Many persons claim that Rabbi Yeshua couldn’t have been a physical descendant of Yoseiph ['Joseph'] because of the curse of ‘Coniah’. Therefore, they claim, Rabbi Yeshua must have been born by virgin birth.
Lets study if this is a valid argument. The following quote might contain some Hebrew words which you aren’t familar with. You can click on many of the Hebrew words for explanations. This article is on a higher difficulty level than many other articles, for example the articles on my other blog called Follow Yeshua – www.followyeshua.com.
In the general context of the Haphtâr•âh′, for our analysis of R. Singer’s citation of Ho•shei′a ha-Nâ•vi′ 3.4-5 (Outreach Judaism, p. 12), see my Pâ•râsh•at′ Mishpat•im′ (96.02).
The Biblical Curse Against ’ Genealogy (“Coniah,” in Yirәmәyâh′u – ‘Jeremiah – 22.30)
(See also Mәnor•at′ ha-Mâ•or′ by Yi•tzәkhâq′ Abuhav, רפ"ד, part 3 in si•dәr•at Ki Tâvo)
The name כניהו (Koniyâhu –‘Coniah’ —Yirmeyahu – ‘Jeremiah’ - 22.24, 28; 37.1), בן-יהויקים (son of Yәhoyâq•im′), is found in two other forms in the Bible: יכניה (Yәkhânyâh—Yirmeyahu 24.1) and יהויכין (Yәhoyâkhin—Mәlâkh•im′ Beit – ’Second book of Kings’ - 24.6, 8, 12, 15; 25.27 {x2}; Divrei ha-Yâm•im′ Beit – ‘Second book of Chronicles ‘ 36.8, 9; Yirmeyahu 52.31 {x2}).
The most serious question that “anti-missionaries,” such as R. Singer, raise relates to the prophet Yirmeyahu ′ 22.30, who declared of Rabbi Yeshua’s patrilineal ancestor, Kanyahu (corrupted to Jeconiah and Jehoiachin): Thus says י--ה, Write this man heirless, a warrior who shall not prosper in his days; because from his seed shall no man prosper sitting on the Bench of Dâvid′ or ruling anymore in Yehudah – ‘Judea’.
This is the significance of the traditional Christian basis for insisting that Yeshu was born of a virgin—that, therefore(Christians claim), this patrilineal curse didn’t apply to him! This is one explanation. Considering Sarah‘s miraculous conception and Elisha ha-Nâ•vi′‘s miraculous reviving of a dead child (Mәlakhim Beit 8.5), such an occurrence is not beyond the abilities of י--ה.
On the other hand, it is not the only explanation, and while there is abundant evidence of the concept of virgin birth in pagan mythology, no one has yet uncovered any precedent in Judaism. Worse, as the concept is generally interpreted, it contradicts the immutable physical laws of the Immutable Perfect Creator of the universe.
In this connection, R. Singer correctly points out (Singer’s p. 46) that patrilineal descent determines tribal identification, based on be-Midbar – ‘Numbers’ -′ 1.18 (“by their fathers’ houses”). By this, Rabbi Yehsua – the Messiah – is shown to be of the tribe of Yehudah and of the lineage of king David through the king Shlomoh – ‘Salomo’ - (Divrei′ ha-Yâm•im Â′lëph 3.11-12, 15, 16-17; 17.11-14; 22.9-10; 28.6-7; Tәhil•im′ – ‘Psalms’ - 89.20-38; NHM 1). R. Singer reminds us (ibid.) that the Davidic Covenant Passes exclusively through the king Shlomoh based on Shmueil Beit 7.12-16.
However, R. Singer doesn’t acknowledge in this context what he hails under his different section on “Oral Law” (Singer’s p. 68): that “Jewish identity passes exclusively through the mother” based on Ë′zәr•â 10.2-3 (non-Jewish wives cast out with their offspring). This paradigm demonstrates that an exclusinary curse would be passed down matrilinearly—but Rabbi Yeshua’s matrilineage doesn’t include Kanyahu!!! This is why both lineages had to be given. The curse could not have passed down to Rib′i Yәho•shu′a!!!
Further, according to Talmud′, fearing that since the king was childless, the House of Dâ•wid′ – ’David’ - would thus cease, The Beit Din ha-gadol – Great Judaic Supreme Court - succeeded in obtaining permission for his wife to live with him. Kanyâhu kept the laws of marital purity during this time, and as a reward was forgiven his sins (Yirmeyahu ha-Nâ•vi′ 3.22 with Lev. Rabbah 19.6—compare to the prophecy of Yon•âh′ – ‘Jonah’ – to Ninevah that was forgiven). Even the decree that none of his seed would ascend the throne (the prophet Yirmeyahu 22.30) was repealed when Zәru-Ba•vël′ was appointed leader of the returned exiles from Ba•vël′ (“Babylon,” cf. Ma•sëk′ët Sunedrion 37b-38a).
Ma•sëk′ët Sunedrion 37b: “•mar′ R. Yokhânân, The gâl•ut′ – ‘diaspora’ – makes ki•pur′ for everything, for it is written [Yirmeyahu 22.30], ‘Thus •mar′ י--ה, “Write this man heirless, a warrior who will not prosper in his days; because a man from his seed shall not prosper sitting on the Bench of Dâ•wid′, or ruling anymore in Yәhud•âh′.” ‘ Whereas after he [the king] was exiled [the Gâl•ut′], it is written [Divrei ha-Yâmim Âlëph 3.17], “And the sons of יכניה (Yәkhânyâh): אסר(asir; he imprisoned), and his son שאלתיאל (Shәal•tiy•eil′)” [proving he had sons].
This is confirmed in Tor•âh′. Yәkhânyâh not only had a son, his great-grandson, זרבבל בן-שאלתיאל (Zәru-Bâvel Bën-Shәal•tiy•eil′—Ë′zәr•â 2.2; 3.8; 5.2) became the פחה of Yәhud•âh′ (Khaj•ai′ 1.1, 12, 14; 2.2, 4, 21-23; Zәkhar•yâh′4.6-10)—whom י--ה calls “My servant” (Khaj•ai′ 2.23) and “I will place you as a signet ring, for I have chosen you” (ibid.). A signet ring implied the authority of the king.
The exile of Tzidәqiyahu while Kanyahu was still alive was a merciful act, since Kanyahu could thus teachTzidәqiyahu Tor•âh′ (Ma•sëk′ët Git•in′ 88a; “Jehoiachin,” Ency. Jud. 9.1318-19).
Moreover if this, the only surviving scientifically, archaeologically and Biblically (Nәkhëmyâh 7.63) credible genealogy of the House of Dâ•wid′, is rejected there can be no Mâ•shi′akh at all—ever! [Quote from http://www.netzarim.co.il]