The Virgin Birth

by John V. Cordaro

A Defense of the Virgin Birth Doctrine

The doctrine of the virgin birth of the Savior of the world, Yahshua, has repeatedly
come under attack by those he came to save yet, who refuse to believe. This
doctrine, however, is coming under attack by those who profess to believe as
well. May this study aid your understanding of this important issue.

There are several arguments used to attack the virgin birth doctrine. They are as
follows;

1. Virgin birth proponents have divorced Isa 7:14 from the time frame in which it
was given. They have shredded the context to prove the doctrine.

2. The Hebrew word "almah" should have been translated "young woman" rather
than "virgin."

3. The Messiah must literally be an ancestor of King David through a human father.

4. The virgin birth is never mentioned in New Testament writings except for the
alleged birth accounts in Matthew and Luke's accounts.

5. The virgin birth story has been copied from other pagan religions that have
similar accounts.

When viewed superficially, each of these arguments has merit which is why many
have rejected the virgin birth throughout history. If we examine these points under
the light of Scripture, we can't help but establish our faith in this doctrine and in
Yahweh's Word.

Argument #1 - Isa 7:14 has been divorced from its context.

I will not try to refute this argument by proving the context refers to Yahshua's
birth. The immediate context may very well be fulfilled in Isa 8:3,4 with the birth of
Isaiah's son. If so, there is another fulfillment which is, in reality, the primary
fulfillment.

In the next chapter, Isa 9:6, 7 speaks of a male child being born which none will
argue refers to Yahshua the Messiah.

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be
upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty El,
Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the
throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with
judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahweh of
hosts will perform this."

This prophecy, however, is couched in the same context as Isa 7:14 and Isa 8:3.

All of chapter 8 refers to the destruction that was coming from the king of Assyria.
All of chapter 9, with the exception of the messianic prophecies in vss. 1, 2, 6 & 7,
refers to the same subject. We see king Rezin in vs.11, the Syrians in vs.12 and
the destruction of Israel in the ensuing verses.

If we apply the same contextual argument as with Isa 7:14, we have no choice but
to believe the child of Isa 9:6 is the same child of Isa 7:14. In fact, Isa 9:6 is never
quoted in the New Testament as applying to Yahshua whereas Isa 7:14 is. The
only verses we have that would somewhat tie in Isa 9:6 with Yahshua is Isa 9:1 &
2 which were quoted in Mt 4:15, 16 as pertaining to Yahshua.

"Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the
first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward
did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of
the nations.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the
land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."

Herein lies the answer to the problem of context. It is the nature of many
prophecies, Messianic or not, to be divorced from their context. We just saw how
that is true concerning Isa 9:6 & 7. Let's look at a few more.

Deut 18:15-19 - "Yahweh thy Elohim will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the
midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According
to all that thou desiredst of Yahweh thy Elohim in Horeb in the day of the
assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my Elohim, neither
let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And Yahweh said unto me, They
have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from
among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he
shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that
whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will
require it of him.

This prophecy was given in response to the Israelite request found in verse 16; "
Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my Elohim, neither let me see this
great fire any more, that I die not." The context shows the Prophet would speak to
"them" (vs.18) rather than Yahweh. Yet, Jn 6:14 and Acts 3:19-26 teach us the
Prophet to come was Yahshua. So how did Yahshua speak to "them" that said
they did not want to hear Yahweh's voice again?

Ps 16:10 - "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine
Holy One to see corruption."

Since David wrote this prophecy, the context suggests David's soul would not be
left in sheol to suffer corruption.. Yet, Acts 2:27, 31 teach us Yahshua fulfills Ps
16:10. This prophecy is clearly divorced from its context.

Ps 41:9 - "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."

The context suggests the "me" of verse 9 is the same "me" of vss. 4-7. Yet,
Yahshua applied this verse to himself in Jn 13:18. How can that be if the context
of Ps 41:4-9 clearly shows the "me" of verse 9 to be a sinner (vs.4)?

Ps 68:18 - "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast
received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that Yahweh Elohim might
dwell among them."

The context of the entire Psalm concerns praise to the Almighty Elohim of Israel,
"Yah" (vs.4). Yet, Paul applies verse 18 to Yahshua in Eph 4:8.

Ps 69:1-5 - "Save me, O Elohim; for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in
deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the
floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail
while I wait for my Elohim. They that hate me without a cause are more than the
hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully,
are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. O Elohim, thou knowest
my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee."

The context concerns David praying in his affliction. Yet, in Jn 15:25, Yahshua
applies Ps 69:4a to himself. How can that be if the context reveals the speaker to
be "foolish" and a sinner (vs.5)?

Ps 109:7,8 - "When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer
become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

The context of Psalm 109 is David complaining about his enemies. Yet, verse 8 is
applied to Judas in Acts 1:16, 20.

Ho 11:1 - "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of
Egypt."

The context clearly speaks of Israel as a people. Israel, as a people, was also
called Yahweh's "son" and "firstborn" in Ex 4:22. However, Mt 2:14, 15 applies Ho
11:1 to Yahshua being called out of Egypt. This prophecy obviously refers to two
different events; one for the immediate context and one for the ultimate fulfillment.

Zec 9:9 - "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and
riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."

The context of verses 1-8 is Yahweh's judgment upon Tyrus and verse 10 speaks
of the destruction of Ephraim and Jerusalem. Yet, verse 9 is applied to Yahshua
in Mt 21:4, 5.

Zec 11:12,13 - "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if
not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And Yahweh
said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them.
And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of
Yahweh.

The context of verses 1-9 is the destruction of Jerusalem followed by the breaking
of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel (vss. 14-17). Yet, Mt 26:15 and
27:3-10 apply Zech 11:12, 13 to Judas' betrayal of Yahshua.

From the few examples I have listed it is obvious that the context suggests a
different fulfillment than the New Testament records. The fulfillment of each of
these prophecies has been divorced from the context, not by man, but by the
Spirit of Yahweh.

The same is true of Isa 7:14. What appears to be the fulfillment based on context
is not the primary fulfillment recorded by the Spirit of Yahweh.

Those that oppose the virgin birth would have us discard Matthew and Luke's
accounts as unauthentic because they don't fit their interpretation of Isa 7:14.
Using that logic, every New Testament reference to the fulfillment of the
prophecies listed above should be discarded as well. That, however, is an illogical
conclusion. Wisdom suggests that we understand Isa 7:14 as we would any other
prophecy whose fulfillment is divorced from the context, especially when there are
New Testament witnesses to the ultimate primary fulfillment.

Additionally, as far as I know, Matthew and Luke's accounts are found in all Greek
manuscripts. This leaves us absolutely no grounds to question their authority. Yet,
one virgin birth opponent writes, "Matthew and Luke's accounts can NOT be
proven to be free of scribal corruption."

First of all, neither can any other New Testament verse. So what's the point of
such a comment? Second, they don't need to be proven authentic; they need to
be proven unauthentic and that proof has yet to be seen.

The same author writes, "Matthew and Luke's accounts may be an invention of
the early Constantinian minded Greek and Roman scribes." Yet, Ante-Nicene
Fathers records virgin birth discussions 200 years prior to Constantine ( Epistle of
Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter VII). Ignatius was martyred no later than 117
A.D.

Argument #2 - "Virgin" is an erroneous translation.

The following is a list of all verses that contain "almah" which was translated
"virgin."

Ge 24:43 - "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that
when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray
thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;"

Ex 2:8 - "And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called
the child's mother."

Ps 68:25 - "The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after;
among them were the damsels playing with timbrels."

Pr 30:19 - "The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the
way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid."

So 1:3 - "Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment
poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee."

So 6:8 - "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins
without number."

Isa 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

"There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young
woman who is not a virgin." (TWOT)

On the other hand, the word for "virgin" in Mt 1:23 is "parthenos." Here is Thayer's
info on this word.

3933 paryenov parthenos par-then'-os

of unknown origin; TDNT - 5:826,786; n f

KJV - virgin 14; 14

1) a virgin

1a) a marriageable maiden

1b) a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man

1c) one's marriageable daughter

2) a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on
idolatry, and so has kept his chastity

2a) one who has never had intercourse with women

I don't see a non-virgin in this definition.

"Parthenos" was used in the following OT verses of the Septuagint;

Ge 24:14 - "And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let
down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will
give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy
servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my
master."

Ge 24:16 - "And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any
man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came
up."

Ge 24:43 - "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that
when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray
thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;"

Ge 24:55 - "And her brother and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us a
few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go."

De 22:23 - "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man
find her in the city, and lie with her;"

Jud 19:24 - "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will
bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto
you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing."

2 Sa 13:2 - "And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for
she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her."

2 Ki 19:21 - "This is the word that Yahweh hath spoken concerning him; The virgin
the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter
of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee."

Isa 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isa 37:22 - "This is the word which Yahweh hath spoken concerning him; The
virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the
daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee."

Isa 47:1 - "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on
the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no
more be called tender and delicate."

Jer 2:32 - "Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people
have forgotten me days without number."

Jer 18:13 - "Therefore thus saith Yahweh; Ask ye now among the heathen, who
hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing."

Jer 31:4 - "Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou
shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them
that make merry."

Jer 31:21 - "Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward
the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn
again to these thy cities."

La 2:13 - "What thing shall I take to witness for thee? what thing shall I liken to
thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort
thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal
thee?"

Am 5:2 - "The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon
her land; there is none to raise her up."

From these verses it is quite clear that "parthenos" refers to a virgin who was
undefiled by man. The Septuagint is older and probably more reliable than the
Massoretic text. Most New Testament quotes of Old Testament verses agree
with the Septuagint. I don't believe the New Testament writers were actually using
the Septuagint, but that they were quoting from the Hebrew text from which the
Septuagint was translated. That text is no longer available. All we have now is the
post-Yahshua Massoretic text which may have undergone scribal manipulation
concerning "almah." Even if it didn't, "almah" still carries the meaning of virgin.

Since it has been shown in Argument #1 that Isa 7:14 has a dual fulfillment, the
word "virgin" is a perfect translation. Isaiah's wife was a virgin and Miriam was a
virgin. If we choose "young woman," then we create unnecessary complications.
The Septuagint uses "parthenos" to leave absolutely no doubt what was meant.
Additionally, the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek by Jews. This
tells us that the Hebrew word "almah," at the time the Septuagint was wriiten,
meant "virgin," not "young maiden."

Argument #3 - Messiah must be a literal ancestor of King David through a human
father.

I will address this argument in two sections;

A) Could Messiah have been fathered by a genetic ancestor of King David?

B) Could Messiah sit on the throne of David even though he was not begotten by a
human father?

A) Let's assume Joseph was a genetic ancestor of King David and that he was
the genetic father of Yahshua. That would make Yahshua the son of Joseph. Yet,
time and time again we are taught that Yahshua is the "Son of God" (Son of
Yahweh). How can it be said that he is the Son of Yahweh if Yahweh did not
father him?

The superficial answer is that we are not to understand "Son of Yahweh" literally.
Spiritually speaking he is the son of Yahweh just as any other believer would be a
son of Yahweh. Sounds good, but it is not the whole truth.

First, that would imply the prophets were sons of Yahweh in the same sense that
Yahshua is. Yet, consider Mt 21:33-41;

"Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a
vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a
tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the
time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they
might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one,
and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than
the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son,
saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they
said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on
his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew
him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those
husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men,
and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the
fruits in their seasons."

This parable refers to the nation of Israel killing the son (Yahshua). Prior to that,
Yahweh (the householder) sent many servants (prophets included) who they also
killed. Yet, those servants are not referred to as sons. There was only one son
sent. Why? Because the householder (Yahweh) only has one true son (Yahshua).

Second, that simplistic answer does not address why Yahshua is called the "only
begotten Son of Yahweh." (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9). "Only begotten" is
from the Greek "monogenes" (Strong's #3439). It is a contraction of #3441
"monos" meaning "remaining, i.e. sole or single; by impl. mere," and #1096
"ginomai" meaning "to cause to be ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflex) to become (come
into being)." In other words, Yahshua is the only being that Yahweh brought into
being. However, we know Yahweh brought Adam into being through creation from
dust. Therefore, monogenes cannot be understood in that sense. Nor can it be
understood in the sense of Yahweh bringing Abel into being through Adam and
Eve. Then there would be many sons begotten by Him, not "monos." Therefore,
"monogenes" can only be understood in the sense that Yahshua is the only being
that Yahweh directly brought into being in the way that He did (without an earthly
father or via creation as Adam was).

"Monogenes" was also used in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38 referring to a woman's
only son, a man's only daughter and a man's only child respectively. It should also
be noted that Isaac is called the "monogenes" of Abraham in Heb 11:17. This is a
reference to Gen 22:2 which says;

"And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get
thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of
the mountains which I will tell thee of."

"Only" is from the Hebrew "yachid" yet, the Septuagint did not use "monogenes" to
translate "yachid", but "agapetos" meaning "beloved." "Agapetos" was no doubt
chosen because Isaac had a half-brother (Ishmael).

Some will say "only begotten" refers to Yahshua being begotten at his
resurrection. This is based on Ps 2:7 and Acts 13:33;

"I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day
have I begotten thee."

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up
Yahshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee."

While this is true in a spiritual sense, it has a literal application as well. In Jn 3:16,
18, before his resurrection, Yahshua said he was the only begotten Son of
Yahweh.

Having established that, how can Yahshua be Yahweh's only begotten Son if he
was just like any other man that has ever been begotten by an earthly father? Can
it be said that Moses or Paul were Yahweh's only begotten Sons?

Additionally, there are several problematic verses that prove Yahshua could not
be fathered by a man.

In Jn 6:31-71, Yahshua taught the people that he was the true bread that "came
down from heaven." (Jn 6:33,38,41,42,50,51,58). After he taught them, he
perceived his disciples murmured at his hard sayings. He then said to them, "What
and if you should see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn 6:62).

How can Yahshua declare he came down from heaven if he was merely born of
Joseph? How can he imply he would ascend back to heaven where he originally
came down from? Was there ever a time between his birth and this account in
John where he ascended into heaven? If not, that proves he had to have a
heavenly origin, not an origin from Joseph.

Consider also Jn 3:13;

" And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven."

And 1 Cor 15:47;

"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Master from heaven."

Other problematic verses are Jn 16:27,28,30; 17:8.

"For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed
that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the
world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. . . Now are we sure that
thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we
believe that thou camest forth from God." (KJV)

"For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have
received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have
believed that thou didst send me."

The phrases "came out" and "came forth" are from the same Greek word,
"exerchomai," meaning "to issue" (Strong's #1831). It comes from two root words.
The first is #1537, "ek" or "ex," "a primary preposition denoting origin (the point
whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or
figurative; direct or remote)." The second is 2064, " erchomai." Thayer's definition
is;

1) to come

1a) of persons
1a1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of
those returning
1a2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public
2) metaph.

2a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence
2b) be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto
3) to go, to follow one

I have tried to understand these problematic verses as they would apply to
Joseph as Yahshua's genetic father to no avail. There can only be one conclusion,
Yahshua did not have two earthly parents. Since Miriam was undoubtedly human,
the other had to exist in heaven from which the Messiah issued out of and came
down from.

One other problematic verse is Mic 5:2;

" But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

"Goings forth" is from the Hebrew "mowtsa'ah. Strong's says the word means "a
family descent." In other words, lineage. BDB says the word means "origin" or
"places of going out to or from."

If Yahshua was born of Joseph, then his family descent, lineage, or origin can be
traced no further back than Adam. Yet, Mic 5:2 says his "family descent" is "from
of old, from everlasting." This can only be true if Yahshua came into being by
Yahweh who has no beginning. Some might argue that "everlasting" (Heb - "olam")
does not necessarily mean forever and ever without end. That may be true in
certain circumstances, but not based on the context of this prophecy. If "olam" is
to be understood as going no further back in lineage than to Adam, then this would
be true of all men. Yet, this is a specific, identifying characteristic of the coming
Messiah. It must be understood in such a way that it disqualifies most men just as
being born in Bethlehem and becoming a ruler in Israel would disqualify most men.

B) Could Messiah sit on the throne of David even though he was not begotten by a
human father?

I believe the answer is yes.

First, we know Joseph was of the seed of David (Mt 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4). We
also have two genealogies showing Joseph to be a descendant of David. Certainly
one of them is truly Joseph's genealogy.

Second, the people of Yahshua's day thought he actually was Joseph's son (Luke
4:22; Jn 6:42).

Third, Luke 3:23 says,

" And Yahshua himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," (KJV)

"As was supposed" is from the Greek "hos enomizito." According to Strong's
#3543, "nomizo" means; "prop. to do by law (usage), i.e. to accustom (pass. be
usual); by extens. to deem or regard." It comes from the root word "nomos"
meaning "law." Is it possible that Luke 3:23 does not mean "as was supposed" but
rather, "as was customary" or "as was regarded" or "as saith the law"? In other
words, Jewish custom and law considered Joseph to be the lawful, legal father of
Yahshua.

How can that be? Via adoption!

At this point I would like to present an excerpt from an article entitled, "Virgin
Birth, Jewish Adoption and Genealogy of Yeshua," by Mike Gascoigne. The
article can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.write-on.co.uk/vbirth.htm.

In the article, the author quotes the Talmud which many readers reject. I, too,
reject most Talmudic writing. However, references in the Talmud to Jewish
customs and culture at that time should be accepted as valid practices of the day.
The bold print is mine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(End of excerpt)

The Scriptures have several teachings concerning adoption that would help us to
understand this issue as it relates to Joseph and Yahshua. The question is, "Can
an adopted son sit on the throne as King?"

Rom 9:4 says;

"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"

The Israelites were adopted by Yahweh. That is why Yahweh spoke of them as
"my son" (Ex 4:22,23; Deut 14:1,2; Isa 43:6; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1).

Now, who was the first king over Israel? 1 Sam 12:12 & 8:7 tell us Yahweh was
their first King. Yet, they rejected Him as King resulting in Saul reigning over them.
David followed Saul as Israel's next king. He, in turn, was succeeded by his son
Solomon. Notice what the Word says about David and Solomon;

"And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him
unto Yahweh to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest. Then Solomon sat
on the throne of Yahweh as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and
all Israel obeyed him. (1Ch 29:22b, 23)

Solomon was actually seated on the "throne of Yahweh." He was there instead of
David. In other words, David also sat on the "throne of Yahweh" as king over
Israel at one time. This is said because Yahweh was Israel's first King and it was
His throne they ruled from after rejecting Him.

Saul would have been the first fleshly king to sit on Yahweh's throne. All
successive kings of Davidic descent clear down to Zedekiah sat on the throne of
Yahweh. (They also sat on the throne of David).

The point is this; every king that ever sat on the throne of David, including David
himself, was an adopted child of Yahweh. As such, they were entitled to inherit
everything from their father (Yahweh). Every king of Davidic descent, even though
they were adopted, was permitted to rule.

It doesn't stop there, however. Rev 2:26, 27; 5:9, 10; 20:5, 6 all show that
believers in Yahshua (the king who sits on David's throne), will also reign as kings.
Whose throne will they sit on?

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also
overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." ( Rev 3:21).

Those that overcome will sit on the throne of David with Yahshua and will rule with
him over the nations. Who are those overcomers? Are they literal descendants of
David through an earthly father? No. They are adopted sons of Yahweh who are
entitled to the throne just as though they were literal sons.

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of Yahweh, they are the sons of Yahweh.
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received
the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth
witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahweh: And if children, then
heirs; heirs of Yahweh, and joint-heirs with Messiah; if so be that we suffer with
him, that we may be also glorified together.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the
sons of Yahweh.

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of Yahweh.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love Yahweh, to
them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom 8:14-17, 19, 21, 28)

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should
be called the sons of Yahweh: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it
knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of Yahweh, and it doth not yet
appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be
like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 Jn 3:1, 2).

We have a glimpse of what we shall be in Revelation. We shall be kings reigning
with Yahshua. We have already seen, in Rev 3:21, that the throne that
overcomers will sit upon is Yahshua's throne, the throne of David, the throne of
Yahweh. How does one acquire the throne? One way is through inheritance!

" He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill,
to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the
pillars of the earth are Yahweh's, and he hath set the world upon them." (1 Sam
2:8)

In other words, Yahweh will bring to power whoever He chooses to inherit it. Deut
17:15 says Yahweh is the one who would choose Israel's king. He chose Saul.
Then He chose David even though David was not the firstborn of Jesse (1 Sam
16:11-13). Eventually Joash became king even though he was not the firstborn of
Ahaziah (2 Kgs 11:12).

Yahweh rules in the kingdom of men, and "He gives the kingdom [and its throne]
to whomever He will" (Dan 4:25). His adopted sons, or "overcomers," will inherit
all things.

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his Elohim, and he shall be
my son." (Rev 21:7)

One of the things they will inherit is the right to sit on the throne of David with
Yahshua. The point, however, is that they don't sit on the throne because they are
David's literal seed according to the flesh, but because, as adopted sons, they
receive it through inheritance.

If overcomers can sit on the throne of David with Yahshua even though they are
not the literal seed of David according to the flesh, then Yahshua can as well. He
can sit on David's throne because he is Joseph's adopted son. As such, he was
adopted into the tribe of Judah through Joseph and therefore entitled to Joseph's
inheritance as well as the right to sit on the throne of David, the throne of Yahweh.

Actually, Yahshua has more right to sit on the throne of David than David himself
since Yahshua is literally Yahweh's Son whereas David was only Yahweh's
adopted son.

Some may continue to argue that an adopted son cannot be considered "the seed
of David." Are not adopted sons in Messiah Abraham's seed? (Gal 3:29). If we
are Abraham's seed, then we are also Isaac's seed, Jacob's seed. Yahshua is
the seed of David through Joseph's adoption of him (Joseph being the seed of
David as well).

Argument #4 - The virgin birth is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament
except for the alleged birth accounts in Matthew and Luke's gospels.

This reasoning is hardly worth countering, but I will briefly address it for the sake
of those who promote it.

There are many beliefs that are based on less than a handful of verses. For
example, the account of the wise men in Mt 2:1-18 is only found in that book. I am
not aware of any prophecies pointing to that visit nor of any parallel accounts in
the other evangels. Does that mean the account is bogus and should be cut out of
our Bibles?

What about the account of the two blind men that is only found in Mt 9:27-31?
This is not the same account as in Mt 20:29-34; Mk 10:46-52; or Luke 18:35-43.
Should we consider this an "alleged" account and trash it?

In Mt 13:44-50, Yahshua gave three parables that are only found in Matthew's
evangel; The Buried Treasure, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Parable of the
Net. More fuel for the fire?

In Mt 17:24-27, Yahshua tells Peter to go find some money in the mouth of a fish
to pay his tribute (taxes). Again, there is only one witness to this account.

Yahshua gave the Parable of the Laborers in Mt 20:1-16 and the Parable of Two
Sons in Mt 21:28-32. Only one witness, Matthew. Yet, who would reject these as
authentic truth?

The Parable of the Ten Virgins is the last example I will give. Again, only Matthew
gives this parable, but only those who lack understanding would consider these to
be the "alleged" words of Yahshua and call for their removal from the Bible.

I have only superficially scanned Matthew's evangel to glean these examples. I
was looking for examples where only Matthew is a witness. There are far more
examples in the other evangels including where only two evangels witness an
account as in Matthew and Luke witnessing about the virgin birth. We might as
well totally discard all four evangels if we are going to discard the virgin birth
accounts in Matthew and Luke.

Argument #5 - The virgin birth story is copied from pagan myths.

Here is an excerpt from an anti-virgin birth study;

"One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures:
Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who
share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

been male.

lived in pre-Christian times.

had a god for a father.

human virgin for a mother.

had their birth announced by a heavenly display.

had their birth announced by celestial music.

been born around December 25th.

had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant.

met with a violent death. rose again from the dead."

According to the logic of this argument, since all these figures were believed to
have a virgin mother, we should reject a belief in Yahshua's virgin birth. To carry
that logic one step further, we should reject all the other points as related to
Yahshua. We should reject the belief that he was a male, that Herod try to kill him,
that he rose from the dead, etc. Are proponents of this argument prepared to
rewrite the New Testament scriptures that teach these truths as they have
proposed to rewrite the verses concerning his virgin birth? I am certainly not
prepared to do that.

Some additional thoughts

Irenaeus, in combating some of the heresies of his day, made several analogies
which you can read in "Ante-Nicene Fathers", Volume 1, pages 453, 454 and 547.
His comments are summed up below.

1Co 15:45 says, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Yahshua is being identified as an
anti-type of Adam. He is the "last" or second Adam and Paul is drawing an
analogy between the two. To carry the analogy a liitle further;

Adam came to exist without an earthly father. If he had an earthly father, then we
can understand the last Adam, Yahshua, to also have an earthly father, Joseph.
Since Adam was created directly by Yahweh from dust, he had no earthly father.
Yahshua, to be the anti-type, would not have an earthly father either.

Adam was created from dust before it ever rained upon the earth and before the
ground was ever tilled by man (Gen 2:5). Therefore, Yahweh brought forth Adam
from virgin soil that was untouched by man. The last Adam would also be brought
forth from a virgin source that was untouched by man. It is interesting to note that
Yahweh could have created Eve from that virgin soil as well, but He chose a
different means, possibly to preserve the anti-type of only one being, Yahshua, to
ever be born of a virgin.

Another analogy is drawn between Eve and Miriam. It was an angel (fallen) that
had deceived Eve (a virgin) into disobeying the Almighty. Through that virgin's
disobedience, bondage to sin and death came upon the human race. In contrast,
an angel (good) brought good tidings to Miriam that she would bear a child
miraculously. She obeyed the Almighty and allowed His will to be done in her
thereby allowing the human race to be rescued from bondage to sin and death
through a virgin. The disobedience of one virgin was balanced out by the
obedience of another virgin.

Irenaeus also sees an analogy between the stone that was "cut without hands"
which was part of king Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Yahshua's coming of a
virgin. Just as no human stone cutter brought forth the stone of Nebuchadnezzar's
dream, Yahshua's advent into this world was not by the will of man or the physical
intervention of man, but by the will of Yahweh.

In conclusion, when the Scriptures are rightly divided the virgin birth doctrine
stands secure as a one of its precious truths. It does not matter if Miriam was of
the seed of David or if matrilineal descent is acceptable. Joseph, a descendant of
David, was Yahshua's lawful father under Jewish law and custom; a custom that
Yahweh Himself established by example in adopting Israel; and a custom that will
continue in the future as overcomers in Messiah are enthroned with him via
adoption!

Praise be to Yahweh for His Word and His ways.

The Virgin Birth