Handbook for the Jewish Home (Middle Village, NY: 2005), 27, 250.

  75. 75 Michael Gabizon, “Mixed Offspring,” 239.

  76. 76 Richard Margolis, “Reflections and Talking Points on Patrilineal Descent,” in The Elephant in the Room: Conservative Judaism and the Patrilineal Question, ed. Charles Simon (New York, NY: Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs, Inc., 2017), 19.

  77. 77 Karen McGinity, “A Fresh Perspective on Patrilineal Descent,” The Elephant in the Room, 25.

  78. 78 Charles Simon, “Introduction,” The Elephant in the Room, 5.

  79. 79 Simon, “Introduction,” The Elephant in the Room, 5.

  80. 80 Jaffe-Gill, Ellen. “Patrilineality: Creating a Schism or Updating Judaism?” Moment, 12, 1998, 70–75, https://www.proquest.com/magazines/patrilineality-creating-schism-updating-judaism/docview/194433423/se-2.

  81. 81 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 133-34.

  82. 82 Quoted in Jaffe-Gill, “Patrilineality: Creating a Schism Or Updating Judaism?” 70.

  83. 83 Joel Roth and Akiba Lobow, “A Standard of Rabbinic Practice Regarding Determination of Jewish Identity,” Rabbinical Assembly, 1986, https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org

  84. 84 Simon, “Introduction,” The Elephant in the Room, 7.

  85. 85 Richard Margolis, “Reflections and Talking Points on Patrilineal Descent,” The Elephant in the Room, 14.

  86. 86 Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council, “Standards of Observance,” Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council, 2022, http://ourrabbis.org/main/documents/MJRC_Standards_Jan2022.pdf.

  87. 87 Rudolph, Olive Tree Marriage, 137.

  88. 88 David J. Rudolph, comments on first draft of essay written to author, 20 December 2022.