 |
© 2018, First Edition
© 2021, Second Edition
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means – for example, electronic, photocopy, recording – without prior written permission of Ladder of Jacob. Brief quotations are allowed.
For
more information:
www.ladderofjacob.com
Table of Contents
Chapter One: The Mystery of the Mem 4
Chapter Two: The Closed Womb 13
Adam 14
Noah 14
Melchizedek 16
Isaac 16
Jacob 18
Joseph 18
Moses 18
Samson 19
Obed 19
Samuel 20
David 20
Chapter Three: Out of Darkness 21
Chapter Four: Isaiah 7 & The Virgin Birth 23
Chapter Five: Seed of David 30
Chapter Six: Counsel of the Serpent 34
Chapter Seven: The Closing of the Mem 40
References 42
Bonus Chapter: Mystical Mirrors 44
Chapter One:
The Mystery
of the Mem
Fire and Water
In Parashat Tzav (Leviticus 6:1–8:36) we read
of the olah sacrifice,
commonly translated as ‘burnt offering,’
“It is an offering that ascends
upon the pyre (moqdah) of the Altar. . .”
Leviticus 6:2
Translating the word עולה (olah) as “burnt offering” obscures the meaning of the Hebrew. It literally means ‘that which ascends’, and is related to the word עליה (aliyah), meaning ‘ascent, to go up.’ The word for “pyre” in Hebrew is מוקדה (moqdah), and it is written with an unusually small letter mem in the Torah scroll. The Rebbe of Kotzk, R’ Menachem Mendel Morgenzstern (1787–1859 CE), comments on this unique letter,
“Why is the word moqdah (“pyre”) written in the Torah
with a miniature mem? To teach us that the fire in one’s soul should be
understated; it should burn within, but show nothing on the outside.”
The Rebbe of Kotzk, Parsha In Depth: Tzav, cited in Chabad.org 1
Ironically, the letter mem itself represents מים (mayim), water, which is concealed within this flame. This miniature mem opens a gateway for us to explore its deeper meaning, and connection to Mashiach.
The letter mem
itself has two forms, the mem
p’tucha (open mem) and the mem
stumah (closed mem), also called a mem
sofit (final mem). When the letter is used at the beginning or middle
of a word, it is written in its open form. If it is at the end of the word, the
closed mem is used. The open mem refers to that which is openly revealed and
known, and the closed mem refers to the concealed, that which is secret, as the
Talmud says,
מֵ״ם פְּתוּחָה, מֵ״ם סְתוּמָה — מַאֲמָר
פָּתוּחַ, מַאֲמָר סָתוּם.
“The open mem and
closed mem indicate that the Torah contains an open
statement, understood by all, and an esoteric statement.”
Shabbat 104a, William Davidson Talmud,
Sefaria.org 2
Let us dive
beneath the surface of the Mem to discover its secrets.
A Belly from Above
The letter mem opens the words Moshe, Mashiach, and Malchut
(Kingdom). Both forms of the mem bracket the words Mayim (Water), Maqom
(Place) and Miriam. As mentioned
above, the letter mem represents water, which defies shape. Paradoxically, the
letter has the gematria (the
numerical value) of 40, a recurrent number in the Torah representing “raw
matter taking form” during the process of development 3. Examples of the number 40 include:
40 seahs – The
halachic amount water required for a kosher mikvah
40 days and nights of rain of Noah’s flood
40 days of fasting by Moshe, Eliyahu and Yeshua
40 days of Teshuvah – from Elul 1 to Tishrei 10, Yom Kippur
40 years of wandering in the wilderness prior to entry into Eretz Yisrael
40 years King David reigned
40 years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the miracles stopped
(30 CE)
40 years – When man attains binah, understanding
40 days of Embryonic formation
40 weeks of gestation within a womb
There is a
mystical text attributed to the first century sage Nehunya ben HaKanah, named The Bahir, which explains that the Mem is a womb:
“What is the closed Mem? It is made like a
belly from above. . . What is a Mem? Do not read Mem, but Mayim (water)…Just
like the male cannot give birth, so the closed Mem cannot give birth. And just
like the female has an opening with which to give birth, so can the open Mem
give birth. The Mem is therefore open and closed.”
The Bahir, Part One, 84-85, translated by R’ Aryeh Kaplan, pg. 31
The word for womb
in Hebrew is רחם (rechem). As mentioned above, the word for water is mayim, which is spelled מים (mem-yud-mem) and seems to mirror the
atomic structure of water, oxygen-hydrogen-oxygen
(H2O). R’ Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983 CE) comments,
“The numerical value of Mem is forty,
alluding to the forty days in which the embryo is formed in the womb…water
represents the concept of change, and this is also the primary concept of
birth. The teaching here includes the entire mystery of Mikvah, the ritual pool
used for purification. The Mikvah contains 40 seahs of water (about 150 US
gallons), forty being the numerical value of mem. The Mikvah thus represents
the womb, and when he emerges, it is like he is reborn.”
R’ Aryeh Kaplan’s Commentary to The
Bahir, Part Two, 86, pg. 150
The words of R’ Kaplan echo the words of Yeshua to Nicodemus in the Gospel of John,
“Amein, I tell you, unless one is born of
water and spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of G-d. That which is born of
the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel
that I said to you, “You must be born anew…Are you the teacher of Israel, and
do not understand these things? ”
John 3:1-10
Based on Yeshua’s response, one may derive that this is a well-known teaching within Judaism. In fact, the Talmud says,
וגר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי
“…one who has become a proselyte is like a
child newly born.”
Yevamot 22a, Soncino Press Edition
Returning to the
water, R’ Michael L. Munk (1905 - 1985 CE) writes,
“The word מים, water, with its
initial and ending mem, one open
and one closed, depicts the accessible and inaccessible – an allusion to the
waters of Creation. At Creation, HaShem divided the water, placing some above
the firmament and others beneath the firmament (Genesis 1:7.) The nature of the
upper waters is beyond our comprehension – they are “closed” like the final mem
in מים. The lower waters on
earth – oceans, lakes and rivers – are revealed to us like the open מ.”
The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, R’
Michael L. Munk,
Artscroll Mesorah Series, pg. 146
Consider this
stunning fact: According to the United States National Ocean Service, we have explored less than 5% of the ocean. 4 If this is so regarding the
revealed, how much more does it apply to the concealed? R’ Munk writes,
“As described above, the open מ describes the open aspect of the Torah, and the
closed ם denotes the concealed. . .According to the Zohar, for
example, the מ stands allegorically both for משה Moses and for משיח, the Messiah, who represent these two aspects of the Torah. Mem
stands for Moses because he started to reveal the infinite Torah on a level
that man could perceive. Not everything was transmitted by Moses, however. The
concealed will be revealed by the Messiah…This is the allusion of the מם, which stands openly for משה and concealed for משיח (Osios R’ Yitzchok).”
The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, R’
Michael L. Munk, Artscroll Mesorah Series, pg. 146-47
Prince of Peace
There are other places in the Tanakh in which other unusual forms of the mem occur. One place is in an important messianic prophecy in the book of Isaiah,
“For unto us a child is born. To us a son
is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase (לםרבה) of his government and of peace there shall be no
end, on the throne of David, and on his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold
it with justice and with righteousness from that time on, even forever. The
zeal of HaShem of Hosts will perform this.”
Isaiah 9:5-7
The words “of the
increase” translate the word לםרבה,
l’marbeh. Violating normal practice, it contains a
closed mem (ם) within the middle of the word.
Why is it written like this? Shmais.com answers,
“For the increase of the realm and for
peace without end….” Our Sages have taught that the closed letter mem which
normally appears only at the end of a word, but here appears in the middle of
the word l’marbeh, is an
allusion to Mashiach. . .”
Shmais.com, Living with Moshiach #1131 5
The passage describing the birth of a promised child is connected to a closed mem, a closed womb. Surrounding this prophecy are thousands of years of debates between Jews and Christians, skeptics and scholars. Let us examine some of the controversies surrounding this passage. Some attempt to portray this verse as speaking exclusively of Hezekiah, claiming this defuses its explosive Messianic implications. Artscroll summarizes this position,
“Isaiah cannot be referring to a child or
son that will be born at a later time because the prophecy clearly states יֻלַד, has been
born, and נִתַן, has been
given. Both are in the past tense, clearly indicating that whomever the prophet
was referring to had already been born.”
The Prophets: Isaiah, Milstein Edition,
Mesorah Publishing, Ltd., pg. 78
It is important to note that the Artscroll commentary here is referring to the peshat, or plain sense of the text. This prophecy is much deeper than the literal reading. The “past tense argument” is easily ruled out, because Hebrew is made up of perfect (complete) and imperfect (incomplete) tenses. The prophets sometimes speak in what is sometimes called the “prophetic perfect tense,” as he sees the events that are yet to happen, as though they have already happened. For example, the Radak, R’ David Kimchi (1160 – 1235 CE), explains in his commentary on Psalm 3:5,
“And He answered me: a
past (tense) in place of a future, equivalent to “and He will answer me” and
there are many similar cases…And in the greater part of prophecy this is found,
that the speaker uses a past tense in place of a future; for it is as though the thing had already
happened when it has been spoken in the Holy Spirit.”
Radak on Psalm 3:5, Sefaria.org 6
Moreover, it is well known that Hezekiah is a prototype of the Mashiach, being the Messiah of his generation. This point is highlighted in the Talmud,
“R. Hillel said: ‘There shall be no
Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of
Hezekiah.’ R. Joseph said: ‘May G-d forgive him [for saying so]. Now, when did
Hezekiah flourish? During the first Temple. Yet Zechariah, prophesying in the
days of the second, proclaimed, ‘Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O
daughter of Jerusalem, behold, your king comes to you! He is just, and
having salvation, lowly, and riding upon an donkey, and upon a colt the foal of
a donkey.”
Sanhedrin 99a, Soncino Press Edition
A preceding section of the Talmud explains,
“The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to
appoint Hezekiah as the Messiah, and Sennacherib as Gog and Magog; whereupon
the Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘Sovereign of
the Universe! ‘If You did not make David the Messiah, who uttered so many hymns
and psalms before You, will You appoint Hezekiah as such, who did not
sing hymns to You in spite of all these miracles which You wrought
for him?’ Therefore [the mem] was closed. Straightway the earth exclaimed ‘Sovereign
of the Universe! Let me utter song before You instead of this righteous
man [Hezekiah], and make him the Messiah.’ So it broke into song before Him, as
it is written, ‘From the uttermost part of the earth we heard songs, even glory
to the righteous.’ Then the Prince of the Universe said to Him: ‘Sovereign
of the Universe! It [the earth] has fulfilled Your desire [for songs of
praise] on behalf of this righteous man.’ But a heavenly Voice cried out, ‘It
is my secret. It is my secret.’”
Sanhedrin 94a, Soncino Press Edition
The potential for Hezekiah becoming the Messiah was closed, as indicated by the mem sofit. The Ramban, R’ Moshe ben Nachman (1194 - 1270 CE), comments on this Talmud passage,
“This is a strange text. Yet, as I have
delved into it, I have seen that it confirms many things. Thus, you will find
that the Sages of blessed memory always explain that the Scriptural texts that
are said with reference to Chizkiyah apply to the future. With regard to these
[Scriptural texts, the Sages] always employ the expression, “The Holy One,
blessed be He, shall at a future time, [etc.]” They also said, “Rabbi Yosi
HaGalili says that the name of the Messiah will also be Peace, for it is said,
‘avi-ad sar-shalom’, everlasting father, ruler of peace.” . . . the condition
[required] for [achieving the redemption in the days of] Chizkiyah was voided,
and all those rewards and consolations remained for King Messiah, who will
arise from [Chizkiyah’s] descendants.”
Ramban, The Book of Redemption, the
Second Gate, Writings of the Ramban, Shilo Publishing House, pg. 660
This should remove any doubt as to whether or not this prophecy refers to Messiah. The Ramban cited the third-generation Tanna, R’ Yosi the Galilean, who said,
רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר אף שמו של משיח נקרא שלום שנאמר אבי עד שר שלום
“Yose the Galilean said: “The name of the
Messiah is Peace, for it is said, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince Peace (Isa.
9:5) . . .” R. Yose the Galilean said: “Great is peace, for in that hour in
which King Messiah is revealed to Israel, he begins with peace, for it is said,
‘How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings
who announces peace (Isa. 52:7).”
Perek Shalom, p. 101, cited
in The Messiah Texts, by Raphael Patai, p. 21 7
There is a well-known principle that history repeats itself. In other words, Jewish history is Jewish prophecy. As Kohelet, Ecclesiastes says,
“That which has been is that
which shall be, and that which has been done is that which shall be done, and
there is no new thing under the sun.”
Ecclesiastes 1:9
Therefore, what applies to Hezekiah applies to the Messiah. This principle also applies to David HaMelech, Shlomo HaMelech and other Messianic figures. The Aggadic midrash Pesikta Rabbati (c. 845 CE) comments,
“. . . it is also written of a scion of
Judah (trans. note: Hezekiah, who was of the Tribe of Judah, and the Messiah,
who will spring from the same Tribe) And his name is called “Wonderful in
counsel is G-d the Mighty (El Gibbor) (Isa. 9:5)”
Pesikta Rabbati, Piska 46.3, translated
by William Braude, vol. II, Yale University Press edition, pg. 793
R’ William G. Braude (1907 - 1988 CE) highlighted the connection between Messiah and Hezekiah in the footnotes to this translation. The Midrash Rabbah explicitly identifies Isaiah 9 as speaking of Masdhiach,
עַד עַכְשָׁו יֵשׁ לִי לְהַעֲמִיד מֶלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ, שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ (ישעיה ט, ה): כִּי יֶלֶד יֻלַד לָנוּ.
“I have yet to raise up the Messiah, of
whom it is written, ‘For a child is born to us’ (Isaiah 9:5).”
Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:20, Soncino Press
Edition
At this point, there can be no doubt that Isaiah 9 refers to the Messiah. The Targum translates Isaiah 9 as follows,
אֲמַר נְבִיָא לְבֵית דָוִד אֲרֵי רָבֵי אִיתְיְלִיד לָנָא בַּר אִתְיְהַב לָנָא וְקַבֵל אוֹרַיְתָא עֲלוֹהִי לְמַטְרָהּ וְאִתְקְרֵי שְׁמֵיהּ מִן קֳדָם מַפְלִיא עֵצָה אֱלָהָא גִבָּרָא קַיָם לְעַלְמַיָא מְשִׁיחָא דִשְׁלָמָא יַסְגֵי עֲלָנָא בְּיוֹמוֹהִי:
“The prophet said to the house of David, ‘For unto us
a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself
to keep it. His name is called from eternity wonderful, the mighty G-d who
lives to eternity, the Messiah whose peace shall be
great upon us in his days.”
Targum Yonatan to Isaiah 9, Sefaria.org
While it explicitly identifies the subject of this passage as the Messiah, this gives rise to another controversy: To whom do the names Pele Yoetz, Kel Gibbor, Avi Ad, Sar Shalom belong? Rashi, R’ Shlomo Yitzhaki (1040 - 1105 CE) follows the Targum’s angle of projecting the names onto HaShem rather than the newborn child. Like the other debates, this is also unnecessary, as they belong both to HaShem and to Messiah, as the Messiah is the Shaliach (Sent One) of HaShem. In the event someone wishes to make an issue of this, the Talmud portrays the names as belonging to the child,
שיש לו שמונה שמות חזקיה דכתיב (ישעיהו ט, ה) כי ילד יולד לנו בן ניתן לנו ותהי המשרה על שכמו ויקרא שמו פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי עד שר שלום
“The eight names
of Hezekiah are as it is written: “For to us a child is born, to
us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is
called Pele, Joez, Kel Gibbor, Abi Ad, Sar Shalom” (Isaiah 9:5).”
Sanhedrin 94a, The William Davidson
Talmud, Sefaria.org 8
The Rambam, R’ Moshe ben Maimon (1135 - 1204 CE), follows the Talmud, as he wrote in his Iggeret Teiman, Letter to Yemen,
“Six appellations were divinely conferred
upon him as the following passage indicates: “For a child is born unto us, and
a son is given unto us, and the government is upon his shoulder, and he is
called Pele, Yoetz, Kel, Gibbor, Abiad, Sar-Shalom.” (Isaiah 9:5).”
Maimonides, Letter to Yemen,
page 16, translated by Boaz Cohen 9
Based on the comments of the great rabbis, there is no doubt that Isaiah 9 referred to Hezekiah and ultimately to the Messiah. Thus, the claim by the anti-missionaries that this is not a Messianic prophecy is baffling, considering it is well established within Jewish tradition. Are they ignorant of these sources, or do they presume their audiences are unaware of them?
It is beyond the scope of this article to explore every deep connection and facet within this passage. 10 11 12 Therefore, let us examine claims of pagan parallels and explore the miraculous births in the Tanakh.
Chapter Two:
The Closed Womb
Pagan Parallels?
Many individuals have wrongly asserted that the Roman Catholic Church manufactured the virgin birth accounts to parallel pagan birth stories in order to make the account more appealing to Gentiles. This idea has been refuted by scholars numerous times. Contrary to popular belief, there are no virgin births in paganism. In the pagan stories, the births of the heroes and “gods” were the result of sexual intercourse, after which one is no longer a virgin. The critical scholar Raymond Brown explains,
“Are any of these divinely engendered
births really parallel to the non-sexual union virginal conception of Jesus
described in the NT, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element,
but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit? These
“parallels” consistently involve a type of hieros gamos where a divine male, in human or other form,
impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual intercourse or through some
substitute form of penetration. In short, there is no clear example of virginal conception in world or
pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians
the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus.”
Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the
Messiah, pg. 523
One apologist beautifully articulates the issue,
“Some have attempted to account for the virgin birth by tracing it to Greek or Babylonian mythology. They argue that the Gospel writers borrowed this story from the mythology of their day. This view does not fit the facts, for there is not any hero in pagan mythology for which a virgin birth is claimed, and moreover it would be unthinkable to the Jewish mind to construct such a story from mythology. Many deities among Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians were reported born in an unusual manner, but for the most part these beings never actually existed. The accounts are filled with obvious mythological elements which are totally absent from the Gospel narratives. They are reports of a god or goddess being born into the world by sexual relations between some heavenly being or by some adulterous affair among the gods and goddess.”13
Let us briefly examine the claims of the most popular parallels that are uncritically cited by skeptics as material evidence against the virginal conception. To do so, we must be aware of the tendency of modern scholars to use Christian terminology to describe ancient pagan practices and myths. They do this in order to form a conceptual link for the Western reader, but oftentimes end up misleading the audience into believing that parallels exist when they do not. Therefore, we must go straight to the source texts describing the birth myths of so-called ‘gods’ and heroes of old. To summarize the claim, we will cite R’ Tovia Singer:
“The claim that some great person was born to a woman
who didn’t sleep with a man was ubiquitous throughout the Greco-Roman world. .
. at the lowest level of ‘gods’, where you have someone who is both man and
god, invariably, they are born to virgins. Or in the case of Hercules, his
mother just slept with Zeus. . . Alexander the Great, he was believed to be
born of a virgin, Romulus, the mythical founder of Rome, born to a virgin,
Pythagoras, the great thinker, mathematician, the genius...Octavius, Caesar
Augustus born to a virgin.”
R’ Tovia Singer, The Church Claim that
Jesus was born to a virgin is revolting to Judaism, May 24, 2020, Youtube.com
Unfortunately, many of these myths are graphic, so we will recount them as appropriately as possible.
Alexander the Great
Conflicting stories are told
about the conception of Alexander the Great in Parallel Lives by Plutarch (45 CE - 119 CE). He writes that the
night before Philip was to consummate his marriage with Olympias, the mother of
Alexander, she had a dream that a thunderbolt struck her womb and that fire
broke out and then was extinguished. Later, he found her sleeping beside a
snake (perhaps a form of Zeus), and he thought “she was the partner of a
superior being.” He reports that others say that “she repudiated the idea, and
said, “Alexander must cease slandering me to Hera (the wife of Zeus).”
Conclusion: The contradictory
account does not refer to a virgin birth but a romantic relationship between
the mother of Alexander and Zeus, which according to some accounts, she denied.
Attis
According to Description
of Greece 7.17.11, by the Pausanias, (c. 110 CE - 180 CE), Attis was the
Phrygian ‘god’ of vegetation. His origin story began when the Olympian ‘gods’
castrated Agdistis, an androgynous demon. The male member was cast away, and
grew to be an almond tree. When Nana, the daughter of a river god put some
almonds into her bosom, they disappeared, and she began pregnant. She abandoned
the child, who was then raised by a goat.
Conclusion: The story involves the male member of a demon in the conception of the child.
Buddha/Siddhartha Gautama
The time that Siddartha Gautama lived is uncertain, ranging from 900 to 400 BCE. Most scholars place the date crica 563 to 483 BCE. No written records about Gautama were found from his lifetime. The first mention is in the middle of the 3rd century BCE to his biographies in the 1st to 6th centuries CE. According to these later biographies such as the Mahavāstu (2nd - 4th century CE) and the Lalitavistara, his mother Maya, the wife of Suddhodana had a dream that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side. Ten months later, Siddartha was born.
Conclusion: The late text of the Mahavāstu describes the descent of the Buddha into the womb of Maya, the chief queen of Suddhodana, in the shape of a white elephant. However, there is no hint of a virginal conception, as he says “This king Suddhodana is worthy to be my father.” The texts are too late to be of influence to the New Testament account.
Dionysus/Bacchus/Liber
The so-called ‘god’ of wine and vegetation has different accounts and traditions regarding his birth. The birth narrative given by Gaius Julius Hyginus (c. 64 BCE - 17 CE) in Fabulae 167 says that Dionysus was the son of Jove (Zeus) and Proserpine (Persephone). After Liber was torn apart, Jove put the fragments of his heart in a drink and gave it to Semele, one of Zeus’ many paramours, who became pregnant. In another version, Zeus swallows the heart himself, and then begets Liber a second time with Semele. The Greek poet Nonnus gives a birth narrative in the epic Dionysiaca (4th-5th century CE), describing how Zeus took the shape of a serpent and violated Persophoneia.
Conclusion: The closest any of these variants come to a ‘virgin birth’ is where Semele drinks pieces of the heart of Liber, after which she is impregnated, but the myths are contradictory. However, according to mythology, Semele was a consort of Zeus.
Heracles/Hercules
Often cited as being “born of a virgin”, Hercules was born of a romantic relationship between Zeus and Alcmene, who was the wife of Ampitryon, according to Homer’s Iliad.
Conclusion: The child is a result of an adulterous affair, and not born of a virgin.
Horus/Apollo
According to Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris, the Egyptian ‘god’ Horus, called Apollo by the Greeks, was born to the ‘goddess’ Isis after she re-assembled her murdered husband Osiris, except the male member. She used her magic to make another one, and conceived Horus.
Conclusion: This grotesque mythical account does not refer to a virgin birth.
Krishna
In the Krishna Charitas, he is born to Devaki
and her husband, Vasudeva of the Yadava clan in Mathura.
Conclusion: Vasudeva and Devaki are married. There is no hint of a virginal conception.
Pythagoras
Herodotus and Isocrates agree that the mystical mathematician Pythagoras was the son of Mnesarchus. Iamblicus writes in the Life of Pythagoras, also states that his father was Mnesarchus, but a legend began due to a certain Samian poet wrote that Apollo bore Pythagoras, nothing that Mnesarchus had gone to Delphi on a business trip, “leaving his wife without any signs of pregnancy.” An oracle informed him of the child, who would be of the greatest benefit to humanity. His father took care that his son should enjoy the best possible education, and he became so venerable that many thought he was a child of divinity.
Conclusion: The account in Iamblichus does not appear to be literal, but a poetic device describing Pythagoras' remarkable character. Even if some of the ancients took it literally at the time, there is still no hint of a virginal conception.
Mithras
The Roman mystery religion centered on Mithras, loosely based on the Zoroastrian ‘god’ Mithra. It was popular around the 1st to the 4th century CE. No written narratives or theology from the religion survive, only passing references in inscriptions and references in Greek and Latin literature. He is depicted as being born from a rock while wearing a Phrygian cap.
Conclusion: All we know from ancient sculptures is that Mithras was born or emerged from a rock. Any other supposed parallels also break down upon examination.
Perseus
Perseus as the son of Zeus and Danaë. The myth states that Zeus desired her, and came to her in the form of golden rain and entered into her womb.
Conclusion: According to the context of the mythology, Zeus would transform into snakes, lightning bolts, bulls, and even swans in order to consummate his desires. Here he takes the form of golden rain.
Romulus and
Remus
Romulus is the legendary founder of Rome, and is etymologically connected to the Hebrew word Armilus, who is the Antichrist. According to Livy’s History of Rome, Book 1.3-4, their mother, Rhea Silvia was the daughter of king Numitor, who was displaced by his brother Amulius. Amulius forced Rhea to become a Vestal virgin, sworn to celibacy at the punishment of death, to ensure that Numitor would have no heirs to the throne. She was violated by the ‘god’ Mars, and gave birth to the twins, Romulus and Remus.
Conclusion: Contrary to the claims of R’ Tovia Singer, the accounts do not support that Romulus was born of a virgin.
Zoroaster/Zarathustra
There is no scholarly consensus on when he lived, most placing him in the 7th - 6th century BCE. There are different versions of Zoroaster’s birth. One legend states that his father Pourushaspa took a piece of the Haoma plant, mixed it with milk and gave it to his wife Dugdhova. They then conceived Zoroaster.
Conclusion: The conception of Zoroaster involved marital relations.
When reading these myths, one is not struck by similarities to the Gospel but by their radical differences. As Dr. Thomas Thorburn notes,
“All these various stories of supernatural conceptions and births, which we meet with in folklore and the history of mythology, have this one point in common – they serve to point not so much to the similarity as to the complete contrast and dissimilarity which exists between the Christian birth-story and the tales which are current in various pagan circles.”14
The agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman writes,
“…the claim that Jesus was simply
made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the
“pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do
not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an
atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the
sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).”
Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist, Huffington
Post15
Unfortunately many
people accept the pagan parallel argument at face value, without checking the
actual sources. J.P Holding writes,
“In spite of having been pronounced dead even by
intelligent skeptics, the thesis that Judaism and Christianity consist merely
of stolen pagan myths and ideas continues to be promulgated by the uncritical
and accepted by the gullible.”16
So if the virginal conception narrative in the Gospels does not originate in paganism, where does it come from? To understand this, we must look to the Torah and Jewish tradition.
Torah Parallels
From the conception of Isaac to the birth of the modern state of Israel, miraculous beginnings seem to be a unifying thread of Jewish history. In truth, the Gospel birth narratives are based upon the Torah’s own miraculous birth stories, not only in content but even in structure. When read through the expanded lens of the Aggadah, the connections become even more apparent. The miracle births of Jewish history form the threads that Matthew and Luke weave into a beautiful tapestry describing the birth of the Messiah. The births in the Tanakh follow a very specific pattern, one that is echoed by the Gospels:
Barrenness > Annunciation of the Promised Son > Conception > Birth > Deliverance
It is beyond the scope of this article to cover every parallel and nuance, but let’s briefly survey the traditions surrounding these individuals.
Adam
It is obvious that Adam HaRishon’s entry into the world was unlike any other. In his commentary on the New Testament, R’ Yechiel Tzvi Lichtenstein points out the connection between Messiah and Adam. This is not a proof of the virgin birth, but does point to the connections between Adam and Mashiach. The connections between the two will be explored in a future article, b’ezrat HaShem.
Noah
The Torah implies that something remarkable happened at the birth of Noach,
“Lamech lived one hundred eighty-two years,
and became the father of a son, and he named him Noach, saying, “This one will
comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, because of the ground
which HaShem has cursed.”
Genesis 5:28-29
What inspired Lamech to make this statement about his newborn son? The book of Enoch provides the background,
“Methuselah took a wife for his son
Lamech, and she bore him a male child. The body of the baby was white as snow
and red as a blooming rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were
white as wool, and his eyes like the rays of the sun. When he opened his eyes,
he lit up the whole house, like the sun, and the whole house was very full of light. And when he was
taken from the hand of the midwife, he opened his mouth and praised the L-rd of
righteousness. His father Lamech was afraid of him, and fled, and came to his
own father Methuselah. And he said to him: “I have begotten a strange son; he
is not like a human being, but resembles the children of the angels of heaven,
and his nature is different, and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the
rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. And it seems to me that he is
not sprung from me, but from the angels…”
Enoch, Chapter 4
While the birth of Noach is not accompanied by barrenness, his birth is associated with the miraculous, echoing the birth of Moses. An important parallel to note is that Lamech even doubted the paternity of his son, similar to Joseph in the Gospels (and Jesse in the Midrash). He implores his father to go to Enoch, who dwells among the angels, to learn the truth of Noach’s paternity. Enoch replies to Methuselah the following,
“And now make known to your son Lamech that he
who was born is in truth his son, and call his name Noach, for he will be left
to you, and he and his children will be saved from the destruction which will
come upon the earth.” . . . By the name Noah he was called only by his
grandfather Methuselah; his father and all others called him Menachem. His generation was addicted
to sorcery, and Methuselah apprehended that his grandson might be bewitched if
his true name were known, therefore he kept it a secret. Menachem, Comforter,
suited him as well as Noah; it indicated that he would be a comforter, if
only the evil-doers of his time would repent of their misdeeds.”
Enoch, Chapter 4
According to the Talmud, one of the names of the Messiah is Menachem, which is equivalent to the word Tzemach, Branch. And the concealment of Noach’s name parallels that of Yosef, Moshe and Yeshua. The book of Enoch continues to echo the Messianic implications of Noach’s birth,
“When G-d created Adam, He gave him
dominion over all things: the cow obeyed the ploughman, and the furrow was
willing to be drawn. But after the fall of Adam all things rebelled against
him: the cow refused obedience to the ploughman, and also the furrow was
refractory. Noah was born, and all returned to its state preceding the fall of
man.”
Enoch, Chapter 4
Accordingly, Noach is a prototype of Mashiach, as he is the Tzaddik HaDor, the righteous one of his generation. R’ Hayyim Vital (1542-1620 CE), the disciple of the Ari, R’ Yitzhak Luria (1534-1572 CE), writes,
“…This Noach is the Messiah. . . the two
musical accents on the word “zeh [this one]” (Gen 5:29) are a clue to the first
and last redemption; “from our work” – from the generation of the Flood, “and
from the toil of our hands” – from this long exile. Furthermore, why is his
name doubled, Noach Noach? This is hinted at in the haftorah “Shout for joy”
(Zech 2:14-4:7), which concludes “chen, chen.” This is the secret of Noah. Had
his name been chen, we would not be sitting in exile.”
Sefer Chizyonot, R’ Hayyim Vital, Jewish
Mystical Autobiographies, pg. 256
Melchizedek
In the Torah,
Melchizedek is a mysterious figure. In the world of the Midrash, he is Shem,
the son of Noah. In the Dead Sea Scrolls (11Q13), Melchizedek is seen as a
eschatological Messianic figure. According to the work 2nd Enoch, in
a section called The Exaltation of
Melchizedek (Chapters 69-73), Melchizedek is born of a barren woman named Sopanim.
According to the text, she conceived him miraculously without having sexual
relations with her husband, Nir. This text is of limited value due to scholarly
controversy questioning its originality.
Isaac
Perhaps the most famous example of a miraculous birth is that of Isaac,
“Sarai was barren. She had no child.”
Genesis 11:30
Isaac’s conception was so miraculous that not even his mother believed it until it happened! Like Noach, a series of miracles took place at his birth, as the Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes,
“At that hour the sick were restored to
health, the blind recovered their sight, and the deaf their hearing; the
brightness of the sun and of the moon was intensified (Tan., Gen. 37); a spirit
of justice began to prevail in the world . . . .”
JewishEncyclopedia.com, Isaac, cf. Rashi
on Genesis 25:19 17
The Shelah, R’ Isaiah Horowitz (1555-1630 CE), comments on the akeidah, binding of Isaac, linking him to Adam HaRishon,
“Isaac was the spiritual equivalent of
Adam before his sin, since he was the first person who was both conceived and
born by parents who had sanctified themselves. The removal of Abraham’s
foreskin repaired the damage Adam had done by sinning and acquiring a קליפה, husk…This may well account for the fact that he was not
allowed to leave the holy soil of eretz
Yisrael (Genesis 27:2)…When Abraham was about to slaughter Isaac, the
latter’s soul flew away to be replaced later by a holy spirit from the
Celestial Regions. It follows then that Isaac’s life after the akeidah, was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of
semen. We must view Isaac as someone re-born in consequence of that
experience: a totally new creature. G’d had applied the strictest yardstick to
him by letting him die, and subsequently infusing him with a new soul. He had
also sanctified his body; from that time on Isaac’s body resembled that of Adam
HaRishon, also not the product of a drop of semen. Now we understand why
the ram which Abraham sacrificed in lieu of Isaac was not the product of
natural procreation, i.e. through semen, but was created during the period of
dusk on the six day of Creation as reported in Avot 5:6.”
Shney Luchot HaBrit, Vayera, Volume 1,
translated by Eliyahu Munk, pg. 111
The Shelah’s commentary here is unusual. Why does he mention that this ‘new Isaac’ did not originate from a drop of semen? He is speaking of spiritual nature, but the question is what is the significance of this ‘drop?’ We will explain below in chapter 6. The text Kol HaTor, Voice of the Turtledove, written by R’ Hillel Shklover, a disciple of the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797 CE), comments,
“Our
forefather Isaac was in the line of the Mashiach ben Yosef from the time he was
bound as a sacrifice.”
Kol HaTor 1.23, translated by R’ Yechiel Bar Lev
and K. Skaist
The parallels between Isaac and Yeshua of Nazareth are numerous. Regarding the wife of Isaac, Rebekah, R’ Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev (1740-1809 CE) comments,
“There is no question that Abraham’s major
attribute was chesed…[and he]
personified on earth what the Creator personifies in the entire universe, i.e.
the dispensing largesse. The expression yuldah
is not appropriate for males, as they only holid, beget, plant seed, but do not bring it to gestation. The proper meaning of the word yuldah as it appears here suggests
an immaculate birth, a birth that had not been preceded by insemination. Seeing
that this is a difficult process for us to grasp, the idea that Abraham’s good
deeds spilled over even to people such as Betuel, is meant to set our mind at
rest over the fact that Rebekah, with a father such as Betuel, and a brother
such as Laban, could have been such a righteous matriarch as she clearly was.”
Kedushat Levi 24:14, translated by R’ Eliyahu
Munk 18
Jacob
“Isaac entreated HaShem for his wife,
because she was barren. HaShem was entreated by him, and Rebekah his wife
conceived.”
Genesis 25:21
The Midrash Rabbah comments,
“R’ Judan said in the
name of Resh Lakish: She lacked an ovary, whereupon the L-rd fashioned an ovary
for her.”
Genesis Rabbah 63:5
Jacob’s parallels to the Messiah are numerous, and beyond the scope of this article.
Joseph
“HaShem saw that Leah was hated, and he
opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.”
Genesis 29:31
Rachel gave birth to Yosef, through whom all Israel and the world were saved, and is the blueprint for the Mashiach ben Yosef. The Shelah comments,
“Joseph, in his capacity as the sacred
seed of his father, who in turn represented the spiritual beauty of Adam prior
to his sin, was truly created בצלם אלוקים, in the image of G'd,
because he was not the result of a smelly drop of semen.”
Shney Luchot HaBrit,
Vayeshev-Mikketz-Vayigash, Torah Ohr 140, R’ Yeshayahu Horowitz, Sefaria.com
As mentioned above, we will cover the spiritual significance of the term “smelly drop” below in Chapter 6, but it is important to note this point for now.
Moses
Like Sarah whose womb became young again, the Targum speaks of Yocheved’s womb being renewed, as she gave birth to Moshe at the age of 130 years! Targum Yonatan says,
“And Amram, a man of the tribe of Levi,
went and returned to live in marriage with Yocheved, his wife, whom he
had put away on account of the decree of Pharaoh. And she was the daughter of a
hundred and thirty years when he returned to her; but a miracle was wrought in
her, and she returned unto youth as she was, when in her minority she was
called the daughter of Levi.”
Targum Yonatan to Exodus 2,
Sefaria.org 19
The parallels of Amram’s divorcing Yocheved are directly analogous to that of Yosef and Miriam. R’ Ari Kahn while commenting on the birth of Moshe, points out the similarities of the traditions of Chazal, (an acronym for ‘Our Sages of blessed memory) and the New Testament,
“When one reads the New Testament, a
couple of things are obvious. One, is that Christians don’t understand it.
That’s completely obvious. The second point is the reason they don’t understand
it, the points of reference in the New Testament are Chazal’s…when the New
Testament was written, they are going to copy all kinds of things that Chazal
have to say about what’s going on. And especially over here, when you have the
birth of the Savior, which Moshe is, when they are going to speak of the birth
of the Savior, they are going to try to imitate it, they are going to try to
copy it, and every now and then, they are going to try to make it a little bit
better…”
R’ Ari Kahn, Why was Moshe Chosen,
Parsha Shiurim, Podcast, Nov 30, 2012
While it is obvious that R’ Kahn is not pro-New Testament, he understands that the New Testament’s points of reference are that of חז”ל (Chazal), an acronym for chachameinu zichonram livraka (our Sages of blessed memory). It is interesting to note that those who have not studied the New Testament deeply believe that the Gospels copied pagan myths, whereas the erudite Torah scholar, R’ Ari Kahn (himself a student of R’ Yosef B. Soloveitchik), believes the Gospels copied the traditions of the Sages.
Samson
“The angel of HaShem appeared to the
woman, and said to her, “See now, you are barren, and don’t bear; but you shall
conceive, and bear a son.”
Judges 13:3
Interestingly, Rashi (as we shall see below) cites the birth of Samson in his explanation of Isaiah 7:14, which we will explore below. It may also be of interest that the angel who proclaimed the birth of Samson was named “Wonderful” (פאלי, paliy) and the name of the son of Isaiah 9 was named “Wonderful” (פלא, pele) which is an anagram of אלף (aleph). Samson was the Mashiach of his generation, as we will explore in a future article, b’ezrat HaShem (with HaShem’s help).
Obed
The book of Ruth has an unusual phrasing of Ruth’s pregnancy by Boaz, the ancestor of David and Messiah,
“So Boaz took Ruth, and she
became his wife; and he went in to her, and HaShem gave her conception, and she
bore a son.”
Ruth 4:13
It is important to note that Ruth was married to a son of Naomi, yet remained childless. The unusual phrasing, “HaShem gave her conception” seems to imply that HaShem opened the womb of Ruth. The Midrash says,
“R. Simeon b. Lakish
said: She lacked the main portion of the
womb, but the Holy One, blessed be He, shaped a womb for her.”
Ruth Rabbah 7:14, Soncino Press Edition
Samuel
“It happened, when the time had come, that
Hannah conceived, and bore a son; and she named him Samuel, saying, “Because I
have asked him of HaShem.”
1 Samuel 1:20
David
While David’s mother was not barren, it is said that he was destined to die at birth. When HaShem showed Adam all of the generations, the latter gifted David 70 of these years. Like Miriam of Nazareth and Sarah, Nitzevet, the mother of David, was maligned as an adulteress and David was thought to be illegitimate. The circumstances surrounding the birth of King David are explored in our article Mashiach ben David.
Son of the Shunamite
“Most certainly she has no son, and her
husband is old.”
2 Kings 4:14
This recurring pattern of miraculous births seem to be integral to the plan of Redemption. Let us explore the raison d’etre, the reason for the existence of these miracle birth patterns.
Chapter Three:
Out of Darkness
The paternity of Yeshua of Nazareth has been questioned for millennia. Insults and accusations have been hurled at him based on the circumstances of his birth. Incredibly, the same pattern occurred after the birth of Isaac, whose birth we have seen was also miraculous,
“Since Scripture wrote: “Isaac the son of
Abraham,” it had to say: “Abraham begat Isaac,” because the scorners of the
generation were saying that Sarah had conceived from Abimelech, for she had
lived with Abraham for many years and had not conceived from him. What did the
Holy One, blessed be He, do? He shaped the features of Isaac’s face to resemble
Abraham’s, and everyone attested that Abraham had begotten Isaac. This is the
meaning of what is written here: “Isaac, the son of Abraham,” because here is
proof that “Abraham begat Isaac.” – [From
Midrash Tanchuma, Toledoth 1]”
Rashi on Genesis 25:19, Chabad.org 16
The accusations of being a mamzer, an illegitimate son, were also spoken against King David. Why does this happen?
“It is clear in the Sifrei Kabbalah, Often
when HaShem wants to bring something unbelievable to the world, a great
mattanah, a great gift . . .He garbs it in ugly and unseemly garb, so to speak,
so that the prosecuting forces, which HaKodesh barchu Himself created, can’t
stand up and try to prevent it from coming to the world. . . so HaKodesh barchu
tries to get it under the rug . . . so that the prosecuting forces do not
realize it. . . that’s Melech HaMashiach. When HaKodesh barchu wants to bring
Melech HaMoshiach to the world, He can’t do it in a way where everyone
realizes.”
R’ Shalom Rosner, The Murky Roots of
Melech HaMoshiach, OU.org 17
Thus, bringing such an agent of Redemption into the world may be likened to smuggling Bibles into China, or a secret agent rappelling into a terrorist base. The spiritual authorities of the Olam Hazeh, (this world system and order) oppose these efforts. Thus, the birth of the Mashiach into the world, like Isaac, like David, would have the appearance of questionable circumstances.
Chapter Four:
Isaiah 7 &
The Virgin Birth
Historical Context
The doctrine known as the “virgin birth” has proved to be one of the most controversial ideas in the history of religion itself. Oftentimes, this concept is confused by inaccurate terms like parthenogenesis or immaculate conception, which refers to a Catholic doctrine about Mary. For purposes of precision, we will use the term “virginal conception.” We must preface this discussion with a caveat: We cannot “prove” the virginal conception. The nature of a miracle defies its being repeated in a laboratory setting, and isolating variables according to the scientific method. What we are aiming to do is to show that the virginal conception, as described in the Gospels, is completely within the parameters of Jewish interpretation, and provide potential solutions for the questions and difficulties raised by it.
There are many points regarding Isaiah 7 that should be examined in this discussion. It is beyond the scope of this article to address each angle, so we will briefly survey the prophecy,
“HaShem spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask
a sign of HaShem your G-d; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt HaShem. He said, Listen
now, house of David. Is it not enough for you to try the patience of men, that
you will try the patience of my G-d also? Therefore HaShem himself will
give you a sign. Behold, THE
ALMAH will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
He shall eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the
good. For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the
land whose two kings you fear shall be forsaken…”
Isaiah 7:10-16
The historical context of this prophecy occurs approximately 700 years before the birth of Yeshua, during the reign of the wicked king Ahaz of Judah. King Rezin of Aram and king Pekah of the northern kingdom of the Ten Tribes conspired to attack Judah, casting fear into the heart of Ahaz. Therefore, a child to be born several centuries later could hardly be a comfort to him. This fact has caused many to object to this as a valid messianic prophecy to the point of claiming that Matthew “painted Jesus into the Tanakh.” The Artscroll commentary to Isaiah says,
“Their intent was to eradicate the royal
line of David (R’ M. Eisemann, Artscroll, II Chronicles, Section II to Ch. 27)
and appoint the son of Tabeel, who was either an Ephraimite or Aramean official
as the new king of Judah (Ibn Ezra)”
The Prophets: Isaiah, Milstein Edition,
Mesorah Publishing, Ltd., pg 59
It is important to
note that this was an attack not only only against Ahaz, not only against
Judah, but a direct assault on the House of David, to “eradicate the royal line
of David.” Many commentators note that the prophecy of Isaiah 7 is addressed to
the “House of David” and not to Ahaz specifically. Rashi explains that Ahaz had
no merit to be mentioned by name in the prophecy, even though it was addressed
to him. While this is true, the former point is also relevant, it is addressed
to Ahaz and the entire House of David. R’ Chaim Dov Rabinowitz writes,
“Other members of the royal family were
present at the time, and Isaiah addresses all of them, since none of them had
protested Ahaz’s blasphemy. Also, not addressing Ahaz directly was a way of
scorning him.”
Daat Sofrim, R’ Chaim Dov Rabinowitz,
Translated by R’ Y. Starret, H. Vagshal Publishing, Ltd., pg. 71
The prophecy goes on to mention something incredibly unsettling – something that should strike fear into the heart of Judah. While the two kings, Rezin and Pekah, were no threat to Jerusalem nor the House of David, there was an impending danger coming,
“HaShem will bring upon you and upon your
people and upon your father’s family days such as have not come since the day
Ephraim turned away from Judah: the king of Assyria’s invasion.”
Isaiah 7:17, The Prophets: Isaiah, Milstein Edition,
Mesorah Publishing, Ltd., pg. 63
Who was this Assyrian King? The Artscroll commentary to Isaiah answers,
“Most commentators hold that this powerful
Assyrian king is Sennacherib, who rose up against Jerusalem during the days of
Ahaz’s righteous son, Hezekiah (Rashi).”
The Prophets: Isaiah, Milstein Edition,
Mesorah Publishing, Ltd., pg. 63
As mentioned in the Talmud above, HaShem wanted to make Sennacherib into Gog and Magog (see Ezekiel 38, Revelation 20:8), and Hezekiah into the Messiah. Here we have the prophecy of the coming invasion of Judah by Sennacherib, who was the Gog u’Magog of his generation.
We saw above where Isaiah 9 was disputed to be a future Messianic prophecy because of its historical connections to Hezekiah, and how that interpretation failed to convey the entire picture. The historical objection to Isaiah 9 being messianic is directly analogous to the historical objection of Isaiah 7 being messianic. Isaiah 7 has important implications for future generations. For example, the very next chapter says,
“He will be a sanctuary, but for both
houses of Israel, he will be a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. Many will stumble over it, fall, be broken, be snared, and be
captured.”
Isaiah 8:14-15
Using the historical angle, we know this chapter is rooted in history. However, the Talmud itself applies this to the Messiah, using the exact methodology and interpretive principles that Matthew used to apply Isaiah 7 to the Messiah,
“The son of David cannot appear ere the
two ruling houses in Israel shall have come to an end, viz., the Exilarchate,
in Babylon and the Patriarchate in Palestine, for it is written, ‘And he shall
be for a Sanctuary, for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both
houses of Israel. (Isaiah 8:14-15).”
Sanhedrin 38a, Soncino Press Edition
The language of chapters 7 through 12 in Isaiah seem to form cohesive unit that begins with an attack on the Davidic dynasty (Chapter 7-8), fruitions into the birth of the Messiah (Isaiah 9), his anointing by the Spirit (Isaiah 11) and culminates in the Messianic Era (Isaiah 12). Isaiah 11 says,
“A shoot will come out of the stock of
Jesse, and a branch out of his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of HaShem
will rest on him: the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel
and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of HaShem. His delight will
be in the fear of HaShem. He will not judge by the sight of his eyes, neither
decide by the hearing of his ears.”
Isaiah 11:1-3
Matthew didn’t cite Isaiah 7 as a forward looking proof-text for the virginal conception. He learned of the virginal conception and searched the Scriptures for the source of this idea. He looked at the prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Isaiah 9, and looked for connections adjacent to the passage, leading him to the mysterious birth of Immanuel. It is no leap to consider the birth prophesied in chapter 7 to have reached its fulfillment in chapter 9. He is Immanuel of Chapter 7, the Stumbling Stone of Chapter 8, the Prince of Peace of Chapter 9, the one upon whom the Spirit rests in Chapter 11, and the one who will destroy evil in the final war of Gog u’Magog as Isaiah says,
“He will strike the earth with the rod of
his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he will kill the wicked.”
Isaiah 11:4
The Targum interprets this passage as follows,
“…with the speech of His lips he shall
slay Armilus the wicked.”
Targum Yonatan on Isaiah 11, Sefaria.org
Cf. Revelation 19:15 18
Armilus is the name for what Christians call the “Antichrist”. After this, Isaiah 12 says,
“Behold, G-d is my salvation. I will
trust, and will not be afraid; for Kah, HaShem, is my strength and song; and he
has become my salvation (yeshu’ah).Therefore with joy you will draw water out of the wells of
salvation (yeshu’ah).”
Isaiah 12:2-3
Everywhere in Isaiah Matthew looked, he saw Yeshua. He saw the Messiah. Moreover, Isaiah specifically says about the children,
“I shall await HaShem, Who has concealed
His face from the House of Jacob, and I will hope to Him. Behold, I and the children whom HaShem has
given me are signs and symbols for Israel, from HaShem, Master of Legions,
Who dwells in Mount Zion.”
Isaiah 7:18, The Prophets: Isaiah,
Milstein Edition, Mesorah Publishing, Ltd., pg 73
These children are SIGNS and SYMBOLS. Not only for now, but for the future. All prophecy has a historical foundation and immediate context whose implications extend to the Messianic Era. Therefore, one may then ask the following question: If Isaiah 8, 9 and 11 are interpreted in a Messianic fashion, and each are tied to historic events, what would prevent Isaiah 7 from being interpreted in the same manner? The answer is absolutely nothing.
Almah or Betulah?
Much of the debate focuses on the word almah, which is translated in Christian bibles as “virgin” and in Jewish bibles as “young woman.” The word means simply “young female” with no indication of her virginal or non-virginal status. If one wished to convey the word “virgin” in Hebrew, they would use the word “betulah.” For many, that is the end of the discussion. However, it is not foreign to Judaism to interpret the word almah as describing someone who is a virgin. Song of Songs uses the word עֲלָמ֥וֹת (alamot, plural of almah) in the following verse,
“Your oils have a pleasing fragrance. Your
name is oil poured forth, therefore the maidens (alamot) love you.”
Song of Songs 1:3
Rashi interprets this as follows,
“maidens: virgins,
since the text compares Him to a youth whose beloved holds him dear, and
according to the allegory, the maidens are the nations.”
Rashi on Song of Songs, Chabad.org 19
This commentary of Rashi doesn’t mean that the word almah means virgin, but that the word can be applied to someone who is a virgin. The laser-beam focus on the word almah in the debate between Jews and Christians has caused both sides to miss the beautiful tapestry that Matthew is weaving. This has been a common factor in many religious debates for 2000 years, creating the position of missionaries and anti-missionaries that Yeshua and Judaism are incompatible, leading the former to create an alternative construct of a religion into which their interpretation of him fits, and the latter to correctly respond to that construct as incompatible with the faith of Israel, but to incorrectly project this onto Yeshua and the New Testament.
Returning to the prophecy, Isaiah does not simply use “almah,” he uses the word העלמה “Ha-Almah” with the definite article (ה). In other words, it doesn’t say “a young woman,” it says “THE young woman.” Who was this young woman? There is debate about to her identity,
“The Hebrew definite article ה, the, indicates that Isaiah is referring to a specific woman
who was known to them, perhaps even someone who was standing nearby and could
be pointed to. According to Rashi, the young woman was Isaiah’s wife; according
to Radak, she may have been the wife of Ahaz.”
Isaiah 7:17, The Prophets: Isaiah,
Milstein Edition, Mesorah Publishing, Ltd., pg 63
There is a principle: Everything in the Prophets, everything in the Writings is all concealed within the Torah. If we were to look for a connection to this mysterious young woman, we must look to the Torah for the specific word “Ha-Almah.” Interestingly, there are only TWO occurrences of the word “Ha’Almah” in the Torah, the first in Genesis 24:
“I came this day to the spring, and said,
‘HaShem, the G-d of my master Abraham, if now you do prosper my way which I go
– behold, I am standing by this spring of water. Let it happen, that the maiden
(הָעַלְמָה, ha’almah) who
comes out to draw, to whom I will say, “Please give me a little water from your
pitcher to drink, and she will tell me, ‘Drink, and I will also draw for your
camels’ – let her be the woman whom HaShem has appointed for my master’s son.”
Genesis 24:42-44
The preceding verses describe this almah (who is Rebekah, the wife of Isaac), as follows,
“The young lady (na’arah) was very beautiful to look at, a virgin (betulah), neither had any man known
her…”
Genesis 24:16
Therefore the almah here is identified as a betulah, a virgin, whom no man had known, and she is specifically connected to water (the letter mem) and is appointed for “the Master’s Son.” The second occurrence appears in Exodus 2, in connection to the infancy of the first Redeemer, Moshe Rabbeinu,
“The maiden הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) went and called
the child’s mother.”
Exodus 2:8-9
Rashi then says something curious about the almah. He mentions Manoah’s wife, who was barren yet became the mother of Samson (who was born miraculously and was the Mashiach of his generation.) He then says some interpret this sign as if she were incapable of giving birth! Here is the commentary,
“is with child: This is actually the future, as we find concerning Manoah’s wife, that the angel said to her (Judges 13:3): “And you shall conceive and bear a son,” and it is written, “Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son…
Immanuel: [lit. G-d is with us. That is]
to say that our Rock shall be with us, and this is the sign, for she is a young
girl, and she never prophesied, yet in this instance, Divine inspiration shall
rest upon her. This is what is stated below (8:3): “And I was intimate with the
prophetess, etc.,” and we do not find a prophet’s wife called a prophetess
unless she prophesied. Some interpret this as being said about Hezekiah, but it
is impossible, because, when you count his years, you find that Hezekiah was
born nine years before his father’s reign. And some interpret that this is the
sign, that she was a young girl and
incapable of giving birth.”
Rashi on Isaiah 7 cited at
Chabad.org 20
It seems that the young girl of Isaiah 7 experienced miraculous conception within her womb, like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Manoah’s wife and Hannah. Note that the sign that was given to Ahaz was supposed to be something remarkable,
“Ask a sign of HaShem your G-d. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.”
Isaiah 7:11
When instructed to ask a sign of HaShem, he declines. In English, it appears that Ahaz is being pious. In fact, the opposite is true. He doesn’t ask HaShem because he doesn’t believe in Him. The Artscroll commentary says,
“Ask G-d for the most far-fetched sign.
Ask for a sign from the depths below, i.e. to bring a dead person back to life,
or go up to the heights high above and request that a sign appear in the
heavens.”
Isaiah 7:17, The Prophets: Isaiah,
Milstein Edition, Mesorah Publishing, Ltd., pg 61
This was supposed to be a sign that even the faithless Ahaz would be astounded by. The Midrash Tehillim says,
“R’ Yochanan taught: To three men –
Solomon, Ahaz and the lord Messiah – the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Ask of
me.” To Solomon…”Ask what I shall give you” (1 Kings 3:5). To Ahaz, as is
written “Ask for yourself a sign of the HaShem your G-d: ask it in the depth,
or in the height above” (Is. 7:11). Because he shut up and, by not asking, did
not let goodness come to the world . . . to the lord Messiah, as is written,
“Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the ends
of the earth for your possession.”
Midrash
Tehillim on Psalm 2, translated by William G. Braude, Yale University Press,
Book 1, pg. 42
The similarity of the language connects these three passages together. Solomon, Ahaz and the Messiah. Looking through the lens of these connections on a deeper level, we may summarize Matthew’s midrash as follows:
The almah, the young woman, whose name is Miriam, is a betulah, whom no man had known, who was incapable of giving birth, she is connected to the mem, and is appointed for the Master’s Son, Immanuel, the Prince of Peace. 21
Chapter Five:
Seed of David
The Messiah must descend from David through Solomon, as 2nd Samuel says,
“When your days are fulfilled, and you
shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall
proceed out of your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a
house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I
will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commits iniquity, I will
chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men.”
2 Samuel 7:12-14
While Matthew traces Yeshua’s genealogy through Solomon, it may be objected that Luke 3:38 traces Yeshua’s genealogy through Nathan. While it is beyond the scope of this edition to resolve genealogical difficulties in the Gospels, we will mention a solution from the Zohar in passing,
“You that bring good tidings to Zion” is
Hephzibah, the wife of Nathan son of David, who is the mother of Messiah,
Menachem son of Amiel. She shall go out and bring the tidings and she is part
of the general meaning of: “You that bring good tidings to Zion.”
Zohar III:173b, Parashat Shlach Lekha
45:298, Zohar.com
In Jewish Aggadah, the mother of the Messiah is named “Hephzibah” which means, “My Delight is in Her.” (cf. Isaiah 62:4, cf. 2 Kings 2:11, Sefer Zerubavel). It is remarkable that the Zohar, out of the ten sons of David, focuses on Nathan, just as the Gospel of Luke does. The source for this Zohar passage was likely Zechariah 12:10-14, which speaks about the death of the Messiah son of Joseph (Sukkah 52a), and specifically mentions the “House of Nathan.” Chabad.org notes the brilliant commentary of R’ Reuven Margolies on this difficult passage in the Zohar:
“The famed 20th-century Jewish
scholar and kabbalist Rabbi Reuven Margolies explains that the Zohar is careful
to describe the Moshiach as being a descendant of Nathan’s wife, rather than of
Nathan himself. Nathan had passed away childless, and Solomon his brother
married his widow, according to the laws of yibum, levirate marriage. In a levirate marriage, the firstborn son
of the widow and the brother of the deceased is considered to be a continuation
of the dead husband’s line. Therefore, Moshiach is referred to here as
“offspring” of Nathan, even though he is a descendant of King Solomon.”
Chabad.org, Is the Messiah a Descendant
of King Solomon, Yehuda Shurpin
So the genealogy of Luke actually does record descent through Solomon via a Levirate marriage. The genealogy of Zerubbabel, the ancestor of the Messiah, has the same contradiction, as the Tanakh lists him as both the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2) and Pedaiah (1 Chron 3:19), who were brothers. Ancient believers offered similar solutions to the two genealogies in the Gospels. We will address this in a future article, b’ezrat Hashem. Returning to Davidic descent, the Rambam writes,
“…there is no king in Israel except from
the House of David and the seed of Shlomo, and anyone who challenges this
family denies G-d and the words of His prophets.”
Rambam’s Commentary on Perek Chelek, cited in Otzrot Acharit HaYamim, When
Moshiach Comes, R’ Yehudah Chayoun, Targum/Feldheim, pg. 67
It may then be asked, if Yeshua is born of a virgin, how is he the seed of David? This argument presupposes that if Yeshua is born of a virginal conception, then he has no earthly father. If he has no earthly father, according to Numbers 1, he is without a tribe, and without the paternal lineage necessary to receive the Throne of David. Therefore cannot be the Messiah. The Gospels contradict this claim. Yeshua is referred to as the “son of David” in the following passages,
In Zechariah’s Song – Luke 1:69
The blind man at Jericho – Mt 9:27; Mr 10:47
The ‘Canaanite’ Woman – Mt 15:22
The questioning crowd in Mt 12:23
The massive crowd at the Triumphal Entry – Mt 21:15
Apostle Peter – Acts 2.25
Apostle Paul – Acts 13.22; Romans 1.3; 2 Tim 2.8
Apostle John – Revelation 5:5; 22.16
Paul writes,
“…concerning his Son, who was born of the
seed (σπέρμα, sperma)
of David according to the flesh.”
Romans 1:3
The Greek word for
“seed” in this passage corresponds to the Hebrew זרע (zerah). The Rambam writes,
“…a man will arise who was unknown prior
to his revealing himself, and the signs and wonders that will appear by his
hand are proofs of his true genealogy.”
Iggeret Teiman, cited in Otzrot Acharit
HaYamim, When Moshiach Comes, R’ Yehudah Chayoun, Targum/Feldheim, pg. 69
There is an interesting question brought up in the Talmud,
“…a High Priest, son of a High Priest,
requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you
say: ‘For what reason did they anoint King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 1),
who was the son of a king? It was due to the challenge of Adonijah.”
Horayot 11b, William Davidson Talmud,
Sefaria.org 23
The Yismach Moshe, Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (1759 – 17 July 1841 CE), points out a difficulty here. If a king who is the son of a king, does not require anointing, why will the King Messiah need to be anointed? He answers,
“This midrash (on Psalm 2:7) implies that
they will not recognize him or know him, or else they would honor him, but
because they will not recognize him, how will they know he is the Son of David?
Therefore he needs to be anointed. This resolves the difficulty that we do not
anoint a king that is the son of a king…He will become a new creation that has
never before been seen within the human species, which makes it appear that he
is not from the seed of Adam or from the seed of David, therefore he needs to
be anointed.”
Yismach Moshe cited in Torah Club:
Shadows of Messiah, Volume 2
The appearance of the Mashiach will make it seem as if he is not human, or at least not from the seed of David. Before we offer a solution, let us study the concept of the “Counsel of the Serpent.”
Chapter Six:
Counsel
of the Serpent
Science of the Seed
In the Torah, especially in the book of Leviticus, we learn of the laws of tohorot, ritual purity. Out of the six sections of the Mishnah, an entire section is dedicated to these laws. In general, most of these laws are in effect when the Temple is standing, as one cannot enter the Temple in a state of tumah (impurity). Contrary to common misunderstanding, it is not sinful to be unclean, or in a state of ritual impurity. In fact, every person alive today is ritually impure because of contact with a dead body, or contact with someone who has touched a dead body. The ultimate source of ritual impurity is death itself. And death is caused by sin. Thus ritual impurity is caused by death, which is caused by sin. The Torah’s antidote to ritual impurity is the Red Heifer. R’ Zalman Baruch Melamed says,
“A more profound understanding of the Red
Cow calls for seeing it not only as a vehicle for rectifying the state of
impurity, but as a means for effecting the very source of the impurity – death
itself. The purpose of the Red Cow is to rid the world of death, and in order
to accomplish this the very source of death must be disposed of.”
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed, A Red Cow
and a Golden Calf, Parashat Chukat, Yeshiva.co 24
According to the Torah, one of the causes of ritual impurity is a seminal emission,
“If any man has an emission
of semen, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the
evening.”
Leviticus 15:16
According to the Torah, the emission of seminal fluid makes one ceremonially unclean. This emission has caused a loss in the potential for life. On a certain level, this is equivalent to death. In fact, the Sages link ‘spilling of the seed’ to murder. This seminal emission is parallel to a woman in her menstrual cycle,
“‘If a woman has a discharge, and her
discharge in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days: and
whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.”
Leviticus 15:19
When a female is conceived within her mother’s womb, she already has her eggs present in her developing ovaries. When she reaches the age of puberty, she ovulates thus discharging her eggs. The Torah also covers the case of intercourse,
“If a man lies with a woman and there is
an emission of semen, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean
until the evening.”
Leviticus 15:18
If this act of
intercourse actually resulted in conception of a new life, and if the loss of
life is ultimately the cause of tumah,
why are both male and female still unclean? Scientifically, sperm and seminal
fluid are two separate things. Seminal fluid is the vehicle for the sperm to
reach the egg. On average, during intercourse, 100 million of
spermatozoa enter the womb. Only
one fuses with the egg. Thus millions of sperm die in the process,
bringing us back to the problem: Death. The sages say if Adam had not sinned,
child birth would be much different, conception and birth would occur almost
immediately without pain. As said above, the state of tumah, ritual impurity, is not sin. However, it is the
result of sin. Which brings us to the concept of עֶטְיוֹ שֶׁל נָחָשׁ (etyo shel nachash), the
Counsel of the Serpent.
In Vitro Fertilization
Pirkei Avot says,
מֵאַיִן בָּאתָ, מִטִּפָּה סְרוּחָה
“Akavia ben Mahalalel said, “…Know from
where you came: From a putrid drop.”
Pirkei Avot 3:1
This putrid drop is semen, but what is the meaning (beyond the physical) that it is putrid? The Shelah, R’ Isaiah Horowitz, says,
“Man unfortunately did not even manage to
spend a single night in Gan Eden before he sinned... ever since, new
generations of man are the product of the smelly drop of semen, i.e. semen
which is polluted by the residual pollutant of the original serpent.”
The Holy Shelah, R’ Yeshayahu Horowitz,
Shnei Luchot HaBrit, Ki Teytze, Volume 3, pg. 1181
R’ Avraham Saba, writes in Tzror Mor,
“By [Adam] calling her Chava, he alluded
to the future, because having herself seduced by the serpent, she would forever
be remembered as the mother of all future sin. In Psalms 51,7, David describes
himself as having been conceived in sin…He does not refer to his biological
mother, but to the mother of all mankind, Chavah, reminding G’d that all human
beings ever since have been conceived in sin…[Moses] also refers to the
phenomenon this very human being carries within it, this pollutant implanted in
Chavah, and that in the final analysis, this is what makes him prone to the
“one who will seduce you.”
Tzror HaMor, R’ Avraham Saba, Parashat
Re’ay, translated by R’ Eliyahu Munk, Volume 5, 1881-1882
As explained in our article entitled the Revelation of the Holy Snake, one of the functions of the Messiah is to destroy death itself. To destroy it, he must be free from it. This would mean that not only would the Messiah need to be sinless, but he would need to be free from the Counsel of the Serpent, which has infected the “putrid drop,” i.e. the seminal fluid.
It is possible that a virginal conception, via a miraculous in vitro fertilization (IVF) of one special spermatozoon, could avert the transmission of the Counsel of the Serpent. The Counsel of the Serpent causes a physical, not spiritual, death penalty (contrary to Catholic doctrine). One’s own sins would cause a spiritual death penalty without repentance. If Yeshua had a death penalty he had to pay for himself, it would seem that he would be unable to become the “exchange” for all mankind. However, being the Mashiach, on the level of Adam before the fall, he had no death penalty. His miraculous birth averted the transmission of the serpent’s counsel, and his sinless life of complete obedience to the Torah merited this.
We do not know the process that HaShem used to bring Mashiach to the world, therefore this is theoretical. We do know that HaShem is not physical. He has no boundaries, no limits and no physical body. If so, from what source did HaShem procure this sperm?
It may be conjectured that he took it from Yosef. This would explain the Gospels attributing Yosef’s genealogies to Yeshua. If Yeshua had no physical connection to Yosef, then it would seem that the genealogies serve no purpose. The argument that Yeshua could have inherited the Davidic lineage via adoption by Yosef has several objections. If a kohen, a priest, adopted a son, the son could not become a kohen. It seems highly unlikely that a Davidic king could become a legitimate king by mere adoption. The arguments for the requirement of a patrilineal Davidic descent are extremely strong. This solution satisfactorily solves the problem.
However, one may object that the Gospels imply otherwise, as Matthew says,
“Jacob became the father of Joseph, the
husband of Miriam, from whom was born Yeshua, who is called Messiah.”
Matthew 1:1
This statement does not exclude our potential solution. The fact that it does not say “Yosef begat Yeshua” like the preceding verses presents no problem, as he was not the one to deliver the seed, as we have just explained. In fact, perhaps this is a certain level of fulfillment of the words of Psalm 2,
“I will tell of the decree: HaShem said to
me: ‘You are My son, this day have I begotten you.”
Psalms 2:7
Luke’s Gospel also contains a problematic statement,
“Yeshua himself, when he began
to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son
(ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as was supposed) of Joseph,
the son of Eli…”
Luke 3:23
The problematic wording is “as was supposed.” It may be a stretch, but the traditional way this passage has been read can be read in the exact reverse. He was, just as was supposed, the son of Yosef. The Greek word nomizo, comes from the word nomos, law. It does not say that he was not the son of Yosef, as was supposed. This seems to solve how Yeshua could be born of a virgin while fulfilling the requirements of patrilineal Davidic descent, being the literal seed of David. This would also solve the issue of the Counsel of the Serpent, and allow Yeshua (along with his perfectly sinless life) to overcome death. You may then ask, if so, then why was he killed?
And doesn’t Yeshua’s death disprove claims that he is the Messiah, as the Rambam writes in his Hilchot Melachim (Laws of Kings), Chapter 11,
“If [the potential messiah] did not
succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by
the Torah.”
Rambam, Melachim uMilchamot – Chapter
11, translated by Eliyahu Touger, Chabad.org 25
The answer is twofold. One, Rambam refers to Mashiach ben David, who will not be killed. Mashiach ben Yosef, however, does die in the process of Redemption. Yeshua was not in the role of Mashiach ben David when he died, but in the role of Mashiach ben Yosef. When Yeshua returns, he will be in the role of Mashiach ben David. However, the second point to the Rambam’s statement is this, even in the role of Mashiach ben Yosef, Yeshua was not killed. He laid down his life willingly,
“Therefore the Father loves me, because I
lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this
commandment from my Father.”
John 10:17-18
Yeshua said, “No one takes it from me,” not even the Angel of Death, as it has no power over him. Even Moses had to die because of the counsel of the serpent (Deuteronomy Rabbah 9:9). If he had a normal birth via the putrid drop, the counsel of the serpent would have prevented him becoming completely free from any blemish. He would only be on the level of the individuals who never sinned in their lives, but still died because of the counsel of the serpent,
“For, indeed, “there is not a righteous man upon earth that does good and
sins not” (Eccl. 7:20). And even the sinless ones who only died
because of the “counsel of the Serpent” will arise and be counselors to
the Messiah.”
Zohar II:54a, Soncino Press Edition
If these individuals are counselors to the Messiah, then the Messiah is greater than they are. Because he was born in this unique way, combined with the life of ultimate obedience that he lived, he merited to be the ultimate Tzaddik. His death initiated the process of the death of death, and the rebirth of the world: the Olam Haba. Isaiah says,
“He will swallow up death in victory!
HaShem Elokim will wipe away tears
from all faces, and shall take away the rebuke of his people from all the
earth, for HaShem has spoken it.”
Isaiah 25:8
The Midrash Rabbah interprets this verse as a messianic prophecy,
“…when G-d created His world, there was no
Angel of Death in the world…Messiah would arise, and in his days G-d would
cause death to be swallowed up, as it says, He will swallow up death forever.”
Exodus Rabbah 30:3, Soncino Press
Edition
When sin is removed, death is destroyed. When death is destroyed, the door to the Olam Haba, the World to Come, opens. The Ben Ish Chai says,
“The word דלת, “door” is also
spelled-out letter dalet. The two Temple gates, or doors, that stuck together
allude to the two dalets that stuck together to form the end mem which appears
unexpectedly in the middle of לםרבה, lemarbeh,
describing the sovereignty of the Messiah (Isaiah 9:6). At last King Solomon
said, “Remember the good deeds of David your servant.” Then the Temple doors
opened, alluding to the opening of the end mem of לםרבה to form the two
dalets of דוד “David.” … When the mem of opens, the Davidic Messiah will
reign…”
Ben Ish Chai, Ben Yehoyada, Days of
Peace, Yeshivat Ahavat Shalom Publications, pg 133
He continues,
“The two dalets of that come from
diagonally cutting the closed mem of לםרבה, lemarbeh,
come to rectify the sin of Adam and Eve…”
Ben Ish Chai, Od Yosef Chai, Days
of Peace, Yeshivat Ahavat Shalom Publications, pg 134
Chapter Seven:
The Closing
of the Mem
We have not addressed every nuance and detail of this controversial discussion. However, we have seen:
1. There are no virgin births in paganism that influenced the Gospels.
2. The birth narratives of the Gospels are patterned on the miracle births of Jewish tradition.
3. Isaiah 7 can be interpreted as referring to the Messiah, and some interpret that the almah cannot give birth.
4. The prophecy in Isaiah 7 links to Genesis 24 and Exodus 2.
5. The letter mem is womb, which if closed, is incapable of birth.
6. The Closed Mem is in Isaiah 9:5-6, the Birth Prophecy of the Messiah.
7. An in-vitro fertilization may bypass the “counsel of the Serpent” which transmits via the “putrid drop.”
8. Jewish mysticism refers to the birth of the Messiah from the Shekhinah in similar terms.
In the book of Nehemiah another unusual mem appears,
“I went out by night by the valley gate,
even toward the jackal’s well, and to the dung gate, and viewed the walls of
Jerusalem, which were broken down (הַמְפֹרוצִים), and its gates were consumed with fire.”
Nehemiah 2:13
The word הַמְפְּרוּצִים (haimprutzim) should be written הֵם פְּרוּצִים (heim prutzim). The mem should be closed, but it is broken open, meaning that the walls of Jerusalem have been breached open by her enemies. Shmais comments,
“…if that which is closed is opened…so
that the mem of l’marbeh becomes
open, then the open letter mem appearing at the end of the word ham in the
phrase chomos Yerushalayim asher
heim portzim – ‘the walls of Jerusalem which were broken down,’ will
be closed on all sides.”
Living with Moshiach #1131, Shmais.com 26,27
This refers to the rebuilding of Jerusalem as the everlasting capital of Israel and the world by the hand of the King Messiah. Thus, the one who opens the Closed Mem will close the Open Mem. On this the Tzemach Tzedek comments:
“Our Sages teach that when an unborn
infant is in his mother’s womb, ‘his mouth is closed and his navel is open,
…and as soon as he encounters the air of the world, that which is closed opens
and that which is open closes.’ Now, exile is likened to pregnancy and the
Redemption is likened to birth; as it is written, ‘For Zion has been in labor,
and has given birth to her children.’ At the time of birth, then, which is the
Redemption, ‘that which is closed opens’ – an allusion to the [currently]
closed letter mem of l’marbeh [in
the verse which foretells the imminent rule of Mashiach], and ‘that which is
open closes’ – an allusion to the [currently] open letter mem of ham [in the
verse which speaks of the still-breached walls of Jerusalem].”
Or HaTorah – Nach, pg. 184 cited
in Living with Moshiach #1131, Shmais.com28
The Messiah was born into the world via a virgin - the crowning miracle of the supernatural births of Jewish history - in order to completely restore and rebuild Jerusalem below, and unite her with the Jerusalem above. To accomplish this, he must not only rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, but rebuild the broken walls of the human soul, poisoned by the serpent’s venomous counsel. He accomplishes this by removing sin, thus destroying death. He comes to restore Israel and repair the universe. HaShem invites us to partner with the Mashiach in this task, as Isaiah says,
“Those
who shall be of you shall build the old waste places. You shall raise up the
foundations of many generations, and you shall be called The Repairer of the
Breach, the Restorer of Paths to dwell in.”
Isaiah 58:1129
References
1. The Rebbe of Kotzk, cited in Parshah In Depth, Tzav, Chabad.org
2. Shabbat 104a, William Davidson Talmud, Sefaria.org
3. Jewish Wisdom in the Numbers, Osher Chaim Levine with Rabbi Yehoshua Hartman, Mesorah Publishing Ltd
4. How much of the ocean have we explored? National Ocean Service
5. Living with Moshiach #1131, Shmais.com
6. Radak on Psalm 3:5, Sefaria.org
7. Perek Ha-Shalom, Hebrew Text
8. Sanhedrin 94a, The William Davidson Talmud, Sefaria.org
9. Maimonides, Iggeret Teiman, Letter to Yemen, page 16, translated by Boaz Cohen
10. “It is written:
Wonderful – supernal Wisdom, which is wondrous and concealed from all, as is
written: If a matter is too wondrous for you (Deuteronomy 17:8). Counselor –
supernal river flowing forth and never ceasing, counseling all and watering
all. El, G-d – Abraham, as has
been established, האל הגדול (HaEl HaGadol) (Deuteronomy 10:17). הגבור, Gibbor, Mighty –
Isaac, as is written: the mighty. Eternal Father, Jacob, who grasps this side
and that side, attaining perfection. Prince of Peace – Righteous One, who is
peace of the world, peace of the house, peace of Matronita.”
Zohar 3:31a, Tsav, translated by Daniel
C. Matt, Pritzker Edition, Volume 7, pg. 179-180
11. “…from the depth of all, as it
is written: For You have done (pele), wonders, as is written: He has been named
pele, Wonder (Isaiah 9:5).”
Zohar 3:31a, Tsav, translated by Daniel
C. Matt, Pritzker Edition, Volume 7, pg. 179-180
12. “The word (pele), wonders, alludes to the deepest source, Keter. . . The verse
in Isaiah 9 provides the throne name of the Davidic king: He has been named:
(pele yo’ets), Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Eternal Father, Prince of
Peace.”
Pritzker Zohar commentary, pg. 207
13. Josh McDowell, A Ready Defense, pg. 189-190
14. Ibid. pg. 190
15. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, Huffpost.com, May 20, 2012
16. Confronting the Copycat Thesis, J.P. Holding, Tektonics.org
17. JewishEncyclopedia.com, Isaac
18. אברהם הוליד את יצחק: על ידי שכתב הכתוב יצחק בן אברהם הוזקק לומר אברהם הוליד את יצחק, לפי שהיו ליצני הדור אומרים מאבימלך נתעברה שרה, שהרי כמה שנים שהתה עם אברהם ולא נתעברה הימנו, מה עשה הקב”ה, צר קלסתר פניו של יצחק דומה לאברהם, והעידו הכל אברהם הוליד את יצחק, וזהו שכתב כאן יצחק בן אברהם היה, שהרי עדות יש שאברהם הוליד את יצחק
19. Targum Yonatan to Exodus 2, Sefaria.org
20. Rashi on Genesis 25:19, Chabad.org, cf. The Resemblance, Chabad.org
21. R’ Shalom Rosner, The Murky Roots of Melech HaMoshiach, OU.org
22. Targum Yonatan on Isaiah 11, Sefaria.org
23. Rashi on Song of Songs, Chabad.org
24. Rashi on Isaiah 7 cited at Chabad.org
25. Messianic Apologetics & The Virgin Birth (Conception)
26. We recommend R’ Yitzhak Ginsburgh’s Kabbalah for the Nations, Chapter 2, and R’ Yitzhak Breiter’s Seven Pillars of Faith: Seventh Pillar, the Tzaddik.
27. Horayot 11b, William Davidson Talmud, Sefaria.org
28. A Red Cow and a Golden Calf, R’ Zalman Baruch Melamed, Yeshiva.co
29. Rambam, Melachim uMilchamot – Chapter 11, translated by Eliyahu Touger, Chabad.org
30. Living with Moshiach #1131, Shmais.com
31. The Ben Ish Chai comments on Deuteronomy 33:28, “The word בדד, “alone” can also mean: “with two dalets.” When G-d opens the closed mem of לםרבה, lemarbeh, and transforms it into two dalets, Israel will at last dwell in safety.”
32. Living with Moshiach #1131, Shmais.com
33. For Further Reference: See Redemption and the Letter Mem, R’ Aaron Raskin, Chabad.org
Bonus Chapter:
Mystical Mirrors
[Note: This chapter requires some
background in Jewish mysticism. It is beyond the scope of this chapter (and
beyond the author) to elucidate the mystical concepts of the Sefirot and
Partzufim.]
It is possible to read the birth accounts in the Gospels as a Sod-level mystical treatise, reflecting the upper worlds of the Partzufim and Sefirot. In a mystical sense, the Female who gives birth to the Messiah is the Shekhinah, the Knesset Yisrael, the Sefirah Malchut. One may see in the Gospel accounts a reflection of the Sefirot, with Miriam continuing the role of Rachel Immeinu, representing the “Virgin Daughter of Israel.” This is not literal, but symbolic language, similar to the Zohar’s beautiful allegory. For example, the Zohar comments on the birth of the Trein Meshichin, the Twin Messiahs,
“The Faithful Shepherd said, “At that time
(there will come) pangs and pains upon the woman in childbirth, that is,
the Shekhinah … And through these pains, which will make her cry out,
seventy supernal Sanhedrins will be aroused, until her voice reaches the L-rd … And from
those voices which she gives forth … her womb opens — and her womb consists of
two houses – to give birth to two Messiahs … and she bends her head between her
knees; her head is the Middle Column and her two thighs are Eternity and
Majesty … and from there are born two Messiahs. In that time the forests
will be denuded, and the Serpent will pass from the world.”
Zohar, Ra’aya Mehemna, 3:67b-68a, cited
in the Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai,pgs. 129-130
An unusual Kabbalistic text, highlighted by the eminent Jewish scholar Isaiah Tishby, says,
“Now the remembrance [in its ordinary
sense] is a hidden reference to the beginnings of conception and the months of
pregnancy with the Messiah, when Yesod remembers Rachel and visits and
impregnates her, and when that holy seed is absorbed, which reveals light in
the world in body and soul here below while the spirit of the Messiah, with
regard to whose body here below it was said: “The spirit of wisdom will rest
upon him’ etc., is still hidden in the womb of Ima, in the hidden meaning of
the closed mem in lemarbeh
hamisrah [‘of the increase of government…’], until there takes place
there the nine months’ gestation alluded to in the tikunim (Zohar Chadash 5d)…and then she ‘like a woman with child, when she is near her
time, will cry out, writhing in pains’.”
MS Jerusalem 1466, fo 215, cited in
Messianic Mystics, Isaiah Tishby, The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, pg
267-268
Another text called Sefer HaMeshiv (a text that is hostile to Christianity), nonetheless speaks of the Sefirot in language reminiscent of the Gospels. Tishby writes,
“In my opinion, the author of Sefer HaMeshiv gave a Kabbalistic interpretation to the immaculate conception by the virgin and the Holy Spirit when he equated the idea of a virgin with the Shechinah, mother of the two messiahs, an idea, already expressed in the Zohar. This affords a better understanding of another statement in Sefer HaMeshiv:
“The open letter mem is an allusion to Binah and the closed letter mem has another meaning. It is an allusion to Malchut.”
This also represents a departure from the symbolism of the Zohar, where the open mem is an allusion to Malchut in particular, while the closed mem is an allusion to the Sefirah Binah. The author of Sefer HaMeshiv reverses this symbolism, a convention in kabbalah since the fourteenth century. Possibly, this change reflects the Christological exegesis of Isaiah 9:6 where the closed letter mem is taken as an allusion to Jesus’ virgin birth. In Sefer HaMeshiv, the discussion of the closed letter mem is associated with the subject of the coming of the Messiah.”
The text continues, as cited by Tishby,
“This is the mystery of the Kingdom
(The Sefirah Malchut). That is the mystery of the closed letter mem, when He
will send him — that is the meaning of the words Lekh Lekha (Gen. 12:1), (the
Hebrew letters Lamed-Kaf — Lamed Kof form the words, Get you out). The word
(Lamed Kof) is doubled to indicate this great mystery, the nature of the
descent of the Messiah.”
Messianic Mysticism, Isaiah Tishby, The
Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, pg 267-268
He further cites the following,
”… And the Holy Blessed One was reconciled with Israel and these
are days of acquittal and forgiveness, and this is the mystery of a virgin,
neither had any man known her (Gen. 24:14). He misled the nations through
this secret power, for the Supernal Power is joined with this constellation.
This is the mystery of Virgo. There is an actual virgin, made of fire, and she
is sexually receptive (lit., has a receptive vessel) and this likeness was
created for Israel, as a wife and as a virgin, so that the mystery of the point
has
connection with her. That is the mystery of a virgin, neither had any man known
her (Gen. 24:14). At the time of the redemption the mystery of the Messiah will
come forth for Israel. Until that time, she will remain a virgin and then the
supernal spirit will enter her mouth and a spirit of consuming flame will come
forth at her opening and will emerge from that sanctuary, for there it will
reside, shut away. At the time when the spirit emerges, it will take the form
of fire. This is the mystery of the constellation Virgo. Therefore, it is the
constellation of Israel and this is the esoteric meaning of the verse, rise,
the virgin of Israel. .. that is the secret interpretation of the verse, a
virgin, neither had any man known her (Gen. 24:24) until the L-rd’s anointed one will come.”
Sefer HaMeshiv, cited in Messianic
Mystics, Moshe Idel, Yale University Press, pg 143
In the Gospel of Luke, we see an interesting parallel with the Zohar,
“The angel answered her, The Holy Spirit
will come on you, and the Power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore
also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of G-d.”
Luke 1:35
Note that the text doesn’t say only “The Holy Spirit” but also says, “the Power of the Most High.” This matches a description in the Zohar when the Son (Zeir Anpin) emerges from the pairing of Chokmah (Father) and Binah (Mother/Holy Spirit), thus “birthing” the Son (Tiferet/Zeir Anpin),
“The word OMeR (speech) indicates the
letters and paths which proceed from the Father (Hokmah) the Mother, (Binah)
and the head which issues from them, who is the firstborn Son (Tiferet). Aleph
symbolizes the Father, and when it ascends and descends, the Mem unites itself
with it, producing em, which
signifies Mother; the resh is the
Head (rosh =head), signifying Son. When these three unite the result is that
they form ‘Word’, ‘Speech.’ Thus the Father, the Mother, and the firstborn Son
radiate one within the other in one union, which has its reign and duration
upon the Sabbath.”
Zohar, Shemoth, Section 2, Page 136b,
Soncino Press Edition
On a lower symbolic level, Miriam functions as a symbol of the Sefirah Malchut, the Daughter, who births the Messiah into the world, just as Binah “gives birth” to Zeir Anpin, the Partzuf of the Son above. This may explain why Catholicism literalized and projected onto Miriam of Nazareth symbolic concepts that are associated with Rachel, herself a symbol of the lowest Sefirah. It is critical to note that these concepts are not at all literal, and if viewed literally, lead to idolatry. One should not undertake study of these deep concepts without proper study and foundation.
In my limited understanding ( and these concepts are beyond the author), it seems as if the light of the Messiah is the connector throughout the four worlds of ABYA (Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah and Assiyah.) The lower worlds reflect the higher worlds, as the Light of the Messiah is filtered down into our world of Assiyah (Action). From Adam Kadmon > Zeir Anpin > Metat > Mashiach, the light of Messiah is refracted and reflected. These concepts are complex and beyond the scope of this article.22 Suffice to say that Earth reflects Heaven, and the Gospels are in harmony with these concepts.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario