Picture of the Week 01/11/19

What’s the connection between faith and authority? Ask a soldier.

 


© Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog, 2019.  Permission to use and/or duplicate original material on The Barking Fox Blog is granted, provided that full and clear credit is given to Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Picture of the Week 05/29/18

Yes, the sign of Jonah indicates the amount of time between Messiah Yeshua’s death and resurrection, but there are other important things about this sign that we may have overlooked.

 


© Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog, 2018.  Permission to use and/or duplicate original material on The Barking Fox Blog is granted, provided that full and clear credit is given to Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Virgin Birth in Torah – Random Groovy Bible Facts

It may be that the two most controversial aspects of Yeshua’s life are those at the beginning and end: his birth by a virgin mother, and his resurrection after death. Those of us who believe he is the Messiah, and that Messiah must of necessity be a manifestation of YHVH in the flesh, accept the truth of these two events. Those who do not accept his identity as the divine Messiah do not accept these two aspects of his life either.

But what if the Torah required that these two things be so? Would it make a difference if the Law, Teachings, and Commandments of God as given through Moses established the necessity of a Messiah who had come directly from God? Let’s set aside the resurrection for a moment and think about the virgin birth. The following study by Jeremy Chance Springfield presents a comprehensive and compelling case for a Torah-based requirement that Messiah be born of a virgin. Take a careful look and ponder this.


The Virgin Birth in Torah

Jeremy Chance Springfield
Originally posted on Random Groovy Bible Facts, June 1, 2015

The virgin birth of the Messiah is a doctrine heavily promoted in Christianity.  It is considered a foundational teaching about the Redeemer.  How odd it is, therefore, to find that almost exclusively, there is only ever one passage in all of the Hebrew Scriptures that Christianity brings forth to substantiate the claim that the Messiah must be born of a virgin woman.  That verse is found in Isaiah 7:14.

Picture

Most translations contain the term “virgin” in this verse.  The text actually uses the Hebrew term ALMAH, meaning “young woman,” and not specifically “virgin.”  It is with this detail that Judaism takes issue concerning the concept of a virgin miraculously conceiving and bearing a son who would be the Messiah.  The believer in the virgin birth need not be too entirely distressed at this detail of the meaning of the term, however, since every usage of ALMAH in the Hebrew Scriptures appears to be in a context of a young, unmarried female – a detail that would be assumed to refer to a virginal status in the Hebrew mindset.

Please click here to continue reading: Virgin_Birth_in_Torah – Random Groovy Bible Facts


© Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog, 2017.  Permission to use and/or duplicate original material on The Barking Fox Blog is granted, provided that full and clear credit is given to Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Picture of the Week 05/12/17

Did you ever notice how many things mentioned in the Tanakh (Old Testament) have an echo somewhere in the Apostolic Writings (New Testament)?


© Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog, 2017.  Permission to use and/or duplicate original material on The Barking Fox Blog is granted, provided that full and clear credit is given to Albert J. McCarn and The Barking Fox Blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Fox Byte 5775 #42-43: Mattot (Tribes); Massei (Stages)

מַּטּוֹת / מַסְעֵי

The Princes in the Tower. John Everett Millais, depicts the young King Edward V of England and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, two royal sons allegedly murdered by order of their uncle, King Richard III, who sought to deprive them of their rightful inheritance and claim the throne of England for himself.
The Princes in the Tower. by John Everett Millais, depicts the young King Edward V of England and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, two royal sons allegedly murdered by order of their uncle, King Richard III, who sought to deprive them of their rightful inheritance and claim the throne of England for himself.

William Shakespeare has such as way with murder.  With so many characters meeting violent death in his plays it would seem that he regarded murder as an essential part of good drama.  Richard III is an excellent example.  When my daughter studied the play in school, she and her fellow students kept a “body count” of the many characters who died over the course of Richard’s rise to power.  Shakespeare’s preoccupation with murder may have been the product of the violent world in which he lived, and indeed England in the 16th century was a violent place, yet we need only look at the headlines of events in our own cities to realize that our world is no less violent than Shakespeare’s.  If the Bard had no qualms about employing murder as a plot device, it was because his art imitated life.  Richard III was a historical play based on events that shook the British Isles just one hundred years earlier.  The play’s popularity derived in part from the horrendous nature of Richard’s quest for power, extending even to allegations that in 1483 he ordered the deaths of his two nephews, the 12-year-old King Edward V and his younger brother Richard, Duke of York.  Their uncles’ guilt has never been proven, but it is plausible that he removed them so they would not stand in the way of his quest to seize the throne of their father, the late Edward IV.

Richard III is not the only Shakespearian villain to usurp a throne and seize the inheritance of a rightful heir.  Two others that come to mind are MacBeth of Scotland and Claudius of Denmark.  Although not historical plays, MacBeth and Hamlet have roots in actual events.  The central action of MacBeth occurs when the warrior of that name murders King Duncan of Scotland.  Duncan’s sons, fearing they will be blamed for the murder, flee the country, allowing Macbeth to take the throne.  In Hamlet, we do not see the murder of Denmark’s king; when the play opens his brother Claudius has already seized the throne by killing him and marrying his queen.  The plot follows Prince Hamlet as he learns the truth of his father’s death and his uncle’s guilt. 

As was necessary for Richard III, MacBeth and Claudius must deal with the heirs to the murdered kings.  MacBeth prepares to defend Scotland against the exiled princes Malcolm and Donalbain, and Claudius concocts a plot to have Hamlet killed in a duel by an opponent wielding a poisoned blade.  In the end all three villains meet violent deaths.  Richard and MacBeth fall in battle as their own countrymen rise in revolt against them, and Claudius is slain by Hamlet himself just before the young prince dies.

Shakespeare’s works have remained popular for over 400 years because they really do imitate life, even to a disturbing degree.  In these plays we see that an inheritance is not secure even if there are sons ready to claim their fathers’ legacy.  What worse things might the villains have done had there been no sons and heirs?  Who would ensure that the bereaved family retained their place in the nation?  That very question prompted the tribe of Manasseh to ask Moses for guarantees not only for their brethren who had no sons, but for the entire tribe’s legacy in the Promised Land.

Please click here to continue reading