It is sometimes argued by those challenging the New Testament record of the virgin birth that Mary could not be the means by which Jesus is physically descended from David.
Firstly even if there was such a rule in later Judaism (which is highly debatable) there is certainly no such rule in the Old Testament.
For example: In 1 Chronicles 2:34-35 (in the genealogy of Judah, vs. 3) we read this: “Sheshan had no sons, only daughters, but he did have an Egyptian servant whose name was Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha, and she bore him Attai.” Then in verse 36 the genealogy continues through Attai (who fathers Nathan), so there is precedent in the Hebrew Bible that a genealogy could at times be counted through a female in the absence of a male.
Secondly even if there had been such a rule in the Law of Moses (which we can see from the above example is not the case), the Law was temporary – from Moses to Christ, and Christ would not be bound by it.
Thirdly and most conclusively, the very first genealogical statement in the Bible refers not to a male line, but to Eve. The promised Seed is not “Seed of the Man” from Adam, but “Seed of the Woman” in Genesis 3:15.
Fourthly Genesis 3:15 is confirmed by Paul “born of a Woman” (Galatians 4:4)
So there is no case to challenge the five times repeated statements in Matthew and Luke that no man is the father of Jesus.
No Comments yet!