Messyanic

The subject of the Virgin Birth is a crucial fundamental issue in modern Christianity because it opens the door to a unique nature for their Christ.

Much of today’s Christian dogma is based on the belief that Jesus/Yeshua is born without a human father, and this fundamental tenet of faith most prevalent in the Roman Catholic church spills over into the Protestant church, and continues to spill over into the Messianic community – to include “Hebrew roots”, “Torah-observant” and other such labeled parties, who hold to Jesus/Yeshua as the Christ/Messiah.

The problem however, is that the Old Testament is filled with promises made by YHVH to men concerning the fate of their physical seed, speaking in no uncertain terms, as to who would build a house for the name of YHVH and whose kingdom will never end.

The New Testament clearly testifies of Yeshua being that anointed physical son of David, son of Abraham, in response to those promises and prophecies of old.

But the virgin birth doctrine has tainted the New Testament with ideas that are simply not in there, such as:

• The idea that Yeshua’s birth was miraculous in nature, differing from any other conception story given in the history of the household of Israel.
• Or the idea that Yeshua had no human father, which violates the natural order put in place by the Creator Himself, undermining the most fundamental and powerful tenet of Scripture, that being: the father-son relationship.

This teaching of being born without a human father opens the door to the notion that the anointed man of God could also be physically divine in nature, which was clearly condemned by YHVH in the days of Noah before the flood, especially when considering Enoch’s testimony.

While there are factions within the virgin birth believing community who recognize Yeshua as being born purely human in the flesh, not all believe as such. In fact, the mainstream teaching insists that he is unique in nature: that Jesus Christ is superhuman.

Again, this notion smacks of what was clearly condemned by the Creator God, leading to the destruction of all life on the land first with water in Noah’s day, and then with fire in Abraham’s day.

Add to this the issue of either making YHVH out to be a covenant/promise-breaker to Abraham and David and liar to all the children of Israel, or making John the Baptist and all the apostles of the first century out to be frauds and liars, who claimed Yeshua to be the promised one to come.

Either way, this doctrine, in my view, severs the New Testament from the Old and leads everyone astray.

If only more could have eyes to see the truth on this matter, then I believe folks would feel more empowered to walk in our intended purpose here on the land.

Good could overcome evil without having to call on any Marvel or DC Comics superhero, and we all could experience prosperity and peace in the land without having to colonize Mars or escape to some planet in or beyond the Milky Way.

If you would like more information on the idea that there is no virgin birth in the Bible — and that Yeshua is still considered the Messiah, then let me know.

I’ll share with you some of what I’m seeing and give you the opportunity to pick my brain if you like.

I understand this is a taboo subject to oppose, and it can be very difficult to wrap your mind around this idea when we’ve been conditioned to only see what the New Testament says through the Virgin Birth paradigm. Let me help you.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:24-25 KJV)

People often point to this passage as evidence that Joseph never had relations with his wife, however this statement is made after Mary had already conceived as revealed in verses 18.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as [For] his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost [spirit]. (Matthew 1:18 KJV revisions mine)

This verse reads: For his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph before they came together. The fact that she was found with child of holy spirit is a separate thought.

Naturally, Joseph would have had relations with his wife in order for her to conceive.

But why is this detail given of Joseph in verse 25, that he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn?

It’s not unlawful for a man to know his wife while she’s pregnant, and from what I understand it is not thought to be a harmful practice either. So why would the man refrain from knowing his wife during that time?

Josephus Provides Cultural Insight

Evidently, according to the historian Josephus, there were three main sects of Jews living in the days of Joseph and Mary. Two of these are mentioned by name in the New Testament: the Pharisees and the Saducees. The third is identified in Josephus’ The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, chapter 8: the Essens or Essenes.

The Essenes were a more devout sect, having particular practices among them that distinguished them from their fellow Jews. While many within that sect do not marry, some do — for the primary purpose of procreation.

Here’s what Josephus had to say about them:

13. Moreover, there is another order of Essens, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail.

However, they try their spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they do not marry out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity.

Now the women go into the baths with some of their garments on, as the men do with somewhat girded about them. And these are the customs of this order of Essens. (Josephus’ Wars of the Jews 2.8.13)

It appears to me that Joseph may have not known Mary while she was with child, as a demonstration that they do not marry out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity.

I wonder if tend to think the mention of Joseph being righteous in verse 19 was a clue as to him being akin to the Essene sect. And the fact that he minded to send Mary away during her pregnancy so as not to make a show of her were clues as well. Maybe not. Either way though, t Thanks to this tidbit of insight into the Jewish culture at that time, it makes sense to me as a reasonable answer to my long-held question on the matter. [Edited 9/7/19]

For an alternate reasonable and Biblical explanation to the virgin birth story, found in Luke 1 and Matthew 1, visit NoVirginBirth.com.

The author of Matthew introduces his book with a genealogy of Jesus Christ, specifically calling it a book of the generation (or a book of genesis):

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1 KJV)

Whereas, the author of Luke provides a list of names in chapter 3 that appears to be a genealogy of Jesus, except it is never referred to as such.

We recognize the names from Adam down to Nathan as being genealogical in nature because we have genealogical records given in the Old Testament to compare it with. But most of the names between Nathan and Joseph are unfamiliar to us.

Many have understood this list of names as being the genealogical record of Mary, but I’ve had difficulty accepting that notion for quite a while now, because it seems very odd to me that the author would present it without making any mention of her.

Enter Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

This past week, I was listening to a series of YouTube videos on the genealogy of Jesus just to get an idea of the different thoughts/teachings circulating in the public these days, and I stumbled across the following gem:

This explanation actually made a lot of sense to me. Joseph is the physical son of Jacob as recorded in Matthew 1, but he is the son of Heli by the law of Deuteronomy 25:5-6. Jacob and Heli are brothers, having different fathers, but are of the same mother.

[Watch the above video if you have not done so already. It illustrates this point beautifully.]

Now, why would Luke include this lineage here?  Continue reading →

Many suggest the genealogy given in Matthew 1 is hinting at a Virgin Birth given the unique wording surrounding Mary, of whom was born Jesus.

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16 KJV)

The thought is that it was the author’s intent to indicate Jesus was born of Mary, but not begotten of Joseph.

But is that really what the author sought to convey?  Continue reading →