Shabbat Bible Study for November 4, 2017
©2017 Mark Pitrone and Fulfilling Torah Ministries
Year 2 Sabbath 33
Leviticus 12:1-13:28 – 2 Kings 4:42 – 5:19, Isaiah 66:7 – Psalm 77 – Matthew 1:18-24, Luke 2:21-24
Vayikra 12.1-8 – The uncleanness spoken of in this passage is not the same kind of uncleanness we spoke of last week in ch.11, where the animals were intrinsically unclean. It is the commonness associated with us when we have unconfessed sin or, as is discussed here, that of a woman when she bears a child. Why is she made common by the natural process of bearing a child? I don’t know, but it is possible that it is a part of the curse on Chava due to her having been so easily deceived by haSatan in the garden.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Gen.3.16)
But the use of the word unclean is unfortunate because she is a human and humans cannot be made unclean any more than a pig or a camel can be made clean. As we’ve discussed for the last 2 weeks, there is NOTHING in Torah that even suggests that a human is anything other than clean, though sin or circumstance can defile him temporarily, unable to offer an offering in the Temple and perhaps need to be quarantined for a time, as is the case with the woman in our passage and the ‘leper’ in ch.13. Here is an excerpt out of this week’s Torah commentary from http://www.messianic.ws/Commentary%20Y-2/Y2-33.htm
When Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, God covered them with skin. The Bible says nothing about animal skin (except in very liberal translations). An ancient Hebrew understanding is that they were covered with human skin – foreskin and hymen. Henceforth, they would bear children that would inherit Adams nature of sin. The children would be (tazria) conceived in a state of (chet) sin, and born with a nature of (avon) iniquity – they would not have to be trained to sin, but would rather need training to be holy. David said,
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5).
David’s father and mother did not sin in having a sexual relationship, and the conception was holy – but there was (tumah) spiritual impurity.
“The creation of human life is the most sublime phenomenon in the universe. By bringing it into being, man and woman become partners with God, Who gives soul to their offspring. But this new life begins with tumah, spiritual impurity” (Chumash: Tazria).
A boy is to be circumcised on the eighth day of his life (Genesis 17:10-12). This is seen as representing going back to the state before the fall of Adam – before the covering of skin. The blood of the circumcision is called a token of the covenant – the covenant of his father to bear a child for the Kingdom of God. This portrays the eighth millennial day, when the child may be completely holy eternally, the design of creation. This eighth-day circumcision relates to the time following the seven days when a mother undergoes ritual purification, in today’s chapter Tazria (verses 2-3).
When a woman marries, and the marriage is first consummated, the hymeneal blood is called a token of her virginity – for the covenant with her husband to bear children for the Kingdom of God, holy offspring. The breaking of the hymen is seen as representative of going back to the state before the fall into sin. This token of the hymeneal blood was saved as the token that she had kept herself a virgin to bear children in holiness for the Kingdom of God (Deuteronomy 22:15). Today’s chapter Tazria speaks of this token hymeneal blood as maqor dam – the issue of her blood (verse 7).
The time that she is quarantined is 7 days in her commonness and then 33 in her purification for a boy and 80 days total for a girl (14 + 66, RESPECTIVELY). In the case of bearing a boy, she is common and quarantined for 7 days, but on the 8th day her quarantine is lifted for the CC of her son and then she continues for the next 33 days in her purification. THAT is how important Y’hovah holds CC for Israel. I don’t see any reason to think that she is to remain quarantined, but she probably stayed at home for that 33 days. Then she brings her offerings for sin and a freewill offering. If she bears a girl, the times are 14 days in her commonness and 66 in her purification – again I really haven’t any idea why the difference. I don’t think bearing the daughter makes the woman more defiled, unless there is something to that deception thing above. Possibly it has to do with the inherent life-giving ability of females, who carry the potential of new life within themselves. I think it just is what it is – a chuk – something for which we have no logical explanation, but that is commanded of Yhwh.
If the woman is able, she is to bring a lamb of the first year and a dove or pigeon to offer to Y’hovah as a burnt and a sin offering, respectively. If she cannot afford a lamb, then she is allowed to bring two doves or pigeons. The dove or pigeon for the sin offering is for unintended or inadvertent sins. The burnt offering is for a ‘sweet smelling savour’ unto Y’hovah, I think representing our obedience, which is always a pleasant thing to Y’hovah.
V.7 speaks of her being cleansed from her issue of blood – maqor dam – after her offering. In Mat.9.20, we see the woman with a 12-year issue of blood.
20 And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: 21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. 22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour. (Mat.9.20-22)
Could it be she missed making the offering at the end of her time of commonness or purification? Perhaps circumstances precluded her getting to the Temple? Just blew it off, maybe? Or perhaps, like the man born blind in Jn.9, this was specifically for the glory of Y’hovah Yeshua. I lean towards the last, because the Greek word for ‘whole’ is sodzo, which means delivered or saved, akin to Hebrew hoshiYah/Yehoshua.
As an aside, I heard something recently that was interesting and that I’d never considered before; The woman with the 12 year issue comes to Yeshua in the middle of another episode, when the ruler of the synagogue, Yair [Jairus], had asked Yeshua to come to his house to heal his daughter of death. The parallel passage in Luke 8.41ff tells us that Yair’s daughter was about 12 years old, and that the woman with the 12 year issue accosted Yeshua on the way to Yair’s house. Could it be that the woman was Yair’s wife and that she’d had that issue since the birth of her daughter? Thank you Zerubabel Emunah for that thought. I think it likely, though not certain. Q&C
Vayikra 13.1-28 – A Levite would not do. Only a Kohen could do the tzara’ath inspection. If the priest determines that the man is plagued with ‘leprosy’, he is immediately declared unclean and quarantined without the camp. Look at the Introduction to this passage in Schottenstein’s Chumash on p. 76, note.
OUR High Priest is Yeshua, so we need to have him keep us apprised of our condition, by his Ruach haKodesh. Keep this prayerfully in mind as we finish the Torah portion today.
If the infection is not deeper than the skin, the priest would confine him separate from both those declared Tzara’ath/tamei and the camp for 7 days, after which he would re-inspect the man’s skin. If the effected area hasn’t changed, he will remain in isolation another 7 days, after which, if the infection is no worse or has gotten better, the man will be declared clean. But if the affected area grows, he will be declared unclean and set without the camp. The idea is to keep him from spreading his sin to others in the camp.
In v.12 we see that his tzara’ath has spread to his whole body, and is declared CLEAN! Why? Because his sin is obvious to the nation that everyone knows and he cannot affect the kahal, so he is not quarantined. Here’s a familiar Brit Chadashah passage to consider:
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Eloha; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (Rev.3.14-18)
Do you see that if you are receiving a butt-whoopin’ from Y’hovah, it is because he loves you and wants to lead you to repentance and a mending of your ways? The same applies to the tzara’ath, here. To apply Rev.3.15, if you are hot after Y’hovah, you will be ever faithful to confess and repent and to stay in close fellowship with Y’hovah. If you are cold, you care not a whit of your sin and will eschew anything having to do with Y’hovah. But if you are lukewarm, you will have an appearance of being after his heart, but a less than active approach to your repentance and turning to his Way. The parallels are obvious to me: 1) the one who is hot after Y’hovah is the one who, upon inspection, has no sin issue; it doesn’t go beneath skin level, isn’t allowed to affect his relationship with Y’hovah; is inadvertent or unavoidable; he offers the sin and burnt offerings as we’ve seen in previous weeks, and is pronounced clean; 2) the one who is cold to Y’hovah is one whose sin is obvious, as is the tzara’ath throughout the sinner’s body and the believer will want nothing to do with it or him; 3) the one who is lukewarm is the one whose active, unrepented and unconfessed sin infection must either be confessed and repented of or excised, or his infection will eventually grow like a cancer and kill the kahal. Shades of 21st C. Messiantics and Churchianity, where Mat.18.15-17 is treated as if it was never written.
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell unto the kahal: but if he neglect to hear the kahal, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Or one with tsara’ath and declared tamei. Q&C
Melechim Bet 4.42-44 – Baal-shalisha is not a place, but a title. Names, both personal and place names, mean things all through scripture, and are often very instructive as to a man’s character or political power. It seems so here. Baal-shalisha is a title rather than a personal or place-name, like Ravshakeh in 2Ki.18-19 and Is.36-37. Ravshakeh means Great or Head Water-bearer – he basically carried the Assyrian king’s water – he had the king’s ear and was a highly trusted official, I think 2nd in command of the armies of Assyria.
The same applies to Baal-Shalisha, which means 3rd lord. This guy was, at this time, the 3rd in command of the Syrian army under Naaman and may actually have later BECOME RavShakeh – 2nd in command. This was a good-will embassage, if I don’t miss my guess, to lay the groundwork for the events in ch.5. That would mean that this short, 3-verse portion is parenthetical and that ch.4 and 5 are not necessarily strictly chronological. I think there’s a paragraph change in the KJV for a reason. If I am correct (and we all know I am 😉 ), Naaman or someone of authority in his command found out about the need in the school of the prophets (the sons of the prophets in 4.38ff), and supplied it by way of introduction for what’s coming in ch.5.
Some of the details are interesting; 1). Baal-shalisha sends the gift by another’s hand (tells me he thinks it may be beneficial to go to Elisha and wanted him to think favorably about Naaman, but could not take it himself for some reason); 2). the gift is barley firstfruits, so the time of year is spring and probably during the Feast of Matzah, which the sons of the prophets have observed; 3). Elisha’s servant doesn’t know much about the power of Y’hovah, or he’d have just done what the man of Eloha had commanded without giving him the ration; 4). Elisha provides a foreshadow of Mashiach by feeding the 7000 ‘sons of the prophets’ on the basic rations of 100 men (a 70-fold+ increase), and had leftovers, like Yeshua fed 5000 from a young man’s sack-lunch (a 5000-fold increase). You might think that the increase given here would have made a believer out of Elisha’s servant, but it certainly didn’t have a lasting effect, if it did at all. Q&C
Melechim Bet 5.1-19 – Naaman is a tzara’ath. The root word is the same as metzorah, motzi ra – he who creates wickedness or spreads an evil report (motzi shem ra – makes a bad name). His job, as the ‘RavShakeh’ of the Syrian king, is to try to take a besieged city with as little bloodshed as possible, which means he had to spread an evil report or ‘slander’ the city’s king and his government to the people of the city. Witness the words of RavShakeh in ch.18-19 and in Is.36-37. He was engaging in PsyOps before there WAS such a term, trying to get the people to rebel and remove the king from power or influence him to surrender. Well, that is essentially Naaman’s gig – to win in battle if necessary, but to leave as much of the infrastructure intact as possible. He was the ‘neutron bomb’ of the day – take out the opposition without destroying more than was necessary. His job was to twist the truth to his king’s advantage. And it worked fairly well – but the slander left Naaman with his plague.
Y’hovah doesn’t send such maladies to just anybody. He puts them on those he wants to use for his own kingdom, to influence them to repent. In Naaman’s case it worked. He had an Israelite girl, who was a believer (perhaps a daughter of a prophet?), as servant to his wife, and who brings up Elisha and the miracles Y’hovah worked through him. Naaman was probably a good boss and a righteous individual in his personal and home life, for the girl seems to genuinely care for him. Naaman’s wife told her husband what the girl said and he told his king, who immediately sent an embassage to Yehoram, king of Samaria. Yehoram is fit to be tied, as the Syrian kings letter specifically says that Yehoram should heal Naaman (who, I think, just happened to show up at the gates of Samaria with the letter – and an army in tow). Yehoram is not exactly a godly man, but he knows full well that he is NOT a god and thinks the Syrian king is looking for an excuse to attack Samaria (which ALSO may have been true). Yehoram, in this case, did what was right in the eyes of Y’hovah, by rending his clothes – humbling himself before Y’hovah. That action was enough, in conjunction with the food sent to the sons of the prophets (I think), to get Elisha’s attention and move him to action on Yehoram’s (and Naaman’s) behalf. He told Yehoram to send Naaman to him.
Naaman came to Elisha ready to watch the usual dog and pony show the priests of Ba’al did to get their god’s attention. But when Elisha sent his servant to give Naaman the message to do a 7-fold mikvah in the Jordan, Naaman is incensed! “Why did he not come out to ME? Do I not have the power right here in my train to wipe out this pip-squeak country?”
Naaman’s pride was almost his undoing. Fortunately for him, he WAS a good boss and actually listened to what his advisers said. Now, here is where I think Baal-Shalisha steps back into the picture. I think he’s the guy who spoke directly to Naaman, saying “If he’d told you to go out and do some exploits, would you not have done so gladly? What can it hurt to dunk yourself 7 times in this mud-hole of a river?” Naaman, in effect had said, “That can’t do anything about my plague!” and Baal-Shalisha said, “It couldn’t hurt!” So Naaman relented and obeyed the prophet. And he came out from the 7th dunking with skin as smooth as a baby’s butt.
THIS was a paradigm changer for Naaman. He immediately trusted Y’hovah as the only true Elohim. I’d be willing to bet (I am not a gambling man, but I think I’d win this one) that Naaman, to honor Y’hovah and Elisha, helped keep Syria’s king from attacking Samaria, at least for as long as he was the leader of his army. Naaman offers a generous gift to Elisha, but he, like Avraham with the king of Sodom and Ephron the Hittite, refused a gift that might make him beholden to Naaman or the Syrian king, or might tempt him with the luxury it would provide.
So instead, Naaman asked for, and received, 2 mule loads of Israel’s earth to take home so that he could raise up a proper altar on which to make offerings to Y’hovah. Also he asked for, and received, pardon in advance (Elisha said, “Go in peace.”) for going into the Temple of Syria’s false god in respect of his king (keeping the 5th commandment, by way of acknowledging whose authority he was under).
As Naaman is fading into the horizon, Gehazi, the servant of Elisha (whether the SAME servant as before is not clearly known), went out to meet Naaman and lie to him to enrich himself in violation of the 10th commandment. Naaman was more than happy to give a gift, thinking that Elisha was asking through him. Gehazi asked for 1 talent of silver (between 80 and 120 pounds of silver – a lot of dough), but Naaman was so ecstatic that he gave him 2 talents AND the servants to carry it back to the city’s tower, where they hid it from Elisha. Elisha, knowing in the Spirit the answer already, asked him where he’d gone giving him a chance to come clean) but Gehazi tried to cover it up, which is always a bad thing, especially with a prophet of Y’hovah. Elisha put the plague on Gehazi, and he went away whiter than snow – a tzara’ath. He’d spread a false report to Naaman, taken even MORE than his greed had desired and then spread another false report to his Master, the prophet of Y’hovah. He had done the same stuff that caused the trouble of tzara’ath in Israel in Lev.13. He had the infection everywhere, so he was able to walk in society, but he was obviously a sinner and noone would ever trust him again in Israel. Only repentance and confession could render him or his natural offspring clean again.
YeshaYahu 66.7 – Does this passage speak specifically of Miriam and her delivery of Yeshua in the sukkah and laying him in the animal’s feed trough? Was her delivery something different from all other women’s because she conceived and bore and named her son without the usual intervention of a male of the species? Could be. Q&C
Tehellim 77 – It begins with repentance. When we call out to Y’hovah, he responds in his mercy and grace by sending his deliverance. In this vein, look at the AENT on Lk.1.72-73 (note 18 on pg.147). Will we see Y’hovah remembering us and his oath to us in this Psalm? Don’t be surprised if we do. In v.2 Asaph thinks of the running sore that defiled him, causing his exile, and won’t allow him to rest. In v.3 we are kvetching about his failure to deliver for us, but aren’t seeing our need to repent of the sin that brought our calamity upon us. The trouble we are in is given to remind us of our sinfulness, as is the tsara’ath of the Torah and haftarah today. He chastens only those whom he loves. Even Gehazi could repent and be made perfectly clean again, as Naaman had been.
In vv.5-6 he calls himself to remembrance and makes a diligent search of his heart to get all of his sins repented and confessed so that Y’hovah can make his skin as smooth as a baby’s butt. Our song in the night represents our hope of redemption from exile.
Vv.7-9 should be seen as one subject. The answer to each individual question is, “NO!” But look at what the questions are, while remembering the note from the AENT. V.8 covers Yochanan, Elishaba and ZecharYah, Y’hovah’s grace and mercy that comes when he remembers his covenant oath with us. At this point, after Asaph asks these questions in light of what his heart knows of Y’hovah, his outward attitude changes from kvetching to a certain hope of Y’hovah’s deliverance.
In vv.10-11, Asaph owns up to the trouble being himself and not Y’hovah. He remembers the right hand of Y’hovah, he remembers his righteous acts in Israel’s defense and deliverance from bondage. Our take away from this is that when it seems to us that he doesn’t care or will not relent in his chastening, we need to remember his faithfulness to forgive when we turn from our ways to his Way. We also need to remember his past acts for us, so that we can remind HIM and understand that he WANTS to bless us, not chasten us. We CAN call on him to bless us and keep on doing so until he delivers. He has delivered both houses of Israel, the sons of Jacob and Joseph (Yehudah and Ephraim).
The waters of v.16 represent the world system, which remembers but would rather forget, Y’hovah’s deliverance of his people from their bondage in the nations and his promise to do so again. I think the waters themselves may remember when he parted the Yam Suf and the Yarden to allow them to walk dry across them. The forces of nature did everything they could to frighten Israel to not follow after Y’hovah in v.17, but we followed as closely as we could to maintain our composure. V.19 has always said “ocean currents” to me, and I have no doubt that Israel had figured out that they exist long before Asaph wrote this. But modern man is arrogant enough to think that this was knowledge that noone knew before he discovered it for himself – like the modern historians who think that sailors in Israel’s days never went far out to sea for fear of dropping off the edge of the world. Sailors have known for millennia that staying close to shore is a LOT more dangerous due to rocks and shoals than venturing into the deep. The reason the crow’s nest is way up there is so they can know when to trim sails and start sounding for the bottom. One large rock anchored to the bottom can thoroughly mess up a beautiful cruise. Q&C
MattitYahu 1.18-25 – As soon as Miriam got the announcement from Gavriel about being the mother of the Mashiach, she left to visit with her cousin Elishabah (God of the oath), where she hung around until Liz bore her own miracle baby, who would grow to be Yochanan (Y’hovah’s Gift or Mercy) the Immerser.
From my study on The Life of Yeshua haMoshiach ©2000-2017 Mark Pitrone and Fulfilling Torah Ministries:
37d.) The angel appears to Yoseph (Mat.1.20ff) – Miriam returned from Elisheva’s house and was found with child. She had some cockamamie excuse that the child is of the Ruach haKodesh of Elohim, but how many do you think believed her? Not even Yoseph. He was ready to quietly put her away, until he was awakened from a sound sleep by someone he’d never seen before. Twice (Mat.1.20&24) we are told that this was the angel of Y’hovah. I think that this is not Gabriel, or he’d have been named. What messes with our Greco-Roman minds is that The Angel of Y’hovah in the Tanakh, the one who spoke directly to men face to face, was, in my mind, the risen Yeshua – the Angel of Y’hovah in Gen.18, the Angel that wrestled with Ya’acov in Gen.32, the one who spoke to Moshe in Exodus-Deuteronomy and the Angel of Y’hovah’s hosts that spoke to Yehoshua in ch.5 were all the resurrected Mashiach Yeshua. Matthew was written to Jews, to prove that Yeshua was the Mashiach. [Now, another aspect of the angel of Y’hovah that is a possibility, as we heard from Mark Call in our replay of TTRT from 11/9/11, was that ANY angelic messenger from Y’hovah, sent by him on a particular mission, is acting in Y’hovah’s Name and is exercising Y’hovah’s authority. He can rightly be characterized, while on this mission authorized by Y’hovah himself, as the angel of Y’hovah. But I still think it was the risen Yeshua.] The Jews would have known that Gabriel was the special messenger of Elohim to Yisrael, so why not mention his name if this is, in fact, Gabe? The angel being Gabe position is strengthened by the probability that Yoseph was praying earnestly regarding what to do about Miriam. Anyway, this appearance is enough to convince Yoseph to marry his wife post-haste, despite the ridicule to follow.
Notice the salutation of the angel, “Yoseph, thou son of David.” How many sons of David were around right then? Unless Yoseph’s progenitors were still alive, no others. This is a title unique to the royal line and we see this royal bloodline in Mat.1.1-17. Although other sons of David than Solomon existed, it was through Solomon that the royal line ran. Each chief heir of David was the unique son of David, the heir to the throne. This described Yoseph, son of Jacob, son of David.
24 As I live, saith Y’hovah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; 25 And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. 27 But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. 28 This man Coniah a despised broken idol? a vessel wherein no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? 29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Y’hovah. 30 Thus saith Y’hovah, Write ye this man childless, a man 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. (Jer.22.24-30)
This is a prophecy concerning the royal line of David. This Coniah is the same king as Jechonias in Mat.1.11. He is the last wicked king in a long line of wicked kings, punctuated every 4-5 generations by a good king in Yehudah. He was so wicked that Elohim removed the blessing of the kingdom from his line forever. But then how could Yeshua prosperously reign on the throne of his father David?
Look at Luke 3.23-38, where we have the genealogy of Yeshua through Miriam. In v.31 Miriam is in the line of David through Nathan, another son of David.
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Here is the answer to the riddle. Miriam was a blood descendant of David, which explains why she had to go to Bethlehem with Yoseph to be taxed (though, being married to Yoseph may have had SOMETHING to do with it, even if she were of Naphtali or Dan). She gave Yeshua the physical claim to be called the son of David. The legal right came when Yoseph, the rightful king of Yisrael, named the boy at his circumcision. When he did that he made Yeshua his principal heir, and, therefore, the NEXT rightful, legal King of the nation of Yisrael. Yeshua is not physically the son of Yoseph, but he is legally and royally. He is not Jechoniah’s seed. Yoseph, a physical descendant of YechonYah was precluded from the throne. Yeshua is not. Therefore, Yeshua was no Crown Prince, but King from the moment of his circumcision/naming, since only he could BE King.
Ain’t Elohim great?
Notice also that the genealogies seem to converge at Shealtiel (Salaltiel) and Zerubbabel (Zorobabel). There must have been some kinsman-redeemer action happening here to keep the line of Nathan from being wiped out (Lk. 3.27, Mat.1.12, Ezra 3.8, 1Chron.3.19, 2Sam.5.14). The kinsman-redeemer begat children for his next kin (a brother or a cousin) to keep the line going and the property rights in the family. For as long as it took for the line to be renewed, that is how long the redeemer’s line would be considered a part of the male-less line. In this case it took two generations to beget a male to carry on the family property rights. It is as kinsman-redeemer that Yeshua begets us to Elohim. Our next kin had to beget us into the line of Elohim, so that we could partake of the blessings of His family. Only a sinless kinsman, Yeshua, could do this. BTW, this means that even Miriam was a physical descendant of Shlomo through the kinsman redeemers, as well.
It is important that Yoseph not ‘know’ Miriam until she bore her son and named him so that the prophecy of Is.7.14 could be fulfilled. The virgin had to be such right until the naming of the child or the prophecy would be unfulfilled – ‘and call his name Immanuel.’ Yoseph obeyed completely. He took Miriam to wife, he knew her not and he named the child Yeshua, not Yoseph. I think his next son was named Yoseph
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Miriam? and his brethren, Ya’acov, and Yoseph, and Shimon, and Yehuda? (Mat.13.55).
Luka 2.21-24 – Also from my study on The Life of Yeshua haMoshiach –
41). The presentation in the Temple and the words of Shimon and Channah – Lk.2.22-38. – Yeshua was 40 days old when they brought him to the temple. Leviticus 12:2-4,
“Speak unto the children of Yisrael, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.”
This was not for circumcision, which was done on the 8th day and possibly by Yoseph. There is nothing that says the boy needs to be circumcised at the temple, only that he needs to be circumcised. The baptism of babies is done at the liturgical assemblies and that is the reason some think Yeshua was brought to the Temple when he was 8 days old. It is a leftover of Catholic tradition. It is interesting that the Catholic right of baptism is performed when the child is about 40 days old, which gives a bit of credence to the idea that baptism is to Catholics what they think circumcision is to Jews. Yeshua was being presented before YHVH as the firstborn of Yoseph’s family, as was commanded in the scripture (Ex.13.2, 12-13). It was here that Yoseph adopted Yeshua. When Yoseph named Yeshua, he claimed him as his principal heir. The offering was to make the mother ceremonially clean after her days of purification and had nothing whatever to do with the baby (Lev. 12.8), weakening the idea that he was brought for circumcision. Notice that Miriam brought two birds, not a lamb and a bird. This gives the lie to the prosperity crowd, Yoseph was not a rich man and neither was Yeshua. Neither was he homeless, as the SJW crowd wants us to think. Yoseph was an independent businessman, like most of the men here, and was therefore almost, but not quite, broke.
End of Shabbat Bible Study