POSTED 16 OCTOBER, 2007

Answering the "Frequently Avoided Questions"
About the Messiahship of Yeshua

by J.K. McKee
editor@tnnonline.net

answering the claims of the anti-missionary movement

The Messianic community of faith presently finds itself at a very serious crossroads, not just a crossroads in determining its long term purpose and where it is going to be in the next few decades, but most seriously in its theology and how we are to approach the Bible. Our enemy desperately wants us to get off course and away from the mission of seeing the restoration of all Israel accomplished. He wants us to not be a movement of positive change and transformation, where people are empowered by the Lord to accomplish His tasks in the world—but rather be one of mischief, confusion, and apostasy. The enemy wants us to seriously “mess up” and gain a bad reputation so that people will (rightly) stay away.

One of the most significant ways that this has happened over the past several years (2002-2007) has been seen when various Messianic individuals deny the Divinity of Yeshua the Messiah. There have been both Messianic teachers and laypersons who have decided that Yeshua the Messiah was nothing more than a human being empowered by God, but certainly not God in the flesh. They have stripped away the reality of His Incarnation, and made Him little more than one of “us.”[1]

It is not all that surprising, but among a significant number of those who deny Yeshua’s Divinity are those who later deny His Messiahship. Not content with their entirely human Yeshua, these people then question whether or not Yeshua is even the Messiah and whether they truly need Him. Outsiders to the Messianic community who witness this trend, often believe that the Messianic movement is not something that God has raised up to restore the lost Hebraic Roots of the faith—but rather is a move of the Adversary to lead people away from the salvation available in Yeshua and the truth of the gospel. Is this truly the case? Are we nothing more than a revolving door leading people out of the Church, into our midst for a short season, and then into the open arms of a Messiah-less Synagogue?

What are some of the “frequently avoided questions” about Yeshua’s Messiahship that we must answer to prevent any further apostasy? How might the issue of Yeshua’s Messiahship shake us out of our complacency in other areas of theology?

Who have we invited into the camp?

There have always been obstinate arguments present in the Jewish world against the Messiahship of Yeshua. The testimony of the Gospels is clear that many Jews in the First Century rejected Yeshua as the Messiah. The testimony of history is likewise clear that many Jews throughout the centuries rejected Him as well. Some of the reasons as to why Yeshua was rejected are complicated. On the one hand, many who encountered Yeshua and His Disciples wanted nothing to do with them for ideological reasons or because they found their message of repentance offensive. On the other hand, many Jews throughout history have rejected Yeshua because of the unfortunate politicization of much of the Medieval Christian Church, and grossly misguided laws and persecution imposed by anti-Semitic leaders.[2] Certainly, the Church has played a large role in Jewish rejection of Yeshua, but it is not solely to blame. The defiant will of any person—Jewish or otherwise—in rejecting the gospel is equally responsible.[3]

Fast forwarding to today, through the rise of Messianic Judaism in the Twentieth Century, and now with many Christians eagerly examining their Hebraic Roots, a sector of Jewish teachers commonly known as “anti-missionaries” have arisen. These anti-missionaries specifically target Messianic Jews and Christians interested in their Hebraic Roots for (re)conversion to Judaism and to denounce Yeshua as Messiah.

Anti-missionary organizations and teachers originate entirely from the Orthodox branch of Judaism.[4] What makes this significant in combating their arguments is in knowing that Orthodox Jewish theology is largely sectarian, its hermeneutics can often be overly simplistic, and it is usually very isolationist. Orthodox Jewish examination of the Tanach is frequently devoid of external discussion regarding history, comparative linguistics with cognate languages of Biblical Hebrew, and factors relating to Ancient Near Eastern society.

It cannot be ignored that anti-missionary teachers and organizations sit at the far Right end of the theological spectrum. They often hold to extreme views regarding the composition of the Tanach that cannot be substantiated in the larger conversation of Biblical Studies. Has the Torah been preserved perfectly stroke-by-stroke since Mount Sinai without any textual deviations of any kind? Are issues such as time, place, location, and contemporary history to be considered irrelevant when determining not only the meaning of a Biblical text, but also a text’s reliability? These are some major issues where the Orthodox Jewish scholarship employed by anti-missionaries comes up severely short.

Just to see a common example of the style of interpretation we will respond to, consider a rather “mundane” issue presented by Exodus 1:8: “Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.” Why is this the case? Surely, with all of the exploits of Joseph seen in Genesis chs. 39-50 as a political leader in Egypt, this new king would have known of Joseph. Messianics commonly struggle over this passage, often not knowing how to interpret it. Often turning to Orthodox Jewish resources like the ArtScroll Chumash, they are confronted with explanations such as the following:

“Either it was literally a new king, or an existing monarch with ‘new’ policies, who found it convenient to ‘ignore’ Joseph’s monumental contributions to the country (Sotah 11), probably on the grounds that whatever the Jew Joseph had done for Egypt was ancient history and no longer mattered. This ‘what have you done for me lately’ kind of anti-Semitism is another familiar phenomenon of Jewish history.”[5]

Certainly, while there are many good things that one can glean from Orthodox Jewish Bible scholarship, this explanation for the Pharaoh not knowing Joseph is not one of them. Are we to honestly think that the new king of Egypt did not “know” (Heb. yada, [dy) Joseph in some kind of intimate way, meaning that he just casually did not acknowledge Joseph’s accomplishments? Or, are we to consider the first possibility: that a new king arose over Egypt from a new dynasty who did not factually know of Joseph? It is clear which position the ArtScroll Chumash takes: the subjective interpretation. The exegesis represented here takes the “easy path.”

The objective interpretation, though, forces us to take the “hard path.” It forces us to consider not only the text of Exodus 1:8, but also the possible Egyptian historical backdrop. We have to consider events that may have occurred between the time of Joseph and the sons of Jacob entering into Egypt, and the installation of this new king over Egypt. Non-Orthodox Jewish scholarship (and much of Christian scholarship) does not ignore these critical factors and is engaged in a much larger conversation. As Jewish commentator Nahum Sarna summarizes,

“The most reasonable explanation for the change in fortune lies in the policies adopted by the pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty (ca. 1306-1200 B.C.E.), and especially by Ramses II (ca. 1290-1224 B.C.E.), who shifted Egypt’s administrative and strategic center of gravity to the eastern Delta of the Nile.”[6]

Sarna gives a further clue on his commentary for Exodus 1:9-10 as to why the Egyptians may have been fearful of the Ancient Hebrews:

“The eastern Delta of the Nile was vulnerable to penetration from Asia. In the middle of the eighteenth century B.C.E. it had been infiltrated by the Hyksos, an Egyptian term meaning ‘rulers of foreign lands.’ The Hyksos were a conglomeration of ethnic tribes among whom Semites predominated. They gradually took over Lower Egypt and ruled it until their expulsion in the second half of the sixteenth century B.C.E.”[7]

A new Pharaoh of Egypt from a new dynasty could have easily not known of Joseph because the Israelites settled in Goshen, in the Nile Delta region of Lower Egypt, and as Pharaoh he would have been from Upper Egypt or Southern Egypt, moving back into previously conquered territories. Wanting to rebuild an empire that had been lost, the Israelites having multiplied would make a convenient workforce. Politically it would have been easy to enslave them, because as Semites they would remind many Egyptians of the Hyksos invasion.

I give this illustration because ignoring the critical factors of history, setting, and to a lesser degree linguistics, is seen throughout much Orthodox Jewish examination of the Tanach. God has given us all minds and reasoning skills so that we might be joined to a large and much more modern theological conversation. The anti-missionaries, in contrast, often set themselves off to the side, isolating themselves in a theological vacuum. We should not be shocked to see that the factors of history, setting, and linguistics are often not employed in their criticisms of the Apostolic Scriptures or New Testament. If they are not of the habit of employing these things in how they examine the Tanach, they will certainly not be employed when examining the Apostolic Scriptures and life of Yeshua. (Ironically enough, in many cases they ignore some of their own literature which reflects various interpretations and opinions regarding key Messianic texts.)[8]

It should also not be surprising to us when we see that the greatest influence of the anti-missionary movement takes place among (former) Messianics who strongly lean toward an Orthodox style, or even some kind of more fundamental form, of Torah halachah.[9] Messianics who separate themselves in a spiritual and social vacuum, often not interacting with other Messianics or with other people in general, are those that are most susceptible to the anti-missionary arguments. Some of them are open because they feel that they will be fully accepted by the Synagogue, and others are open because they have bitterness and hatred toward anyone who is not a part of their clique (primarily Christians).

While the Messianic movement will probably always have the nagging annoyance of the anti-missionaries to deal with, it will only remain at “crisis proportions” until the theology of the Messianic community can progress more significantly toward the Center and away from the extreme Right. Answering the claims against Yeshua’s Messiahship is complicated because of the current tensions that exist in Messianic theology, the realm of our hermeneutics (how we examine and interpret Scripture), our approach to the larger Jewish (and to a lesser extent, Christian) world, and whether or not we are engaged in the much larger theological “conversation.”

Likewise, in examining the Messiahship of Yeshua, things are complicated because too many Messianic teachers make the mistake of believing that only the Hebrew source text of the Tanach is sufficient for Biblical examination. Too many fall into the serious error (and indeed urban myth) of believing that the Masoretic Text (MT) used in today’s Orthodox Judaism, and which is also the primary text used for most English Bibles’ translation of the Tanach or Old Testament, has been copied without deviation or any kind of variance since antiquity.[10] We should not be so naïve. Not enough Messianics are aware of the fact that the final form of this text dates from the Seventh-Tenth Centuries C.E., a minimum of seven hundred years after the ministry of Yeshua—and certainly a long way from the Exodus and Mount Sinai.[11] While we will indeed be considering the Hebrew of the MT in our primary examination of Yeshua’s Messiahship, our analysis will by no means disclude the textual witnesses of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Latin Vulgate, or Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), and linguistic studies beyond that of Biblical Hebrew.

The narrow minded anti-missionary reliance upon only the MT is strong evidence that they are not part of a larger theological, and indeed, textual conversation. One common anti-missionary tactic is to claim that the Apostolic Scriptures misquote from the Hebrew Tanach. To a certain extent this is not incorrect; the Apostolic Scriptures do not quote from a Seventh-Tenth Century C.E. Hebrew text that did not exist in the First Century C.E. The Apostolic Scriptures largely employ the Greek LXX, and may even rely upon some of its interpretive value judgments to make theological points. Acts 15:17 is an excellent example of this, where James the Just quotes from the Prophet Amos at the Jerusalem Council:

“So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name.”

The Hebrew MT in Amos reads slightly different:

“So that they shall possess the rest of Edom and all the nations once attached to My name—declares the Lord who will bring this to pass” (Amos 9:12, NJPS).

The difference between what James says and the Hebrew text in Amos is that James follows the Septuagint rendering which reads with hoi kataloipoi tōn anthrōpōn (oi kataloipoi twn anqrwpwn) for the Hebrew shearit Edom (~Ada tyrav). The LXX translators understood Edom (~Ada) to be connected to adam (~da), also the Hebrew word for “mankind, people” (HALOT)[12] and rendered it in Greek as “the remnant of men” (Apostle’s Bible), referring to God’s faithful remnant that would come forth out of humanity’s masses. James makes the connection between the salvation of Israel and those of the nations coming to faith in Israel’s Messiah.

Far too many of today’s Messianic teachers do not have a high regard for the Greek Septuagint, or for that matter Greek language studies in general. They find themselves as easy prey for those who claim that the Apostolic writers misquote from the Tanach, when in actuality the Apostolic writers are often just quoting from the Septuagint.[13] We do have to make the value judgment whether or not the LXX—the oldest complete witness to the Scriptures of Israel—plays a role in our Messianic theology and exegesis. Many decide a definite “no,” and they are the same ones who are often led to reject Yeshua’s Messiahship. But we should know better, because Israel is supposed to be God’s conduit by which the entire world can be blessed (Genesis 22:18; Deuteronomy 4:5-8), and by necessity one must communicate to the world in languages other than Hebrew to fulfill this Divine mandate.[14]

Unfortunately, when we look at some of the things resulting from an Orthodox Jewish style of halachah in our midst today, and what the anti-missionaries have done to the Messianic world, we have some serious things to consider and (re)evaluate. Some Messianics have to remove themselves from their isolationism and begin to consider things not only that have been left out of the conversation regarding interpretation of the Apostolic Scriptures, but also have been ignored regarding the Tanach itself. When we do this, we find that the Messiahship of Yeshua, while being one of the most serious issues in our faith—is uniquely connected to other issues that we commonly avoid. I do not believe that God will let us avoid these things any longer.

Can we be entirely “objective”?

When one encounters the arguments of anti-missionaries, such teachers do not hide the fact that they have a bias. It is a firm teaching of Orthodox Judaism that one cannot be a Jew and believe in Yeshua. Centuries of Christian teaching only reinforced this concept from the other side, as one could not be a Christian and a Jew at the same time. Only until the advent of Messianic Judaism in the Twentieth Century would one be able to even have a concentrated “anti-missionary movement.” What has made Messianic Judaism so radical is that it affirms that a Jewish person can be a Believer in Yeshua the Messiah, and still retain his or her Jewishness. But while Christian positions on the Jewishness of Jewish Believers has greatly moderated, the same cannot be said for Jewish positions on the Jewishness of Jewish Believers.

Things are more complex today with large numbers of non-Jews entering into the Messianic movement. For some reason or another, many non-Jewish Believers are experiencing great spiritual fulfillment in Messianic congregations and fellowships. They are learning things about their faith that were not discussed in their previous church settings. They are discussing commonly overlooked Scriptures. They are learning about the Jewishness of Jesus and about the richness of His teachings. To the anti-missionary, these people make prime targets for conversion.

Certainly, the anti-missionary who wants to see the numbers of Orthodox Judaism increase, has a definite agenda and bias. He will prey on the ignorance of a Believer in Yeshua to get him or her to renounce faith in Him. This is compounded when a Messianic teacher may be responsible for presenting an unbalanced amount of attention to Orthodox Jewish views of the Tanach—notably at the expense of the more moderate branches of Judaism—and constantly repudiates Christian Bible teachers and the Christian Church. People can then begin to idolize “the Rabbis,” and find themselves led down a path to apostasy. It is no different than what Paul tells the Galatians about the Influencers: “They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them” (Galatians 4:17). These “Rabbis” are not people who are open to dialogue with Believers in Yeshua, but they certainly want Believers in Yeshua to seek out their opinions so they can be swayed away from Him.

I do not want to be seen as anti-Jewish by any means in these remarks, but much of today’s Messianic movement often lacks realism and pragmatism when it comes to “the Rabbis.” The anti-missionaries capitalize on this time and time again, and Messianic teachers who are unbalanced to our shared spiritual and theological heritage coming from both Judaism and Christianity only add to the problem. The anti-missionaries are not objective and their aims at getting people to deny our Lord and Savior are never hidden.

Those of us who affirm Yeshua’s Messiahship should certainly strive to be as objective as possible, unlike the anti-missionaries. We should strive to be part of a larger theological conversation, not ignoring the factors that anti-missionaries commonly ignore. Yet, in that objectivity we should plainly recognize that one’s spirituality does play a distinct role in believing whether or not Yeshua is the Messiah. A person in a Messianic congregation will often be unprepared to encounter anti-missionary tactics and arguments. Someone may ask a random question at a Bible study from a website or e-mail they have read, or worse yet an actual anti-missionary may visit your congregation. What does a person do when backed up against a wall, having to respond to arguments he has never heard before? Are you to capitulate and give in?

I can only answer for myself. While I have certainly had enough theological training to know that things are never as simplistic as anti-missionaries often make them, the spiritual forces at work via the anti-missionaries are quite severe. It is not as though the anti-missionaries are just misguided people; they have a mission from Satan himself.[15] It is not as though these people are interested in reasoned and constructive dialogue trying to find some common ground (as many other Jewish people may be); they want your soul. A Believer in Yeshua—when backed up against the wall by anti-missionary arguments—must fall back on his or her spiritual experience with God via His Son Yeshua.

The end-time saints described in Revelation overcome Satan “because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death” (Revelation 12:11). Anyone, be they anti-missionaries or atheists wanting us to deny Yeshua, must ultimately be overcome via our personal testimonies of salvation. When anti-missionary ideas or the people themselves infiltrate your ranks, you may not have time to respond to their arguments. No matter how much study or preparation you have had, you may not be able to anticipate all of their arguments. You must stand confident in your relationship with God via His Son.

On August 8, 1995 I had a profound supernatural encounter with the God of Israel. I had just returned from a Christian youth camp where the Ten Commandments were emphasized throughout the week as God’s standard of holiness. Returning home, I was unsure of my spiritual condition or whether or not I was even “saved.” I spent several hours in my bedroom confessing my violation of the Ten Commandments before God. These were some several hours. Not only did I feel forgiven of my sins, but demons that had been allowed to influence me manifested themselves, and I was shown the reality of the eternal, never-ending judgment that awaited me in the Lake of Fire.[16] I always fall back on my experience when attacks are issued against my faith. I do not claim total objectivity, because having a supernatural encounter with the Creator God is never something totally objective. I do not hide my bias.[17]

If we have assurance of our salvation, then responding to the arguments of those who would steal our redemption is only a matter of study and time. And, given the largely disengaged perspective of the anti-missionaries, we find that this is often quite easy when we are equipped with the proper tools and data.

Answering these “Frequently Avoided Questions”

Time and space do not permit us to address all of the claims that are made against the Messiahship of Yeshua. Indeed, new reasons are being proposed all of the time as the Messianic community grows and the anti-missionary movement becomes more virulent. Many of the issues have to be considered in yet-to-be-written Messianic commentaries on books of the Bible. Still, there are some significant claims that are commonly made by anti-missionaries about the life of Yeshua, prophecies that He supposedly did not fulfill, and supposed misapplications of Tanach texts by the Apostolic writers. These claims easily upset and disturb Messianic Believers, who often do not have a readily available answer to them. The claims that we will answer in our analysis largely relate to these areas. We have limited them to the common ten claims that usually circulate—so-called “frequently avoided questions”—that are often asked of our ministry by those who encounter anti-missionary works.

You will find that there are relatively easy answers to most of the claims that are made today by anti-missionaries against the Messiahship, and indeed the ministry of Yeshua of Nazareth. However, many of these claims are also innately connected to other Biblical issues. So, in offering responses to claims that are made against our Lord and Redeemer, each of us—whether a teacher or layperson—is going to be challenged in other areas of our theology. Surely, if the Messianic movement is indeed something that God is going to use for some great things in the future, He is going to make sure that we are a mature people who can handle any issue.

False Claim #1: Numbers 23:19 clearly states that God is not a man, yet Christianity considers Jesus to be God, when at most he was just a human teacher.

A bridge between denying Yeshua’s Divinity and later His Messiahship is often built by anti-missionaries quoting Numbers 23:19 to a person who fails to consider the setting and context in which its words are given. Seeds of doubting the Messiahship of Yeshua are planted, as it may seem that Christian expositors have misunderstood the Gospels and have inappropriately given Jesus of Nazareth a status that He was never intended to have. But this is not what Numbers 23:19 says.

The setting of this verse is the Torah portion Balak (Numbers 22:2-25:19), when King Balak of the Moabites commissions the prophet-for-hire Balaam to curse the people of Israel. The narrative of Numbers 23, specifically, includes a dialogue between the Lord and Balaam, including a word that Balaam is to give Balak (23:7-10), and Balak arguing with Balaam about him not cursing Israel (23:11-15). After carrying on a dialogue with God (23:16), Balaam issues the following words to Balak:

“Arise, O Balak, and hear; give ear to me, O son of Zippor! God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Behold, I have received a command to bless; when He has blessed, then I cannot revoke it. He has not observed misfortune in Jacob; nor has He seen trouble in Israel; the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them. God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of the wild ox. For there is no omen against Jacob, nor is there any divination against Israel; at the proper time it shall be said to Jacob and to Israel, what God has done! Behold, a people rises like a lioness, and as a lion it lifts itself; it will not lie down until it devours the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:18-24).

In Numbers 23:19, the false prophet Balaam, speaking the words of God, says “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” (NIV). Anti-missionaries make good on someone’s ignorance of the context of the passage which has nothing to do about the makeup or composition of God, but has everything to do with the character of God. Numbers 23:19 is an excellent example of where an inclusive language translation[18] for lo ish El (la vya al) and u’ben adam (~da !bW) can actually make the text much clearer. Numbers 23:19 speaks of the fact that “God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind” (NRSV).

Even though “Son of Man” is a title used by Yeshua to refer to Himself frequently throughout the Gospels, Numbers 23:19 employs ben adam or “son of man” in a way comparable to “mortal” (NJPS), referring to the fact that when God makes a decision He follows through on it not repenting or changing His mind. This is clear given the fact that Balaam testifies to Balak of God’s blessing Israel, something that He is not going to change given His previous actions of leading Israel out of Egypt and preserving them in the wilderness.

Contrary to how “son of man” is used in Numbers 23:19, Yeshua no doubt used the title “Son of Man”[19] via its Danielic usage (Daniel 7:9-14) where Daniel is shown the throne room of God. The Prophet says “I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man [Ara. bar enash, vna rb] was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.” The context here is not Earthly, but rather is clearly Heavenly, representing one at the right hand of God. I.H. Marshall validly remarks, “the Danielic background suggests a figure closely associated with the Ancient of Days….Jesus took over this sense of the phrase, and thus identified his role with that of the figure in Daniel 7.”[20] Yeshua notably uses the title “Son of Man” to describe His return to the Earth (Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27) and thus His dominion over “all the peoples, nations and men of every language” (Daniel 7:14).

While “son of man” can be a reference to human beings as appears in Numbers 23:19, Yeshua’s usage of this title for Himself is substantially different. We need not be confused by anti-missionaries who not only misquote Numbers 23:19 out of context, when the passage deals with the character of God, but by those who fail to see a broader view of the title “Son of Man” in relation to one intimately involved with the Ancient of Days.

False Claim #2: Psalm 22:17(16) uses “lion” and not “pierced” in the Hebrew. Christian Bibles have purposefully mistranslated the verse to prove the Messiahship of Jesus.

Psalm 22 is a significant text as it relates to the crucifixion and subsequent death of Yeshua. Yeshua quotes its opening words, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1) while suffering on the cross (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). While it may seem that Yeshua has been “forsaken” by His Father, Psalm 22 is actually attributed to David of his entreating God for His vindication of righteous action (vs. 23-31). The text has some definite parallels with specific actions of the life of Yeshua, including a reference to garments being divided up after lots are cast (vs. 18-19; cf. Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24). Likewise, the words “let Him [God] deliver him” (v. 8) were hurled at Yeshua as He was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:39-43).

Psalm 22:16 is significant as it says in the NASU, “For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me; they pierced my hands and my feet.” In referring to the suffering of our Lord, we can certainly see the significance of this verse relating to His crucifixion. Indeed, the imagery of being “pierced” features throughout the Messianic expectation and hope of the Apostolic Scriptures (Isaiah 53:5; Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34).

Certainly, Psalm 22 has some parallels to the life of King David, but as Walter C. Kaiser validly asks, “what events in David’s life might provide the background for the abject status before all people mentioned in verse 6? When were his hands and feet pierced (assuming that is the proper reading of v. 16) and his garments divided among his detractors (v. 18)?”[21] This is certainly not a text that anti-missionaries want connected to the life of Yeshua and His death on the cross.

Anti-missionaries commonly use Psalm 22:16 to say that Christian Bibles deliberately manipulate this verse to prove the Messiahship of Yeshua. Indeed, as this verse reads in the ATS version, “For dogs have surrounded me; a pack of evildoers has enclosed me, like [the prey of] a lion are my hands and my feet.” The MT Hebrew clearly reads hiqqiphuni ka’ari yadai v’ragalai (ylgrw ydy yraK ynWpyQh).

It is notable that Psalm 22:16(17) has issues that are easily seen when one compares the MT to the witnesses of the LXX and Vulgate. Tim Hegg points out that hiqqiphuni ka’ari yadai v’ragalai “is pointed by the Masoretes to read ‘like a lion my hands and my feet.’ yraK is taken to be the particle -K, ‘like’ or ‘as’ plus the noun, yra ‘lion.’ The Lxx, however, reads the word as WraK or WrK (or something similar), a third person plural perfect verb of a speculated root rak as related to rwk or hrk…The Aramaic verb r[k, ‘to make ugly,’ ‘to disfigure,’ or Hebrew hrk, ‘to dig’ and by analogy, ‘to pierce,’ corresponds to the Lxx orussw, ‘to dig, pierce.’”[22]

Indeed, the LXX of Psalm 22:16 reads with ōruxan cheiras mou kai podas (wruxan ceiraß mou kai podaß), “they pierced my hands and my feet” (LXE), followed by the Vulgate’s foderunt manus meas et pedes meos, “They have dug my hands and feet” (DRA). Kaiser notes that these are the oldest available readings,[23] and new manuscript discoveries confirm the authenticity of the underlying Hebrew originally being the verb karu (WrK) or “they dug,” by extension meaning “they pierced.” Hegg summarizes,

“Scraps from a scroll containing some of the Psalms were discovered at Nachal Hever, and one scrap contained the line from Psalm 22:16 with the word in question well in view. Though the writing on the scrap was faint, under magnification it was easy to see and decipher. The word clearly ended in a vav [w] not a yod [y], and was therefore a 3rd person plural verb: ‘they dug’ or ‘they pierced.’ Here was evidence that the Lxx translators had not ‘fooled’ with the text, but had faithfully translated the Hebrew original that was before them. Since this scrap is dated (in accordance with the style of letters used) to 50-68 CE, it is almost 1000 years earlier than the Masoretic text, and shows that in at least one of the earliest Hebrew traditions of Psalm 22, the word is not ‘like a lion’ but ‘they dug’ or ‘pierced.’”[24]

Only if one is constrained to the straightjacket of the Hebrew MT of Psalm 22:16(17) exclusively in Biblical exegesis, as the anti-missionaries are, can a person be convinced that “like lions they maul my hands and feet” (NJPS) is the correct reading. The ancient witnesses of the LXX, Vulgate, and now textual evidence from Nachal Hever attests to the reading “they pierced My hands and feet” (NASU). Psalm 22 is a very important section of Scripture that reflects the suffering of Yeshua, and His ultimate vindication. We need not follow a simplistic method of examination as do those who deny Him, but one where we investigate all textual avenues.[25]

False Claim #3: Matthew 2:23 is wrong. There is no single prophecy that states that the Messiah will be called a Nazarene.

Matthew 2:23 records that Yeshua the Messiah “came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” The challenge for some interpreters is the fact that no specific text is being quoted. This is not unusual to see in the Apostolic Scriptures by any means. Yeshua Himself says in Matthew 26:54, “How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?” Here, the Messiah is speaking of the general sense or meaning of the Tanach, not necessarily a specific verse. In James 4:5 we see a similar usage: “Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: ‘He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us’?” Here, James appeals to the general sense of Scripture from the Tanach, rather than a specific verse or prophecy.

In Matthew 2:23, the author references the “prophets,” indicating that he is appealing to a theological concept evidenced in several places in the Tanach, not a single prophecy as anti-missionaries try to mislead people to believe. What is actually being communicated by the statement, “He will be called a Nazorean” (NRSV) has been a cause of great discussion and some debate among Bible interpreters and commentators.

What is likely being communicated by Matthew is some kind of word play on the terms nazir (ryzn), primarily meaning “(s.one) dedicated, consecrated” (CHALOT),[26] by extension “a nazirite,” and the word “Nazarene” (Grk. Nazōraios, Nazwraioß), meaning someone from the city of Nazareth. An adequate description of a nazirite is given to us in Judges 13:7, where Samson’s mother is told how her son is to live:

“But he said to me, ‘Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.’”

The Hebrew ki nezir Elohim yihyeh (hyhy ~yhla ryzn yK) was rendered two different ways in the Greek Septuagint, both of which would have been extant in the First Century. The LXX(a) version has naziraion Theou (naziraion qeou) or “nazirite of God,” whereas the LXX(b) version has hagion Theou (agion qeou), “holy to God” (LXE). This attests to the fact that being a “holy one” of God and a “nazirite” of God were considered to be interconnected long before the First Century. One did not necessarily have to take a “nazirite vow” to be considered a holy person, which there is no record of Yeshua ever doing. In Mark 1:23-24 we see Yeshua being Nazarēne (Nazarhne, adjective) or “of Nazareth” connected to His holiness:

“Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, ‘What business do we have with each other, Yeshua of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!’”

Matthew, seeing this concept referred to in Mark’s Gospel, whose audience was largely Roman and would have overlooked any connection between “Nazareth” and “Holy One,” is likely expounding upon this for his Jewish audience, possibly using additional source material (probably from what most scholars call “Q”).[27] His Jewish audience would have been familiar with the terms nazir, or the Septuagint renderings of naziraion Theou or hagion Theou. Matthew’s emphasis, more than anything else, is to connect the concept of Yeshua being a Nazarene to His holiness. Notably, one does not necessarily have to take a “nazirite vow” to be considered holy, though as Hegg notes, “Yeshua’s words at the last Pesach [Passover], that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine until He came into His kingdom, are reminiscent of the Nazirite prohibition against eating or drinking anything from the vine. The same may be said of Yeshua’s refusal to accept the wine while on the cross.”[28]

A second, and more commonly proposed view espoused by many Messianics is that Matthew is making some kind of word play on netzer (rcn), meaning “sprout, shoot (of plant)” (CHALOT),[29] or by extension “branch.” This would have probably been a commonly known Hebrew word in the First Century among both Jews in Israel and the Diaspora, and does not require that Matthew would have had to compose his Gospel in Hebrew. It is commonly connected to prophecies such as Isaiah 11:1:

“Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch [netzer] from his roots will bear fruit.”

This prophecy was viewed in a Messianic context by the Jewish Sages,[30] and is appealed to various times by the Apostles (Romans 15:12; 1 Peter 4:14; Revelation 5:5). One of the challenges with holding exclusively to this view, though, is the fact that other Messianic prophecies applying to Yeshua employ the Hebrew term tzemach (xmc) for “branch”:

“‘Behold, the days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch [tzemach]; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land” (Jeremiah 23:5).

“In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch [tzemach] of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth” (Jeremiah 33:15).

“Now listen, Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who are sitting in front of you—indeed they are men who are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the Branch [tzemach]” (Zechariah 3:8).

“Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch [tzemach], for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the Lord” (Zechariah 6:12).

We can certainly consider the words netzer and tzemach to be synonyms, as the latter likewise means “growth, what sprouts,” “shoot, bud” (CHALOT).[31] This would account for Matthew’s reference to “the prophets,” as opposed to a singular prophet (cf. Isaiah 11:1). Matthew, more than anything else, relies on his audience’s knowledge of knowing that the terms nazir, naziraion, and “holy one” are all connected with Yeshua being a “Nazarene.” The major point that Matthew is emphasizing is that Yeshua has been separated out as the Father’s appointed servant and is the ideal of holiness, and being holy unto God or sanctified is certainly a theme epitomized in the Prophets. Hegg validly states, “Yeshua, in all of His life lived out the quintessential meaning of the Nazirite vow, for He was the Holy One of God in every way.”[32] One need not go very far to understand this connection and how it makes Yeshua a “Nazarene.”

Anti-missionaries are able to lead people astray by getting them to think that one prophecy=one fulfillment is what is communicated by the Gospel authors. In some cases, a specific prophetic reference may certainly be made by the Gospel authors. But in other cases, a general understanding of prophetic texts may also have to be considered. The Gospel authors consider Yeshua of Nazareth to be the epitome of the Hebrew Tanach, and that He embodies in His person the fullness of the qualities of holiness communicated by its Prophets.[33] Note that if Matthew is primarily building his case for Yeshua being a “Nazarene” from Judges 13:7, that the Book of Judges is considered a part of the Nevi’im or “the Prophets” in the traditional Jewish order of the Tanach (whereas Christian tradition places it among the Historical Books). Has Matthew misapplied Scripture, or are Jewish anti-missionaries trying to oversimplify things?

False Claim #4: Matthew 2:15 has deliberately misapplied Hosea 11:1, as it calls the people of Israel out of Egypt, not Jesus out of Egypt.

In the narrative describing the birth, infancy, and young childhood of Yeshua, Matthew’s Gospel records how Joseph and Mary had to flee to Egypt as King Herod was seeking to kill Him:

“Now when they [the magi] had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him.’ So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt” (Matthew 2:13-14).

Joseph, Mary, and the Child Yeshua were able to flee to Egypt because Egypt in the First Century had a huge Jewish community where they could find refuge. In the next verse, Matthew records that King Herod dies, making it safe for Joseph, Mary, and the Child Yeshua to return to Judea:

“He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called My Son’” (Matthew 2:15).

The specific text referenced by Matthew is Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” The entire Book of Hosea is largely a lament by the Prophet of the sins and rebellion of the Northern Kingdom.[34] We see references in Hosea to God’s work in delivering Israel, and how Ephraim has been responsible for disregarding His deliverance. Hosea 11:2 summarizes that after God called Israel out of Egypt, “The more they called them, the more they went from them; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.” Having delivered Israel via the Exodus, all the people can do is fall into sin.

The application of Hosea 11:1 to the Child Yeshua leaving Egypt asks the interpreter certain questions about the usage of prophetic typology. It has to be noted that Hosea’s word “out of Egypt I called My son” is not isolated, as in Numbers 24:8 it is asserted “God brings him [Israel] out of Egypt.” Clearly in both Numbers and Hosea, the historical, collective people of Israel—“God’s son” as they are called—are being referred to. Hosea feels perfectly free to quote from the Torah, in a word delivered regarding a blessing of Israel, and may be viewed as applying it as a curse as Hosea 11:5 further says, “They will not return to the land of Egypt; but Assyria—he will be their king because they refused to return to Me.” God delivers Israel, Israel refuses Him, and God must then punish His people.

In what sense does Matthew feel free to apply Hosea 11:1 to Yeshua? Is he justified in doing so? It absolutely must be noted that the ideas of First Century Messianism—whether applied to Yeshua of Nazareth or not—were profoundly affected by the broad themes of Ancient Israel’s Exodus from Egypt. The coming Messiah was viewed as a Second Moses who would offer a greater deliverance that Moses did not provide. Can the Gospel writers take a particular theme in the history of Israel and then apply it to the life of Yeshua of Nazareth? Rabbinical literature is affluent with examples of where past historical events are used to interpret more current events. C.A. Evans explains,

“Emphasis on the unity of Scripture and history is the distinctive of typological interpretation. What God has done in the past (as presented in Scripture), he continues to do in the present (or will do in the future). Recent events or future events that are interpreted as salvific are frequently compared to major OT events of salvation…Typological interpretation makes it possible for later communities of faith to discern the continuing activity of God in history. It is likely that these ideas lay behind the typologies that Jesus developed….Typological interpretation is not limited to the NT; it is also found in rabbinical writings…The messianic age is often compared with the Exodus, a comparison frequently developed by typological interpretation.”[35]

In considering Hosea 11:1 to be a reference to Yeshua, who would return to Judea from Egypt, is Matthew doing something strange or irregular? The Rabbinical technique known as gezera shava would often link one or two vocabulary words in a text to make an important theological point or application. Matthew does this to not only connect “Egypt” to the return of Yeshua to Judea, but also “Son”—representing Israel—to Him. God commands Moses to declare to Pharaoh in Exodus 4:22 that “Israel is My son, My firstborn.” Herod, a kind of “Pharaoh,” has just died, and Yeshua is the Son who embodies the hopes and aspirations of Israel. Yeshua, as “Son” here represents the quintessential Israelite. By quoting Hosea 11:1, Matthew is trying to communicate critical ideas regarding the Exodus and necessarily greater deliverance that Yeshua will provide.

Matthew is only doing something strange or irregular if God’s plan of salvation history is not repeated to some degree in the persons or vehicles used to accomplish His purposes—whether through Yeshua or through other people. In the case of Yeshua, if the model of the Exodus is to some degree to be repeated in His life, then the typological application of Hosea 11:1 by Matthew to Yeshua returning from Egypt is certainly not invalid. It is a message from Matthew to those reading His Gospel, that the Son Yeshua, embodying the national hope of Israel, is One who must be heeded.[36] And, this hope is not only for those Jews in Judea, but concerns the scattered Northern Kingdom referred to by Hosea, and indeed the entire world. Yeshua has come to redeem the curse!

False Claim #5: Jesus is not the “greater prophet” spoken of by Moses.

The message of Deuteronomy is one where Moses must repeat God’s Instruction to Israel before He dies, as it recapitulates the story of the Exodus, the wilderness journey, and it issues some final words not seen in the previous four books of the Torah. In Deuteronomy 18, in particular, Moses commands Israel not to fall into idolatrous ways (18:9-14), and then issues a word that a prophet like him will be raised up among the people:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. This is according to all that you asked of the Lord your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him’” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

The original word delivered by Moses to Israel assures the people that God will raise up a prophet to whom they must heed. Moses serves as the prototype of this prophet. The people do not desire to have the Lord tell them directly what they must do as they cannot bear the thunder and smoke of Mount Sinai (cf. Exodus 20:18-19; Deuteronomy 5:23-27), and so He must send an intermediary. The uniqueness of Moses as a prophet for Ancient Israel is seen in the closing words of Deuteronomy:

“Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, for all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt against Pharaoh, all his servants, and all his land, and for all the mighty power and for all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel” (Deuteronomy 34:10-12).[37]

Numbers 12:6-8 speaks of the significance of Moses as a prophet:

“He said, ‘Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?’”

Kaiser indicates, “all the other prophets missed something that Moses had because of his unique relationship with God. In this regard, then, this promise to Moses served to unite him with the coming one, the Messiah.”[38]

But was Deuteronomy 18:15-19 actually a word viewed with some kind of Messianic overtones in the First Century? Note that people do ask John the Immerser, “Are you the Prophet?” (John 1:21); and after the feeding of the five thousand by Yeshua, people declare, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14). The testimony of the Gospel of John, at least, is that a Great Prophet was expected. The Apostle Peter’s message at Shavuot/Pentecost directly appropriates the words of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and applies them to Yeshua:

“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Yeshua, the Messiah appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren; to Him you shall give heed to everything He says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people’” (Acts 2:19-23).

Is the text of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 a direct, or even indirect, Messianic reference? 1 Maccabees 14:41 indicates that a little less two centuries before Yeshua, “the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise” (RSV). This shows us that there was some expectation of a future prophet arising in Israel. Likewise, in the Qumran document 4Q175 (or 4QTestimonia), the Qumran community connected selections such as Deuteronomy 5:28-29; 18:18-19; Numbers 24:15-17; and Deuteronomy 33:8-11 and interpreted them in a futuristic Messianic fashion.[39] Does Peter draw a misguided conclusion, applying Deuteronomy 18:15-19 to Yeshua, that has no precedent? It does not appear so, as Peter’s conclusion that Yeshua is the Great Prophet is based within the opinions of his time.

In the original context of Deuteronomy 18:15-19, it may be that Moses’ principal emphasis was that there is an office of prophet that will be filled when the people need someone to deliver a direct word from God to them. This prophet will call the people back to God and to obedience to Him. Certainly, many prophets in the history of Israel did this to some degree. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 need not have originally applied to the coming Messiah, as Hegg concludes it is “a general promise of the continuing prophetic office rather than a specific prophecy of the Messiah.”[40] Yet, Yeshua Himself is considered by Peter to be the Great Prophet par excellance who entirely fulfills the purpose of the one spoken of by Moses who would fully reveal God’s plan to Israel. Kaiser validly remarks, “each prophet became a type of the final prophet who was to appear,”[41] that Prophet being Yeshua of Nazareth.

The major anti-missionary discussion regarding Deuteronomy 18:15-19 often does not relate to whether or not this text had some Messianic significance in the First Century, which the Apostles can apply to Yeshua. On the contrary, it often relates to the surrounding verses, Deuteronomy 18:9-14 and 20-22. Anti-missionaries assert that Yeshua the Messiah led many Jews of the First Century astray by magic arts and witchcraft, and spoke presumptuously rightly incurring the curse of a false prophet. The first accusation is clearly a value judgment made on the basis of not accepting His miracles as truly Divine works of God, as prophets in the Tanach are often seen performing miracles via God’s power.[42] The second, that Yeshua made false predictions, is often made with support found in His words from the Olivet Discourse on the Last Days:

“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matthew 24:34; cf. Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32).

Anti-missionaries will often say that because the end-time events of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 did not occur in the First Century, that Yeshua of Nazareth was a false prophet. Interestingly enough, there are three major interpretations of Yeshua’s words that exist among interpreters today that need to be considered:

1. The Lord says “this generation will not pass away,” and is referring to the generation that lived during the time that He declared these words. Preterists who believe that the “end-times” actually took place during the First Century, and consider the antichrist of Revelation to be Nero Caesar, are the most common advocates of this view.

2. The Lord says “this generation will not pass away,” and is speaking of a future group of people that will be those who will witness all of the events prior to His return.

3. When the Lord refers to what the Greek records as hē genea autē (h genea. auth), which in most Bibles is rendered as “this generation,” He is not referring to a “generation” of people. As should be noted, genea has a variety of possible renderings, including “race, stock, family” and “a race, generation” (LS).[43]

Yeshua’s words need not be interpreted regarding a specific “generation” that He either spoke to in the past, or is speaking to in the future, but rather an ethnic group of people that will have survived long enough into the future to be present to experience the end-times. Of the three options considered, the most probable is that Yeshua is actually referring to “this race will not pass away,”[44] a reference to the preservation of the Jewish people. Yeshua has not made a false prediction; anti-missionaries have just oversimplified one of His statements. Of course, the interconnectivity of the Messiahship of Yeshua with other issues is fully realized because if “this race will not pass away” is indeed the valid viewpoint, it can significantly affect some current opinions of eschatology seen in today’s Messianic movement.

Is Yeshua the epitome of not just all the Prophets of the Tanach, but of Moses himself? Was a prophet greater than Moses anticipated by the Jews of the First Century? Is Yeshua that Prophet? This can only be found in one understanding the true mission and purpose of Moses, the Prophets of the Tanach, and the life and ministry of Yeshua as seen in the Gospels. Today’s Messianic community has a great responsibility in that we understand who our Lord actually is as typified by Moses and the Prophets, and that we truly understand who He is from His own teachings and actions. Unfortunately, in a Messianic movement too dominated by “Torah study,” these critical studies are largely yet to be performed. Because they have yet to be performed, too many have become cannon fodder and are easily led astray by anti-missionaries.[45]

False Claim #6: The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 do not align with the genealogies of the Tanach.

Anti-missionaries are able to, unfortunately, have a great amount of success in disturbing Believers in claiming that the genealogies of Yeshua in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 do not somehow “properly correspond” with genealogies seen in the Tanach. What is most significant to consider when we see the distinct genealogies of Yeshua, as recorded in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, is that we cannot subject ancient genealogies to our Twentieth or Twenty-First Century Western expectations of exactness. While we would expect a precise correlation between fathers, sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, etc., genealogies seen throughout Scripture are often given to make an important point with the people that are listed, and may not be as exact as the modern person would want them to be.

Modern genealogies are used today for the expressed purpose of communicating one’s descent and family history. Many people living in North America, for example, can trace their lineage back to Western Europe, and often stem from several different European nationalities. The genealogies of one’s family today are expected to provide a direct record with no broken links to the past. (Yet, most of us who have genealogical records probably cannot provide an endless array of records going back more than three or four centuries.)

Our modern expectations regarding genealogy are much different from what is seen in the Tanach. It is common in the Tanach to see telescoped genealogies that purposefully skip generations in order for a Biblical author to make an important theological point, or to draw one’s attention to the people actually listed.[46] An easy-to-identify example is seen in the genealogy of Ezra the Priest, given to us in both 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 and Ezra 7:1-15:

While doing something like this is completely unacceptable in the modern era, Ezra 7:1-5 excludes six people (italicized in “combined” column above) from the genealogical list of Ezra the Priest that is seen in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15. Why does the list do this? Obviously, the author of Ezra is communicating something to his audience that the Chronicler is not. The names listed are not just used to establish the credibility of Ezra, but also illustrate his importance by recalling those who have preceded him.

It is very obvious to see that Yeshua’s genealogy given in Luke 3 follows a similar pattern, as it traces ancestors from Eli (or Heli in some versions) all the way to Adam (Luke 3:23-38). Luke is telescoping his record, giving his readers the “high points” of Yeshua’s lineage, skipping over people in great stride. In stressing a lineage all the way back to Adam, Luke is likely connecting his readers with Yeshua’s identification with all humanity as a Second Adam.

The real issue in Luke’s genealogy involves the immediate person described after “Joseph” in Luke 3:23: “When He began His ministry, Yeshua Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” There have been several proposals made by theologians regarding what this might mean, including Luke’s genealogy being the actual descent of Joseph, husband of Mary, and Matthew’s genealogy being the royal descent. Another suggestion is that Eli and Jacob (Matthew 1:16) were half-brothers, having the same mother but different fathers, and that Eli died and Jacob married his widow, becoming a step-father to Joseph. Still, others propose that the genealogy of Luke 3 is Mary’s genealogy, given the remark “as was supposed,” as a reference to the virgin birth, yet this is complicated because Mary is not listed by name.

Walter L. Liefield makes the pertinent remark, “we possess not a poverty but a plethora of possibilities. Therefore the lack of certainty due to incomplete information need not imply error…[I]t is not possible to know how Luke would have handled a genealogy involving a virgin birth, and so ‘the case is unique.’”[47] Indeed, the principal thrust of Luke’s genealogy is that we understand Yeshua’s identification with the human race (cf. Philippians 2:5-11). Luke does not open his Gospel with the genealogy of Yeshua, indicating that for his broad audience of both First Century Jews and Greeks and Romans, genealogy would not have been as important to them as some of the other features of Yeshua’s life.[48]

Matthew’s genealogy is much more complicated than Luke’s, given his largely Jewish audience, as his specific aim is to identify Yeshua as the “son of David, son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). Genealogy was very important to the Jews of the First Century. Yeshua is established to be of the royal line of David. But whereas Luke moves backward all the way to Adam, Matthew moves forward from Abraham to David and finally to Yeshua.

The likelihood of telescoping employed in Matthew 1 is also very high, and the rendering of “A fathered/was the father of B” as seen in almost most Bible versions (RSV, NASU, NIV, NRSV) is unfortunate[49] as the average Bible reader will expect there to be a direct father-son-grandson-great-grandson relationship, when in some cases there is not. Indeed, as Ancient Near Eastern scholar K.A. Kitchen points out, “The phrase ‘A begat B’ does not always imply direct parenthood. This is shown by its use in Matthew 1 in cases where links are known (from the Old Testament) to have been omitted.”[50] Furthermore, some of the people “inserted” into Matthew’s genealogy that do not appear in the Tanach (i.e., Amminadab in Matthew 1:4) need not be a result of “tampering” with the text, but the fact that Matthew is working from genealogical sources that are no longer extant, or that there was an oral tradition in Joseph’s family of additional people not seen in 1 Chronicles.[51]

There are two major issues that are brought forward by anti-missionaries regarding Matthew’s genealogy. The first concerns Matthew’s listing of King Jeconiah (1:11), and the fact that Jeremiah prophesied that a descendant of his would not sit upon his throne again:

“Thus says the Lord, ‘Write this man down childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah’” (Jeremiah 22:30).

Anti-missionaries have been able to disturb many people by claiming that since Matthew lists Jeconiah in Yeshua’s genealogical list, then Yeshua cannot rule over Israel since Jeconiah was punished by God. However, an important clue is given to us by Matthew when he writes, “Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon” (Matthew 1:11, NKJV). Far from this being a permanent curse upon Jeconiah and the kingly line of Judah, the Talmud indicates that this curse was only to be temporary, with the exile to Babylon being sufficient punishment:

“R. Johanan said: Exile atones for everything, for it is written, Thus saith the Lord, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah. Whereas after he [the king] was exiled, it is written, And the sons of Jechoniah, — the same is Assir — Shealtiel his son etc. [He was called] Assir, because his mother conceived him in prison” (b.Sanhedrin 37b).[52]

Here, we see that the Sages considered the curse issued by Jeremiah against Jeconiah to be lifted as a result of the exile, because he very clearly does have additional descendants, which Jeremiah’s prophecy said he would not have. Matthew’s insertion of Jeconiah in the genealogy of Yeshua is not invalid.

The second issue anti-missionaries commonly point out regarding Matthew’s genealogy concerns his concluding remark, “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17). Obviously, while the fact that Matthew likely does some telescoping is not considered, if one adds the third set of generations from Jeconiah to Joseph (Matthew 1:12-16), we only see thirteen generations.

One possible explanation is that both Joseph and Mary, listed in Matthew 1:16, are intended to be counted as two generations. Another explanation is that Yeshua’s own generation is to be counted. Still, a third explanation is that what is really being communicated is the connection to David (dwD), a common enough Hebrew word (not necessitating a Hebrew composition for Matthew)[53] whose numerical value is fourteen and could have been easily recognized by Judean or Diaspora Jews.[54]

The fact that Matthew can list names according to a formula of “fourteen,” via telescoping and/or referencing David, is not uncommon to the Tanach. Two significant genealogies that communicate something similar are the anti-diluvians of Genesis 5 from Adam to Noah, and the post-diluvians of Genesis 11 from Noah to Abraham. Both genealogies list “ten” generations. As Kitchen describes, “there is…symmetry of ten generations before the Flood and ten generations after the Flood. With this, one may compare the three series of fourteen generations in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ…which is known to be selective, and not wholly continuous.”[55] Sarna concurs, “There is reason to believe that the ten-generation pattern for genealogies was favored by Western Semites in general and that the convention left its mark on the historiography of Israel.”[56] Thus, the number “ten” in the Ancient Near East brought with it an aura of distinction (perhaps royal distinction), designed in Genesis 5 and 11 to give some “high points” of individuals who lived between Adam and Noah, and then Noah and Abraham—but by no means are all of the generations of people between Adam and Noah, and then Noah and Abraham, recorded on these lists.[57]

Properly understanding the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 is a definite area where anti-missionaries reveal how they are often not engaged with the Ancient Near Eastern background of the Tanach. And indeed, it is difficult to not subject the Bible to our modern expectations of precision. However, neither Luke, in his telescoped genealogy of Yeshua going back to Adam; nor Matthew, in his formulated genealogy of 14 generations connected to David; have done something irregular. On the contrary, anti-missionaries have preyed on the ignorance of people, subjecting ancient texts to modern-day expectations of precision, divorcing them from their original context.

False Claim #7: Isaiah 7:14 has been purposefully mistranslated with “virgin” in Christian Bibles, to fit a pagan concept of a virgin giving birth, specifically to Jesus.

Refuting the virgin birth of Yeshua is a common practice of liberals in Christianity, who often doubt anything supernatural, and consequently anti-missionaries have joined the bandwagon by claiming Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of the Messiah to come, that the Gospels have misapplied this word, and even that the concept of a virgin giving birth is “pagan.” Messianics who are unfamiliar with the Isaianic expectation of one to be born find themselves very easy to be manipulated.

It is undeniable that Isaiah 7:14 plays a role in the Messianic expectation of the Apostolic Scriptures. Matthew 1:22-23 attests, “Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’” Here as a prophetic support for Yeshua’s Messiahship and Incarnation, Isaiah 7:14 is quoted. When the Revised Standard Version was originally published in 1952, it caused quite a stir rendering Isaiah 7:14 as “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Consequently, since then, the subject of the virgin birth and how Isaiah 7:14 should be viewed has been quite a debate.[58]

The original backdrop of this word concerns an alliance between Rezin, king of Aram (Syria), and Pekah, king of the Northern Kingdom of Ephraim, who prepare to attack the Southern Kingdom of Judah (Isaiah 7:1-2). If this alliance is successful, and Judah is destroyed, so is all hope of God being faithful to His covenant promises. The Prophet Isaiah and his son Shear-Jashub are directed by God to go to King Ahaz of Judah (Isaiah 7:3-6), and are specifically told to tell him “It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass” (Isaiah 7:7). Isaiah asks Ahaz to request of God a sign that He will be faithful to His promises, and although Ahaz refuses (Isaiah 7:12), the Prophet tells him what the sign will be:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (RSV).

It is at this point that the anti-missionaries stop. Matthew has misapplied a word that was given to King Ahaz in ancient times that only speaks of the conception of a child called Immanuel. People are then easily led to conclude that the whole “Christian” idea of a so-called virgin birth is wrong.

First to take notice of is the first clause: yitten Adonai hu l’chem ot (tAa ~kl aWh ynda !Ty), literally “will give the Lord Him to you a sign.” The most overlooked part of this clause is how l’chem or “to you” appears in the plural, not the singular,[59] thus indicating that the sign of which Isaiah speaks regards the entire nation of Israel and not just King Ahaz as an individual.

The second clause indicates what is going to happen: hineh ha’almah hara v’yoledet ben (!B tdlyw hrh hml[h hNh), literally “behold the young woman/virgin look and bearing a son.” There is endless controversy as to how ha’almah (hml[h), either “the young woman/maiden” or “the virgin,” should be translated. Note that it is insufficient for us to just consider almah here; the definite article “the” in ha’almah is what is used in the text, and is intensified by being prefixed with the imperative hineh or “behold.”

Is the scope of Isaiah’s prophecy here just limited to a young woman conceiving and having a child? Indeed, the most common anti-missionary tactic is to say that if Isaiah were truly speaking of a virgin, then the word betulah (hlWtB), used to describe Rebekah in Genesis 24:16, would have been used. However, when one examines varied Tanach usages of the word almah and weigh them into the equation, this is not the conclusion that a responsible interpreter can draw.

It is very true that Rebekah is described as a betulah or “virgin” in Genesis 24:16, but later in Genesis 24:43, as an unmarried woman, she is also called an almah. The usage of betulah is unclear, necessitating the addition of the clause “no man had had relations with her” in Genesis 24:16, whereas the usage of almah requires no such clarification. Miriam, the sister of Moses, is referred to as an almah in Exodus 2:8, being called by the daughter of Pharaoh to fetch Moses’ mother to nurse him, and we should surely not expect for Miriam to have had sexual relations at such a young age.

The pre-Christian Septuagint translators undoubtedly understood the difference between betulah and almah, and thus they were able to render almah as parthenos (parqenoß), “female of marriageable age w. focus on virginity” (BDAG).[60]

But we need not disconnect Isaiah 7:14 from the verses following in Isaiah 7:15-17:

“He will eat curds and honey at the time [h]e knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. The Lord will bring on you, on your people, and on your father's house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria.”

Hegg suggests that the usage of na’ar (r[n) or “lad” in Isaiah 7:16 is to be taken in a generic, somewhat proverbial sense, indicating, “In a short time (illustrated by the time it takes for a child to grow into moral awareness) the land which the two kings…who had allied together against Jerusalem were fighting for would be forsaken, that is, laid waste.”[61] The lad spoken of in vs. 15-17 is not the Messiah to come, but rather is an allusion to the fact that before a period of about twelve years (cf. Deuteronomy 1:39) has expired, there will be prosperity restored to Judah and Ahaz’ enemies will be dealt with. Ultimately, though, the answer that Ahaz seeks is to be found in the far future by a miraculous birth and one who will be called “Immanuel” or God with us, a different kind of king that has never before been seen. Indeed, as Isaiah 9:6-7 further describes,