Virgin Birth, Jewish Adoption and Genealogy of Yeshua

This document defends the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Yeshua against the suggestion that "the seed of David according to the flesh" means Yeshua was genetically the son of Joseph.

In the process of making this defence, I discovered that in the Bible there is no difference between genetic birth and adoption. This leads to a simple answer to a problem that has puzzled theologians for centuries. The two apparently conflicting genealogies of Yeshua in Matthew and Luke exist because, in Biblical genealogy, a person who is brought up in a family is considered to be "born" into that family.


The Anti-Deity Argument

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.
  • The use of the word "also" is insufficient to establish that Mary was old. There is no reason to believe that this word associates Mary with Elizabeth because of their age. The important thing that they had in common was that they would both have a child. There are other things that suggest that Mary was young and of childbearing age. She was espoused to Joseph, they had other children, and they went to Jerusalem every year for Passover, and she was still around long after the crucifixion because she was referenced from the early church writings.

I will deal with these three points in detail.


Jewish Adoption Means the Child is Begotten of the Adoptive Parents

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.

The genealogy is as follows:

Genealogy of Jered (Moses)

It is difficult to verify whether or not the Talmud has correctly interpreted this passage in 1 Chronicles. However, the purpose of this study is not to establish a precise genealogy, but to investigate the Jewish view of adoption. The Talmud is universally accepted as an authentic account of Jewish culture and the statement that an adopted orphan is considered to be born into the household should be taken as authoritative.

Here is another example which is easier to verify:

Saul had two daughters, the older one was Merab and the younger was Michal. (1 Sam. 14:49). Merab was promised to David as a wife, but she was given to Adriel the Meholathite instead. (1 Sam. 18:17-19). David married Michal, the younger daughter of Saul (1 Sam. 18:20-30). Michal was given to another man called Phalti after David had fled from Saul (1 Sam. 25:44) but David took her back again when he returned to take the kingdom. (2 Sam. 3:13-16)

When David brought the Ark to Jerusalem and danced before the Lord, Michal mocked him, saying he had exposed himself to the women. She died childless, apparently as a judgement for her mockery.

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. (2 Sam 6:23)

In apparent contradiction to this, the following passage suggests that Michal had five sons from Adriel, who as we have already seen, was the husband of Merab.

And the king ... took the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite. (2 Sam. 21:8. Green's Literal Translation)

The Talmud resolves this as follows:

Now as to R. Joshua b. Korha, surely it is written, And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul whom she bore to Adriel. - R. Joshua [b. Korha] answers thee: Was it then Michal who bore them? Surely it was rather Merab who bore them! But Merab bore and Michal brought them up; therefore they were called by her name. This teaches thee that whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him. (Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 19b)

The genealogy is as follows:


The Genealogies of Yeshua in Matthew and Luke

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies of Yeshua.

Matthew 1:1-17 gives the genealogy from Abraham to David, and then from David to Yeshua via Solomon.

Luke 3:23-38 gives the genealogy in reverse order, and goes all the way back to Adam. The line of descent from David is through his son Nathan instead of Solomon. There are many more generations in Luke, and the names are different. According to Matthew, the father of Joseph is called Jacob. According to Luke, he is called Heli. It is not certain whether Matthan and Matthat are the same person, listed in Matthew and Luke respectively as the grandfather of Joseph. The only two names that appear identically in both lists are Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel.

One possible explanation for the differing genealogies is that Luke's Gospel gives Mary's genealogy, with Joseph's name used as a covering to avoid the suggestion that Yeshua was illegitimate.

However, a much more satisfactory explanation is that one or both lists include adopted children, and there is nothing in either of them to suggest who is an adopted son and who is a genetic son.

To illustrate this, we should look at the two names that appear in both lists, Zerubbabel and Shealtiel. Matthew associates them with the exile into Babylon as follows:

And Josiah fathered Jechoiachin and his brothers, at the carrying away of Babylon. And after the carrying away of Babylon, Jechoiachin fathered Shealtiel; and Shealtiel fathered Zerubbabel. (Matt. 1:11-12. Green's Literal Translation)

These are undoubtedly the same Shealtiel and Zerubbabel that appear in Ezra as follows:

Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon ... Now in the second year of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel...appointed the Levites ... to set forward the work of the house of the Lord. (Ezra 3:2-8)

They also appear in Haggai as follows:

In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the Lord by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying... (Haggai 1:1)

Speak now to Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying... (Haggai 2:2)

In 1 Chronicles 3 there are a number of fragmented genealogies of the tribe of Judah. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) is mentioned as the father of Shealtiel, in agreement with Matthew's Gospel, but Zerubbabel is not listed as the son of Shealtiel. Instead he is the son of Shealtiel's brother Pediah.

And the sons of Jeconiah were Assir, and Shealtiel his son, and Malchiram, and Pediah, and Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedebiah. And the sons of Pediah: Zerubbabel and Shimei. ... (1 Chr. 3:17-19. Green's Literal Translation)

Why does this verse appear to be at variance with Ezra, Haggai and Matthew's Gospel, suggesting that Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel's brother Pediah? The only possible answer is that Zerubbabel was the genetic son of one of these two brothers, but was adopted by the other. During the return from the Babylonian captivity, there must have been many orphans who required adoption. It is very likely that either Shealtiel or Pediah might have died and Zerubbabel was adopted by the surviving brother.

The genealogy is as follows:

In true Jewish tradition, as we have already seen, the Bible does not say anything to distinguish between genetic birth and adoption. In this case it is not even possible to tell from the context who is the genetic father of Zerubbabel and who is the adoptive father.

This, of course, provides the answer to all the Jewish anti-missionary groups that try to ridicule Christians with the suggestion that if the New Testament can't even get the genealogy of Yeshua right, how can we believe anything else it says? They should be aware that the same apparent contradictions occur in the Tanakh, for the same reasons. Not only do we have two different fathers of Zerubbabel, but we have also seen how Michal, the daughter of Saul, was childless until the day of her death, yet she bore five sons to Adriel.

It is likely that at the time of Yeshua, many different genealogical tables existed, and none of them made any distinction between genetic birth and adoption. Far from contradicting each other, Matthew and Luke are actually strengthening the point, that Yeshua was descended from David, by giving two different tables that both have the same result.

The book of 1 Chronicles goes on to list the children of Zerubbabel.

... And the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister: and Hashubah, and Ohel, and Berechiah, and Hasadiah, Jushab-hesed, five. (1 Chr. 3:19-20)

Why does it say "five"? Some translations say "five others". Are these the five who were born after their sister Shelomith, or were they adopted? In true Jewish style it doesn't tell you. This whole chapter is just a fragmented genealogy and there is no reason to believe there were only five. There might have been six or seven. Matthew's Gospel says there was a son of Zerubbabel called Abiud, and Luke says there was a son called Rhesa.

According to Luke's Gospel, the father of Shealtiel was Neri instead of Jehoiachin, giving a different line of descent from David. Again, an adoption might have occurred during the chaos of captivity into Babylon.


Was Mary a Cohen?

Since we already know that Yeshua was of the "seed of David according to the flesh", because of his birth into Joseph's household, it hardly matters which tribe Mary came from, but for the sake of those who want to argue about it, here we go. The two passages, already quoted earlier, are as follows:

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)

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".

The same word is used in Romans 9:3 to mean all the Israelites.

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites ... (Rom. 9:3-4)

The term "kinsmen according to the flesh" is very interesting. If this is strictly limited to those who were genetically born into Israel, the Proselytes would all be excluded, and this would imply that Paul is not concerned about the salvation of the Proselytes.

Other references might have a narrower meaning, so that a kinsman is either a blood-relative or someone from the same tribe, for example:

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, ... (Rom. 16:7)

Salute Herodian my kinsman. (Rom. 16:11)

Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you. (Rom. 16:21)

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.

Is there a rule that only a Cohen can marry a Cohen? Not necessarily. According to the Mishnah, even the daughter of a Proselyte father can marry a priest, provided her mother is not also a Proselyte.

Mishnah 5. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: A woman who is a daughter of a Proselyte may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite woman. [this law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: 'Which thou, O God, hast given unto me'.(Mishna Mas. Bikkurim [First Fruits] Chapter 1)

In Jewish law, some time after the dispersion in AD 70, the rules changed so that the religious status of a child was derived from the mother instead of the father, because in many cases the identity of the father was unknown. Whatever the situation might have been in the days when the Oral Law was purely verbal, this section of the Mishnah indicates a liberal attitude about who can marry a Cohen. The mother, who is assumed to determine the religious status of the child, only needs to be an Israelite, not necessarily a Cohen.

Regarding intermarriage generally between the tribes, there appears to be no restriction, provided an inheritance does not pass from one tribe to another. If a woman marries a man from another tribe, she becomes a member of that tribe. However, if she has an inheritance from her father, because she has no brothers to take the inheritance, she may not marry into another tribe because she cannot take the inheritance with her.

An example is the story of the daughters of Zelophelad in Numbers 27 and 36. Their father had died in the desert, leaving no sons. Moses enquired of the Lord and gave the rule that the inheritance would pass to the daughters. Then there was an enquiry about whether or not they could marry into another tribe, and Moses ruled that they could only marry within their own tribe, to prevent the inheritance from passing from one tribe to another.

If we need proof that inter-tribal marriage is generally possible, we only have to ask those who believe that Mary was a Cohen. Her marriage to Joseph would then be an inter-tribal marriage.


How Old Was Mary?

The argument about the age of Mary has the same status as the argument about her tribe. Since we already know that Yeshua was of the "seed of David according to the flesh", because of his birth into Joseph's household, the age of Mary becomes irrelevant, but we can argue about it for the sake of those who want to.

The suggestion that Mary was old is based on the use of the single word "also" in the phrase "She hath also conceived a son in her old age". (Luke 1:36)

The anti-deity people have taken considerable liberty by suggesting that Mary was old, on the basis of a single word that has an ambiguous meaning and is more likely to refer to the fact that both Mary and Elizabeth would have a child.

There is also the suggestion that Joseph was old, since he is not mentioned after the trip to Jerusalem when Yeshua was twelve years old, and he might have died. There is good reason to believe that he died, because if he was alive he would certainly have appeared at the crucifixion of Yeshua, looking after Mary. However, he could have died at any age. For example, if he was 30 years old when he married Mary, he would have been 63 at the time of the crucifixion, and there could have been plenty of reasons why he might have died.

There are good reasons to believe that Mary was young:

  • She was espoused to Joseph (Matt. 1:18, Luke 1:27). As far as we know, she became the first and only wife of Joseph. If Joseph had already been married and had children from other wives, they would have accompanied him to Bethlehem. It is very unlikely that a man with no children would marry a woman who was past childbearing age. (Talmud Mas. Yevamoth 61b)
  • Yeshua was Mary's firstborn son (Luke 2:7) and she had other children, both sons and daughters. (Matt. 12:46, Matt. 13:55-56)
  • Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem every year at Passover and continued to do so until Yeshua was at least twelve years old. (Luke 2:41-42) If Mary was old, she would not have undertaken the arduous journey from Nazareth to Jerusalem, probably having to travel on a donkey.
  • Mary is metioned in the writings of Ignatius, who was Bishop of Antioch from AD 69 until he was taken to Rome and fed to the lions in 115. At some time during his ministry, he wrote to John the Apostle: "There are also many of our women here, who are desirous to see Mary [the mother] of Jesus, and wish day by day to run off from us to you, that they may meet with her ..." (Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle). If Mary was still alive in AD 69 or afterwards, she must have been very young when she gave birth to Yeshua. The writings of Ignatius and other early church leaders are available at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Conclusions

The term "seed of David according to the flesh" in Romans 3:1 does not mean genetic descent, any more than "kinsmen according to the flesh" in Romans 9:3 means genetic birth into Israel. Paul's concern for Israel would have had greatly diminished value if it excluded the Proselytes.

Yeshua was born into the household of Joseph, a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah. This was more than enough to make him the "seed of David according to the flesh", regardless of the tribe to which Mary belonged. Mary may well have been a Cohen, since she was related to Elizabeth, but she could have been from any other tribe. When she married Joseph, she was considered to have married into the tribe of Judah.

The differing genealogies of Matthew and Luke are most likely the consequence of adoption. In the Bible, there is no distinction between children who are genetically born into a household and those who are adopted.

The suggestion that Mary was old has no substance, and all the evidence is to the contrary.


Copyright 1997 Updated December 1999

Mike Gascoigne
Send a mail message


Bible Index

History Index

Home Page