First Prophecy About the Messiah: Genesis 3:15

Fig Leaves vs. Animal Skin: A Prophecy about the need for the shedding of blood to cover sin: Gen 3:1

When Adam and Eve sinned, they sewed fig leaves to cover themselves, i.e., to cover their sin. Fig leaves are coarse like sand paper. Therefore, their own attempt to cover their sin "by their own works", i.e. the fig leaves, would only continuously remind them of their sin!

But God gave them animal skin for covering; implying that innocent animal blood was shed by the LORD Himself to cover their sin.

This is clearly an "implied prophecy" about the need for shedding of blood for the covering of sins, and most importantly, that the LORD Himself would provide for the shedding of innocent blood, and not our "righteous works", which are filthy rags to Him (Isa 64:6).

"The Seed of the Woman": Genesis 3:15

After Adam and Eve's sin, and after YHWH (Yahweh) covered them with animal skin - and not as an afterthought remedy - He declared war on Satan: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)

Thus, the "Seed of the Woman" becomes one of the prophetic titles of the Messiah. This biological contradiction is the first hint, in the early chapters of Genesis, of the virgin birth.

There was also the LORD's curse pronounced on Jeconiah (or Coniah, or Jehoiachin) which, in effect, was a curse on the royal blood and the line of Judah!

Jeremiah 22:30 . . . "Thus says the LORD: 'Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; For, none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.'"

Why the Virgin Birth?

Why was it necessary that there should have been a virgin birth?

The Problem:

God announced very early that His plan for redemption involved the Messiah being brought forth from the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10) and specifically from the line of David (Ruth 4:22; 2 Samuel 7:11).

It is Ruth that connects the birthplace of "the seed of David" to Bethlehem (or, the Son of David)

The succession of subsequent kings proved to be, with only a few exceptions, a dismal chain. As the succeeding kings of Judah went from bad to worse, we eventually encounter Jeconiah/Jehoiachin/Coniah upon whom God had pronounced a "blood curse" (Jeremiah 22:30).

This curse created a rather grim and perplexing paradox: The Messiah had to come from the royal line of David, yet now there was a "blood curse" on that very line of descent! Clearly, a miracle would have to happen - and it did! Nothing is too hard or impossible for the LORD (Genesis 18:14 ; Jeremiah 32:17 and 32:27).

The Solution:

The answer emerges in the differing genealogies of Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) recorded in the gospels. Matthew, as a Levi, focuses his gospel on the Messiah-ship of Yeshua and presents Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Thus, Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham (as any Jew would) through David, then through Solomon (the royal line) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Matthew 1:1).

On the other hand, Luke, as a physician, focuses on the humanity of Yeshua and presents Him as the Son of Man. Luke traces the blood line from Adam (the first Man) through to David.

His genealogy from Abraham through David is identical to Matthew's. But then after David, Luke departs from the path taken by Matthew and traces the family tree through another son of David (the second surviving son of Bathsheba), Nathan, down through Heli, the father of Miriam (Mary), the mother of Yeshua (Luke 3:23).

Zelophehad's Daughters:

One should also note the exception to the law which permitted inheritance through the daughter if no sons were available and she married within her tribe: Numbers 26:33; 27:1; and 36:2; Joshua 17:3; and 1 Chronicles 7:15).

The daughters of Zelophehad had petitioned Moses for a special exception, which was granted when they entered the land under Joshua (Joshua 17:3)

Apparently it was C.I. Scofield who first noted that the claims of Christ rely upon this peculiar exception granted to the family of Zelophehad in the Torah.

Heli, Mary's father, apparently had no sons, and Mary married within the tribe of Judah. Yeshua was born of the virgin Mary, of the house and lineage of David and carrying legal title to the line, but without the blood curse of Jeconiah. Every detail in the Torah -and the entire Bible - has a direct link to Yeshua HaMashiach. "The volume of the book is written of Me" (Psalm 40:7).

Isaiah 7:14 - A Virgin Birth:

Isaiah 7:14 - "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and shall call His name 'Immanuel'" (God with us).

The Jewish Scriptures use the word "b'thuwlah" 24 times. It refers to a woman who has never had sexual intercourse. Tenach ("Old Testament") also uses the word "almah" twice. Once in Genesis 24:43, where Rebekah is referred to as 'the virgin' meaning an unmarried woman. It is this word that Isaiah uses in this passage.

The Greek Septuagint translation from the Hebrew scriptures, LXX, in 285 - 270 B.C., has translated that word as "parthenos", which, in very precise Greek, means a "virgin."

In the interpretation of this prophecy three factors must be considered:

• The birth of the child is to be a sign. It is true that in itself a sign need not be a miracle, but in this particular context, after the command had been issued to Ahaz to ask for a sign deep or high, one would be justified in expecting a sign such as the recession of the shadow of the sundial. There should be something unusual in the birth; a birth in the ordinary course of the nature would not seem to meet the requirements of the sign. In this connection it must be noted that the question is made more difficult by the fact that there cannot be a local reference of the prophecy to Hezekiah, because Hezekiah had already been born.
  
  
• The mother of the child is an unmarried woman. Why did Isaiah designate her by this particular word "almah"? If he meant a virgin birth, he would have used the word "b'thuwlah". But he didn't because the word "b'thuwlah" may designate a virgin, but when it does, the explanatory phrase 'and a man had not known her' is often added (Genesis 24:16 ~ Rebekah).

The word may also designate a bethroted virgin. [Deuteronomy 22:23] The word can also mean a married woman (Joel 1:8)

Had Isaiah used the word "b'thuwlah", it would not have been clear what type of woman he had in mind, whether virgin or married. He could have used other Hebrew words, e.g. "nara" meaning a girl.

In using the word "almah" Isaiah employs the one word which is never applied (either in the Bible or in other Near Eastern sources) to anyone but an unmarried woman. This unmarried woman could have been immoral, in which case the birth could hardly have been a sign.

We are left then with the conclusion that the mother was a good woman and yet unmarried; in other words, the birth was supernatural. It is the usage of this word "almah" which makes an application of the passage to some local birth difficult, if not impossible.

• Now let's examine the powerful term "Immanuel." A natural reading of the passage would lead us to expect that the presence of God is to be seen in the birth of the child himself. This interpretation, however, is seriously disputed and rejected by most modern writers on the passage. It would seem that, if the prophecy refers to a local birth, the child to be born must be someone prominent. The most prominent person, Hezekiah, is ruled out and therefore we must assume that it is a child of Isaiah or some other child of Ahaz.

But this is also ruled out by the word "almah." Neither the wife of of Ahaz nor the wife of Isaiah could properly be designated an "almah", for the obvious reason that both were married women.

It seems best, then, to apply the name Immanuel to the child himself. In his birth the presence of God is to be found. God has come to his people in a little Child, that very Child whom Isaiah later names "Mighty God" (El Gibbor). This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that Isaiah is seeking to dissuade men from trusting the Assyrian king. The nation's help rests not in Assyria but in God. In this dark moment God is with His people. He is found in the birth of a child.

The infancy of the divine Child is a measure of the time that will elapse until Ahaz is freed from the fear of his two Northern enemies (Isaiah 7:15-16) Ahaz rejects the sign of Immanuel and turns to the king of Assyria. That king and his successors caused Judah's downfall, but for the remnant there was given the promise of Immanuel, and in Immanuel they would find their hope and salvation.

Isaiah 9:6, "A Son is Given"

Why is ADONAI emphasizing that the Son "is given" after he is born? Isaiah 9:6

Isaiah 9:7 says that "of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end - from the time of the 'giving' of the Son forward, even forever." We know that king Hezekiah died, while this passage is talking of an everlasting 'government and peace.'

Isaiah 28:29 mentions that the LORD of hosts is Wonderful in Counsel and excellent in guidance. Surely, Hezekiah was not 'Wonderful in Counsel and excellent' in guidance! That is one of ADONAI'S attributes and titles (Isaiah 28:29).

And how can the child, the Son, be called 'Everlasting Father'. How can a son also be a father? That is a title of the LORD's? Isn't He alone who is everlasting, and not king Hezekiah?

And how can a human being be called 'Prince of Peace'? In Genesis 14, Melchizedeck is called the king of peace, king of Salem. Melchizedeck is referred to in Psalm 110 and in Hebrews 7 (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 7:1; Genesos 14:18).

Psalm 2:7, "You are My Son."

Psalm 2: 7 "I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto Me: 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee."

Here the LORD is talking to a singular person, the "Me" and not a nation, when He says, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You." Why did the LORD not specify the expression "Israel My son and My firstborn" if He meant it?

In verse 2, we see the rebellion against ADONAI and His "Anointed". The word "Anointed" here is the word "Moshiakh", meaning "a consecrated person, like a king, priest or a saint".

The prophet Samuel "anointed" Saul and David (1 Samuel 10:1, 16:13).

The word is "mashakh" which means to anoint. The word "Anointed" is "Moshiakh", or "Messiah."

Psalm 2:12 says "Kiss the Son". This is an act of homage and submission. It continues to say, "Blessed are those who put their trust in Him." The "Him" here is referring to the previously mentioned noun which is "the Son." Surely it is not about "Israel and the Jewish people" but rather, the LORD's Anointed, i.e. His Moshiakh, because He alone is worthy of homage, submission and trust!

It continues to say, "Lest He be angry and you perish in the way, when His wrath is kindled ..." Again, it is not about "Israel and the Jewish people."

Psalm 2: 7"I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto Me: 'Thou art My Son', this day have I begotten Thee."

The "me" and "thou" and "thee" are clearly one and the same singular person. Additionally, the word "begotten" means, "to bear young", "to act as midwife", "birth", "born" or, to come to be born, or to become, at some point of time ("today", or "this day").

While talking about Israel as the firstborn in Exodus 4:22, ADONAI simply says, "Israel is My son, My firstborn." There is no act of "begetting" like in Psalm 2:1.

Proverbs 30: 4 "What Is Creator God's Son's Name? 'If you know?'"

Proverbs 30:4 asks a question about the name of the Son of the Creator God!

Why did "Agur the son of Jakeh" the writer of Proverb 30 ask his apparently Jewish audience if they knew the name of the Creator and His son's name? (Proverbs 30:4)

It was surely an obvious and a commonly known fact that God's name is "YHWH", while Israel was "My son" and "My firstborn". Why would he ask a question with an obvious answer and at the end say, "if you know"? How does that fit in the context? Please see the comments in the Psalm 2 section about "Son."