Article Index

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.