ARE YOU THE PROPHET ?

 

https://bible.art/p/u3L1rcuCa8Kk0MMZd1fC

Hello again Neighbor,

Today I'd like to present a few questions; and, observations to hopefully place a stone in your shoe. To cause you to dig deeper; and, think more critically about Messiah. In the Gospel of John chapter 1, there are several questions presented to John the Baptist (Cousin of Yeshua the one whom many call "Jesus"). It is the third question itself that has held my attention more than ANY of the others; causing me to dig even deeper; and, ask more critical questions. 

• "Are you the Christ?"
• "Are you Elijah?"
• "Are you the prophet?"
• "Who are you?"

For the first three questions John simply answers them "I am not."
But when asked "Who are you?" He responds in this manner:

"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Make straight the way of the LORD."  -- Isaiah 40:3 

ARE YOU THE PROPHET?
Which prophet? 

Do you even know how many people in the Bible are considered to be prophets? There are 66 books, written by over 40 different authors, over a period of 2,000 years. The phrase "the prophet" appears in the Bible's text some 164 times in 157 passages. 

So which prophet are they asking about? Which one? 
Just chew on that for a minute as we keep going.

Friend. What I find intriguing is this. 

John the Baptist is NOT FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH.
John; and, His family were clearly from:

• The Tribe of Levi
• Descended of the High Priest Aaron
• Kohathite's - the Tribe all High Priests are selected from
• Making both John; and, Yeshua potential "Matches" to Deuteronomy 18 

If they were expecting someone from Judah.
Then why question John the Baptist?
The only reason to question John the Baptist.
Is that they were looking for somebody from LEVI.
Somebody descended of AARON. A KOHATHITE.
And John happened to match this pattern.

Follow?

In Deuteronomy 18 the text prophesies to the Nation of Israel; and, to the Tribe of Levi who carries the "Covenant of Life and Peace" (See Malachi: 2:5) of a coming prophet. 

THE VERY ONE WHO PROPHESIES TO MOSES
IS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY (REV. 19:10).

THE SPIRIT WHO BECAME FLESH

"“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,

But a body You have prepared for Me"

HEBREWS 10:5

This "Prophet Like Unto Moses" was expected to come. A real living person. Not some disembodied being; or, an Anunnaki from the Heavens. They had heard about Him (The "Memra") within the Targums when they were read in the Synagogue aloud. Again the people were expecting Him to come.

READ WHAT THE TARGUMS SAY ABOUT MESSIAH
THE TARGUMS ARE ARAMAIC TRANSLATIONS
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. OF THE TANAK. 

This particular chapter Deuteronomy 18 opens thus:

"The priests, the Levites (LEVI'IM) -- all the tribe of Levi shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel."

Levi itself has three (3) Sub Divisions. Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. So This Chapter is addressing also these three subtribes. Moses and Aaron are of Kohath. They are both Levites. All High Priests were selected from Kohath. 

We are instructed in verse 13:

"You shall be blameless before the LORD your God"

In the Gospels when it speaks of Jesus's Aunt Elizabeth and Uncle Zachariah it declares this:

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord Blameless. But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren; and, they were both well advanced in years.

Friends. Jesus's Family are observant of the Written Torah. Called The Torah Schibictov in Judaism. It is NOT the only collection of writings they call "Torah." Which causes many to stumble at Law; just as the Prophet Malachi declares. The Bible's text is telling us:

• This Family is obedient. 
• This Family is Torah Observant. 
• This Family is Loyal to YHVH The Most High Elohim.

*** Which Torah ***
Written Vs. Oral Traditions

The fact that John the Baptist is asked if He is "the prophet" is SO SIGNIFICANT because of His own Tribal Affiliation. It matches what Deuteronomy 18 declares. It explains why John was asked "Are you the prophet?" They are inquiring of Him:

"Are you the one Deuteronomy 18 declares is coming?" 

If you look at the above graphic you will be able to clearly follow the Line of Priesthood from Aaron down through Phinehas; then Zadok; then through Zachariah who had a vision while serving as High Priest on the Day of Atonement in the Temple. 

Neighbor, I assert to you that HE  [ZACHAIRAH] was the TRUE HIGH PRIEST as far as YHVH is concerned. 

"Caiaphas had not obtained the High Priesthood by way of the traditional, hereditary, lifelong method; but, was instead appointed by Rome. While the position was not directly "purchased" in a straightforward cash transaction recorded by history, the office was heavily influenced by bribery and, in that era, often went to the highest bidder or those most subservient to Rome."

Caiaphas. IS NOT. Legitimate. 

Zachariah is the one whom YHVH CHOOSES.
And. He's perfect. Why?

Because Zachariah's wife is barren.
Just like Abraham's Wife. Sarai.
Just like Isaac's Wife. Rebekah.

Just like Jacob's Wife. Rachel.

Just like Hannah. Wife of Elkanah.
Mother of the prophet Samuel.

Just like Sampson's mother wife of Manoah.

Just like the Shunammite Woman.
Who showed Kindness to Elisha.
And Was Rewarded with a Son.

Zachariah and Elizabeth are PERFECT for YHVH to show His power.
He blesses their righteousness with fertility.
And then He does it again with Yeshua's Mother Miriam. 
Proving His power over even those who are infertile.
Over even a young girl who was a Virgin.
To fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14.

To produce a Holy, Set Apart, Vessel (Temple). 

From the Very beginning.
Likely conceived on the first day of Chanukah.

The 24th Day of the 9th Month. Kislev.

Giving Him yet another connection
To the Menorah within the Temple.
The Sanctuary Itself. And.
The Festival of Lights.

Giving him a date of birth within the 7th month.

The Holiest Month upon the Hebrew Calendar.

‘Consider now from this day forward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day that the foundation of the LORD’s temple was laid—consider it: -- Haggai 2:18

Neighbor, I bothered to study out when the foundation stones were laid for both temples. They were both laid in the 2nd month of the Hebrew Calendar, the month called "ZIV."

So which "temple" is this speaking about? Do you remember when the people thought that Jesus had declared He would tear down the Temple and raise it again in three days?

He was talking about the "Temple" of His Body. 
I suggest to you that Haggai 2:18 is offering us a clue.
About the timing of Yeshua's conception.
Allowing us to apply the normal gestational cycle
of a pregnancy to get an idea of the due date.
He was born during Tishri. (Sept - Oct).
The Holiest Month of the Hebrew Calendar.
He was definitely NOT born In December.

Likely between the 1st - 14th of Sept.

Friends. Yeshua is the prototype we are to conform to. 

The Second Adam. The one thru whom
Life and Peace would come.

I tell you the truth. 

Zachariah's son John; and, His Cousin Yeshua
Were the last 2 Righteous Zadok.
Chosen to usher in the New Priesthood.
The Melchizedek Priesthood. 
Where the Zadok has right
to the Chamber of the South.
Formerly only for Kohathites. 

SEE: Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 43:19; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 44:23-24; Ezekiel 48: 11; 

A time when the Written Torah shall be be Made Great Again.
A time when it shall be honored among the Nations.
A time when many shall walk in equity. Uprightly.

John's very function; His reason to Exist.
Was to Baptize His Cousin. In Righteousness.
Yeshua the Messiah. The Two a Pair.
Just like Moses and Aaron.
One a King. The Other The High Priest.
The King (Moses) & His High Priest (Aaron).

Both Stations Held by Yeshua. The Melchizedek.
Who desires to raise up an entire nation.
Just like Himself. King Priests. Melchizedek.

https://www.deviantart.com/davedsign/art/Hakohen-Gadol-the-ultimate-1245235315

Only a Legitimate High Priest could baptize another.

Into His station as a New High Priest.

This is why it was vital for John to Baptize Yeshua. 

For righteousness sake. To Follow the instructions.

Given upon Sinai to Moses; and, Aaron.

To Lead the Children of Israel In the Way. 

The people were not looking for a Prophet from Judah. But the Scribes and Pharisees were. 
The Scribes and the Pharisees believed that the Messiah would be the Son of David. 
See the discussion in (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12: 35-37; Luke 20:39-44).

SEE MY ARTICLE
"YESHUA LEVITE HYPOTHESIS"

Yeshua the one whom many call "Jesus" declared we are to BEWARE of THEIR DOCTRINE.
Wouldn't that mean we should beware of those who declare Messiah comes from Judah?
SEE: (Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11; Matthew 16:12; Mark 8:15; Mark 12:38; Luke 12:1)

Within Judaism there is the belief that Messiah is of Judah.  
This is based upon the following passages:

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people." --

Genesis 49:10

There are three (3) things in this passage I would Like you to recognize. 

First this passage in Genesis does not claim Messiah is of Judah. It does however; claim that the Scepter (of the King) shall not depart from Judah (the Tribe that all Kings are selected from); UNTIL "Shiloh" comes. 

Meaning the Scepter of the King will remain within Judah UNTIL Messiah Comes. So. What happens when He comes? Does Judah loose the right to Rule? No. He Continues to Rule. But in Peace & Safety.

The scepter was a symbol of Kingship. So. What does Shiloh (שׁילו) mean? The root of Shiloh is (שִׁילֹה) which only appears twice. H7786. But it comes from another word. Shalah (שָׁלָה). To be tranquil, i.e. secure or successful:- be happy, be in safety. There is a hint here. 

*** The inclusion of symbolism of the Scepter; and, the lawgiver. ***

Secondarily. This passage mentions "nor a lawgiver from between His feet.."

Neighbor, Judah was not tasked with the giving of the Law.
That was a function that belonged to the Kohathites.
Those specifically descended from AARON the High Priest.  

Third. "And to Him shall be the obedience of the people."

The word used here for Obedience is (יקּהה) yiqqâhâh meaning:

Obedience; cleansing; gathering to obey. purging

Shiloh is a gatherer of the people.
Causing obedience.
And cleansing them from their sins.
Which Tribe has this duty?
Who is to teach Israel the Way?
Who instructs in Obedience?
Only the Tribe of LEVI.

Friend. Do you remember the promises that YHVH made to the Two (2) Families in the prophet Jeremiah? Have you ever read it? If not follow along with me please in your own bible as you read along with me please. Make sure to mark this place well. I encourage you to read the entire passage as it is pregnant with meaning.

""For thus says the LORD 'David [JUDAH] shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, [LEVI] lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.'" 

--  Jeremiah 33:17-18 NKJV

"Have you not considered what these people have spoken, saying, 'The two families which the LORD has chosen, He has also cast them off'? Thus they have despised My people, as if they should no more be a nation before them."

-- Jeremiah 33:24 NKJV

Friends, Messiah Yeshua is a not just of Judah; nor, not just of Levi. 

HE IS BOTH

His connection with Judah began not with Joseph; but, with His ancestor AARON who married a woman of the tribe of JUDAH named Elisheba (Elisheva) which in Greek is (Ελισαβεθ). The name of Zachariah's wife Elizabeth is (Ἐλισάβετ) a derivation of Elisheva.

"Aaron took to himself Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon, as wife; and she bore him Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar." -- Exodus 6:23 NKJV

 "Of Judah; Nahshon the son of Amminadab." -- Numbers 1:7 KJV

"And he that offered his offering the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah:" Numbers 7:12 KJV

So. All of Aaron's descendant's. All of the High Priests are a mixture of Levi-Judah. A Family. A Progenitor of Levitical High Priests; and, a Wife of Judah. Yet. The Pattern of Yeshua is flipped.

A King for His Father; and, a Kohanim (high priestly line) from His Mother.  A MELCHIZEDEK.
Meaning He MUST Have connection to Both Tribes. He has the natural connection to Judah even without Miriam's marriage to Joseph. What Yeshua gains through Joseph is the Throne of the King which He didn't receive through Aaron's wife. 

This is reinforced with Davidic lineage in the Gospels; and, Hebrews 7:14

For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. -- Hebrews 7:14

Yeshua's mother Miriam married a man of Judah.
Meaning that Yeshua's tribal affiliation became Judah.

Just as Aaron's wife (who was of Judah) lived with her Husband.
In the area for the High Priest and their families Aaron's Tent (Kohen Ha Gadol).

However this connection to Judah is already included when Miraim become's pregnant with Yeshua within her Womb; overshadowed by the power of the Most High. The power of the Holy Spirit. Miriam's marriage to Joseph doesn't expunge Yeshua's (natural birth family connection) to Levi, to Aaron, to Kohath, to Phinehas; and, Zadok. 

HE IS BORN A KOHEN.
OF THE SAME STOCK AS JOHN
A WARRIOR PRIEST
WHO COMES FIRST IN PEACE
BUT LATER COMES TO MAKE WAR

We are instructed in Hebrews some 17 Times
That Yeshua is "High Priest." 
But of an order HIGHER
Than that of his predecessors. 
Of the Order of Melchizedek.

While He is Teaching within the Temple
Yeshua very publicly questions the Scribes
And the Pharisees regarding the identity
Of the one expected to come.
The Messiah.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?" They said to Him, "The Son of David." 

He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool" '? 

"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?" And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.

MATTHEW 22:42-46 NKJV   

IF YOU WANT TO REALLY UNPACK WHAT HE IS ASKING.
PLEASE WATCH MY TEACHING "THE MESSIAH'S REMEZ."

Yeshua asks both the scribes and pharisees very publicly "How can they say this?" None of the Scribes; or the Pharisees offers Him an answer. They are silent before Him offering no passage from the TaNaK to support their belief regarding this matter. "

FRIENDS YESHUA THE ONE WHOM MANY CALL "JESUS"

IS PUBLICLY CHALLENGING THE PREVAILING THINKING

ABOUT MESSIAH'S TRUE TRIBAL AFFILIATION.

Here is what is interesting about the Sub Tribe KOHATH (LEVI); descended of AARON.

• The only tribe from which ALL HIGH PRIESTS are selected.
• The only tribe that was authorized to ENTER into the HOLY OF HOLIES.
• The only tribe that was authorized to CARRY THE TORAH SCROLL (within the Ark upon poles).
• The only tribe that was authorized to BE in the presence of the TEMPLE MENORAH.
• The only tribe that was authorized to prepare, bake, and display the SHOWBREAD which sits within the HOLY OF HOLIES.

The Showbread was "The Bread of the Presence."
It is included within the Bread of His Covenant.

Again The only tribe from which ALL HIGH PRIESTS are selected.
Again. The only tribe that was authorized to prepare; bake; and display the SHOWBREAD.

I tell you the truth. The titles "The Bread of Life" and "The Prince of Peace" are both intimately connected to The Covenant of Life and Peace. See Proverbs 3:2, Malachi 2:5, & Romans 8:6.

John was asked if HE was "The Prophet."
Which Prophet?

The Prophet Like Unto Moses.
The Levite. Descended of Aaron.
A Kohathite. 

Whom they expected. 

I tell you the truth. 

Jesus Christ.

Is the SAME.

Yesterday. Today. Forever.

See Him as He truly Is. 

Not how HE has been misrepresented. 

A KOHEN. FOREVER. 

PSALM 110 YOU ARE A KOHEN FOREVER.

Shalom

Eusebius of Caesarea. "The Church History" Chapter VII

Eusebius of Caesarea. "The Church History" Chapter VII (7)
The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, [107] and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, [108] where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition [109] in these words:

MATTHEW AND LUKE'S GENEOLOGIES ARE DIFFERENT

2. "For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law; -- according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; [110] for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated; --

• According to Nature: succession of legitimate offspring.
  
  
• According to Law: Whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying Childless. (This occurs in Levirate marriage).       
   

3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.

4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan [111] were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.

CAN YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS "BY NATURE" & WHICH IS "BY LAW" ?

I'll give you a hint *** begot *** implies procreation.
It implies the Natural Line. The Genealogy that lacks the term
"begot" 39 times is the "Legal Line."

5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, [112] whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.

Joseph has (2) Two "Fathers" because he has
Levirite Marriage Occurring in His Lineage.

6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.

7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.

8. By Estha [113] then (for this was the woman's name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe [114] but of another family, [115] married her as before said, and begat a son Eli.

9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begat by her a son [116] Joseph, his own son by nature [117] and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: Jacob begat Joseph.' [118] But according to law [119] he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.

10. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: Who was the son, as was supposed' [120] (for this he also adds), of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression he begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture. [121]

11. For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: [122] Some Idumean robbers, [123] having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest [124] was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.

12. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. [125] But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune [126] was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews [127] under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. [128] These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks. [129]

13. But as there had been kept in the archives [130] up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, [131] such as Achior [132] the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, [133] thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae. [134]

14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, [135] on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, [136] villages of Judea, [137] into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory [138] and from the book of daily records [139] as faithfully as possible.

15. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, [140] we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth." And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: "Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both."

17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. [141] For the command is to marry one of the same family [142] and lineage, [143] so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.
Footnotes:

NOT TRUE. AARON MARRIED A WOMAN FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH.

[107] "Over against the various opinions of uninstructed apologists for the Gospel history, Eusebius introduces this account of Africanus with the words, ten peri touton katelthousan eis hemas historian." (Spitta.)

[108] On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. Of this Aristides to whom the epistle is addressed we know nothing. He must not be confounded with the apologist Aristides, who lived in the reign of Trajan (see below, Bk. IV. c. 3). Photius (Bibl. 34) mentions this epistle, but tells us nothing about Aristides himself. The epistle exists in numerous fragments, from which Spitta (Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt, Halle, 1877) attempts to reconstruct the original epistle. His work is the best and most complete upon the subject. Compare Routh, Rel. Sacræ, II.-pp. 228-237 and pp. 329-356, where two fragments are given and discussed at length. The epistle (as given by Mai) is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VI. p. 125 ff. The attempt of Africanus is, so far as we know, the first critical attempt to harmonize the two genealogies of Christ. The question had been the subject merely of guesses and suppositions until his time. He approaches the matter in a free critical spirit (such as seems always to have characterized him), and his investigations therefore deserve attention. He holds that both genealogies are those of Joseph, and this was the unanimous opinion of antiquity, though, as he says, the discrepancies were reconciled in various ways. Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law of Levirate marriages, and his view is advocated by Mill (On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.); but of this interpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, "There is neither reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all." Upon the supposition that both genealogies relate to Joseph the best explanation is that Matthew's table represents the royal line of legal successors to the throne of David, while Luke's gives the line of actual descent. This view is ably advocated by Hervey in Smith's Bible Dictionary (article Genealogy of Jesus). Another opinion which has prevailed widely since the Reformation is that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. The view is defended very ingeniously by Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 205, 2d edition). For further particulars see, besides the works already mentioned, the various commentaries upon Matthew and Luke and the various lives of Christ, especially Andrews', p. 55 sq.

[109] Eusebius makes a mistake in saying that Africanus had received the explanation which follows from tradition. For Africanus himself says expressly (15, below) that his interpretation is not supported by testimony. Eusebius' error has been repeated by most writers upon the subject, but is exposed by Spitta, ibid. p. 63.

[110] The law is stated in Deuteronomy 25:5 sq.

[111] Nathan was a son of David and Bathsheba, and therefore own brother of Solomon.

[112] Melchi, who is here given as the third from the end, is in our present texts of Luke the fifth (Luke 3:24), Matthat and Levi standing between Melchi and Eli. It is highly probable that the text which Africanus followed omitted the two names Matthat and Levi (see Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Appendix, p. 57). It is impossible to suppose that Africanus in such an investigation as this could have overlooked two names by mistake if they had stood in his text of the Gospels.

[113] We know nothing more of Estha. Africanus probably refers to the tradition handed down by the relatives of Christ, who had, as he says, preserved genealogies which agreed with those of the Gospels. He distinguishes here what he gives on tradition from his own interpretation of the Gospel discrepancy upon which he is engaged.

[114] phule.

[115] genos. "In this place genos is used to denote family. Matthan and Melchi were of different families, but both belonged to the same Davidic race which was divided into two families, that of Solomon and that of Nathan" (Valesius).

[116] All the mss., and editions of Eusebius read triton instead of huion here. But it is very difficult to make any sense out of the word triton in this connection. We therefore prefer to follow Spitta (see ibid. pp. 87 sqq.) in reading huion instead of triton, an emendation which he has ventured to make upon the authority of Rufinus, who translates "genuit Joseph filium suum," showing no trace of a triton. The word triton is wanting also in three late Catenæ which contain the fragments of Africanus' Epistle (compare Spitta, ibid. p. 117, note 12).

[117] kata logon. These words have caused translators and commentators great difficulty, and most of them seem to have missed their significance entirely. Spitta proposes to alter by reading kat?logon, but the emendation is unnecessary. The remarks which he makes (p. 89 sqq.) upon the relation between this sentence and the next are, however, excellent. It was necessary to Africanus' theory that Joseph should be allowed to trace his lineage through Jacob, his father "by nature," as well as through Eli, his father "by law," and hence the words kata logon are added and emphasized. He was his son by nature and therefore "rightfully to be reckoned as his son." This explains the Biblical quotation which follows: "Wherefore"--because he was Jacob's son by nature and could rightfully be reckoned in his line, and not only in the line of Eli--"it is written," &c.

[118] Matthew 1:6.

[119] See Rev. John Lightfoot's remarks on Luke 3:23, in his Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations on St. Luke.

[120] This passage has caused much trouble. Valesius remarks, "Africanus wishes to refer the words hos enomizeto (as was supposed') not only to the words huios 'Ioseph, but also to the words tou Eli, which follow, which although it is acute is nevertheless improper and foolish; for if Luke indicates that legal generation or adoption by the words hos enomizeto, as Africanus claims, it would follow that Christ was the son of Joseph by legal adoption in the same way that Joseph was the son of Eli. And thus it would be said that Mary, after the death of Joseph, married his brother, and that Christ was begotten by him, which is impious and absurd. And besides, if these words, hos enomizeto, are extended to the words tou Eli, in the same way they can be extended to all which follow. For there is no reason why they should be supplied in the second grade and not in the others." But against Valesius, Stroth says that Africanus seeks nothing in the words hos enomizeto, but in the fact that Luke says "he was the son of," while Matthew says "he begat." Stroth's interpretation is followed by Closs, Heinichen, and others, but Routh follows Valesius. Spitta discusses the matter carefully (p. 91 sq.), agreeing with Valesius that Africanus lays the emphasis upon the words hos enomizeto, but by an emendation (introducing a second hos enomizeto, and reading "who was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was himself also the son, as was supposed,--for this he also adds,--of Eli, the son of Melchi") he applies the hos enomizeto only to the first and second members, and takes it in a more general sense to cover both cases, thus escaping Valesius' conclusions expressed above. The conjecture is ingenious, but is unwarranted and unnecessary. The words which occur in the next sentence, "and the expression, he begat' he has omitted," show that Africanus, as Stroth contends, lays the emphasis upon the difference of form in the two genealogies, "Son of" and "he begat." The best explanation seems to me to be that Africanus supposes Luke to have implied the legal generation in the words "the Son of," used in distinction from the definite expression "he begat," and that the words hos enomizeto, which "he also adds," simply emphasize this difference of expression by introducing a still greater ambiguity into Luke's mode of statement. He not only uses the words, the "Son of," which have a wide latitude, admitting any kind of sonship, but "he also adds," "as was supposed," showing, in Africanus' opinion, still more clearly that the list which follows is far from being a closely defined table of descent by "natural generation."

[121] This seems the best possible rendering of the Greek, which reads ten anaphoran poies?menos he& 240;s tou 'Adam, tou theou kat' an?lusin. oude men anapodeikton k.t.l., which is very dark, punctuated thus, and it is difficult to understand what is meant by kat' an?lusin in connection with the preceding words. (Crusè translates, "having traced it back as far as Adam, who was the son of God,' he resolves the whole series by referring back to God. Neither is this incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.") The objections which Spitta brings against the sentence in this form are well founded. He contends (p. 63 sqq.), and that rightly, that Africanus could not have written the sentence thus. In restoring the original epistle of Africanus, therefore, he throws the words kat' an?lusin into the next sentence, which disposes of the difficulty, and makes good sense. We should then read, "having traced it back as far as Adam, the Son of God. This interpretation (more literally, as an interpretation,' or by way of interpretation') is neither incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture." That Africanus wrote thus I am convinced. But as Spitta shows, Eusebius must have divided the sentences as they now stand, for, according to his idea, that Africanus' account was one which he had received by tradition, the other mode of reading would be incomprehensible, though he probably did not understand much better the meaning of kat' an?lusin as he placed it. In translating Africanus' epistle here, I have felt justified in rendering it as Africanus probably wrote it, instead of following Eusebius' incorrect reproduction of it.

[122] The Greek reads: paredosan kai touto, "have handed down also." The kai occurs in all the mss. and versions of Eusebius, and was undoubtedly written by him, but Spitta supposes it an addition of Eusebius, caused, like the change in the previous sentence, by his erroneous conception of the nature of Africanus' interpretation. The kai is certainly troublesome if we suppose that all that precedes is Africanus' own interpretation of the Biblical lists, and not a traditional account handed down by the "relatives of our Lord"; and this, in spite of Eusebius' belief, we must certainly insist upon. We may therefore assume with Spitta that the kai did not stand in the original epistle as Africanus wrote it. The question arises, if what precedes is not given upon the authority of the "relatives of our Lord," why then is this account introduced upon their testimony, as if confirming the preceding? We may simply refer again to Africanus' words at the end of the extract (15 below) to prove that his interpretation did not rest upon testimony, and then we may answer with Spitta that their testimony, which is appealed to in 14 below, was to the genealogies themselves, and in this Africanus wishes it to be known that they confirmed the Gospel lists.

[123] See above, chap. VI. notes 5 and 6.

[124] We should expect the word "temple-servant" again instead of "priest"; but, as Valesius remarks, "It was possible for the same person to be both priest and servant, if for instance it was a condition of priesthood that only captives should be made priests." And this was really the case in many places.

[125] Appointed by Julius Cæsar in 47 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above).

[126] He was poisoned by Malichus in 42 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XIV. 11. 4).

[127] Appointed king in 40 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above).

[128] The ethnarch Archelaus (see chap. VI. note 18) and the tetrarchs Herod Antipas and Herod Philip II.

[129] Cf. Dion Cassius, XXXVII. 15 sqq. and Strabo, XVI. 2. 46.

[130] It was the custom of the Jews, to whom tribal and family descent meant so much, to keep copies of the genealogical records of the people in the public archives. Cf. e.g. Josephus, De Vita, 1, where he draws his own lineage from the public archives; and cf. Contra Apion. I. 7.

[131] achri proseluton. Heinichen and Burton read archiproseluton, "ancient proselytes." The two readings are about equally supported by ms. authority, but the same persons are meant here as at the end of the paragraph, where proselutous, not archiproselutous, occurs (cf. Spitta, pp. 97 sq., and Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ II. p. 347 sq., 2d ed.).

[132] Achior was a general of the Ammonites in the army of Holofernes, who, according to the Book of Judith, was a general of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, and was slain by the Jewish heroine, Judith. Achior is reported to have become afterward a Jewish proselyte.

[133] The Greek reads enepresen auton tas anagraphas ton genon, but, with Spitta, I venture, against all the Greek mss. to insert p?sas before tas anagraphas upon the authority of Rufinus and the author of the Syriac version, both of whom reproduce the word (cf. Spitta, p. 99 sq.). Africanus certainly supposed that Herod destroyed all the genealogical records, and not simply those of the true Jews. This account of the burning of the records given by Africanus is contradicted by history, for we learn from Josephus, De Vita, 1, that he drew his own lineage from the public records, which were therefore still in existence more than half a century after the time at which Herod is said to have utterly destroyed them. It is significant that Rufinus translates omnes Hebræorum generationes descriptæ in Archivis templi secretioribus habebantur. How old this tradition was we do not know; Africanus is the sole extant witness of it.

[134] tous te kaloumenous geioras. The word geioras occurs in the LXX. of Exodus 12:19, where it translates the Hebrew gr The A.V. reads stranger, the R.V., sojourner, and Liddell and Scott give the latter meaning for the Greek word. See Valesius' note in loco, and Routh (II. p. 349 sq.), who makes some strictures upon Valesius' note. Africanus refers here to all those that came out from Egypt with the Israelites, whether native Egyptians, or foreigners resident in Egypt. Exodus 12:38 tells us that a "mixed multitude" went out with the children of Israel (epimiktos polus), and Africanus just above speaks of them in the same way (epimikton).

[135] desposunoi: the persons called above (11) the relatives of the Saviour according to the flesh (hoi kata s?rka sungeneis). The Greek word signifies "belonging to a master."

[136] Cochaba, according to Epiphanius (Hær. XXX. 2 and 16), was a village in Basanitide near Decapolis. It is noticeable that this region was the seat of Ebionism. There may therefore be significance in the care with which these Desposyni preserved the genealogy of Joseph, for the Ebionites believed that Christ was the real son of Joseph, and therefore Joseph's lineage was his.

[137] "Judea" is here used in the wider sense of Palestine as a whole, including the country both east and west of the Jordan. The word is occasionally used in this sense in Josephus; and so in Matthew 19:1, and Mark 10:1, we read of "the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan." Ptolemy, Dion Cassius, and Strabo habitually employ the word in the wide sense.

[138] ek mnemes. These words are not found in any extant mss., but I have followed Stroth and others in supplying them for the following reasons. The Greek, as we have it, runs: kai ten prokeimenen genealogian ?k te tes biblou ton hemeron k.t.l. The particle te indicates plainly that some phrase has fallen out. Rufinus translates ordinem supra dictæ generationis partim memoriter partim etiam ex dierum libris in quantum erat perdocebant. The words partim memoriter find no equivalent in the Greek as we have it, but the particle te, which still remains, shows that words which Rufinus translated thus must have stood originally in the Greek. The Syriac version also confirms the conclusion that something stood in the original which has since disappeared, though the rendering which it gives rests evidently upon a corrupt text (cf. Spitta, p. 101). Valesius suggests the insertion of apo mnemes, though he does not place the phrase in his text. Heinichen supplies mnemoneusantes, and is followed by Closs in his translation. Stroth, Migne, Routh, and Spitta read ek mnemes. The sense is essentially the same in each case.

[139] It has been the custom since Valesius, to consider this "Book of daily records" (biblos ton hemeron) the same as the "private records" (idiotikas apograph?s) mentioned just above. But this opinion has been combated by Spitta, and that with perfect right. The sentence is, in fact, an exact parallel to the sentence just above, where it is said that a few of the careful, either by means of their memory or by means of copies, were able to have "private records of their own." In the present sentence it is said that "they drew the aforesaid genealogy (viz., the private records of their own') from memory, or from the Book of daily records" (which corresponds to the copies referred to above). This book of daily records is clearly, therefore, something other than the idiotikas apographas, but exactly what we are to understand by it is not so easy to say. It cannot denote the regular public records (called the archives above), for these were completed, and would not need to be supplemented by memory; and apparently, according to Africanus' opinion, these private records were made after the destruction of the regular public ones. The "Book of daily records" referred to must have been at any rate an incomplete genealogical source needing to be supplemented by the memory. Private family record books, if such existed previous to the supposed destruction of the public records, of which we have no evidence, would in all probability have been complete for each family. Spitta maintains (p. 101 sq.) that the Book of Chronicles is meant: the Hebrew dvry hymym , words or records of the days. This is a very attractive suggestion, as the book exactly corresponds to the book described: the genealogies which it gives are incomplete and require supplementing, and it is a book which was accessible to all; public, therefore, and yet not involved in the supposed destruction. The difficulty lies in the name given. It is true that Jerome calls the Books of Chronicles Verba Dierum and Hilary Sermones Dierum, &c.; but we should expect Africanus to use here the technical LXX. designation, Paraleipomenon. But whatever this "Book of daily records" was, it cannot have been the "private records" which were formed "from memory and from copies," but was one of the sources from which those "private records" were drawn.

[140] Compare note 3, above. Africanus' direct statement shows clearly enough that he does not rest his interpretation of the genealogies (an interpretation which is purely a result of Biblical study) upon the testimony of the relatives of the Saviour. Their testimony is invoked with quite a different purpose, namely, in confirmation of the genealogies themselves, and the long story (upon the supposition that their testimony is invoked in support of Africanus' interpretation, introduced absolutely without sense and reason) thus has its proper place, in showing how the "relatives of the Saviour" were in a position to be competent witnesses upon this question of fact (not interpretation), in spite of the burning of the public records by Herod.

[141] The law to which Eusebius refers is recorded in Numbers 36:6, 7. But the prohibition given there was not an absolute and universal one, but a prohibition which concerned only heiresses, who were not to marry out of their own tribe upon penalty of forfeiting their inheritance (cf. Josephus, Ant. IV. 7. 5). It is an instance of the limited nature of the law that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, although Joseph and Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah, and Zacharias, at least, was a Levite. This example lay so near at hand that Eusebius should not have overlooked it in making his assertion. His argument, therefore in proof of the fact that Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah has no force, but the fact itself is abundantly established both by the unanimous tradition of antiquity (independent of Luke's genealogy, which was universally supposed to be that of Joseph), and by such passages as Psalm 132:11, Acts 2:30, xiii. 23, Romans 1:3.

[142] demou.

[143] patrias

IN THE VOLUME OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME

VECTEEZY.COM - 36199157

Friends,

Have you ever come across a passage in the Bible that troubled you? Something that bothered you deep in your soul? Something you just couldn't let go of ? Perhaps there has been a passage you picked at for years. For me personally it was just a few small passages that caused me among other things to dig deep. 

There are these two (2) passages in the Psalms; and, in the New Testament that had bothered me for years. Here they are.

Psalm 40:7 KJV -
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me,"

Hebrews 10:7 KJV -
"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."

Both of these passages are referring to Yeshua; the one whom many call  "Jesus." The one whom the Written Torah declares would come. The Prophet Like Unto Moses." He Himself said to the Religious Leaders:

John 5:46 NKJV -  “For if you believed Moses, [ Written Torah - "Torah Schibictov" ] you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.

 

VEECTEASY.COM - 72123772

For many years I wondered WHERE EXACTLY did Moses write about Jesus. WHERE?  

It troubled me like a splinter in my mind. So I read through the Written Torah. Cover to cover. Three times. Nothing about Jesus. Where God? Where is Your Son Jesus Talking about? Show me Please!!!

That was the point I began to use E-Sword Bible Study Software. 

The name "Jesus" appears nowhere in the text of the Written Torah. It appears nowhere in the volumes. Nowhere within the book of five volumes, which Moses gave Israel. In fact HE was never called that. Ever. He wasn't a Roman; nor a Greek; nor an Arab; nor English. He was a Hebrew. An Israelite

If you follow the historical development of the name across the centuries, we thus get:

• early biblical Hebrew: Yehoshua (= Joshua)
• later biblical Hebrew: Yeshua (or Y’shua)
• Greek: Iēsous
• Latin: Iesus
• Modern English: Jesus
  
  
  

Jesus was called "Yeshua;" an Aramaic name; and, a Hebrew word meaning "Salvation."
His name would be better rendered as "Joshua." There are in fact two (2) Greek words we find in the Bible that are directly related to Yeshua. 

The first and most common word is (Ἰησοῦς) Iēsous.
The second most common is (Ἰησοῦ ) Iēsou.

These two (2) Greek words are used repeatedly to translate two (2) Hebrew names of the Old Testament within the LXX (The Greek Septuagint). One a shortened form; and, the other an extended form of Joshua. 

His Aramaic name Yeshua is clearly found within the Aramaic New Testament the Peshitta. 

These two (2) Greek words also appear within the Greek Translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint (LXX); and, are used to translate two (2) Hebrew names:

(יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) Yeh-ho-sha  (יְהוֹשׁוּעַ) Yeh-ho-shu-ah.

Both translate directly into English as "Joshua."

The Hebrew name (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ)  YEHOSHUA is based on the verb "yasha" (ישׁע), which means to save, deliver, or rescue. When God “yashas” in the OT, it’s almost always a physical, earthy, tangible rescue, not a spiritualized or abstract salvation. He “yashas” Israel from her enemies. He “yashas” from death. He “yashas” from sickness, plagues, and famine.

When the Messiah is born, he is given the name "Jesus" aka "Yeshua" aka "Joshua." Why?

“for he will save  his people from their sins,” (Matthew 1:21).

"Lo I come. In the Volume of the Book it is written of me." Psalm 40:7

I tell you the truth. Yeshua is prophesied of in the Book of Deuteronomy Chapter 18. Moses wrote of Him; just as Jesus Himself declared. We have clues in Psalms and Hebrews; yet, even more so within the Volume (Deuteronomy) of the Book. The Written Torah. Delivered by Moses. 

• The Prophet Like Unto Moses (Comes from Moses's brethren - Kohath)
• He Shall Be from Levi
• He Shall Be descended of Aaron
• He Shall Be a Kohathite

Joseph is of Judah. He Holds no connection to LEVI; or KOHATH, the very tribe all High Priests are selected from.  We need to peer more closely at Miriam; and, her relationship with Elizabeth. We should consider strongly the words of Eusebius regarding the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

Both Genealogies are Joseph's. 

Because there is Levirate Marriage "The Duty of a Brother" occurring within Joseph's Lineage this Necessitates the two genealogies. 

• One by LAW (The Legal Line - Contains No Begets).
• One by NATURE (Natural Line - Contains all the Begets). 
  

READ. Eusebius of Caesarea. "The Church History" Chapter VII (7)
The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

Friends, Yeshua has more than one Birthright. 

It took me thinking about my own adoption; and, my own genealogies to really see this. As an adoptee I have more than one Genealogy; just as a child born from a Levirate Marriage has more than one genealogy. 

My Legal Line (Matthews) would contain no "begots" anywhere because nobody in this lineage actually provided any DNA for my "Temple." I am in fact genetically unrelated to them. 

Yet My Natural Line (Mahan - McKinnis) includes "begot" everywhere because I am in fact genetically related to them. Being adopted out of the family does not negate my Birthright.   

With that being said. I have a birthright that comes from my natural family; and, another that comes from the family I was adopted into. Jesus has more than one Birthright as well. 

First, His birthright that comes from his Mother Miriam. 
Second, His birthright that come from His Father (s).

In this case the Holy Spirit. 
And the Man whom Miriam Married

Joseph offers NO SEED seed to Miriam's womb (a virgin birth) for the conception of Yeshua.

Therefore His right to the Throne of David which comes thru Joseph is not His Primary Birthright. What flows through Miriam matters MOST. But what advantage does Yeshua gain through His Mother? Neighbor, I assert that Miriam and Elizabeth are related in the following manner. Elizabeth is Miriam's "SUGGENES" (συγγενης) Luke 1:36. 

There are 6 unique formats of "Suggenes"

Related by Blood. Cousins. How Exactly?

Let's look at where; and, how this exact Greek word is used in the LXX

This specific Greek term appears in this exact same form TWICE in the LXX the Greek Septuagint in the Book of Leviticus. Both times it is used to translate the Hebrew word DODAH (דדתך) H1733.

dôdâh do-daw' Feminine of H1730; an aunt: - aunt, father’s sister, uncle’s wife.

דּוֹדָה

HER DODAH. DODAH means quite specifically

"the sister of your father" your "Aunt." Dodah helps us to understand HOW EXACTLY Miriam and Elizabeth are related without injecting any meaning into the text. We have instead drawn out the authorial intent of Luke's Gospel. Elizabeth is the Sister of Miriam's un-named father. Neither of her parents are mentioned in any of the Gospels. We do however have "traditions" in the Middle East regarding Miriam; and, her parents. A Tradition that hold they were of a priestly line. A Tradition that mirrors the very texts words. 

Elizabeth is Miriam's Aunt. Her "Suggenes" (συγγενης).

They are related. Blood Related. IF Elizabeth is of LEVI. Of AARON. Of KOHATH.
Then so is Elizabeth's brother. The Un-named Father of Miriam.   

Making Miriam also of LEVI. Also of AARON. Also of KOHATH.
Making her first born son Yeshua A Levite. Descended of Aaron.
Of the Tribe of Kohath. A Match to Deuteronomy 18.

Bearer of the Bread of the Face.
The Last Righteous Zadok who died
To purchase those who love Him.

To rescue them from Death.
And offer to them His Covenant.

The Very Bread of Life Himself
The Prince of Peace. Titles showing His
connection To the Covenant of Life and Peace.

The Covenant made with Levi & His Descendants
To Teach Israel How to Walk in the Way. 

For more read my page "Yeshua Levite Hypothesis."