Don’t Eat Lambchop

Sh’mot (Exodus) 10:1 – 13:16

In chapter 12 of Exodus we have the question -‘What is this service to you’ v.12:26 In Hebrew it reads:
מָה הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹאת לָכֶם
Read 12:43-51 In verse 43 we have חֻקַת an ordinance given. For which it says that no foreigner shall eat of it. This is given as a provision for the passover. For Christendom this has been replaced with Easter. So the question of replacement demands, what is the current replacement?

It says that no foreigner shall eat of it. This is given as a provision for the passover. For Christendom this has been replaced with Easter. So the question of replacement demands, what is the current replacement?

What is the IT?
This time of year is dominated by religious holidays. Is the IT an easter? Are foreigners not to eat of an easter? What is an easter? How many flocks of easters have you seen? The consensus seems to limit it to 5
possibilities . I will present all 5 as considerations.

First: רְאֵם Unicorn?
This is to be found in
B’midbar (Numbers) 23:22 ; 24:8 ; Yov (Job) 39:9 ; 39:10 ; Tehilim (Psalms) 29:6 ; 92:10 -translations KJV
The KJV was justified by, firstly the LXX – monokerwtoV, then the Vulgate – rinocerotis
This option was introduced in 1962 by Sheldon A. Silverstein. A few years later it was popularized by George Millar, Gerry O’Connor and Geoffrey Kelly in 1967, in the form a song. So the obvious question would be: Are you to sacrifice a year old unicorn that is a male without blemish? So would that be roasted or smoked? Do Unicorns herd or flock?

Second would be the בֵּיצָה Egg?
How do you sacrifice a colored egg without a blemish? but so many this time of year are all colors, and a year old egg would be – well a bit much. and how would you know if an egg was male or female? Furthermore the provision of the egg’s condition questions.
Would the egg be:
a. hardboiled
b. roasted
c. poached
d. over-easy
e. scrambled

Thirdly option would be a שפנפנה / אַרְנָבוֹן Hebrew for Bunny?
Well rabbits are associated with this holiday. Though they are hard to tell what sex they are, especially since they are made of chocolate, yet in the affirmative they come with eggs anyway. Negatively, trying to roast one would be a sticky mess. Especially those dark chocolate ones. I guess you could claim they would be a sweet aroma to the Lord. This means that Israel invented Fondue and not the Swiss. The remaining question would then be: Do bunnies heard or flock?

Fourthly The option of it being Ham (not the son of Noach) בָּשָׂר חֲזִיר
Technically you might have to change your name to Antiochus Epiphanes – but there is precedent. Our LORD did cast some demons into a heard of swine, thus creating deviled ham but aside from that the question of whether hams are herding or flocking animals? See Matthew 8:32. What is the nature of their tendecy to congregate at grocery stores. Would their presence in the freezer section be a negation for their consideration.

Fifthly: The last option would be the lamb. Though this is what the text actually mandates. It is not associated with Easter. The negatives of this option are that it is not supplemented with stuffing. And you would not use unleavened stuffing. Recent social conventions would rule this out. Our Messiah would be typified by either the ham that Antiochus offered or a turkey, these days, as traditions have supplanted the Biblical practice. The fact that these are confirmed by the historical record. To which we know the historical account supercedes the Word of the Lord. This is clearly mandated by both Dispensational and Covenant Theology. For which Phyllis Naomi Hurwitz is greatful.

This is the state of the practice of the Biblical mandates our society has limited itself to. Once the Biblical motif has been relegated to the ‘Old Covenant’


Myth of the Curse of Jehoiakim

Why is Luke’s genealogy different from Matthew’s?

The most common answer is that Luke gave a genealogy to validate Yeshua’s lineage apart from the curse of Jehoiakim. Louis A Barbieri makes the case ‘If Jesus had been a physical descendant of Jeconiah, He would not be able to occupy David’s throne.’  Is this really why? Barbieri continues “Of particular interest is the inclusion of Jeconiah (v 11) of whom Jeremiah said, “Record this man as if childless” (Jer. 22:30)  This is further compounded by Rabbi Barney Kasdan’s statement “A strong notable detail is the inclusion of Y’khanyahu (Jeconiah, also known as Coniah or Jecoiachin) in verse 11.” This common position by the Christian community could not make the Anti-missionary posistion any stronger. Is Luke responding to the anti-missionary argument that Yosef’s (Joseph) genealogy is invalid?

Note: Anti-missionaries: Groups or Individuals within the Jewish Community that are trained to create doubt and confusion within the Messianic and Christian world by exploiting the ignorance they have regarding the Hebrew of the texts and Judaism. The activities of Tovia Singer and groups such as Yad L’Achim and Chabad have been very disruptive. Looking at Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 there are two lineages. So was Luke aware of a anti-missionary argument? What is this anti-missionary argument?

  1.  Gerald Segal makes the usual claim. He points to Jeremiah 22:24-30

    [As] I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

    He makes the argument that Yeshua is disqualified from the throne because of

    a. the curse placed upon יְהוֹיָקִים Jehoiakim, and

    b. that the Luke genealogy is invalid because the royal line cannot go through a woman. -reply (2) are you saying that royal heirs cannot have a mother?

This is not what the Babylonian Talmud indicates:

A.    R. Hanina says this is derived from the following: And the women her neighbours, gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi.28 Was it then Naomi who bore him? Surely it was Ruth who bore him! But Ruth bore and Naomi brought him up; hence he was called after her [Naomi’s] name. — Tractate Sanhedrin 19b Ruth IV, 17.

B.   There are a number of references to foster/stepmothers in the Bible. The Talmud in Tractate Megillah informs us that a verse in the Book of Chronicles, “…his Jewish wife who gave birth to Yered…” is referring to Batya who “gave birth” to Moshe (Moses). The Talmud explains that she is credited with having given birth to him because she raised him. “One who raises a male or female orphan in his [her] home, is credited as if he [she] they gave birth to him [her].” —–

Perhaps it would be best to say that Judaism recognizes all cases of adoption as foster-parenting. Taking someone else’s child into you own home and treating them as your own child is considered a most praiseworthy act. And in a strictly metaphorical (non-legal) sense the Gemara [Sanhedrin 19b] states that anyone who brings up an orphan in his household is considered as if he were the father of the child (just as the biblical Naomi is considered as the “mother” of the son of Ruth and Boaz [see Ruth 4:16-17]).

The anti-missionaries argue out of both sides of their mouths. They argue that the Curse invalidates Yeshua’s claim while they look for a Messiah from the line of David. To be blunt either the curse broke the line or it did not. They can’t have it both ways.

Most if not all Christian scholars point to Luke as a circumvention of the problem. Is this the case? Is the burden of proof on the apologists for Yeshua? Christian scholars think so, they write often about the problem. But is it a problem?

‘One apparent discrepancy in the accounts involves the family lineage of Yeshua. There are two genealogies of Christ given in the Bible. Upon examination they appear to contradict.’ This apparent contradition that is pointed out by Josh McDowell in the following statement:      “However, the one listed in Matthew is that of Joseph and the one in Luke is that of Mary. 30/37 Since Joseph was descended from Jechonias, Jesus could not rightly claim the throne (see Jeremiah 22:30; Coniah, Jechonias, II Kings 24, and Jechonias in Matthew 1:11 are the same person). However, the lineage of Mary does not include Jechonias, and since Joseph did not father Jesus.”

Who should be called to prove this accusation?

What does the scripture say?

II Kings 24:6 – ‘and his son reigned in his sted.’ What son? What about the curse?

Matthew 1:11 reads ‘Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers..’ Which son are we talking about?

This is the problem:

Jeremiah 22:24        Shoresh הוה

Mazoretic            LXX                (N)KJV               Vulgata              Targum          Matt. 1:11

כָּניָהוּ                     IeconiaV           Coniah             Iechonias                   כָניָה           Ieconian

I Chronicles 3:16 Shoresh כון

יְכָנְיָה                    IeconiaV          Jeconiah               Iechonias              יְכָנְיָה             Ieconian

II Kings 24:6

יהוֹיָכִין                     Iwakim          Jehoiachin              Ioiachin                 יְהוֹיָכִין            Note:

Note: Ruled after his father II Chronicles 36:8 from the age of 8   יהוֹיָכִין

People stopped paying attention to the Hebrew texts and focused on the translations is the first problem. The second is that the LXX and the Vulgate are so messed up. There are 3 named sons of יְהוֹיָקִים Jehoiakim. The LXX could not tell them apart The Matthew translations are the same.

Jeremiah 22:24 says ‘…though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim..’ is the problem. The curse is placed on כָּניָהוּ Coniah (the son of Jehoiakim) not Jehoiakim! Its כָּניָהוּ (Coniah) not Jehoiakim that is the issue. The prophet Jeremiah pronounced a curse (Jeremiah 22:30) upon כָּניָהוּ Coniah. Is this the case? was/is Coniah written as childless? His name appears 3 times in Scripture [ Jeremiah 22:24, 28, and 37:1] in each case no children are named. So Jeremiah is correct.

Now is Coniah the son of Jehoiakim?    – Yes Jeremiah 22:24.

Thus Jehoiakim is not to be written as childless.

Who are the sons of Jehoiakim? I want to propose that the ‘ וּבְנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים ‘ sons of Jehoiakim are the sons of Jehoiakim in I Chronicles 3:16

1Ch 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: יְכָנְיָה  Jeconiah his son,  צִדְקִיָהוּ  Zedekiah his son.

Jeremiah 22:30

Why is this important – ‘written as childless’?    Jehoiakim is childless? – where is this curse in I Chronicles 3

Jeconiah (son of Jehoiakim) is listed 7 times in scripture, 4 times as the son of Jehoiakim

Jeconiah’s children are listed sons of Jeconiah, all 8 of them I Chronicles 3:17-18 by name and the number of times mentioned below the name.

Assir, Shealtiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, Nedabiah

1             9                  1                 3                 1                 1                  1                1

The son of Shealtiel is Zerubbabel -mentioned 22 times in Scripture.

It doesn’t sound like the LORD had Jehoiakim or Jeconiah as ‘written as childless’.

The question there is are     יְכָנְיָה       and   כָּניָהוּ     the same person?

The Shoreshim of these 2 names are different.

Two obvious points:

a. No verse in Scripture states that they are the same person.

b. One has his children listed and one does not.

The one that has no children listed (written as childless, per the curse) is OF Jehoiakim – that is the only connection. And that person is NOT the one listed in either the gospels genealogies.       יְכָנְיָה     is in Matthew’s record v1:12     כָּניָהוּ    is not in v.12

You would think that the curse in place on the one that has children names withheld from being written and that is neither Jehoiakim or Jeconiah  יְכָנְיָה . The only one left is Coniah  כָּניָהוּ   who is not in the list of genealogies. So why do Christian scholars get so defensive? Why should this bother the Messianic community? Why are there 9,500 hits on Google regarding the contradictions between Matthew and Luke’s genealogies?

Why has no one challenged this consensus?

Because they can’t read?    Look – Can’t distinguish     יְכָנְיָה     from      כָּניָהוּ

The LORD could distinguish because HE pronounced HIS judgement that Coniah would be replaced in the royal line. Jeremiah 37:1 says: – English

And king Zedekiah the son of Josiah reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, whom Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah. -KJV

The text is clear:

וַיִּמְלָךְ־מֶלֶךְ צִדְקִיָּהוּ בֶּן־יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ תַּחַת כָּנְיָהוּ בֶּן־יְהוֹיָקִים אֲשֶׁר הִמְלִיךְ נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶל בְּאֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה

Even if they are the same person Hagai 2:23 indicates that by Zerubbabel the signet ring is restored to a descendant of David who is mentioned in the lineage of Yeshua by Matthew 1:13.

Hagai 2:23 agrees with Matthew 1:13

בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נְאֻם־יהוה צְבָאוֹת אֶ֠קָּחךָ זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן־שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל עַבְדִּי נְאֻם־יהוה וְשַׂמְתִּיךָ כַּחוֹתָם כִּי־בְךָ בָחַרְתִּי נְאֻם יהוה צְבָאוֹת

In that day — an affirmation of יהוה of Hosts, I take thee, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant — an affirmation of יהוה, And have set thee as a signet, for on thee I have fixed, An affirmation of יהוה of Hosts!

So why get so worked up defending the LORD when the events were governed by the Torah and fulfilled as they should. The Word of the LORD stands. Messiah has the name that HE should have. He is in possession of the NAME.  The net effect is to preserve the possession within the tribe as demanded by Decree of the Torah and the Messianic prophecy of the lineage of David, of Judah. Because of the Law of Moshe – Miryam’s genealogy in Luke functions as a claim that the Messianic possession of the tribe of Judah is being preserved or enforced.


The other condemnation of Jehoiakim in Jeremiah 36:30 reads -English

Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. (the bold letters are the stated penalty)

Again II Chronicles 36:8-9 says his son יְהוֹיָכִין reigned.

לָכֵן כֹּה־אָמַר יהוה עַל־יְהוֹיָקִים מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה לֹא־יִהְיֶה־לּ֥וֹ יוֹשֵׁב עַל־כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְנִבְלָתוֹ תִּהְיֶה מֻשְׁלֶכֶת לַחֹ֥רֶב בַּיּוֹם וְלַקֶּרַח בַּלָּיְלָה

The   לֹא־יִהְיֶה־לּוֹ     above is shone to be:

– לּוֹ he / to he/him 3rd person singular masc. / not לָהֶם   to them 3rd person plural masc.

Neither this nor the   יוֹשֵׁ֖ב (to sit)  is in the plural, — it is not   יוֹשְׁבִים

This is specific to Y’hoyakim (Jehoiakim) there is no mention of his descendants.

Since we must deal with a genealogy this verse does not apply. The ‘written as childless’ is not what the judgement here is but his dead body being cast out. The most you can say is that Jehoiakim is being removed from his seat.

Why is this so important/relevant?

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִי־עַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם

This is a prophecy that is not suspended by a curse. Any one that is the object of a curse is not covered by this prophecy.  You cannot have it both ways. God did not give a prophecy about a coming child that was under a curse that prevented that child from coming. The anti-missionary argument is based on ignorance. It depends on not knowing the Hebrew text. The tragedy is that the apologists buy into the argument. You are not helping if you cannot read Hebrew. Both Matthew and Luke give valid genealogies. It is when the two are combined they are greater than the sum. That is if you take the Tenach serious, and stop looking to the translations.


וּצְלָפְחָד בֶּן־חֵפֶר לֹא־הָיוּ לֹו בָּנִים כִּי אִם־בָּנֹות וְשֵׁם בְּנֹות צְלָפְחָד מַחְלָה וְנֹעָה חָגְלָה מִלְכָּה וְתִרְצָֽה

Numbers 26:33 so often over looked as it falls within those boring genealogies. The daughters of Zelophechad approached the tent of meeting where Moshe, Elazar and the elders were. What happened is critical to our understanding of what happened centuries later. These daughters asked a question and made a demand that would echo through the ages. Details are important.

Zelophechad had no sons, but daughters….  לֹא־הָיוּ לֹו בָּנִים כִּי אִם־בָּנֹות

   This was the triggered by the census because of there was an act of    אֲחֻזָּה נַחֲלָה  taking possession of a name.  Numbers 27:4 in Hebrew makes the connection between the name and the possession. What is missed is that the introduction of the term inheritance in the translation destroys the importance of what is to follow.  The words inherit, inheritance  should never be used. Israel never had anything resembling a testament. The possessions taken were based on a ‘birth-right’ a בְּכֹֽרָתְךָ  you see in Israel life is the key not death. Your possession is based on the name of the father. Your possession is based upon your birth not death. This is true for both physical and spiritual events. What these girls wanted was in fact the opposite of what their fathers name was. Zelophechad צְלָפְחָד ‘to be passed over’  was not what they were demanding. The response by the LORD through Moshe to this situation is found in Numbers 36:2-13, specifically verses 3,6, and 7. It is here where a decree of justice לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט is issued.

This decree had provisions listed: a. don’t marry  b. marry only within your tribe c. forfeit the name/possession. These are the options.

Why is this so important?

Jump forward 1,600 years and you come to a young daughter of Eli by the name of Miryam and Luke 3:23 reads  Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱός Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ  The little clause ὡς ἐνομίζετο  puts her right in the decree of justice. For she was not passed over, she was not צְלָפְחָד In fact she was over shadowed ἐπισκιάσει by the LORD. She met the 3 provisions of  Numbers 36.  She had no brother(s) and so the possession of the name of her father  Ἠλὶ was passed on to her she was ‘exalted’ as was her son. Aside from the fact that the Torah, the Law, of Moshe guaranteed her claim so did the Talmudic Halacha,  Tractate Sanhedrin 19b and Tractate Megillah is precedence for her demand. This is why Yosef, her husband, was connected to her father as the Jewish custom had developed. The phrase ὡς ἐνομίζετο is a clause which meant [properly, to do by law]. The law was already ancient by her time. Suffice it to say that Her Son was connected to Yosef her husband and she had tribal connection with of the Yehudah and of the line of David. Messiah has been said to be connected with Yosef and Yehudah. In fact for a long time the Messiah has been associated with the two.

Now there is a whole other topic related to this to be addressed later, in another blog to follow.