The following is
a post recorded in our guestbook on 25 Oct 2002..
Adopted into a Cursed Lineage But, St. Matthew knew that any messiah of GOD had to be descended through the bloodlines of kings David, Solomon, and Asa (see below for an explanation). Eager to present Jesus as fulfilling this requirement, St. Matthew presents his readers with a lineage for Jesus going through his adopted father, Joseph, and through kings Asa and Solomon, all the way back to King David (Matt 1:1). But, this presents him with a trilemma -- a trinity of problems: According to early Christo-Paulian doctrine regarding his birth to a virgin mother, Jesus is not really related to Joseph's (and therefore King David's) lineage. The lineage Matthew presents conflicts flatly with the lineage that St. Luke came up with decades later (Luke 3:23). Luke's version has many more generations than Matthew's, and many of the names do not match up (except for a few which take the line through the Cursed Branch of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah). In trying to adopt Jesus into David's lineage (Matt 1:12), Matthew presents a family line that goes straight through the Cursed Branch of kings Jehoiakim and his son, Jeconiah (also known as Coniah/Jehoiachin). Matthew either intentionally or unintentionally omits King Jehoiakim in the list, which may confuse some people. But Jehoiakim (not Jeconiah) is undeniably the son of Josiah, and Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim. Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah are all names for the same king, son of Jehoiakim, who was carried away into captivity/exile in Babylon, and succeeded by his uncle, King Zedekiah (who was the brother of Jehoiakim). See 1st Chron 3:15-19, 2nd Kings 24:6-17, Esther 2:6, Jer 22:24-30, Jer 24:1, 27:20, 37:1). Jeconiah is the father of Shealtiel, and the grandfather of Zerubbabel, etc. In Jeremiah 22, both kings Jehoiakim and Jeconiah are damned and their descendents forbidden to succeed on the throne of David. (see also Isa 14:18 for references to the Abominable Branch) Jeremiah 22:24,28-30 "Surely as I live," says *YAHWEH*, "You, Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, even if you were a signet ring upon my right hand, I would cast you off!" Is this man Jeconiah a broken, abominable idol, an object for which no one cares?... Write this man off as if childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, because no one descended from him shall find success in sitting in the Kingship of David or ruling any more in Judah.
The Branch of Jeconiah is damned forever. Jeconiah was carried away into exile and died there. His grandson, Zerub'babel, returned, but, true to the curse, never returned to the throne. And, none from their lineage has ever since. In a confused attempt to graft Jesus into a messianic line, the eager Matthew ended up putting Jesus into the cursed lineage branch. Ironically, for all their discrepancies, this is one of the few points at which Matthew's version of the genealogy and Luke's actually agree. That is to say, both stories list Jesus's lineage as running through Zerub'babel and Sheal'tiel, two of the cursed descendents of Jeconiah. Also see Isaiah 14:18 for more Abominable Branch references.
Oddly, Matthew has omitted the name of King Jehoiakim in his list. He left Jeconiah in, though. Genealogy: Matthew and Luke Contradict The fact of Jeconiah being in Jesus's adopted genealogy has caused an enormous headache for Christo-Paulian theologians, although the average person never learns of this because they rarely address this topic. This and the fact that Luke and Matthew contradict one another in the names of Joseph's ancestors has caused some apologizers, in desperation, to say that Luke's version of the lineage was "really" Mary's side of the family. This is groundless speculation, and is contrary to the fact that Luke states flatly that the lineage is Joseph's (Luke 3:23): "Jesus... being the son, supposedly, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, the son of Matthat..." There is no support for the notion that it is Mary's line. It is merely wishful thinking. But, causing a fair amount of confusion in the issue, some Bibles actually insert a bit of misleading editorial commentary at the top of Luke 3:23 saying the genealogy is the "line of Mary". That's quite an assertion to make considering it has no scriptural support. Some casual Bible readers have actually taken this as if it were really part of the Bible, and moved on without question. Still, pretending that the lineage which Luke gives is Mary's makes no difference.
As we have already pointed out, it is part of the Cursed Branch of Jeconiah (remember, it runs through Jeconiah's son and grandson, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel), and thus makes Jesus an invalid candidate for being the messiah.
God Makes Foolish the Wisdom of Man
On a surface reading, the argument of the cursed lineage of Jesus actually seems to have merit. I must admit.. it caused me to stop and read about it. I had actually never heard of the cursed lineage of Jeconiah ... or at least never given it much thought. I actually read the above post with some intensity... mainly because the Scripture really does say what this argument says it does (even though there are obvious ASSUMPTIONS made by many of the statements). I was at first shocked... did Jesus (Yeshua) really come from a cursed lineage?? It appears that He did at first look, but He actually did not... What was certainly a relief was that ANY "would-be" Messiah that would come from Solomon's lineage, at least through the kingly line, would have to come from a cursed lineage... That's right. What is even more amazing is that God, I believe, purposefully set up a paradox in the requirements for the lineage of the Messiah. It was a paradox so that no NATURAL birth could ever satisfy its requirements. In fact, the ONLY way that ALL of the requirements for the Messiah's genealogy (whoever it would be) could be fulfilled was and is by a SUPERNATURAL means! Herein lies the foolishness of God and the wisdom of man. God loves confounding the wise-- He really does. It is in man's wisdom that we in full knowledge traded the glory of God for our own vain imaginations of God.. that is what Romans 1:18-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:21-23 tells us.
I believe this is somewhat the reasoning of "why" when it comes to understanding the question of the cursed lineage. It is a paradox only understood by reliance on the power of God.. not the wisdom of man.
The Messianic Lineage
It goes without saying (almost) that Messiah would first of all come through the lineage of David. After David asked the LORD if he could build the LORD a house (temple) for His glory, the LORD tells David instead that HE will build David a house! Not only that, but the LORD makes the promise that Solomon, David's son, would be the ONE through whom the promise given to David would be continued. It could be debated as to whether the Messiah MUST be of the lineage of Solomon physically or not... or whether this could be fulfilled legally through adoption. Was it a requirement for the Messiah to come through the lineage of Solomon, or would it be OK if the Messiah came through the lineage of Nathan? We will address this later.
The fact that Messiah would come through the lineage of David is without question. In Jewish culture, including that which existed when Yeshua walked the land of Israel 2000 years ago, the term "Son of David" became synonymous with "Messiah". Messiah is THE son of David promised by the LORD who would establish the throne of David forever. Without any doubt, Messiah MUST be of the genetic lineage of David. Messiah is also referred to as a Branch, Root, and Stem of Jesse (David's father) and as the BRANCH Himself (Zechariah).
It is no accident that the King and Branch of David spoken of by Jeremiah will also be referred to as THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS... which is a direct reference to the divine nature of this very special man. It is also clear that Solomon was intended to be King after David and to sit in his place on his throne. This would tend to lend credence to the argument that says the Messiah must come through David-> Solomon.
It is important to note that SOMEWHERE in the genealogy of the Messiah, the promise given to David in this regard must be addressed:
Solomon play a role (somewhere) in the Messiah's bloodline as well. The Kingly line was to pass through Solomon.. and not another son of David-- for it was Solomon of whom the LORD spoke that he would build the LORD a house for His name.
It is also apparent that David had other sons besides Solomon-- one of which is Nathan. In terms of the lineage of Solomon, there is a distinct lineage of kingly authority: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah. Josiah had fours sons: Johanan, Jehoikim, Zedekiah, and Shallum. Jehoikim had 2 sons: Jeconiah and Zedekiah.
Here is where the genealogy of the Messiah becomes interesting! As you follow the lineage of Solomon on down through Asa and further down through Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, you finally arrive at Josiah. Josiah's son was Jehoiakim and his son, Jeconiah [Jehoiachin, Coniah].
Without question, the LORD makes an oath (Jer 22:29-30) that NONE of the descendents of Jeconiah (a.k.a. Coniah or Jehoiachin) would sit on the throne of David. In fact, none of his descendents would rule in Judah anymore. This is what is known as the "Cursed Lineage of Jeconiah"... This is where the lineage of Yeshua now comes into question. Let's look at this now.
The Lineage of Yeshua (Wrinkles and All!)
There are indeed two lineages given for
Jesus in the Gospels: one by Matthew and one by Luke. Luke, the
Gentile historian of the early church (writer of the book of Acts) who wrote primarily to
a non-Jewish audience, traces the lineage of Yeshua all the way back to Adam...
who is the Father of both Jew and Gentile ultimately. Matthew, who was a
Jewish tax-collector but was skilled in the Law, wrote primarily to a Jewish
audience and records Jesus lineage all the way back to Abraham... who is
distinctly the Father of the Jewish nation (and the arabic nations through
Ishmael, but we won't get into that discussion right now).
It may not be obvious, but there right smack dab in the middle of Matthew's genealogy you see the names of our good old cursed buddies: Josiah and Jeconiah! Without any doubt, this IS the same Jeconiah that the LORD Himself declares will have no descendent that will prosper or be seated on the throne of Israel. What is also obvious is that from Jesse backwards through Boaz, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Shem, Noah, Lamech and on back through Seth to Adam, the two genealogies are identical. So ultimately, Luke and Matthew both trace genealogies all the way back to Adam... if you can go all the way back to Abraham, then you can go all the way back to Adam as well. If you can go all the way back to David, then you can of course go all the way back to Abraham. It should be clear that David is of the tribe of Judah as well, and by virtue of both genealogies, so is Yeshua.
A point that may be lost in the lineage of Matthew is the purposeful (by the Spirit of God) highlighting of certain family "events" that we might find inappropriate. For example, it states that Judah begot Perez and Zerah.... by Tamar. Notice that the mother is not normally mentioned in a genealogy. Read the story of Tamar in Genesis 38. Judah basically was having sex with harlots.. and Tamar disguised herself as one and slept with her own father-in-law, to get even with him! Right there, for all to see, in the family lineage of the Messiah Himself is a messy story. We might find that a bit unusual or at least embarrassing... but the LORD wants to communicate something by this! He doesn't hide the blemishes and warts... even in His own human family tree as Messiah. He wants to communicate a message regarding the humility and state of the Messiah in His first coming...
Notice also that Obed was begot by Ruth to Boaz. Ruth was the Gentile (Moabite) who was brought into covenant promise by a kinsmen redeemer-- another clear message that God wanted Gentile blood in the lineage of the Messiah.
Consider also that it is made clear that Solomon was David's son from "her who had been the wife of Uriah." Yes indeed.. another messy family story-- one that would better be left covered up than exposed. Yet it is the explicit purpose of the Holy Spirit--especially by using the one writing from the Jewish perspective (Matthew)-- that He communicate ALL the ugly details of the Messiah's family tree. God has no shame in these events-- and He is telling us that He will use human beings, even in their frailty, failure, and sin to accomplish His purposes in the Earth. The telling of the genealogy IN THIS WAY stands as a record of that fact!
Notice also that Joseph in Matthew's lineage is never called the one who "begot" Jesus. Joseph is referred to as the "husband of Mary", of whom was born Jesus. Yes, even though our Christmas cards do not show this, Miriam (Mary) had to bear the reproach of being pregnant out of wedlock.. during her betrothal to Joseph. Joseph came very close to dismissing her, and apart from angelic intervention would have. They BOTH together had to face social scorn due to Miriam's pregnancy. When she said "yes" to God to bear this miraculous child, she was also saying "yes" to losing her reputation, being scorned, and bearing shame! Think about that the next time you want God to use you! The Pharisees would later remind Jesus that He was "born of fornication" and "born completely in sin" (John 8:41, 9:34). These are clear references to the shame that Yeshua and His mother Miriam experienced surrounding the nature of His birth.
THIS is the context of the lineage in which we ALSO find the fact that the lineage of Joseph included Jehoiachin (Jeconiah/Coniah). As such, NO physical son of Joseph would EVER be qualified to sit on the throne of David... having been forever cursed by God (Jeremiah 22). I think the Holy Spirit wanted to prove a point here.. which we will discuss more.
The Controversy of Matthew and Luke's Record
At this point, let us settle this point: without ANY question, Matthew records the lineage of Jesus THROUGH Joseph.
It would be ludicrous to think that ANY of the early apostles or disciples, KNOWING the lineage of Joseph would not have ALSO known about the cursed lineage of Jeconiah. After all, THEY were LOOKING for the Messiah. It would have been something of interest-- something that they would have studied or heard a teaching on at some point! The anti-missionary argument that somehow Matthew made a "mistake" by trying to fit Jesus into a Messianic lineage and mistakenly put Him into a cursed one just doesn't hold water. Matthew would have been the FIRST to point out: "Hey guys, Jesus can't be the Messiah.. He's of the cursed line that came from His father Joseph through Josiah and Jeconiah... " That is the point. IF Joseph was Yeshua's genetic father, then any of the early disciples would have spotted that a mile away. However, IF Yeshua was NOT the genetic son of Joseph, then the fact that Joseph's lineage came from Solomon through Asa through Jeconiah to him would take on a different meaning, wouldn't itt?
Let us compare these 2 lineages:
The most obvious conclusion of the lineage given by Matthew and the one given by Luke is that they are not the same... duuh. You don't have to be a theologian to figure that one out! The point that many skeptics bring up is that Luke does not refer to Heli as the father of Mary: Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph...
Notice at least that the generations of Luke's lineage are distinctly different from those listed in Matthew's lineage. Luke says that it was David, Nathan, Mattathah. Matthew says it was David, Solomon, Rehoboam. Another obvious point is that Matthew omits a couple of generations, while never violating the idea of "son of". Now let's look at the Greek construction of these passages, particularly in Luke's genealogy. The skeptics have charged that Matthew made a booboo when he recorded Jesus' real lineage (which would have been cursed assuming Joseph was his physical father) and that Luke tried to "recover" by changing the lineage from David-> Solomon to David-> Nathan. It should also be obvious that the Shealtiel/Zerubbabel reference in Luke is NOT the same Shealtiel/Zerubbabel who come from Jeconiah. Notice that there are two Levi/Matthat father/son pairs in the genealogy listed in Luke.
Here is the obvious conclusion, even BEFORE looking at the text of WHO's genealogy is being discussed: Matthew and Luke are talking about genealogies of two different people.
Assuming that Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph, it would only make sense that Luke is recording Mary's: the mother of Jesus.
You do not have to be an "apologizer" to make a case that Luke's genealogy, being DRASTICALLY different from Matthew's, would logically not be Joseph's lineage. The text ITSELF could support such an argument. The context, particularly that of a Gentile write, supports it also. From the TEXTUAL interpretation, Matthew records Joseph's lineage-- without debate I believe. Luke's record, on the other hand, can be read a couple of different ways, depending on which view you take.
I must admit that in my study of Luke's genealogy that I too had also assumed that the text actually STATES that this genealogy refers to Mary. Most of the Bibles I own do indeed insert the commentary that this is "Mary's" lineage. Reading the text for myself, in various translations, I was a little shocked to find that it does not say that... and in this part the surface reading of the cursed lineage argument is correct: the text of Luke's genealogy references Joseph. However, let's look at the original Greek to see what it really says.
Now Jesus Himself began
His ministry at about thirty years of age,
The key word in the construction process is "the son of". In the Greek, there are certain words that do not correspond directly to an English word. In most interlinear translations, English words that have been ADDED will appear as a "9999" typically. In this passage, the words "was the son" does not really appear in the original Greek when the genealogy is expounded. So beginning with the statements "Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi...", the original Greek really only says "Joseph, which of Heli, which of Matthat, which of Levi..." This is accomplished in the Greek with the correct form of the name that intimate "of" and the word "tou", translated as "which". This distinction is important because BEGINNING with Joseph and going backwards this construction is used throughout to trace from JOSEPH all the way back to DAVID and then from David back to Adam.
If we look at the construct of Luke 3:23 now, we can see that when Jesus' relationship to Joseph is described, a DIFFERENT construct is used. Whereas it can inferred from the the context that "which of" in the Greek means "which was the son of" in English, that inference is not given in terms of Jesus and Joseph. The Greek huiós hoos enomízeto is used instead of toú to describe this relationship as seen here:
If Luke WANTED to communicate that Jesus was the son of Joseph, he could have used the construction toú instead, as he did in describing all of the other Father/Son relationships. Instead, Luke could was communicating something different: possibly that Jesus was "as supposed by custom or thought to be" the son of Joseph. No matter what translation you choose, it is clear that Luke by the Holy Spirit is setting up a distinction in the relationship of Joseph with Jesus OR Joseph with Heli-- and either way suffices! As we have said, Luke already states that Jesus had no NATURAL father but was born of the Holy Spirit!
An interesting construction note in the Greek is that the root word for enomizeto is nomos (nom'-os): meaning law or regulation. ANOTHER interpretation of this could also be the son by law (or son-in-law). The construction could seem to indicate that Joseph was supposed or thought of as the son-in-law of Heli... not begotten by Heli. There is certainly textual support for Mary's lineage being presented, and not that of a different/incorrect/modified version of Joseph's lineage.
There are actually a couple of options:
1) Jesus is presented "by adoption" as the son of Joseph, who was thought of as the son-in-law of Heli, the father of Mary
2) Jesus is presented as one who was "thought to be" the son Joseph, but really was not, and thus the lineage of His mother is presented--
3) Jesus is "of" Heli by virtue of being his grandson (through Mary) and his relationship to Joseph is described to be "son, as supposed" -- meaning not actually his (Joseph's) son
4) Joseph is described as the grandson (on his mother's side) of Eli
From the Jewish New Testament Commentary (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications) 1996, is this view as well:
The important things to note so far:
1) Joseph could not be the son of Heli (Lk 3:23) and the son of Jacob (Matt 1:16) at the same time
2) Joseph could not be descended from David through Nathan (Lk 3:31) and David through Solomon (Matt 1:6) at the same time
3) Joseph is clearly delineated from the REST of the genealogy recorded by Luke - which are actual physical ancestors of Jesus
4) Both Luke and Matthew assert Jesus had no human father (Matt 1:18 and Luke 1:35)
5) Jesus relationship with Joseph is clearly distinguished in some way from this relationship with the rest of those expounded in the lineage of Luke
6) Clearly, the genealogy given by Matthew is of Joseph.. who is descended as a son of David through Solomon, Asa, and Jeconiah
7) Clearly, Luke is not giving another (different) genealogy of Joseph-- therefore based on logical, textual, and contextual support there is good evidence he is referring to Mary's lineage
8) Clearly, if Jesus were the physical offspring of Joseph, He would be disqualified from the claim to sit on David's throne because of the curse of Jeconiah (Jer 22:24-30)
9) Clearly, ANY would-be Messiah must of necessity come through the lineage of David and Solomon (2 Sam 7:12-16) because of the promise God made to David
10) Clearly, ANY would-be Messiah who was physically born of the seed of David through Solomon through Asa and the Kingly line (David's lineage) on down through Jeconiah would be under the SAME curse, and therefore DISQUALIFIED
Therein lies the
paradox of the cursed lineage: the Messiah must genetically be of the seed of
David-- without question. He also must have legal descent through the
lineage of Solomon. Any one descended through the Kingly line of Solomon
must of necessity ALSO be descended through the lineage of Jeconiah.
Jeconiah was cursed and therefore NO ONE who is descended from him is eligible
to sit on the throne of David! Yes, it is a paradox... designed by God
Which Line Do We Use: Matriarchal or Patriarchal??
For purposes of fulfilling the promise of the LORD to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, it is apparent that ANY person who fulfills the qualification genetically would at the same time disqualify themselves from being able to sit on the throne of David, as Messiah! The only way to ever solve this is to have a man who has no human father but yet has been adopted legally into the lineage of David and Solomon. This is where the Patriarchal line of Yeshua (by adoption) is so significant. Joseph's bloodline was indeed physically cursed because of its root in Jeconiah. However, as the adoptive father of the Lord Jesus, Jesus could legally be considered to fulfill the promise that God made to David! This may also be why there was a prophetic announcement of the virgin birth--and the son of this birth would be named "God With Us":
What we must realize is two Old Testament legal technicalities come into play here. The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son. This is illustrated first in the Torah by the story of Abraham (Abram).
Here Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. It shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative.
For another example, consider how Israel (Jacob) adopted Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh.
Both Ephraim and Manasseh were now to be considered equal with Joseph’s brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land. Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David’s throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. Remember that Luke was a gentile and a physician. His view of inheritance would be that of the natural lineage, rather than the legal lineage. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised--which is discussed shortly.
It is often pointed out that in Jewish thought we must trace lineage, from a legal standpoint, by the father. Without a HUMAN father, however, this can prove difficult. Now that we have established that Matthew's lineage is of Joseph and Luke's is of Mary, we are still left with a problem. The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16).
Even though Jesus had an unblemished bloodline as the son of David, through Mary, she had to be a male to transfer those rights. There is however a special rule established for certain unique circumstances. In the story of Zelophehad in the Torah, we have an exception that has two parts to the rule of inheritance. Because Zelophehad had no daughters, his daughters approached Moses and the assembly because they were concerned that their Father's name and inheritance would not be passed down to them.. a very unfair situation. In this case, the LORD tells Moses specifically to allow for the fact that if a man dies with no sons, the inheritance may be passed to the daughters.
The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).
So the promise that the Messiah would be of the house of David and David’s throne would be everlasting takes on a more clear meaning. Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David, being the oldest son of Joseph, but was subject to none of the consequences of the blood curse because He was adopted. He was also a direct descendant of King David, and therefore in the lineage of the king. Because all Jewish genealogies are to be reckoned from the father to the son, Luke lists Joseph as the assumed father of Jesus, however he becomes the heir of that line through the rule established with the daughters of Zelophehad.
Now we come back to
Miriam. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the
rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND
Miriam did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph. Here again, the LORD has
provided the answer!
If we look at Zechariah 12:10-14 we find that when Messiah appears, His NATURAL family is going to mourn His appearing. Who is that natural family? It begins with the house of David, continues through Nathan, covers the family of the house of Levi, and then mentions the family Shimei (or Semei). These are all recorded in the genealogy of Yeshua as recorded by Luke-- and yes, they will mourn when they look on "Him" - whom they have pierced.
When the LORD promised Abraham and Sarah a son, this was Abraham's reaction. Genesis 17:17 states: "Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" Why should a miraculous birth be so hard to believe? It was hard for Abraham and his wife Sarai to believe.. but that is why their miracle child is called "son of laughter." Yes it was ludicrous to think Abraham in his 100s and Sara in her 90s could conceive and bear a child. Yet, at the heart of the Jewish story is the RELIANCE on such a miracle and needless to say that, with God, all things are possible. It should be no surprise that the Messiah-- anointed with the oil of joy above His companions and a son of laughter far more than Isaac -- should be born in such a miraculous way!
It should also make sense that the Yeshua was the "seed of the woman" prophesied from long ago.. you can read more about this prophetic viewpoint of the Messiah as well. The OTHER requirement for the virgin birth also deals with the tainted lineage of Adam's blood. This aspect of Yeshua's birth also means that He was not born with a pre-disposed sin nature: and would therefore not be subject to the curse of Adam's line by virtue of the fact that he did not have a human father. So in actuality, the virgin birth prevented the effects of TWO curses from being passed on to Yeshua!
The Answer to the "Anti-Missionary"
Many counter-missionaries believe that this question (of the lineage of Jesus) alone is the biggest factor in the list of why Jesus did not qualify as the Jewish Messiah. They would say that even if Jesus had accomplished all that the prophets spoke of, his genealogy alone would disqualify him as being Messiah. Here is a typical viewpoint from their position and some answers provided by this article:
Questions concerning the site can be directed to Threemacs Web Master