Untangling Yeshua’s Genealogical Record
Like a ball of tightly tangled Chanukah lights, sifting through and trying to sort out the seeming contradictions in the Brit Chadasha regarding the linage of Yeshua can be frustrating and makes one want to loose ones religion, in both senses of the word! The first thing we must understand is that regardless of what Christians may say the Greek was NOT the Original Language of the Renewed Covenant Documents, it was Hebrew and Aramaic. Non-believing Jews and or Catholic Authorities have either burned or confiscated most of them yet we have enough floating around to now have a complete translation of the Brit Chadasha from the Hebrew and Aramaic in what we know as the “HRV: Hebrew Roots Version.” So from the get go you have a language barrier and you have mostly gentile translators not proficient in Hebrew and Aramaic and doing their best to make sense of the Greek which the Hebrew and Aramaic texts were translated into.
I believe besides understanding the language, the next thing we need to do is to understand genealogies from a Hebraic stand point which is, if you will notice that prior to the pogroms and persecutions of the Jewish people that ones linage was traced through the fathers to establish tribal identity and only after things such as the Inquisition and Holocaust (on account of rapes etc.) it became necessary to trace ones “Jewish-ness” through the mother. For in cases such as stated one may not know who their father is, but unless you were adopted, orphaned or abandoned you know who your mother is. So in the Scriptures you have genealogies traced through the father with the occasional mention of women usually for specific reasons.
The Scriptures state every name from before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel). This is usually referred to the Messianic line because Moshiach was of the house of David. The genealogies limit more and more the human origin of the Messiah because as the "Seed of the Woman" (Gen. 3:15), Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the "Seed of Avraham" (Gen. 22:18), The Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel and as the "Seed of Judah" He had to be of the tribe of Judah ("the rod out of the stem of Jesse" (Isa. 11:1, 10)), and as the "Seed of David" he had to be of the family of David, "the priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), the "Immanuel," "the virgin's son" (Isa. 7:14), "the branch of Jehovah" (Isa. 4:2), and "the messenger of the covenant." The Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) fulfilled all of these requirements.
Let’s look at the two genealogies in question and see if we can untangle this ball of lights without “loosing our religion,” shall we?
The two genealogies in question are found in, Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. By a careful reading of these two texts it would appear that Matthew records Yosef’s (Joseph’s) line and Luke records Miriam’s (Mary’s) line.
One may point out that is Yeshua wasn’t really Yosef’s son why bring up the linage? For two reasons the first I will spell out for you now, the second I will deal with a little later.
“In the case of Yeshua, it is unlikely that Joseph would have registered Yeshua as an "adopted son" because he would then have to explain the Virgin Birth to the Roman authorities and they would have considered him to be mad. He would have just registered Yeshua as his son.
Even if Yeshua had been born outside of Joseph's household, and Joseph had adopted him, he would still be considered to be Joseph's son just as if he had been born there.
The Talmud states emphatically that there is no difference between an adopted child and a child who was born into the household, and the genealogical tables in the Bible do not attempt to identify anyone as an "adopted son". Instead they are just called "sons".
Here is an example.
And the sons of Ezrah were, Jether, and Mered, and Epher, and Jalon ... And his [Mered's] wife Jehudijah bare Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, which Mered took. (1 Chr. 4:17-18)
According to the Talmud, Jehudijah and Bithiah were one and the same person. She was the daughter of Pharaoh who took Moses out of the bulrushes and looked after him. She was a Jewish Proselyte, and the purpose of her trip to the river was to cleanse herself from the idolatry of Pharaoh's house. Jered is considered to be Moses, and it says she "bare" him, even though she only looked after him.
The quotes from the Talmud are as follows:
R. Simon b. Pazzi once introduced an exposition of the Book of Chronicles as follows: 'All thy words are one, and we know how to find their inner meaning'. [It is written], And his wife the Jewess bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bithya the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Why was she [the daughter of Pharaoh] called a Jewess? Because she repudiated idolatry, as it is written, And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river, and R. Johanan, [commenting on this,] said that she went down to cleanse herself from the idols of her father's house. 'Bore': But she only brought him [Moses] up? - This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the Scripture accounts it as if he had begotten him. 'Jered': this is Moses. Why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for Israel in his days. (Talmud Mas. Megilah 13a)
And his wife Ha-Jehudiah bore Yered the father of Gedor [and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah] and these are the sons of Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Now, 'Mered' was Caleb; and why was he called Mered? . - Because he opposed the counsel of the other spies. But was he [Moses] indeed born of Bithia and not rather of Jochebed? - But Jochebed bore and Bithia reared him; therefore he was called after her. (Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 19b)
The Talmud Mas. Megilah uses the literal translation of Ha-Jehudiah which means "the Jewess" while Mas. Sanhedrin acknowledges it as a name. The name "Bithiah" might have been given to Pharaoh's daughter when she was converted, since it means "daughter of God". Then she was called Jehudijah when she married Mered, because she had joined the tribe of Judah. Amram and Jochebed, the genetic father and mother of Moses, are mentioned in Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59.
If Mered was Caleb, it follows that his father Ezrah was Jephunneh the Kenezite, mentioned in Numbers 32:12 and Joshua 14:6,14. The Kenezites lived in the land that God had promised to Abraham and his descendants, and they are mentioned in Genesis 15:19. It appears, therefore, that Ezrah (Jephunneh) was a Proselyte who worshipped the God of Israel and joined the tribe of Judah. So we have Mered (Caleb), the son of a Proselyte, marrying Bithiah, who was also a Proselyte.” -- Tikvat David Articles 2008http://www.annomundi.com/bible/virgin_birth.htm
Mathew starts in the past and works his way to the present and Luke starts from the present and works his way back to the past. But we find that both are from the House of David. But unlike Yosef she came from David’s son Nathan, not Solomon, because Yeshua physically did not come from Yosef, he didn’t have the disqualifying mark to the Throne because of having Jechonia’s blood in him. This will be discussed further in a bit. Also to understand the reason for these two genealogies in the Brit Chadasha we must understand the kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. After Solomon there were two kingdom’s thus two kingly lines. The southern Kingdom of Judah, with the capital in Jerusalem, while the other was the northern Kingdom of Israel, sometimes called Ephraim, with its capital Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendants. No one was allowed on David's throne unless he was a member of the house of David. There was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6) and G-d warned that such a conspiracy would never come to pass (Isaiah 8:9-15).
“Now with the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus' right to the throne can be resolved! Lets look at Matthews genealogy. In Matthews's genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom, he mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba. (Matt 1:3,5,6) It is contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, "A mother's family is not to be called a family." Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Yeshua. Matthew however I believe has a reason for naming the four women and no others. Lets consider these four women for a second.
1) 1) Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth were gentiles and it is probably true of Bathsheba as well, since her husband was Uriah the Hittite. This could possibly be a hint that salvation is coming also to the gentiles.
2) 2) Three of these women were guilty of sexual sin. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery (2Sam. 11:3-4), Tamar guilty of incest (Gen. 38:15-19) and Rahab was guilty of prostitution (Joshua 2:1). Matthew (1:1-17) traces the genealogy of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus, by going back and working forward until his time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (Verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (Verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (Verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (Verse 16). This is significant in Matthews genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30.
See Jeremiah 22:24-30
Basically, no descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to sit in the throne of David. Until Jeremiah the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited even more. Now, one had to be not only of the house of David but also apart from Jeconiah's curse. So, according to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins (that is if Jesus was born from Joseph). He would not have been qualified to sit on David's throne. It also means that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore, if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne, and he also could not claim the right to David's throne by adoption by Joseph since because through Joseph one could not be heir to the throne! The next logical question would be is "what is the purpose of Matthew's genealogy?" The purpose then is to show why Yeshua could not be king if he were really Joseph's son because he was born from a virgin, Mary. The purpose was not to show the royal line. This is so because immediately Matthew gives the account of the virgin birth after the record of the genealogy. It seems from Matthews viewpoint this is a valid solution to the Jeconiah problem. So, Matthew concludes that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse but, Jesus was not Joseph's son because he was born from the virgin Mary accounted in Matthew 1:18-25. With the mention of the virgin birth of Yeshua (Jesus) we need to take a short examination of the scripture verse in Isa. 7:14 which describes the virgin birth.” – www.matsati.com
Yeshua didn’t have to come from the first born males line to be heir to the Throne, the inheritance can be passed down through either one of his sons, just as the inheritance was passed down through Jacob (the second born) rather than Esau (the first born).
So what if Jeconiah’s line does matter in this situation?
How can Yeshua be the Messiah?! Yehoiakhin is in His genealogy!
How then, can we even have a Messiah, since according to Jewish tradition, Messiah descends from Jehoiakhin? We have an entire article addressing this issue: The Curse of Jeconiah and the Signet Ring. However, If someone tries to lay claim to the Jehoiakhin argument against Yeshua, then he/she will have to admit that the Messiah will be born of a virgin, who is physically descended from David, all the while marrying a husband physically descended from King Shlomo to meet the requirements!
Messiah descends from Jehoiakhin
Tanhuma Genesis, Toledot (8th-9th c.)
Scripture alludes here to the verse Who art thou, O great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou shalt become a plain (Zech. 4:7). This verse refers to the Messiah, the descendant of David. . . .From whom will the Messiah descend? From Zerubbabel.
- Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, translated by Samuel A. Berman (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1996), p. 182.
Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg on Jeremiah 22:24 (20th c.)
Malbim calls to our attention that in the prophecy of Haggai (2:23), God says, "On that day I will take you, Zerubbabel, and I will make you like a signet," for the King Messiah will be like a signet ring on God's right hand, so to speak. Just as the name of the owner of the ring is engraved on his signet ring, through which he makes himself known, so will God's name be known in the world through the King Messiah, through whom His miracles will be known. He says here that, though, in the future, Coniah will be the signet on My right hand, for the Messiah will spring from his seed, now I will remove him from there.
--Ibid., p. 183. Malbim is an acronym for Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michale, a 19th c. rabbi and commentator. 22:24.
The Curse Was Canceled
“While the number of generations can be accounted for, what about the dissimilar names? If you examine the two lists, you’ll find that only Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are similar between David and Jesus.
While there are a few possible reasons to resolve this conflict most of them require a great deal of conjecture and even pose some more questions that remain unanswered. There is one view that I believe stands firm above the others and does provide more certain explanation.
This view understands Luke’s genealogy to be Mary’s for a few reasons. Eli is said to be the progenitor of Mary and so Joseph is not properly part of the genealogy, which is why he is parenthetically included in Luke 3:23. Joseph was not His physical father.
In A Harmony of the Gospels, Robert Thomas and Stanley Gundry provide some impressive points that support this view:
- This view allows the most natural meaning of “begat” to stand. In other words, “begat” refers to actual physical descent rather than to jumps to collateral lines.
- Matthew’s interest in Jesus’ relation to the Old Testament and the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph’s real descent from David through Solomon – a descent that is also Jesus’ legal descent – and thus gives Him legal claim to the Davidic throne.
- Since Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, His solidarity with the race, and the universality of salvation, it is fitting that Luke show His humanity by recording His human descent through His human parent Mary. His pedigree is then traced back to Adam.
- The objection that Mary’s name is not in Luke’s version needs only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews never gave genealogy of women is met by the answer that this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth. How else could the physical descent of one who had no human father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a creative departure from customary genealogical lists by starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors rather than starting at some point in the past and descending to Jesus.
- This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph’s ancestor and David’s descendant through Solomon. In 2 Samuel 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the Davidic kingdom through Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally promised. Jeconiah later was the royal representative of that line of descent for which eternal perpetuity had been promised. Yet, for his gross sin, Jeconiah was to be written down as childless, and no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne (Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through whom the Solomic descent and legal right to the throne properly should be traced. Solomon’s throne had already been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be fulfilled? [i]
Second, Matthew preserves the virgin birth of Jesus while making it clear that He does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah. Matthew breaks up the pattern of begetting and instead writes, “Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus.” The word “whom” in the Greek is feminine singular in form and can only refer to Mary.
So what we really have here is two different genealogies of two people. It is likely that even Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in the two lists are not the same people. Thus, the problem is solved and there is no real conflict or contradiction.” -- http://truth411.com/commentaries/resolving-differences-in-the-lineages
SPELLING IT OUT
Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, because:
Jesus was the Legal Son of Joseph.
What does that mean? Legally, Jesus was in the line that goes up through Jeconiah, Solomon and David. I repeat:
Jesus was Legally in the line of Joseph.
Jesus of Nazareth was not physically in that line, because He was the adopted son of Joseph. So He was legally in the line, meaning:
Jesus had the Legal Right to be the King of the Jews.
In fact, if the kingly line of Judah would have continued on, and if there had been no Babylonian captivity, no Alexander the Great, and no Roman occupation, then who would have been the king of Israel [if the legal pattern would have been continually followed]? It would have been first Joseph and then, since Jesus was Joseph's first-born legal son, Jesus would have been the king of Israel at the opening of the New Testament.
Why did Jesus not have a curse on Him from Jeconiah?
Jesus was not a Physical Descendant of Jeconiah.
Conversely, how was Jesus a physical descendant of David?
Jesus was a Physical Descendant of David through His biological mother.
Matthew presents the genealogy of Joseph (Jesus' legal father), who was a descendant of Solomon. Luke presents the genealogy of Jesus through Mary (Jesus' physical mother), who was a descendant of David through Nathan. -- http://radicalgrace.com/matt10.htm By Johnny Tatum
Sanhedrin 37a, Soncino Talmud
R. Johanan said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, "Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah." a Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah,-the same is Assir-Shealtiel his son etc.b [He was called] Assir,c because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel, d because God did not plant him in the way that others are planted. . . Another interpretation: Shealtiel, because God obtained e [of the Heavenly Court] absolution from His oath."f
footnotes:
a. Jer. XXII, 30 .
b. I Ch. II, 17. Notwithstanding the curse that he should be childless and not prosper, after being exiled he was forgiven.
c. ASYR, imprisoned.
d. AL ShTLV, a play on ShALTYAL.
e. ShAL AL, 'God asked."
f. Which He had made, to punish Jechoniah with childlessness.
Leviticus Rabbah XIX:6 (5th-6th c.)
R. Shabbethai said: He [Jeconiah] did not move thence before the Holy One, blessed be He, pardoned him all his sins. Referring to this occasion Scripture has said: Thou art all fair, my love, and there is noblemish in thee (S.S. IV, 7). A Heavenly Voice went forth and said to them: 'Return, ye backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings' (Jer. III, 22).
- Soncino Midrash Rabbah vol. 4, p. 249
http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/brit/toledotyeshua.htm
“Secondly, we need to look at the concept of women receiving the inheritance of their fathers rather than the son. There is precedence for this in the law Bamidbar 27:4-11 (Numbers 27:4-11) and Bamidbar 36:1-13 (Numbers 36:1-13)
See Numbers 27:4-11 and Numbers 36:1-13
According to the Torah in Bamidbar pinchas 27:6-11 (Numbers 27:6-11) Hashem (The Name, God) gave a commandment concerning inheritance as a decree of justice to the children of Israel. The daughters of zelophehad spoke because their father had no sons and he had died in the wilderness because of his sin 27:3 there was no one to pass the inheritance on. God declared that if this was the case the inheritance should be passed on to the daughters, fathers brothers, or closest relative to keep the land within the family. In like manner when Jeconiah was cursed there was no one to pass on the line to the throne of David therefore in this case as well the inheritance was passed onto the second son Nathan and on up to Mary the mother of Jesus. Jesus indeed had the right to sit on the throne of David. There were other members of the house of David that were apart from Jeconiah. These descendants could equally claim the throne of David because they didn't have Jeconiah's blood in their veins. So another question might be why Yeshua (Jesus) and not one of the others? This is where divine appointment comes into the picture; this is the second biblical requirement for kingship. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah only one received divine appointment Luke 1:30-33 states:
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
It is very clear that by the word of the angel from the Lord, Yeshua (Jesus) was divinely appointed to the throne of David according to verse 32.” – www.matsati.com
Although Miriam was a cousin to Elizabeth, a Levite, some say this qualifies Yeshua to be Preist as well, but I disagree, his priesthood does not come from Levi, the Prophecies foretell of Messiah being a priest in the order of Melchezidek. This means that the Melchezideckian order of Priesthood which is older and above the Levitical priesthood and when Messiah returns he will not only be King but also He will supervise the Levites in the Temple, NOT do away with their service.
Besides, I’m not so sure Miriam was literal cousin of Elizabeth, to satisfy prophecy she wouldn’t need to be:
“The term "daughters of Aaron" means Elizabeth was a Levite, and more specifically a Cohen. The word "cousin" is from the Greek "suggenes" which means a relative or someone of the same race, not necessarily a cousin as it appears in the KJAV. Some translations alternatively use the word "kinswoman".
In the context of Luke 1:34-37, it is not clear how Mary and Elizabeth were related. It's possible that Mary might have been a Cohen, the same as Elizabeth. If inter-tribal marriage was possible, they could have been blood-relatives from different tribes.” -- Tikvat David Articles 2008http://www.annomundi.com/bible/virgin_birth.htm
The Virgin Birth: Jewish Style
Matt. 1:18-23 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
In all three Avrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity (except for some cult branches) and Islam, all hold the thought of G-d literally having intercourse with Miriam (Mary) as detestable and blasphemous. Yet, if we are honest with our mortal selves we can’t help but entertain the thought as a means to try to find some rational to satisfy out finite minds.
Even though we know that G-d is a Spirit (John 4:24), doesn’t have a body, and human traits do not apply to Him (see Rambam’s 13 Principles), we usually see G-d as, well, a Him. So when we think of Miriam “having conceived of the Holy Ghost”, we can’t help but think of G-d as a male personage.
Allow me to show you another way to view this mystery, that I feel will help alleviate many difficulties stated above and fit well within Hebraic culture and thought.
First off, as said before we know that G-d is a Spirit and has no gender, but the Hebrew language does, and so in describing G-d one cannot help but apply gender to Him, albeit grammatical gender. This being said, the Hebrew for “Holy Ghost” is feminine and in Kabblah (Jewish mysticism) the Holy Spirit is labeled as such.
Second, infertility plagued our Biblical Matriarchs, and thus surrogate mothers were thus employed in the guise of handmaids married and moved to the status of concubines. Leah and Rachel had Zilpah and Bilhah when they no longer could have children themselves.
G-d, know that prophecy required a kinsman redeemer, a G-d-man if you will, not a Man-god as in Mormonism. One who was 100% G-d to have the ability to redeem and atone for sin, but also 100% man to have that right to be a kinsman redeemer.
G-d could have just said “Shazam!” and there be a G-d-man, Messianic Kinsman Redeemer, but it wouldn’t be legitimate because a human agent was a requirement for it to be a legitimate fulfillment of prophecy and to satisfy the Messianic linage from the House of David.
So thus Miriam (Mary) was employed by G-d through the agent of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) to be a surrogate mother of sorts for the Son of G-d to be born, which coincides with the middle pillar on the Kabbalic Seforitic Tree, the Keter, or the Crown. And though a surrogate is used the children are legally considered the children of the one who employed their services. Just as the children Zilpah and Bilhah conceived were legally the children of Leah and Rachel. So in a manner of speaking Yeshua is legally (albeit not literally as if he was a separate entity, but figuratively) the Son of G-d.
“According to Rashi's commentary this message is prophetic! and not referring to Isaiah the prophet! Lets next look at a few definitions:
Definitions obtained from: Langenscheidt Hebrew Dictionary Langenscheidt Publishers, Inc. 46-35 54th Road, Maspheth, N.Y. 11378
Almah - (alma) f, pl. alamot, - "maiden, young marriageable woman;"
Harah - (hara) f, horah, harah, pl. horot, harot - "to conceive, to be pregnant"
Now from interpretation this verse can be read as is and still understand that it is referring to a virgin birth (virgin i mean as that had never known a man). First, it is a disgrace for a Jewish man to marry a woman who had played the harlot and gotten pregnant etc. Leviticus 21:14 "A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife." It is commanded to not marry such women, but to marry the virgin women. Now the question arises whether Isaiah should have used the world tula for instead of almah meaning young marriageable woman? The point I am trying to make is that according to the law for a woman to be marriageable she must have her virginity. So in effect, Isaiah was saying that this woman would not only be marriageable but also a virgin according to the law! This can be seen also in the book of Matthew when Joseph had found her (Mary) to be pregnant already, and rather than make it public he was going to put her away privately. Matthew 1:18-19, Joseph saw that she was pregnant and so wouldn't dishonor himself by taking her to be his wife. But, then an angel from the Lord came and told him this child is of the Holy spirit Matthew 1:20, so he did as the Lord had commanded him to do. Joseph took Mary to be his wife. Take an honest look at the scriptures and you will see Isaiah 7:14 to mean this same thing.” –www.matsati.com
Rabbi Tovia Singer an Anti-Missionary of sorts uses rabbinic literature to attempt to debunk the virgin birth and one commentator he uses is Rashi, but he picks and chooses what he wants you to know from Rashi. Singer leaves out Rashi’s closing comments of Isa. 7:14.
“And some interpret that this is a sign, that she was a young girl [almah] and incapable of giving birth.” So this makes the point that the birth was indeed unusual maybe even supernatural. So does Rashi mean that almah means virgin? No, but regardless of the distaste of Messianic interpretations to this passage he does indicate that G-d’s sign to Ahaz had to do with a highly unusual nature of the birth. She would be a young girl, an almah and for such a woman to give birth is abnormal. It may also be of interest to note that Rashi interprets the plural for of Almah (Alamot) in Song of Songs 1:3 to mean “virgins” (betulot).
Now Luke’s account seems to strictly go by Jewish custom because there are no names of women in the linage. So if this is Miriam’s line how can you trace her line back using only the men? Simple, to trace Miriam’s line back it would trace the husband’s linage. There are also possible reasons in the Tanak for this practice in Ezra 2:61 and in Nehemiah 7:63.
“If someone studies a genealogy how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife? Since in either case the husbands name would be used? Here is where the problem lies with the English language because the answer is not a difficult one! In English it is not good grammar to use the definite article ("the") before a proper name for example: "the" Matthew or "the" Luke or "the" Mary, however it is very permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article "the" with one exception, the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing article from Josephs name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Mary. In addition, many translations of Luke 3:23 read: "...being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli..." because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: "Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli..." (A.T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels.) In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Yeshua was "supposed" or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Mary. The absence of Mary's name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Mary and not Joseph and refers to Mary as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).” – www.matsati.com
Here is but one, but common anti-missionary argument attacking the genealogy and virgin birth of Messiah Yeshua:
“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.(Rom 1:3)
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (Luke 1:5)
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:34-37)
These verses in combination are sometimes used by anti-deity people to try and disprove the Virgin Birth. The argument is that "the seed of David according to the flesh" means Yeshua was genetically descended from David. If Mary was a cousin of Elizabeth, she must have been a Levite, therefore the genetic line of descent could not have been through Mary and it must have been through Joseph. This makes Joseph the genetic father of Yeshua and there is no Virgin Birth.
The phrase "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" is explained away by the suggestion that Mary was old and unmarried, and did not expect to have children. This is based on the use of the word "also" that appears in "She hath also conceived a son in her old age". In addition to this, there is the suggestion that Joseph might have been old because he appears to have died before Yeshua began his ministry.
The argument is flawed on three counts:
- The "seed of David according to the flesh" does not necessarily mean genetic descent. It can also mean that the person is brought up in the house of a descendant of David. In the case of Yeshua, he wasn't just brought up in the household of Joseph, he was born there. His birth was registered by Joseph in Bethlehem the city of David, and he was circumcised on the eighth day under the supervision of Joseph at the Temple in Jerusalem. This was considered to be a physical birth into the household of Joseph, not a spiritual birth as is the case when we are "born again".
- There is no certainty that Mary was of the tribe of Levi. There was much intermarriage and she could have been a cousin from any tribe.
Yeshua’s Physical Earthly Body
Some have purposed that Yeshua Messiah was inwardly divine (and there is little to no dispute there) but that his body was 100% divine, that if He truly had a human body as we have that he would have inherited the sinful condition every human has passed down by Adam as a result of the Fall. I am not afraid to be wrong. I am willing to be wrong if someone can prove to me in an unquestionable manner that my doctrine is faulty. Because all I want is the Truth in all matters. However, in this instance I will have to respectfully disagree with my brother. I do not see unquestionable Scriptural evidence to say that Messiah’s body was 100% divine. He claims that the whole “god-man messiah” concept came from paganism. However, in an article I wrote called, “Where Did Paganism Come From?” I argue the opposite:
“In archeological and critical historical religious literature the authors (usually agnostic, atheist or secular) often attempt to make one believe other cultures are older and predate that of Scriptural writ, simply because physical evidence found is often older than the earliest Biblical manuscripts. They claim that the Biblical writers took traditions and stories from these so called older cultures and adopted them as their own creation story and flood account and so on. However, if one believes the inerrancy of Scripture one would easily realize that the entire world was at one time one people, language and culture until the confounding of the languages at the Tower of Babel. Thus, in the post Babel world everyone took the shared traditions and legends from the Creation to the Flood and all the prophecies of redemption and messiah that lies therein and molded into what each people group has become. This is why every people group has a creation and flood story. Just because most all cultures have legends of virgin births, god-men messiahs, and just because they appear in Christianity and Nazarene Judaism in the truthful events does not mean they were gleaned from a pre-Biblical pagan culture of Mesopotamians, Canaanites or what have you. No, we did not rip stories from them and claimed them as our own holy history, they ripped stories from us.
I read books such as “The Two Babylons” and see how Satan has perverted the truth in each culture in an attempt to drive them away from the truth, yet the grain of the truth lies within each culture; which lends to the possibility of a pagan culture to come to the truth. Indeed, it is an ingenious plan of the evil one to hide truth in plain sight, yet disguised in cultural paganism.
For these reasons I believe the YHWH, Yeshua and the Ruach Ha Kodesh is One but, I do not believe they are, or come from, a pagan trinity. And because of the reasoning stated above I believe Yeshua the Messiah is Divine, and why I believe in the miracle of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Messiah from the dead. This is also why I believe He is coming again to reign over the New Earth as the Priest and King.
Many things in Judaism that oppose a divine Messiah, a virgin birth and such came after the late 1stcentury as reactionary doctrine in an attempt distances itself from the pagan influenced Constantinian type Christianity that had separated itself from Nazarene Judaism.”
And in regards to the Virgin Birth I said in an article entitled, “Virgin Birth: Jewish Style”:
“First off, as said before we know that G-d is a Spirit and has no gender, but the Hebrew language does, and so in describing G-d one cannot help but apply gender to Him, albeit grammatical gender. This being said, the Hebrew for “Holy Ghost” is feminine and in Kabblah (Jewish mysticism) the Holy Spirit is labeled as such.
Second, infertility plagued our Biblical Matriarchs, and thus surrogate mothers were thus employed in the guise of handmaids married and moved to the status of concubines. Leah and Rachel had Zilpah and Bilhah when they no longer could have children themselves.
G-d, know that prophecy required a kinsman redeemer, a G-d-man if you will, not a Man-god as in Mormonism. One who was 100% G-d to have the ability to redeem and atone for sin, but also 100% man to have that right to be a kinsman redeemer.
G-d could have just said “Shazam!” and there be a G-d-man, Messianic Kinsman Redeemer, but it wouldn’t be legitimate because a human agent was a requirement for it to be a legitimate fulfillment of prophecy and to satisfy the Messianic linage from the House of David.
So thus Miriam (Mary) was employed by G-d through the agent of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) to be a surrogate mother of sorts for the Son of G-d to be born, which coincides with the middle pillar on the Kabbalic Seforitic Tree, the Keter, or the Crown. And though a surrogate is used the children are legally considered the children of the one who employed their services. Just as the children Zilpah and Bilhah conceived were legally the children of Leah and Rachel. So in a manner of speaking Yeshua is legally (albeit not literally as if he was a separate entity, but figuratively) the Son of G-d.”
To say that Yeshua’s body wasn’t flesh and blood human leans toward Gnostic type theories and understanding of the Divine and the nature of the material world. Let me just say that a human body is not sinful, or itself inherits sin, per se. A body feels and suffers the effects of sin. A body is inanimate without the soul and so without the soul cannot be active to commit any type of sin. So a body in and of itself is not sinful or corrupt.
Yeshua as born of a woman and had not human component, as we know it, in His make-up. Messiah’s body was tangible flesh and blood but not as we know it. It was untainted and without sin. It was not fallen earthly dust that made up His Body but seeing as Yeshua is from eternity (John 1) it must have been of “heavenly dust” if you will.
John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Seeing He was flesh and blood, yet sinless, he was a perfect redemptive sacrifice. Seeing as His flesh and blood were human, but not as we know it, and perfect, as Adam before the fall, His death and blood has redemptive power and yet is not as human sacrifice of a fallen human which is prohibited in the Torah (Lev. 20:3, Deut. 12:30-31, Exodus 13:15, Deuteronomy 18:9-12). This does not change the duality of His nature being human (though not as we know it, but as it was meant to be) and divine. Yeshua being an emanation of G-d robed in flesh and blood (John 1) He experienced humanity like no other and was tempted yet without sin.
Heb. 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.
And this is why, because of His perfectly (pre-fall style) human flesh and blood, he could pray to G-d. Though He was human, but not as we know it and yet because he was manifest into this fallen world He was subject to temptation and bodily death.
It satisfies me to know that Messiah’s blood was divine and it atones for my sins. For the blood is the contribution of the male in the making of a baby, and the Scriptures are clear that Yeshua was virgin born and had no earthy father that contributed to His genetics. Interestingly enough in the Arkcho Volumes, which are supposed ancient official Sanhedrin documents that are the results of an investigation on Yeshua and was the basis for the ancient Jewish book that slams Yeshua called “Yeshu Tadolt”, that until recently was kept from the public by Jewish hands contains official interviews with Miriam (Mary) and Yosef (Joseph) Yeshua’s parents. And it is interesting to note that the one doing the interview, Gamliel I believe, notes that Yeshua looks like his mother, Mary, and has no resemblance to Joseph at all. This would make perfect since in that Joseph contributed no genetic material to Yeshua’s body. However, it makes since that Yeshua looks like Mary because G-d used her egg to make Yeshua’s earthly body.
To some it seems to matter a great deal that Yeshua’s body was not human as we understand it in any sense of the word. He feels we cannot truly be redeemed if Yeshua had a physical, earthly body as ours. To me it matters that Yeshua’s body was as ours, that He did have a physical, earthy body, and that he did come genetically from the human race (specifically, Mary/Miriam). To me it had to be so for Him to be of the linage of David, and for him to truly be our kinsman redeemer, and to fulfill certain prophecies.
Clearly, in Judaism at large that doesn’t believe Yeshua is Messiah, and is still actively looking for the Messiah, feels that he can be born at anytime and does not have any scruples that he comes from and has a human body. They seem to have more trouble in regards to the Messiah being Divine.
Though this is not an exhaustive article regarding the Genealogies and virgin birth of Messiah, nonetheless I hope this helps clear up any issues you may have had. As Moulder form the X-Files says, “The Truth is out there.”