Article Index

Jesus - son of Joseph, son of David

“The birth of Jesus Christ was like this…” (Matthew 1:18).
This is how the sentence begins, with a description of the events surrounding the conception and birth of Jesus below. That description is the cause of different views and debates. So, are we rightly interested in how Jesus (Joshua) came into existence and how he was conceived? What conditions did he have to meet in order to be considered as 'sn of David'?
Before we discuss these issues, let us remember that David and his wives had several sons. But Solomon was given the right to sit on his throne, which was to play a significant role in God's plan. In order to maintain the royal lineage through Solomon, the following rule was introduced:
“Behold, the king's (human biological) son will reign as the Lord has promised for the sons of David.” (2.Chronicles 23: 3)
In order to protect the royal lineage, only the 'king's son' could inherit the throne and bear the official title 'son of David'. This title or name was to be borne by all who came through Solomon in every new generation, who were
  • 'sons of David,' according to the flesh
  • anointed as kings on the throne of David
Solomon is the only son of David to rule Israel. After him, the kingdom of Israel was divided into two parts so that his descendants ruled only Judea (Israel in a small form because aliens from all 12 tribes lived there). The last 'son of David' was king of Zedekiah (Zedekiah) at the time when the Jews were taken with him to Babylon as slaves because they did not fulfill the condition of obedience that God had set for the sons of David. If they had fulfilled this condition, then the word of God would have been fulfilled:
“You shall never fail to have a successor to sit before me on the throne of Israel…” (2 Chronicles 6: 16,17)
Jesus is proof that the descendants of the lineage of Solomon have not disappeared. Although they existed before God upon their return to their country, they somehow disappeared before the people for some time because of the sins of certain kings. Anyone who was later born in that royal lineage was a 'son of David' and a legal heir, but none of them was allowed to make themselves the king - the Messiah, because they needed to be aware of what God said at the time of the last king:
A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it.” (Ezekiel 21:27)
In order for this lawful Messiah-king to come, God promised to "raise up the fallen tent of David" (tent, house) that day, that is, to lift up his royal lineage, which was broken (2 Chronicles 21: 7; Psalm 89:29; Amos 9:11). For centuries, the Jews have been waiting for this Messianic king, who was to be chosen and appointed by God to restore the kingdom of Israel and unite all 12 tribes. The royal lineage would not have been interrupted if the kings had faithfully represented God's authority. In that case, 'the king would not disappear' in Israel so ...
  • Joshua (Jesus) would not have been born as a 'son of a carpenter' but as a 'son of the king' and the legal heir to the throne of David.
  • Jesus - the king's / carpenter's (human) son
The history of Israel and all of humanity would then go in the right direction, and to this day probably all nations would obey that king over kings (see Psalm 2). As history went in the other direction, the Israelites had to wait hundreds of years for this chosen God and faithful servant. Because of this situation, prophecies were revealed to the prophet Daniel, referring the Jews to the times and events associated with the coming of the Messiah and the restoration of God's (heavenly) kingdom in Israel, which would affect the whole world.
When Jesus was anointed and sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," many of the common people accepted him as the promised Messiah and called him "the son of David," knowing that he was the son of Joseph (Matthew 15:22; 20:30; Mark 10: 47). In order for Jesus to be anointed by God and to bear that title, he must have had a legal right to the throne. The basic requirement was that
  • In the flesh, he originated from the royal lineage of David
This requirement was fulfilled by his father Joseph, who was a descendant of Solomon's family lineage. The second condition was to be
  • the firstborn son dedicated to God (Luke 2:7)
However, today we mostly read or hear in Christian communities that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father but that he adopted him. They believe that Jesus may still be called 'Son of David' because he descended from the lineage of David's son, Nathan, by flesh, that is, by his mother. Does such a view fit into the biblical context? Today's views are largely based on the report founds in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. While some use these reports as the basis for the belief in Jesus' pre-existence and incarnation, others have reason to see God's miracle of conception and creation of a new human being.
When it comes to the view that Jesus already existed in heaven before being born on earth, then some claim that his life pattern was transferred to the fertilized egg of a woman from the lineage of David who was destined to give birth to the body in which Jesus' celestial sinless nature resided. They claim Jesus thus became …
  • Son of David by the genetic lineage (blood) of Mary
Others claim that he has become the whole body of man, which would mean that his heavenly body, spirit and soul were transformed into the embryo and the body of a child born to a woman, so that even from that point of view, he is considered to be…
  • The son of David by the genetic lineage (blood) of Mary
Then there are those who do not believe in incarnation and claim that it is an act of creating a new man, another Adam (son of God), who is also…
  • Son of David by the genetic lineage (blood) of Mary
Such views with a dose of supernatural people seem inspiring. However, they reject any possibility that Jesus arose from the seed and genes of the royal lineage carried by his father Joseph. For them, Jesus is ...
  • the legal heir to the throne of David by Joseph, who adopted him as his son.
They believe that the adopted son had the same legal rights as the son who came in the flesh so Jesus is
  • The legal son of David by his stepfather
This is in stark contrast to what God was seeking concerning everyone who was to be king by their biological father from the lineage of David. That is why we cannot neglect the fact that from the first century until today there are Christians who believe that Jesus was
  • The son of David by the genetic lineage (blood) of Joseph
For any of these different points of view to be accepted, it must
  • uphold God's view and
  • should not create a problem to the rest of the Bible
In the Bible, God set the legal framework for the birth of the one whom He had ordained beforehand to appoint for Christ and the Lord (Acts 2:36).
I have noticed that many people try to adapt some biblical words and expressions to their point of view without even seeing or wanting to see the problems and complications associated with that view. So in this article I will expose you to these problems in relation to the term 'seed'.

Page 2 of 15

The word 'seed' is often used in the Bible in connection with conception and offspring.
  • Greek: σπέρμα (sperma)
  • Hebrew: זָֽרַע (zā · ra')
The term 'seed' contains the thought of something that is sown in order to produce the contents of the seed. It is an integral part of the reproduction and existence of a human as a descendant of the family lineage formed by the parents - father and mother, with the “seed” being borne by the father (Leviticus 15: 16,18). The Bible writers used the word in the context of conception and birth to refer to human offspring that originated from the father's seed.
This same word was used in reference to the vegetable 'seed' which contains the germ of a future plant (see (Hebrew): Genesis 1:29; (Greek): 1 Cor. 15:38). In the plant world, in certain species the wind or insect transport the seed from the stamen to the stigma, which eventually produces the fruit. Other plants have seeds that reach the soil where they sprout. Just as the soil may be unfertile or barren, so in the Bible speaks about the barren womb of a woman, implying that she was not the source of the seed, but merely the recipient on whom it depended whether or not the 'seed' would be received (Proverbs 30:16). In this sense, the woman contained the material substance for the creation of the fetus, while the man was the source of the active life force, contained in the 'semen'. That is why the term 'son of man' (a man’s son) could not be used for Adam who did not arise from a man. However, that is why Jesus often used that very term for himself, which indicates that he was...
  • created by a man and man's seed.
In the flora and fauna there are several natural methods of fertilization by the seed, while in humans there is only one natural way. Of course, there is artificial insemination, developed by the scientists. God is above any scientist, and so it is possible that he was behind the fertilization by which he brought Joshua (Jesus) into existence, as he was behind the conception of Isaac, Samson, Solomon, and John the Baptist. However, the problem arises when, according to the interpretation of many theologians, we exclude the male 'seed' from the fertilization, that would make Jesus be the son of Joseph and of David.
Among early Christians there were two views on Jesus' creation:
  1. he was conceived by her father Joseph (natural)
  2. he was conceived by the Holy Spirit (supernatural)
The first view throughout its existence has been that of Jewish Christians since the very foundation of the Christian assembly in Jerusalem when they were called the Nazarenes. After their escape from Jerusalem they were known as the Ebionites (poor). This name is associated with the prophecy of Zephaniah (3: 8-12) who wrote about the day when God would shake up kingdoms and nations. In that day he will bring back scattered Israelites from all nations. He will reject those who have exalted themselves, and will leave those who are small and humble, as it says:
“And I will leave in you a poor and needy people, and they will trust in the name of the LORD.” (Zephaniah 3:12)
From the very beginning, they positioned themselves as 'poor' who enrich others (see 2 Corinthians 6:10; James 2: 5). Their belief in Jesus as a man was later suppressed by the story of the supernatural conception, which was eventually accepted by non-Jewish Christians. Eusebius claimed that some of the Ebionites of his time also adhered to the latter view (See "Eusebius”, 'Ebionites', History of the Church (Croatian)). Since then, most Christians, under pressure from their religious teachers, do not consider Joseph the originator of Jesus' existence. Hence this point of view remained to this day completely contrary to the original one.
But when we take a closer look, these two points of view need not be contradictory, since they were obviously not contrary to some Jewish Christians (Ebionites). We can connect them with the question - could God, through the holy spirit, (like the wind that transfers seed from the stamens to the stigma) in accordance with the law of inheritance of the family lineage and name, transfer Joseph's seed into the womb of his fiancee? This question is in place because the egg cell of a woman with a 'xx' sex chromosome could not self-create a male (“xy”) child but only
  • an identical female child (clone).
How then did the 'y' chromosome from the male 'seed' get into the womb and cause the conception of the male child? And more importantly, whose 'chromosome' was that, containing genetic material for the formation of the male body?
Although we know that the body of a child is derived from the genes of both parents, which contain the genetic record of all previous ancestors, and that it is related to the blood of both parents, what is important in this case is that the Hebrews registered the inheritance according to the male 'seed' which includes the blood relation, not by the woman's blood relation to her father and forefathers. This was governed by God's laws and commandments. Each time the term 'seed' was used, it meant the father of the child, not the mother. This is why Hebrew writers in the genealogy wrote, inter alia:
 “Abraham begot Isaac…” (Genesis 25:19)
In this manner of expression, they said that Abraham caused the birth of Isaac with his seed. They believed that children came into the world by man through woman. They had the knowledge that God, through his creative spirit, could close, open and revive the womb, and thus through the 'seed' of man, participate in the creation and formation of those offspring whom he had predetermined as his servants. All these descendants were to come from Abraham, Judah, David and Solomon's 'seed'. According to this image, Joshua (Jesus) 'son of David' could have been created only by his father Joseph, that is, by David's 'seed' transmitted only by his male descendants. God said to David,
“And when your days are fulfilled, and you commit with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring ('zera') after you, who will be born of (from) your flesh, and will establish his kingdom.” (2 Samuel 7: 12)
 “When your days are over, and you have rested with your fathers, I will raise up your seed ('zera') after you, which will come out of your womb (from your body) and I will establish his kingdom.” (2 Samuel 7:12)
I took an example of two translations because this verse mentions the word 'seed' (zera) which some translators translate with 'offspring' or 'son'.
  • seed ~ offspring (son)
These are two different words but interrelated because the son contains within himself the germ of his offspring and is therefore considered to be 'seed' or carrier of 'seed'.
As we can see from the verse above, God promised David that the "seed" (male offspring) and the heir to his kingdom would be raised from his "body" or from his "womb", from which "seed" ("zera"; "sperma") emerges. (see Acts 2:30). When we refer to Jesus as his promised offspring ('seed'), then the expression 'from your flesh' meant: 'from the seed of your son' (not your daughter) I will raise your 'offspring', which means that Jesus should have been born of male (Joseph's) seed by which the family line is extended. So the angel addressed Joseph, calling him:
“Son of David” (Matthew 1:20)
From Joseph 'son of David' came Jesus, 'son of David'. That conclusion  is drawn from the part of the sentence in which God says to David:
“I will raise your seed
“I will raise up (your offspring, your son)”
In order for Jesus to be the 'seed', and the bearer of the seed of David, he had to come from his father's 'seed' and not from his mother's body, which does not have the male chromosome 'y' in it. Namely, the 'seed' with the 'y' chromosome is transmitted from father to son through the mother. If Mary did not conceive Jesus of that seed, then God could not legally or through the flesh raise David's 'seed' (son, offspring). In this case, David is the bearer of that royal 'seed' that was passed on to his son Solomon as a male offspring that originated from the seed of David. This 'seed' was to be transmitted by his male descendants until the birth of Jesus, the last son of David as king of the law, anointed and made Lord by God. Although David had more sons, the royal lineage ran only through Solomon and his 'seed'. Accordingly, David's 'seed' was transmitted
  • through Solomon’s lineage
  • by male offspring
To determine how Jesus came into existence as the 'son of David', we need to consider two principles related to the problems that arise if these principles are ignored. Those are:
  • the principle of inheritance
  • the principle of the spoken word

Page 3 of 15

»The family lineage and name could not be passed on or inherited from the mother but only from the father«
The Bible is clear and unambiguous when it comes to the inheritance through which the inheritance of the family name and lineage was passed from father to son. The daughter could inherit property and land only if the father died without a son. In that case, she was only required to marry within her father's tribal lineage so that the inheritance would not be transferred to another tribe (see Numbers 36). Just as in that case, where the inheritance can pass to another tribe, that is, to her son who would be from another tribe by his father, so that biological son would be legally bound to his father and his lineage from another tribe, not to his mother's lineage, from which it originated. Hence,
  • the son is legally bound to his biological father.
By the law of God, the importance of the male 'seed' is emphasized in order to maintain connection with the family and tribal lineage. Namely, if an Israelite died without a male offspring, regardless of the fact that he might have a daughter, by God's law only his brother (or the closest relative from his father's family lineage) should marry his wife (Deuteronomy 25:5). It was a levirate marriage by which his brother extended his lineage with his 'seed' (son), and also the lineage of their common father, descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In essence, his brother legally bore the 'seed' of the same family lineage, not his daughter. If he had a daughter, she could only through her husband participate in the extension of another family lineage, not the lineage of her father. This means that Mary could not pass on the bloodline of her father to Jesus but only the bloodline of her husband Joseph and his seed. If a man did not have a son, his name would be deleted or 'blotted out' because we read:
"And the firstborn she bore (by his brother-in-law) should inherit the name of his dead brother, lest his name be removed from Israel." (Deuteronomy 25:5,6)
There was no alternative but a bridal marriage. There is no place in God’s law for an adopted son. There is no law in the Bible that would force anyone to take a woman who had a son and children with another man, except that the community needed to care for widows and orphans. If one were to take such a woman (widow) and adopt her children, her son would not be able to study in his stepfather's family tree but only his late biological father.
The proponents of the conception of Jesus (without the seed of Joseph) claim that in Israel the adopted son received all legal rights by his stepfather, as if he were the biological son. Interestingly, they cannot find any biblical or extra-biblical text to support this claim. Such hasty claims were made only to give Jesus the right to the royal lineage through Joseph, who allegedly adopted him as his son. However, this cannot be true because legal provisions prevented it, so that the biological son would get that right.
Namely, every Israelite passed on his name and lineage to his son. Suppose one of them got a son with his wife and died while his son was a child. If a man married that widow and accepted her son as his own, could her son legally inherit his stepfather's name and lineage? If he could, then that son should give up the name and lineage of his late biological father. Such a possibility would be a great burden to any married man who would be anxious not knowing what would happen if he died before his son came of age and his wife married another man. We do not have such a situation in the Bible because everything was regulated by the rule of God. Therefore, the adopted son could not take over and extend the lineage of his stepfather, nor could he be called by his name because he was related to the biological father. Thus, Moses could only inherit and extend the lineage of his biological father from the tribe of Levi, although he was adopted by an Egyptian woman.
In the Bible we have an example concerning the problem of inheritance that Abraham had.
"Abram answered, 'Ah, Lord, God, what can you give me when I have to live without children, and the Eliezer of Damascus will be the possessor of my property?' And Abram continued, "Behold, you have not given me offspring, and so my servant born in my house will be my heir." (Genesis 15: 2,3).
This servant could have legally inherited Abraham's estate, but not Abraham's family lineage. If one did not have a biological son, his family lineage would be cut off by his death, even though he might have a daughter.
The alleged adoption of a son by women who could not give birth is also alleged here. Sarah adopted Ishmael son for Abraham through her maid, but this son must still have been Abraham's biological son. Rachel gave Jacob a son, who was born by her concubine. The son of the concubine belonged to a married woman, so he was counted as an adopted son (Genesis 30: 6). But this son also bore the seed of his father Jacob, and so he was Jacob's legal heir. However, there is no example that a man adopted another's son and that he was the heir to his bloodline (family), nor did God allow it by his laws.
We know that Jacob had 13 children, but only 12 of them came from the 12 tribes of Israel. Why couldn't a 13th child inherit his father and pass on his seed and bloodline to his children and be part of one and the same people through which all other nations will be blessed? Because it's a female child. Unlike her brothers, Dinah, as the daughter of Jacob, could not bear and transmit the seed of her father and fathers to her children, so that her sons could not, by their mother's blood, be heirs of the lineage of Jacob. None of them could belong to Abraham's offspring, which had come by promise.
If the Bible is clear on this point, on what basis is it claimed that Jesus, through his mother's blood, was the heir to the lineage of David? Who was Jesus bound to if he did not have a biological father? Whose lineage could he have extended if he had not inherited it through Joseph? Could he have extended the lineage of his maternal grandfather? The Bible does not support such a thing because, according to what it says, Jesus could not be called Joseph's son or David if he was adopted.
When we take into account the biblical facts, it is understood that the Jews considered Jesus the 'son of David' after his father Joseph, not his mother. Namely, there were some women from other nations in the lineage of Jesus (Ruth, Rahab, Naam…), but according to the marriage covenant they bore the seed of their husband, who was a descendant of Abraham and David. It was not at all thought that such a woman bore the "seed" of her father or the family lineage of her father, because then her son would have been a descendant of the heathen or a mixed race, not from the lineage of Abraham and the tribe of Judah from which David originated. Therefore, the woman's bloodline is completely destroyed so that her child can belong to blood and body only to the biological father. Let's look at one such example found in the Bible, which reads:
“One day, the son of an Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian intervened among the children of Israel, and thus the son of the Israelite woman and an Israelite quarreled.” (Leviticus 24:10)
Two sons whose mothers were Israelites are mentioned here. One of them was an 'Israelite' by both his mother and father, and the other is only said to be 'son of Israelite woman', but he was not an Israelite because his father was Egyptian. If this other woman were from the lineage of David, her son would not be considered a 'son of David' but a son of an Egyptian. If Jesus did not have a biological father in the lineage of David but only a stepfather, then he would be just 'the son of a Jew', but not a 'son of David'. By this legal rule, women of Judah or some other tribe of Israel could not be the bearers of their father's family lineage. They only brought into the world sons who were born by the 'seed' of their husband, so that the legal right of David's name and his throne could not be obtained by the woman's lineage. Therefore, the Bible clearly states that
  • Jesus is not the son of David by his mother
The descendants of David by the royal (Solomon) lineage married girls from these and other tribes, but their sons were not registered by the lineage of their mother.
All Israelites are determined by their genealogy according to the patriarchal system, that is, to their father's bloodline, and never to the matriarchal line (bloodline of mothers). For this reason, in both genealogies in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, only men are mentioned, of whom sons and daughters are descended, who eventually became fathers and mothers. In some biographies of individuals, it was important to know which lineage their mother was from and even whose daughter she was, so the writers wrote it down neatly. For example:
  • King Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah.
"His mother's name was Abijah, and she was the daughter of Zechariah" (2 Kings 18:1,2)
His mother, by her father, may have been from David's family on some occasions. However, her son Hezekiah could only become king of the law only because he ...
  • was born by a woman whose husband was from the family lineage of Solomon.
Otherwise, if she married King Ahaz as a widow, her son would not be entitled to the throne of David if he were adopted by her second husband. If the adopted son was appointed king, then the kingdom could move to another family lineage because the son had a legal right to confess his ancestry by biological father. This is another reason why an adopted son could not have the same rights as a biological son. So, even if Jesus was adopted, he had no legal right to be the bearer of the royal lineage of his stepfather Joseph. That was the right of the other sons of Joseph.
Likewise, an adopted son who was not from the family of Aaron's sons could not become a priest. Therefore, God demanded that the priest of the vine of Aaron marry only a virgin, that is, a girl of Israelite birth, or a widow whose husband was a priest.
"Let them not marry a public harlot, or a dishonored woman; neither let the woman from whom her husband divorced marry her…” (Leviticus 31:7)
"And the priests of the tribe of Levi, the descendants of Zadok, (...) They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. (Ezekiel 44:15,22)
By obeying these ordinances, the priest would have only those lawful sons who, according to his lineage, could become priests. Even if he married a widow who had a son with her late husband, a priest, that adopted son could only become a priest in that case. Otherwise, if he took the widow of a deceased man who was not a priest, then her son, whom he would adopt, could not become a priest. Imagine then the problem that would arise if a priest or king took a woman and adopted her son who would not know who his biological father was.
It seems that in the various Christian communities, through their views, Jesus is being put into this unenviable position whereby he loses the legal right to the throne of Solomon (i.e. David). This is because outside the biblical context they interpret the virgin conception by which they do not accept Joseph as his biological father but only their mother.
It was important for the Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and the King to know who his mother was and whose daughter she was, but it was crucial to know who his father was by whom he inherited the lineage of David's family and royal. Some claim that in Jesus' case, both of his parents were of the lineage of David, which could further add importance to his lineage. This was the case with John the Baptist, because both of his parents were from Aaron's priestly family lineage (Luke 1: 5). However, the genealogy quoted in Luke's Gospel states that Joseph was the 'son' of Heli, descended from David's son Nathan, while the genealogy in Matthew's Gospel shows that Joseph was born of James, descended from David's son Solomon.  This is what we read:

“Solomon was born to David… (following the genealogy to) (…) Matthan begot Jacob, Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary (Matthew 1:1-16)
 "Jesus ... They held him for Joseph's son. This one was the son of Heli, the son of Matthat (...) (following the genealogy to) ... the son of Nathan, the son of David (Luke 3:23-31)
Matthew's genealogy traces the royal genealogy of David's son Solomon, which is recorded in 1 Chronicles, while Luke's genealogy according to David's son Nathan is not mentioned in the Bible. That is why some claim that Luke cited the genealogy of Mary, that is, she is a daughter of Heli, and that Joseph, therefore, is the son of Heli because he married his daughter. If this theory were correct, then Luke would explicitly state or remark on the term 'son' so that there would be no confusion (eg when he mentions 'Judas' at 22:47 he notes that he is 'one of the twelve' and not any Judas). Since there is no mention here of Heli's son-in-law, then the term 'son' has only biological meaning for Joseph, son of Heli, as well as for the other sons mentioned in that same genealogy. That is why Luke's report most likely states the legal genealogy that Joseph was born of, and Matthew's report is a biological genealogy.
It is possible that Jacob, as the closest relative, 'raised a seed' to Heli who died without a son, so that Joseph is legally referred to in one genealogy as' the son of Heli ', but is also listed in the other genealogy as a natural or biological' son Of Jacob '(or vice versa). Only in this way could it be known that Joseph's birth was in accordance with God's decree on the levirate marriage which kept the 'seed' of the male line. This means that one's genealogy could also be traced to the fathers of the levirate marriages.
Now one might notice one problem. Namely, if Heli descended from Nathan, then there was a family distance between him and James who descended from Solomon for about ten generations, so it is difficult that Heli could have been the closest generation to Jacob and had an obligation to extend his 'name' and 'give birth' 'son.
However, if we consider that David's grandchildren, according to Solomon and Nathan, may have been the closest relatives obliged to extend one another's name, then it is quite possible that Heli also descended from Solomon's family line, even though Nathan is mentioned at the beginning of this genealogy. not Solomon. This possibility exists because Luke's genealogy also contains some names that belong to the lineage of Solomon and overlap with those of Matthew's genealogy, and which, like Heli / Jacob, also had sons from levirate marriages. This means that one of Nathan's sons 'gave birth 'to a son who belonged to the lineage of Solomon by law, or one of Solomon's sons' gave birth to a son to his relative who belonged to Nathan's lineage by law. Before explaining this, I will single out examples that prove that Joseph is not the only one who is said to be the son of two fathers from two different families. Let's look at the following example:
"The sons of Jeconiah, who were born to him in captivity, were Salathiel his son, Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenasar, Jekamiah, Hosham, and Nedabiah. Pedaiah's sons were Zerubbabel and Shimi." (1 Chronicles 3:17-19)
This genealogy states that Zerubabel was the son of Pedaiah. However, the genealogy of Matthew and Luke states that Zerubabel was Salathiel's son. Since Salathiel and Pedaiah were brothers - Jeconiah's sons - then it is possible that Salathiel died without a son, so Pedaiah, his brother, performed brother-in law duty and took his wife, after whom he gave birth to his firstborn son's brother, Zerubbabel (see 1 Chronicles 3 : 17-19; Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27). If we compare Matthew's and Luke's genealogy then we see this situation in the case of Salathiel as well.
"After the exile in Babylon, Salathiel was born to Jeconiah, Zerubbabel was born to Salathiel, Abiud was born to Zerubbabel..." (Matthew 1:12)
"... the son of Johanan, the son of Resin, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, the son of Neri." (Luke 3:27)
Salathiel is listed here as the son of Jeconiah and the son of Neri, so Jeconiah probably took Neri's wife as the closest relative and 'gave birth' to him a firstborn son. So, from these genealogies we have extracted the three sons of David, who were apparently born of a levirate marriage.
  • Salathiel   {son of Neri}   and   {son of Jeconiah}
  • Zerubbabel   {son Pedaiah}   and   {son Salathiel}
  • Joseph   {son of Jacob}   and   {son of Heli}
We have noticed that the genealogy cited by Luke, which begins with David's son Nathan, contains the names of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, who, according to another genealogy, are descendants of David's son Solomon. Therefore, because Luke's genealogy is based on Nathan's son David, it does not mean that everyone in that genealogy is Nathan's descendants. It is possible that Nathan's son Matat took his wife as one of his closest relatives to one of the sons of Solomon who died last but without a male offspring, so he "gave birth" to his son so Meniah is kept as Matthat's biological son even though he legally belongs to the father of one of the sons of Solomon. In that case, the other descendants, among whom Luke cites Salathiel and Zerubbabel (father and son), nevertheless belong to the law lineage of Solomon from which Heli was born.
Luke in Jesus' genealogy lists names that do not match the names of Matthew's genealogy because he published the line of descendants from which Heli was born, who came after Zerubbabel son of Resus, while Jacob came after Zerubbabel's son Abi. Therefore, it is quite possible that Heli was a descendant of the lineage of Solomon, not Nathan, and thus the closest relative to Jacob, to whom he 'bore' Joseph, the father of Jesus.
Note: As for Mary, she may have been from the tribe of Levi because she is said to have been a relative of Elizabeth who was also from the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:36). Namely, Elizabeth and Mary could have been cousins ​​by their fathers if their fathers were brothers of the tribe of Levi. But Mary could have been from the tribe of Judah, and also cousin Elizabeth by mother if their mothers were sisters. One sister was married to Elizabeth's father from the tribe of Levi and the other to Mary's father from the tribe of Judah. Some claim that Elizabeth was the aunt of Mary (by father), the Greek word 'syngenis' referred to gender or kinship and not exclusively to cousin (Greek: xáderfos). Because of this, Elizabeth was a generation older than Mary because Mary was a young girl and Elizabeth was barren in later age. Since Luke emphasizes the lineage of Joseph, Zechariah, and Elizabeth, and not of Mary, then it can be assumed that Luke indirectly said that Mary was of the tribe of Levi by being closely related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:5,36; 2:4).
All of the above tells us that at that time we looked at 'seed' since it was never related to a woman and a female offspring or to her blood relationship. A woman could only carry in her womb the seed or offspring of her husband (the representative of God’s authority), which by marriage union was also her seed (offspring). This is why in the beginning of the Bible there is a reference to the 'seed of the woman' because we read:
“And I put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed…” (Genesis 3:15)
This prophecy mentions the 'seed' of Satan and the 'seed' of woman. It is the context that determines the meaning. Namely, the evil people did not come from the seed of Satan and his body, because he has no seed in his body, but came from the male 'seed' (offspring) that stood on his side. So even righteous men did not descend from the seed of the woman, for neither is the seed-bearer. A seed can only be a female within the framework of a conjugal union with a husband and through it that male seed comes into existence. Thus, Hagar was the bearer of the seed of Abraham, after which she bore Ishmael (Ishmael), so that an angel concerning her son could tell her:
"I will greatly multiply your seed ..." (Genesis 16:10) ...... Hagar's (female) seed
God also predetermined the male offspring (Abraham, Isaac, James, Judas, David, Solomon, Joseph) to accomplish his purpose through which the 'seed' was passed on to each new generation, and transmission was possible only through the woman. It means that it is the woman's seed by which she brings into the world those whom God, not man, has ordained beforehand to stand on the head of the serpent, and among them the one who will completely crush that serpent's head. The Bible does not mention the 'seed of women' outside this framework founded by God Himself. That is why the Jews never used the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, which mentions the 'seed of a woman' to expect the Messiah (the Anointed) to be born without the seed of a biological father. Not even one of the apostles claimed or mentioned it, let alone use it as an argument.

Page 4 of 15

»God's promise could not be undone«
The Bible makes it clear to us how important it was to God to keep his word and His promises related to blessing. To illustrate this, let us remember that God made a promise to Abraham concerning his offspring through his son Isaac, who was born by the promise (Genesis 17:19; Galatians 4: 23,28). When Isaac was to convey this promise to his firstborn son Esau, he blessed another son, Jacob, who introduced himself to Esau as his father. When he learned that he had passed on the blessing to Jacob, he could not undo his word, so the promised offspring should come aby Jacob (Genesis 27: 1-40). Because it is only with God who knows in advance all that can go wrong, and yet is so sure of what he says, that there is no need to undo his word. So he said:
"So it is with my word that comes out of my mouth: it does not come back to me empty, until it has done what I wanted and fulfilled, for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)
When in the 8th B.C. the Syrian and Israelite kings planned to overthrow Ahaz from the throne of Judah and destroy the royal lineage of David in order to make Jerusalem a ruler who was not a descendant of God. God did this to preserve the covenant of the Kingdom made with David and to preserve the lineage through which the promised Messiah was to come (Isaiah 7: 1-14).
When, after that, Ahaz's son, king Hezekiah fell sick to death, there was a threat to the royal line to be broken, because he did not have a son. When he prayed and asked God for healing, God heard him and healed him (Isaiah 38: 1-5). In this regard, the Watchtower writes:
"Why did God intervene then? ... In Hezekiah's case, God's intervention had a special purpose - to preserve the lineage from which the Messiah was to come." (Watchtower, October 1, 2003, p.4)
So, God said to Hezekiah,
“I will add to your age fifteen years… for my own sake and for my servant David's sake.” (2 Kings 20: 6)
God kept him alive for his own sake, which he kept to his word and the promise given to David. Three years later, a son of Manasseh (Manasseh) was born to him, who inherited it, thus prolonging the royal lineage of David (2 Kings 20:21; 21: 1). Namely, had Ezekiel died without a son, the king could only have become his brother or uncle (his father's brother) who were from the lineage of Solomon. But he obviously had no brother or uncle. In the event of the death of a king who had no son, could the royal family preserve David's royal lineage by adopting the son of a woman whose father was descended from another of David's sons? Not because it would be as if Abraham's lineage according to Isaac, who was born according to the promise, was cut off and transferred to one of the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael, who was not born according to the promise, which would invalidate God's promise (word).
Before the first heir to the throne of David was born, God promised to David:
"Behold, your son shall be born; ... his name shall be Solomon .... He will be my Son (Son of God), and I will be his Father. I will establish his royal throne forever over Israel.” (1 Chronicles 22:9,10)
We see that Solomon was predetermined and born according to his promise just like Isaac. His lineage was kept by God for the promise made to David. He even emphasized:
"I will establish his royal throne forever"
The term 'his' meant a descendant from the family of Solomon who carried David's 'seed' through him. Only in this way could this descendant be called 'the son of David' as heir to the throne of David via the branch of Solomon. As we know, some kings have departed from God and inflicted evil on the entire community of God’s people. But God kept saying over and over that he would keep his covenant with David, and that he would punish those who, by their evil deeds, worked against that covenant (1 Kings 9: 4-7). That's what happened. However, some believe that Jesus could not have been born through Joseph because God cursed the royal lineage that originated from Solomon by cursing King Jehoiakim and his descendants. We read about it:
Therefore this is what the Lord says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; (…) I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.”(Jeremiah 36: 30, 31)
"Thus saith the LORD, Write ye unto this man (Jeconiah), 'No children. His life is not fortunate. None of his seed shall sit on the throne of David nor rule over Judah.'" (Jeremiah 22:30)
This is not about cursing and breaking the royal lineage. As we can see, this is about Jehoiakim and his first descendant, son named Jeconiah (Konia), who should have succeeded him, and the sons of Jeconiah, who ended up in slavery with their father. Only they needed to experience the curse. How can we know that?
God called to account only those who had sinned, not those who had not yet been born. To see it so is that the curse should have been felt on their skin by the servants of the royal court. With this fall, they and their offspring lost their service until further notice, but not the possibility that their children would serve in the restored kingdom in the future. This linking of the king's sons and servants indicates that this curse was confined to those who were to be exiled to Babylon, namely to Jeconiah and his first-born sons, not to future generations of their sons. Therefore, a curse was introduced into that curse that was only applicable to them, and she proclaimed that she would die in a foreign land and would not return to her own land, which she would long for (Jeremiah 22: 26,27).
According to the ordinance of God, the effects of the curse could be felt by the offspring 'up to the third and fourth generation', so that curse could not undo the grace of God, which was first shown to David, which was to last 'a thousand generations' (forever) no matter what it was conditional on obedience to God's commandments (see Exodus 34: 7; Deuteronomy 7: 9; 1 Chronicles 28: 7). Eg. God in the 6th century BC rejected the tribe of Judah from which the Messiah was to come, but in the end the Messiah did come from the tribe of Judah, meaning that after a certain time God accepted that tribe by the next generation of descendants (see Jeremiah 7:15). This is in accordance with God's promise, which is intertwined with his mercy (Jeremiah 31:37; 33: 25,26).
Therefore, although God indicated that none of the descendants of King Jeconiah would succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling over Judea, this should not have prevented God from appointing in the future one of a new generation of descendants to rule all of Israel, not just Judea. By preventing his sons from taking control of Judea, God further disrupted the anointing tradition that passed from the father to the sons. Breaking that tradition did not have to end the family line of the heirs from which the chosen Anointed One (Messiah - King) was to come. It means that God did not curse the offspring of David, who was to stand forever, but only the biological sons of one of the descendants of David.
In the Bible we learn that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim) ascended the throne, but was overthrown after three months, which means that he failed to sustain himself. Mathaniah (Zedekiah), his uncle and his father's brother, Jehoiakim, were appointed to the throne by the emperor of Babylon, thus fulfilling the word of God. Jeconiah had sons who were born in exile and failed to sit on the throne. The curse lasted as long as the tribulations continued during the exile to Babylon. Subsequently, in that lineage from which Jeconiah came, male descendants such as Joseph continued to be named after David, not Jeconiah. Jeconiah was just the link that was thrown out, but the chain still held. Thus, through King Jehoiakim, God interrupted the royal ministry, not the royal lineage. The royal lineage throughout the tribulation was preserved for the sake of covenant with David and for the promised Messiah-King. (see the APPENDIX at the end of the article, which is written for those who wish to be additionally “persuaded”)
After leaving Babylon, Zorobabel was to receive a crown along the royal line of his family, but God gave it to Josiah the priest of the tribe of Levi, who had to leave that crown in the temple. This meant that from then on, no one from the lineage of Solomon could be placed on the throne of David until the one who, according to God’s promise, would rule over all Israel and not just Judea. God’s chosen one had to wait. Therefore, Jesus, only as the biological son of Joseph, could prove that he, through his father Joseph, was the legal heir to the 'crown' God had chosen beforehand and testified before the people.
The apostle Paul confirms that God fulfilled his promise:
"From his (David's) seed God derived from his promise to Israel the Savior, Jesus." (Acts 13:23)
All that the Word of God contained in the Hebrew scriptures gives us a picture of Jesus as held by his disciples. They never said that Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph. Everybody believed, as Luke says, that Jesus was the son:
"as was thought (considered, regarded), of Joseph" (Luke 3:23)
With this quote some want to prove that at that time Jesus was not viewed as Joseph's biological son, because they claim that Luke writes that he was only "regarded (thought) to be Joseph's son." But is that so? There are more examples in the Bible of how the word "reckoning" was used. Eg. 2 Samuel 4: 2  states that the father of two of Saul's servants was "considered" Benjamin because he was descended from the tribe of Benjamin, which means that he was definitely from that tribe. In 1 Corinthians 4: 1, it says:
"Thus, should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.”
They were considered Christ's servants because they definitely were. The Bible says they are.
"Everyone held (considered) John really was a prophet." (Mark 11:32)
He was considered a prophet because for them he was a true prophet. So, concerning Jesus, Luke also stated that people regarded him (held) as the son of Joseph because that was a fact, as they regarded him as a prophet and Christ (the Messiah). If not then they should have considered him Joseph's 'adopted' son, as some children today are considered adopted and not biological children because of the very fact that they were adopted. The stepfather will call the adopted child a son, while other people will consider such a child his adopted son. This will always make them aware, especially if they talk or write about it to people who do not know the fact. Was it difficult for Luke, who wrote Theophilus, to use the term 'adopted' if Paul, whom he followed, often used the term “God's adopted children, when speaking of believers. Theophilus did not know the facts about Jesus, and if Jesus was an adopted son, Luke should have written something like that. But he did not write it because he also considered him the son of Joseph. This was also the first important fact by which Jesus could be accepted as the Messiah, so we read:
"Philip found Nathanael and told him," We have found the one whom Moses wrote in the law and the prophets, "Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth." (John 1:45)
Could God then break his own word, cut off the royal lineage from which Joseph (a descendant of Solomon who was born by promise) descended and pass it on to Nathan's lineage, which did not come from the promise, and yet claim that the Messiah came from that lineage by his mother ? This would be a problem that would cause much controversy among Jews. But an even greater problem would be that the conception was caused without the "seed of David" by the father, because in that case Jesus would not be the son of David who would be legally entitled to the throne. This was not thought of by those who wanted to use the concept of virgin conception for their wrong views that contradict the Bible.
When we enter into the very essence of the laws of God and the principles within which every Israelite could think and place things, then we get a completely different picture of the conception of Jesus than the one we had so far. So far, we have had Jesus who by his very existence did not fit into any legal and family framework of the lineage of David. This is because we did not look at the eyes of God and the eyes of the Jews of that time, but as presented to us by others who had separated from the Hebrew faith and covenants God had made with their fathers of faith. Let's ask ourselves:
Why would God make promises and record laws and principles that were to be strictly obeyed, in order for the Messiah to come by a 'seed' from a specific messianic lineage, only to bring into existence a Messiah who did not fit into these existing provisions, for the Messiah supposedly
  • came by the mother's blood and not by the father's seed
  • was adopted by a stepfather from David's house
This was not implied at all. So we will consider what would be the meaning of “every spoken word” recorded in the Bible….

Page 5 of 15

The story of the virgin conception without the father's seed has served some to connect Jesus with the heavenly preexistence. However, when we consider the whole background and biblical context then the story takes on a different dimension. Let's take a look at what was implied by the sentence in which the angel told Mary about her son:
"[Jehovah] God will give him the throne of David, his father." (Luke 1:32)
Did the angel think of one thing and told Mary something else? If David, according to the flesh, was the father of Jesus, did the angel have in mind the flesh of Mary or that of Joseph? How could Mary understand that phrase? Obviously, the same way as the angel, because we saw that in the minds of the Jews there was no basis for any other view. It was implied that the 'seed' of the lineage of David, by Joseph, was to be included in the conception of Jesus in order for David to be his father. This was why the Jewish Christians, known as the Nazarenes and Ebionites, did not believe in virgin conception. On the other hand, other Christians who began to believe in such conception without the seed of their father could not say with certainty that Jesus was not the son of Joseph because they had no biblical basis for such a view.
Just as God took a rib from Adam's body without him being able to feel it, so God could take 'seed' from Joseph's thighs without Joseph being aware of it. We can observe that Adam was not even aware of what God had done when he put him to sleep. God did this without first letting him know about His purpose (Genesis 2:18-23). So he could do the same with Joseph without preparing him in advance. Both were confronted with what happened to their bodies only afterwards; after Adam’s wife was created and after Joseph found out about having a son.

Just as Adam could say that Eve was created from his body, so Joseph could rightly say for Jesus that he was his son from his body. He could say this because he was already legally entitled to his firstborn son by Mary, who was his fiancée. Was it a sin for Mary to conceive a child with someone who was not her legal spouse? If God decreed that children were born in marriage, can the law-maker circumvent or violate that law? Did Mary become a sinner because she became pregnant outside God's legal framework? Is Jesus an extramarital child, conceived out of wedlock? In addition, would the God, who founded the marriage personally violate his principles by deceiving Joseph? What kind of God would it be if he told us that the principles were not applicable to him and that he could violate them, if necessary.
Consider what David meant when God swore to him:
 "that his offspring shall possess his throne" (Acts 2:30)
Did he have in mind the possibility that his descendant might come from a woman from the family line of one of his other sons who were not included in the promise? No, because that wouldn't make any sense, so he obviously couldn't even think that God would think that way. Did God then think of one thing and say something that was not meant? God has never been ambiguous, his word has always been in harmony with his laws and promises. Could God have bypassed Joseph and his 'seed' then. Obviously not, because it would compromise himself and his word. What did the Jews mean when they considered the scriptures saying that:
 "Christ comes from the seed of David" (John 7:42)
Did they ever think that Christ would not come by a human father? Obviously not, because the Scriptures made it clear that they would come from a well-defined male line of descendants of David.
Accordingly, today's religious teachers, who at all costs seek to see what fits their view, do not see the problems that the first Jewish Christians would have seen in the 1st century. How do you think the Jews would react if someone tried to push such a view that completely deviates from all that God has said, promised and legitimized? But everything indicates that the problem did not exist or was discussed at the time, because at that time Jesus was considered the biological son of Joseph. Even the Watchtower says it unconsciously. Namely, in one of his articles, it is written that the Roman Emperor Domitian (51-96 BCE) wanted to eradicate all the descendants of David and that the enemies of the early Christians betrayed the grandchildren of Judas, Jesus' brother, "to belong to the family of David." Watchtower says in that article:
"If Judas was known as the (biological) descendant of David by his father (Joseph), wasn't also Jesus one? Indisputable! ”(Watchtower, October 1, 1992, p. 10)
The fact that Joseph's sons and grandchildren tried to be eradicated, in order to prevent them from becoming Messianic leaders is only another proof that Joseph's lineage was not cursed because of Jeconiah. The article says that none of Jesus' opponents could dispute the fact that Jesus was the son of David by his father, since this could be verified in a public register that was available until 70 B.C. However, if Jesus was Joseph's adopted son, then he could not be in the register. If he was enrolled as a son, and it was later said that he was not born of Joseph, then his opponents would point to Joseph's lie and rightly challenge his messiahship and association with the royal lineage. It just tells us that Christians in Judea until 70 AD they have not yet heard or narrated the virgin conception, that is, the conception without the father's seed. That's why they didn't believe it. The question is how would they react if years later someone claimed him to be …
  • descendant from the lineage of David by his mother, Mary, and not by his father Joseph, who only adopted him, and that he was
  • a descendant of David's son Nathan, and not Solomon
It would automatically mean that
  • he was born without a hereditary right in David's name because it could not be obtained by the mother but by the father
  • the promise of God to David was annulled, hence, he could not be heir to the throne of David through Solomon
These problems could only be ignored in case
  • that such a development of the view on the identity of Jesus Christ took place outside the Jewish community
  • and only after the death of the apostles, when Jewish Christians were devalued by the church fathers.
History testifies that the Jewish Christians of Judea and Jerusalem believed and claimed that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph because they adhered firmly to the Hebrew scriptures. These scriptures prevented them from accepting the views espoused by Christians from other nations. It is important to note that the apostles were also preventing wrong views about Jesus whom they considered to be the son of Joseph. Let's see what they said.

 Page 6 of 15

The Apostle Peter explained to the Jews:
"Men, brethren, let me tell you openly about father David ... So, since he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him that his offspring (literally: 'the fruit of his hips') would sit on his throne." (Acts 2: 29,30)
Here Peter quotes the words of God from the Hebrew scriptures. From Peter's words we can see that every "descendant" of David - from Solomon to Jesus - was the fruit of David's hips. These hips, containing David's hereditary seed, were all transferred to the next male offspring until Joseph, the father of Jesus. Only through Joseph, as legal representative of the royal lineage of David, could God create a 'fruit of David's hips' in the womb of a woman, in order to a son of David to be born. Jesus did not tell anyone or even the apostles that he had been adopted. So Peter said to the Jews,
"From [David's, that is, man's] seed (Greek spermatos), God by his promise brought Israel a savior, Jesus." (Acts 13:23)
  • 'From David's male offspring God brought Israel a savior'
Jesus was to represent God as the Son and serve God as the Servant to save Israel through him (who also represented God as the Son and was the Servant for God's purposes) (Genesis 4:22; Isaiah 43:10; Matthew 12:18; Acts 3:13) Paul wrote about the good news ...
“… Which God promised beforehand through his prophets in the scriptures, concerning his Son (his Servant), who, according to the (man’s) seed (Greek “spermatos”), is the fleshly offspring of David…” (Rom. 1:1-3)
A direct translation from Greek reads:
"... concerning his Son, his servant, who came from the seed of David according to the flesh."
Jesus is not said to have come from the blood of a woman by the flesh, but from a man's 'seed'. This 'seed' could only have come from the hips of his father Joseph so Jesus is 'the fruit of his hips'. Jesus was, like any other human
“born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)
It simply means to be conceived and born like any other son of man. The body involves sexual reproduction or reproduction through the 'seed' from the 'thighs' of the father in the mother's womb. Combining Paul's words from the two quotes above, one would think that Jesus was "born of a woman by the seed of the son of David." There is no other or different explanation, nor did any of the apostles, in their own words, come out of these frames. Paul understood that Jesus, according to Joseph, was a descendant of David because he could only be an Israelite by his own fathers, so he said:
"For I am also an Israelite, of the seed (spermatos; male offspring) of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." (Rom. 11: 1)
Although various theologians teach that Paul advocated the heavenly origin of Jesus, this cannot be true because they neglected his deep-thinking and figurative style of expression with a symbolic meaning. They also neglected that Paul said to Timothy:
"Remember that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was from the seed (spermatos - male offspring) of David - this is good news that I preach." (2 Timothy 2:8)
What did Paul preach about Jesus? Just what was meant by the term ‘seed of David’. Interestingly, Paul never preached the conception of Jesus without the father's seed, nor did he tell others that Jesus was descended from God, heaven, or some other 'seed'. In Jesus' birth, mothers are included in the womb…
"... the forefathers, and from them, through the flesh, [through the seed of man] came Christ" (Romans 9:5)
The line of (fore)fathers ends with Joseph, the father of Jesus in the flesh, and not with the maternal grandfather of Jesus. Although the story of the virgin conception excluded Joseph (the father), we now see that he should be included in the story. So now we have two views on this conception:
  1. the virgin conception without the father's seed
  2. the virgin conception with the father's seed
This second view has not been presented in this way so far. So, we wonder how David's seed fertilized Mary if it wasn't done naturally? Although we can already anticipate the answer, it will be interesting to consider the situation in which Joseph and Mary found themselves when (in this story) they were confronted with what was to happen in their marriage.

Page 7 of 15

If we rely on the report of Matthew and Luke that we have in today's Bibles, the conception of Jesus was done without a sexual act. In that case, we can imagine what might have happened when Mary told Joseph she was pregnant by the holy spirit. Joseph obviously
  • did not believe and
  • wanted to let her go (Matthew 1:19).
Because of this detail, the Joseph report goes beyond certain frames because
  • Joseph does not believe in virgin conception.
Joseph's reaction merely shows that the Jews did not have in mind any similar event from the past, nor any prophecy that would indicate the possibility of a virgin birth. If the Bible had spoken about it, Joseph would have reacted differently. If he had reacted so, how would other people in their midst have reacted when Joseph told them that it was God, and not himself, who had caused the conception of Jesus. This could not be proven and would be doubted by everyone.
Note: The prophet Isaiah (7:14) mentioned a sign from God that a young girl (Hebr. 'Alma') became pregnant to give birth to her son Emanuel at the time of king Ahaz. However, hundreds of years later, the Greek translators translated the term "pregnant" (present tense) with "pregnant” (future tense) to give a fulfilled prophecy a sense of the expectation of the Messiah who would be Emanuel, that is, a lasting sign of God's presence in the people of God. Then they used the Greek word 'parthénos', that is, a virgin, but not in order for someone to think of a conception without a father's seed, but to point to the purity of a marriage that required a devoted man to marry a virgin and give him a consecrated son - the promised offspring of David. That is why God demanded that the consecrated man not marry a widow and a dishonorable woman. Thus, no one at the time thought that the Messiah should be conceived in a supernatural way, let alone without the seed of a biological father.
Joseph's reaction is not in favor of those who use the prophecy of Isaiah to separate Jesus from Joseph's fatherhood. But there is something else that his reaction reveals to us because it is his
  • righteousness was questioned
Let us remember that priests were not allowed to marry a dishonored woman in order to be holy and maintain a priestly lineage. So probably Joseph also wanted to keep the purity of the lineage of his fathers, knowing that God had promised to raise the king of the law from it. So, he intended to secretly release Mary because he did not want to take the woman he thought was dishonored. In that case, the following sentence is contradictory because it says:

"And Joseph her husband was righteous, and would not dishonor her publicly, and so he intended to release her secretly." (Matthew 1:19)
This sentence includes something that could not be associated with him as a righteous and faithful man. In this case, as a righteous man, he had to obey the law of God, which states that such a woman, who is in doubt, should be brought before judges and priests (Genesis 22: 13-24; Genesis 5: 12-31). On the other hand, if he had left her, she would have given birth to a child without a father, and everyone would wonder whose child she was and why Joseph had left her. He would have to explain it to the judges. If she was not an adulteress, her parents had the right to protect her by giving proof of her virginity if they had it (Deuteronomy 22:15). With this in mind, in order to be righteous, Joseph should have acted according to the law, and not secretly leave her, as it would have caused trouble both himself and her. If he took Mary out of compassion, he would have to lie to himself, the child and others. But was he supposed to lie? No, because the angel told him:
 "Joseph, son of David, be not afraid to take Mary your wife with you; for what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”(Matthew 1: 18-20)
What can we conclude from this sentence? What was Joseph afraid of? He was obviously afraid that his fiancee would be dishonored and that his marriage would not be holy. But the angel tells him not to be afraid. When he said to him, "take your wife," it was as if he had said to him, "take your wife that bears your son." Joseph obviously should not have been afraid to consider Jesus his son because his wife's pregnancy implied his paternity, even though it was not caused naturally, but by the holy spirit. The angel briefly mentioned to him that 'conception' happened, which implies that it happened via 'seed', but by the means of the holy spirit. If he was not to be afraid, then it meant that the conception was not made by someone else's 'seed'. As a Jew, he believed that the holy spirit was God's acting force and not a person who had a relationship with his wife. So he could understand that a child could only be conceived by his 'seed' through the holy spirit. He believed that God did not just use it as a screen to cover up other people's fatherhood. So he didn't have to lie to anyone. He could remain silent and not tell anyone how Jesus conceived, knowing that people would respond to such a story that is hard to believe and prove. That is why this story can only be accepted in this way.
In addition, Joseph did not have to fear that Mary was dishonored. When it comes to pregnancy, then dishonesty involves a 'seed' that does not belong to her fiancé (spouse), regardless of whether a person or a spiritual being is behind the act because there is no legal difference. Of course, God would not do such a thing. He could have been behind the conception without desecrating Mary, which means that such conception could have occurred with the seed of Joseph. That is why God obviously did nothing against his laws and principles, and so Joseph did not have to fear such a supernatural conception, because the child could only be his, despite him not being with Mary. He knew his son could only be legally appointed king. When he accepted Mary, he was aware that this must remain a secret that only he and his wife and no one else should know. The Gospels and epistles prove that this event was a mystery that was not talked about, preached or written of in the 1st century until it was found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
When it comes to Mary, Luke’s report is also a bit debatable. Namely, Mary was engaged to Joseph and they were about to get married, which implies the possibility of conception of children. Then comes an angel who tells her:
"... you shall conceive and bear a son ..." (Luke 1:31)
There is nothing strange about that sentence because it could only mean that she would soon conceive with his fiancé when she enters under his roof. However, she asks:
"How is it possible when I didn't meet my husband?" (Ie I didn't have a relationship with my husband)
This takes her question out of context because the possibility of conception existed because she already had a fiancé. The angel said nothing special except that she would give birth to the one who would be the Messiah and Savior. Just that was something special for her, who was chosen to give birth to that child. Namely, if it was an old barren woman like Elizabeth, then such a woman might have been surprised and wondered how it was possible for her to conceive. Therefore, only if the angel had told Mary that she was already pregnant (past tense), only then could she wonder and ask -
"How was that possible when I didn't meet my husband"
Since there are other illogicalities in the Gospels and even subsequently added words and sentences that can only be eliminated by knowing the context, then for a moment we will ignore this illogicality and consider that Mary really asked 'how is that possible'. From what we will read below, we could conclude that the angel indirectly told Mary that it was as possible as it was in the case of the elderly, barren woman, Elizabeth. So he told her:
"And Elizabeth, your cousin, conceived a son in her old age, and one whom they call a barren woman ... For nothing is impossible to God." (Luke 1:36)
The angel here mentions the miraculous 'conception of a son' which implies the 'seed' of Elizabeth's husband. Just as Elizabeth, by the holy spirit that revived her womb, conceived a son with her husband, though it seemed impossible, so Mary, though it seemed impossible, could conceive by the holy spirit, but only with the seed of her husband who he earned the right to 'have a son' through her.
That is why Mary could only understand that, by the holy spirit, it is possible to conceive with a man without meeting her yet. This would mean that God supernaturally transmitted this 'seed' from Joseph's hips, making the conception possible by means of the holy spirit. Because of such a supernatural mode of artificial insemination, the fact that Jesus was the son of Joseph cannot be refuted. However, Joseph and Mary obviously could not speak publicly about it. In that case, it was a secret that Mary would keep to herself even after Joseph's death.
Even his brothers in the flesh did not consider Jesus to be the adopted son of their father, because Joseph and Mary obviously did not convey this story to them. Therefore, until his death and resurrection
"Even his brethren did not believe in him." (John 7:5)
To them, he was just their brother who was conceived and born like any other human. If they were to accept him as the Messiah, then Mary at that time would obviously be able to convince them of the story of the virgin conception, but we see that she did not do, so only his resurrection convinced them of his messiahship.
During his ministry, Jesus did not mention anything unusual about his conception. That is why none of the apostles knew anything about it or mentioned it in their sermons and epistles. The only thing that was preached was that Jesus, the 'son of David' and his 'descendant' without any further explanation. Specifically, the writers of the gospel had this freedom to make their comment or note, so they could be expected to enter it in places where Joseph is listed as the biological father of Jesus (Luke 2: 27,33,43,48; 4:22; Matthew 13: 35; John 1:45). They could at least say that it was not known at that time that Jesus was not conceived by Joseph. However, they did not mention this to their readers, so the fact remains that it was entirely acceptable to regard Jesus as the biological son of Joseph, that is,
  • Jesus was conceived in a natural way.
This was the original point of view of all early Christians. Otherwise, if it were thought that Joseph was not or could not have been Jesus' biological father, then this would have been widely discussed, explained and preached from the very beginning. For the apostles, Joseph was the father of Jesus, and that was the most important thing for them and all the first Christians, because only then they could call him the son of David.
When all that is written in the Hebrew scriptures is taken into account, then this description of the supernatural conception in the two Gospels cannot at all throw out Joseph's 'seed' because it alone had to cause the conception in Mary's womb in a natural or supernatural way. God could not break his law and deprive Joseph of his birthright and conceive of another seed instead of his seed because Jesus could be considered an extramarital son. Why would God interfere in a marriage arrangement in such an unlawful way?  Joseph, to whom Mary was engaged, had a God-given, legal right to a firstborn, who was to be consecrated to God, which he did. When Jesus was born:
"... they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord - as it is written in the law of the Lord: Let every male firstborn be sanctified to the Lord!" (Luke 2:7)
During his consecration, Joseph was to tell the truth before the priests and before God, which he was to be recorded in the genealogy, namely, to say his name and the name of his firstborn son, who, by him, came from the lineage of David. If Jesus was an adopted son, Joseph would not have been able to say that or would have had to lie.
All of this is neglected to this day only because we find in the two Gospels that Joseph did not personally cause conception. Even today it is possible to cause a virgin conception without a sexual act, and one can know who the father is and whose seed caused the conception. It is enough for us to know that Jesus is the son of Joseph and that God was behind this and such conception. Therefore, unless Jesus is naturally conceived, then it is a matter of faith. But as Paul says:
"Faith is the proof of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1)
In order to know whether or not Jesus is the natural son of Jesus, and thus to prove what was left unspecified in the said accounts, we should rely on the whole Bible. Neither should we single out one detail that deciduously says so, and then create or accept dogmas that contradict the rest of Scripture. It is very easy to notice that in the rest of the Greek scriptures (New Testament) there is no detail of the conception and birth of Jesus anywhere, except that he is a descendant of David in the flesh. That was the fundamental truth about him as Christ.

Then, where did Matthew and Luke take this story, and is it entirely true? We cannot know this because we do not have the original scriptures, and since we know that some thoughts and ideas were subsequently inserted into the transcript, then the context of the Bible is the only yardstick for determining the truth about Jesus. But even if we fully accept all that was written about his conception and birth, then Mary and Joseph had to keep the true truth from everyone so that the stories of unbelievers and adversaries would arise, requiring Mary to tell them who Jesus' true father was in the flesh if it was not Joseph. To say that God caused this would be doubtful to many. They only knew one story, so they spoke of Jesus;
 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother Mary, and his brothers James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? ”(Matthew 13:35)
 "They said, 'Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, to whom we know father and mother?'" (John 6:42)
 Back then, no one heard another story because the Pharisees would use such a story as an additional accusation against such an extramarital Messiah and would be right to doubt in him. Since Joseph had already died by then, the question is how long has Mary been hiding this story of conception by the holy spirit and is her story different from what it says in the Gospels? Even if some truth is hidden for a time, it should not change the fundamental truth that was already the content of the faith and the gospel, otherwise it would consciously mislead others. Did Jesus and his mother misguide anyone who considered him the biological son of Joseph? That would not make sense. This means that Jesus should have remained Joseph's fleshly son at the moment when this story of his miraculous conception came out to the public. Nothing had to change except that Jesus was miraculously conceived. This miracle only makes sense if Jesus was conceived by Joseph's 'seed'. Everything else deviates from truth and context.
Mary witnessed the conversion of many Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah. She knew everyone considered him Joseph's son. But if she chose to say that Jesus was not naturally conceived, she must have been aware that this would enable others to speculate about how Jesus most likely did not come from the 'seed' of Joseph? If such a view existed in the 1st century, it would have sparked a debate over 'seed' because it would turn out that a woman could be extended the 'name' of Joseph and David's royal lineage, which would be completely contrary to God's law and its ordinances governing rights and the responsibilities of every human being. On the other hand, there would be those believers who would claim that God included Joseph's seed in such conception. However, at that time, there were no discussions among Jews and the first Jewish Christians about this, so Mary was not a subject to be dealt with by Jewish rabbis at the time the apostles were still alive. The fact is that such a story was only later introduced to the Gospels, and therefore caused the Jewish rabbis to state in their Talmud that a 4th-century rabbi described Mary as a harlot. Such stories about Mary did not exist in the 1st century.
So, the next time you read Matthew’s and Luke's account of the conception of Jesus, then you must know that the first Christians believed that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, who was born naturally like all other people. Only later did some accept the story of the virgin conception. Although this story was used to develop different dogmas about Jesus' supposed preexistence, we wanted to prove here that such a miracle of God (if it happened) could and should include Joseph's' seed 'with which God conceived Jesus in his mother's womb. Only thus could Jesus be the true Messiah and the son of David who came by the promise. Some claim that God transposed Jesus' existing heavenly life into a fertilized egg, which creates many complications, while we claim that only Joseph's' seed 'could be transmitted into the womb, making such a supernatural conception the first artificial fertilization, behind which stood God. Such a claim does not create problems or complications because it completely adheres to biblical and other facts. The Bible must have the first and last word, and it stands only behind a statement that does not contradict the Bible and which can be substantiated and proved by biblical arguments.
The problem obviously arose when such an event subsequently became part of Christian scriptures and tried to be interpreted outside of the biblical framework in order to view Jesus as a sinless being who has no common roots with other people, according to the Gnostic teaching of Jesus. But such teachers consciously avoid mentioning these problems only to make their interpretation seem inspirational. They even avoid considering these problems in the light of the Bible because they have no cover in it for their interpretation. Such interpretations should be rejected because they are like a blank check. They do not have God’s signature.
What about those first-century Christians who did not believe in virgin conception, even when it was included in the gospels. There are such Christians today. Should their point of view be rejected as well, since it essentially corresponds to the biblical context? To answer this question, we must consider that none of the Jewish believers believed in virgin conception ...
  • before Jesus was born
  • during his childhood
  • during his messianic ministry
  • years after his death and resurrection
After the resurrection of Jesus, it was still believed that he was the natural, biological son of Joseph. The question is when did one begin to believe in virgin conception and when did the apostles ask Christians to change their original view. Since we have no evidence in the Bible that the apostles sought any change of view, then I was motivated to look for the evidence. Let's look at that in part two.